karel_peijnenborg

The Dutch Mamiya website mentions compatibility with the RZ67 PRO II D, with an HX701 adapter.

 

Regards,

 

Karel

About sensor sizes: the FZ30 has a 1/1.8" sensor, which translates to 5.3 x 7.2 mm. That is less than half as small as an 8x11 negative.

 

Regards,

 

Karel

Thomas: "What I don't quite understand is perhaps why the people who've requested my images would ask for 8 bit (and a quick look determined that) when the 16 would (apparently) be more advantageous."

 

The 16 bit images are most useful for image editing: you will be working with as much info as possible. When you tweak contrast, the colors will not be squeezed into 256 steps but smeared out over 65K steps, and when you then tweak a tone, the same applies. You *will* be compounding errors, but much smaller ones. For output however, 8 bit files are probably more than enough for most people, unless we get a serious eye upgrade.

 

Regards,

 

Karel

"That shutter release looks like a Zorki?"

 

Not to me. Why do you think so?

 

Regards,

 

Karel

The links don't need the tags, just what's inside of them. After a click, you need to remove the %5B/IMG%5D from the adress. Or use these:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d48/inspectorsquane/minoxaug06_7.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d48/inspectorsquane/minoxaug06_11.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d48/inspectorsquane/minoxaug06_13.jpg

 

Have fun, Matt! I need to send a roll out for developing and printing. It's on my list of good intentions :)

 

Regards,

 

Karel

Nr 4: Sometimes you're the pigeon, sometimes you're the statue :)

The new DCC Minox M3 5MP camera has SD, but of course no zoom. Hey, it is a M3! Price was quoted as EUR 199 on Photokina, but it doesn't show up in the shop at www.minox.de yet. And of course it is a 3MP camera, the 5MP are interpolated to fool the pixel hungry. I have a Panasonic FZ3, and 3MP are more than enough.

3MP is 1500x2000 pixels. When you print the image at 5" x 7" (13cm x 18cm), you have about 300 pixels/inch, which is wonderful. When you print the image at about 8" x 10" (20cm x 27cm; about A4/letter format), you are at 200ppi, still very much OK, especially so because people won't look at it with their noses on the paper (pixel peepers excepted). Bigger prints will most likely be viewed from even bigger distances, so you need less pixels/inch.

 

Just print it, without resampling; you might be surprised. If you still want to try resampling: Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com/) is free and gives you a choice of algorithms.

Hi Craig, and again I say, of course. But what was the problem? Was it: I want to stand at the same place, have the same coverage, and the same DOF? Then you need the same sensor/negative diagonal. But is it just: can I have the same coverage and the same DOF, then step back, zoom in, and you have got it. That may not be a valid comparison, but it *does* work.

 

Regards

>> Craig Gilette: Will a 50mm lens at f1.7 have a narrower depth of field than an 11mm at f2.8? When used on the same subjects/distances, that's sure been my experience, focus and depth control was something I couldn't really do much with when using my S602. Swapping to the 7D it became more apparent and adding the 1.7 made focus control necessary. <<

 

Of course, but why insist on that 11mm lens? We have this superzoom, so let's zoom, to 36mm to be exact, or, with the 7.4-88.8 zoom from your example, to about 5x zoom. Same DOF. BTW, for the DOF calculation with the 50mm DSLR lens I used an APS-C sensor, not a full frame sensor. To capture the DOF with a full frame sensor the numbers become 30mm/4x zoom.

 

Regards

>> (Craig Gilette:) And wishful thinking aside, a 50mm f1.4 or 1.7 is going to give you a shallow depth of field that you can't get with an f2.8 7.4-88.8mm (even if equivalent to a 35-420mm lens on a 35mm camera) - the 50mm equivalent will be between 10 and 11mms. <<

 

Is this true? I put an APS-C sensor in my DOF calculator (VWDOF), a 50mm lens, f1.4, and focus distance 3m(/10'), and got a DOF of just under 20cm/8". For a 1/1.8" sensor with f2.8, I needed a focal length of 40mm for the same DOF, well inside the focus range. Infinity blur was comparable: .6mm for APS-C, and .19mm for 1/1.8", but the latter gets enlarged 3 times as much (or covers 3 times more pixels linearly).

 

Regard

The (attempted) celebrations at f.i. Stonehenge are not devil worship, but (Neo-)Paganism. No doubt there are links, but Paganism as it is flourishing now is not centered around the devil. That for people in some religions other gods and the (deified) forces of nature are the same as the devil, is of no consequence to how Neopagans generally view themselves. For instance: Cernunnos, the horned god of horned animals, might be identified by Christians as the devil, but that doesn't make Cernunnos worshippers devil worshippers. Devil worshippers, or Satanists, explicitly center their (anti)religion on Satan.

 

But about the statue, isn't it just a beautiful statue? Why tear it down?

 

@Fernando: that medieval devil carvings were made by antireligious artists is by no means certain to me. Do you have more information? The devil (and eternal damnation) in that period were generally used as a powerful reminder of what could be in store for you if you didn't live the good life. And they were an excuse for artists to let their imagination run free.

 

Regards

Vivek, I quite agree. I just wanted to make a statement of fact (to the extent of my knowledge), not to start a discussion about religion.

 

As regards the question of Luiz about other statues of fallen angels: this statue is said to be the only one with a "fallen angel" as subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_del_Retiro. There might be more paintings from that period and later.

 

In mediaeval times and shortly after, the devil was depicted extensively, in paintings and carvings, always as the enemy, the demon out to get you, evil personified. When in the 18th/19th century religion came under critique, the devil could assume other meanings, like the romantic hero who meant well, was misunderstood, and rejected, and the romantic rebel, the enemy of organized religion, and therefore cast out, or the nihilist, who knows himself as bad as all the rest, but refuses to fool himself, again not receiving much sympathy. These images live to this day. But for them to find a wealthy patron who doesn't mind all the expense for the fun of offending his contemporaries, perhaps would require the end of the 19th century, and that might be why there seems to be just one such a monumental statue.

 

Regards<div></div>

I am not certain why you see the need to mention that "any wrongs are not not justified by "more wrongs" ". That should be obvious. My mention of the Reign of Terror was not meant to justify the Inquisition(s), but to challenge your statement that the Spanish Inquisition was one of the worst criminal acts in history.

 

This is a common misconception, but still a misconception. Don't take me wrong: the Inquisition is an embarassment for my Church, alright. But bad as it is, it is no justification for exaggerations like "the worst crime in history", which can only be made without any historical perspective at all. The Inquisition was generally preferable over secular justice, strange as that may sound.

 

Regards

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I wanted to downplay the fateful results of the (Spanish) Inquisition. The Catholic Church doesn't feel that need either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#The_Inquisition

 

I just wanted to question the unjustified exaggerations. With numbers in that ballpark, the numbers of executed Catholics under Protestant government might not be much lower. And if you are looking for REAL bloodbaths, try the Terror: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

 

Regards

"Spanish Inquisition - one of the worst criminal acts in human history."

 

Recent research seems to indicate that the picture of a bloodbath doesn't seem justified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls

 

regards

It is perhaps only right to add that I am now the owner of a Minox LX, a birthday present. I am really curious about how the pictures turn out!

 

Regards,

 

Karel

Oh yes, your droplet pictures show narrow DOF. Just look at the branches and twigs going out of focus. Close object distance helps a lot, as do long focal lengths. But if you would try to take a picture of the girl that close, you might catch a very different mood!

Sorry, of course, the man on the right of her with the phone :)

 

With digital, you might have very large DOF, so you would need to focus much closer than the girl. If you are in automatic, that would mean a focus lock on something half way the distance of the girl (or less), but that also means an exposure lock, most of the time, so watch out. And shoot as wide open (= low F) as you can.

Are you sure this is DOF blurring? The shoes of the man are pretty sharp, and so is the sand where he stands. He probably just moved to fast for your 1/60 exposure.

 

Regards,

 

Karel

Martin, I think my point was that these expensive-but-worth-it cameras would become even more expensive without added value when I would start taking pictures. That stopped me. It needn't stop others, BTW. (And I was looking more for a "user" C.)

 

Regards, Karel

Hi Gerald! Now a TLX for under USD100 would be very, very tempting!! But what I really meant was that I fall in your category of 'most people' for whom 'the hassle and cost rule out its use'. It's the recurring costs that drive me away from Minox. And yes, that Aiptek cam is on my shortlist, but I haven't seen it around EUR30 anywhere near me (=The Netherlands).

 

regards, Karel

Well, this has become a Minox film vs digital discussion, and a very stupid one too. I mean, who wants to shoot Techpan 25 or Bluefire? Not me, and at a guess, neither would Fred. He is considering a digital camera, so he is considering color. With 200 or 400 color film, those 300 pixel/mm will become a whole lot less, and the Minox advantage would become negligible, I suppose (and would be overkill for me and Fred anyway). Add the rather steep cost per pic when you let a lab do the processing, or the hassle of scanning 8x11 negatives, and digital rapidly becomes the more attractive proposition. I just like to take pics, not to wrench the last ounce of resolution from a camera.

 

But the Minox is a wonderful camera, and it is with at least some regret that I am now looking for a 1.3M/2M tinycam. I would feel tempted too by a new Minox at very decent price, but Minox 8x11 is just too expensive for a color snapshooter like me. At least, so it would seem.

 

Regards,

 

Karel