Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 05:51:10 PM 
Started by geesbert - Last post by Simon Garrett
From what you said, I guess you've gone through the stuff at which includes installation help.

The "Contact us" at the bottom or that page eventually leads through to their chat support.  I've used Adobe chat several times for installation or account problems, and they've usually sorted it out for me.

 on: Today at 05:47:59 PM 
Started by michael - Last post by Diego Pigozzo
I'm not sure I like the image, but still I think it's quite interesting.
I wonder how much the perception would change if the images was bigger: probably both the texture of the rip and the dripping dirt would be more evident.

 on: Today at 05:46:40 PM 
Started by eronald - Last post by eronald

 As always, I wish you the best of luck for your sales -  in my opinion, the customers who have this sort of budget couldn't find a better dealer to look after them.


For the record I do not anticipate that we will be selling these with a Pentax 35mm camera.  Grin

DT BC100 Book Capture Station

Jokes aside, it might be informative to understand that in general Institutes of Cultural Heritage make their decisions based off of ROI (return on investment) and program-total-costs rather than initial cash outlays. When you consider the costs of labor (not just the camera operator but the rest of the team surrounding any digitization program), computers/stands/facilities, server maintenance and other operational and overhead costs, the cost of any camera system (whether $1k or $50k) is negligible in those calculations over even a few months, let alone the life of the equipment.

I can't vouch for what institutions do that can barely keep a roof over their head, but even smaller institutions are investing considerable sums into digitization programs that comply with FADGI standards.

 on: Today at 05:42:46 PM 
Started by wmchauncey - Last post by wmchauncey
No clue what aphids look like but, had to call it something???  I'm trying to work with smoke images and am having troubles with color.
This is a test for a Living Room wall hanger...we have the original blue on black followed by the same with more of a purple look.
You gotta choose one that you must hang, black/purple or a different combo than purple...printed on either canvas or choose.

 on: Today at 05:42:11 PM 
Started by Deardorff - Last post by LKaven
I beleve that their lens release plan is overall rationally decided based on the overall feedback they are getting and based on a factual comparison of relative performance.

Exactly...Canon and Nikon have spent their entire careers shadowing each other.  From the Nikon S to the Canon IV...from the Nikon F to the Canon F1...from the Canon EOS-1 to the Nikon F4...from the 24-70/2.8 to the 24-70/2.8 to the 24-70/2.8.

I think Bernard's bet is a pretty good one.

 on: Today at 05:33:04 PM 
Started by Slobodan Blagojevic - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
Ok, here is a color version for the no-grain crowd:

 on: Today at 05:29:40 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by Theodoros
Hi Piotr... Maybe after buying the lens and a back, you should consider to buy the camera with a back this time...  Wink

 on: Today at 05:28:15 PM 
Started by ACH DIGITAL - Last post by scooby70
Hi, at the mo I have and use on my A7 via Novoflex adapters...

Minolta Rokkor - 24 and 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.8 (I had the f2.8 and liked it so much I swapped it for the f1.8,) 50mm f1.4 and f1.2, 85mm f2 and 135mm f2.8 and f3.5. I also have a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in the same fit.

Olympus Zuiko 24 and 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and f1.4, 85mm f2 and 135mm f3.5.

Canon FD 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8.

The only FE lenses I have are the 28-70mm kit lens and the 55mm f1.8.

I think that all of the old lenses are perfectly useable and they look good to me even at the very edges when stopped down a bit. Of course wide open they're not going to compete with good modern lenses especially towards the edges but at their best they are good and the quality they're capable of giving continues to please me.

I've done quite a few comparative tests and to me there's nothing really between the 24 and 28mm lenses but if I had to choose one it'd be the Minolta 24mm.

The Minolta 35mm f1.8 is very good and I can only really fault it at its very widest aperture which I'd reserve for emergency and artistic use as the bokeh isn't the best, but I wouldn't expect great things from a 35mm.

I think that the Minolta 50mm f1.4 is the best 50mm followed by the FD or possibly the Zuiko f1.8 and then the Zuiko f1.4 but the differences really are just sharpness and fringing at the widest apertures and once stopped down I'd say that they're all good. I do like the Minolta 50mm f1.2 but I like it for its character rather than it's optical quality Cheesy To put these lenses into perspective I'd say that none can live with the Sony 55mm f1.8 but for me that's not the point of them. The Sigma macro was a bargain and I'd say that it's very good.

For me the 85mm's are similar to the 50's in that the Minolta is the best followed by the FD and then the Zuiko and again the difference is sharpness and especially fringing at the widest apertures, stop them down and they'll all ok.

The best of the 135mm's is the Minolta f2.8 and I'd say that there's noting between the Minolta and Zuiko f3.5.

I've also used the Minolta and Olympus lenses on my MFT cameras via cheap adapters and they work well. I'd describe my photography as casual but deliberate and old manual lenses are mostly ok for me. I use the FE 55mm when I need to be a bit quicker.

Sorry for the long reply, but just one more shot... I took this with my Panasonic G1 and one of the 50mm lenses. It's via Photobucket which seems to mangle my shots a bit but on my screen this is lovely and sharp. I really couldn't ask for more from such a cheap set up Cheesy

Dancing man...

Scooby (Alan.)

 on: Today at 05:27:30 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by Theodoros


 on: Today at 05:27:01 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by Theodoros


Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10 »