Pentax K10D or Canon 30D

Plus, to the best of my knowledge the lenses from my MZ's should work
fine, but I'm going to try the *ist DS I have access to with them just
to make sure..

Hopefully, the person who owns the DS can helpy ou get everything set up
to be able to use manual aperture lenses, if he has not done so already.
It doesn't work right out of the box, but requires you to set a custom
function in the menu (once only), and to use "M" mode with the AE-L
button to force a stop down meter reading. Takes a little getting used
to, then it becomes natural. Anyhow, if you have trouble, I wouldn't
assume there is any incompatiilty withthe lens, but rather, a matter of
not getting the process right.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

Marc Sabatella wrote:
Plus, to the best of my knowledge the lenses from my MZ's should work
fine, but I'm going to try the *ist DS I have access to with them just
to make sure..


Hopefully, the person who owns the DS can helpy ou get everything set up
to be able to use manual aperture lenses, if he has not done so already.
It doesn't work right out of the box, but requires you to set a custom
function in the menu (once only), and to use "M" mode with the AE-L
button to force a stop down meter reading. Takes a little getting used
to, then it becomes natural. Anyhow, if you have trouble, I wouldn't
assume there is any incompatiilty withthe lens, but rather, a matter of
not getting the process right.

---------------
Marc Sabatella


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/


I have used the DS with my old manual 80-200, by trial and error
mostly. The nice thing about digital is you can preview your relsuts
instantly. I was referring to the auto lenses on my MZ cameras, I have
not used them on the DS as they are pretty well the same as the one that
came with it.

On 13 Juni, 18:39, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Try taking a 1/40s shot with effectively 320mm ...

Or try taking a 1/25s shot with effectively 890 mm... (30D+ taped
Kenko 1.4x TC+ 100-400L fully zoomed in )

I don't say that you'll succeed with this very often. But I do have
obtained a good web-grade sharpness under such conditions at least
once, and it would have been completely impossible for anybody to have
done this handheld without IS.

(Why I even tried? Well, I went from a well-lit open field into forest
shadow, on aperture priority, and this nice male chaffinch emerged
before I had time to adjust the ISO, so I just snapped, not realising
how impossible the conditions were.)

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 13 Juni, 18:39, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Try taking a 1/40s shot with effectively 320mm ...

Or try taking a 1/25s shot with effectively 890 mm... (30D+ taped
Kenko 1.4x TC+ 100-400L fully zoomed in )

I don't say that you'll succeed with this very often. But I do have
obtained a good web-grade sharpness under such conditions at least
once,

I am talking about 100% sharpness, not web sharpness.
And I am talking about getting these results regularly ...
repeatably ... reliably.

and it would have been completely impossible for anybody to have
done this handheld without IS.

Statistics say otherwise. Very very unlikely, yes, completely
impossible, no.

-Wolfgang

On 14 Juni, 22:56, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 13 Juni, 18:39, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Try taking a 1/40s shot with effectively 320mm ...
Or try taking a 1/25s shot with effectively 890 mm... (30D+ taped
Kenko 1.4x TC+ 100-400L fully zoomed in )
I don't say that you'll succeed with this very often. But I do have
obtained a good web-grade sharpness under such conditions at least
once,

I am talking about 100% sharpness, not web sharpness.
And I am talking about getting these results regularly ...
repeatably ... reliably.

Yes, sure. These are two different things, both useful in different
ways, and both made possible by IS.

and it would have been completely impossible for anybody to have
done this handheld without IS.

Statistics say otherwise. Very very unlikely, yes, completely
impossible, no.

Depends entirely on which statistical distribution one chooses.
Whether handholding a shot at 900mm and 1/25 without IS is more
analogous to getting heads, say, fifteen times in a row, or to manage
to lift 300 kg.s in a clean and jerk is ultimately purely a matter of
which assumptions one makes about human physiology.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 14 Juni, 22:56, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:

and it would have been completely impossible for anybody to have
done this handheld without IS.

Statistics say otherwise. Very very unlikely, yes, completely
impossible, no.

Depends entirely on which statistical distribution one chooses.
Whether handholding a shot at 900mm and 1/25 without IS is more
analogous to getting heads, say, fifteen times in a row,

That ain't that hard ... 1:2^{15}, that's only a ~1:33.000 chance.
Calling that "completely impossible" would be a bad idea ---
you'd probably get more than one such shot before your
shutter wears out.

or to manage
to lift 300 kg.s in a clean and jerk is ultimately purely a matter of
which assumptions one makes about human physiology.

Hey, if you want, you can calculate the probability that all
the air molecules will concentrate at the upper left corner
of the room, thus suffocating you --- or your PC's CPU
spontaneously turning into energy, according to e=m*c.

These 2 events may well be so rare that the lifetime of the galaxy
is "a bit" short for them to happen with any realistic chance.
But that most certainly does not imply "completely impossible".

-Wolfgang

On 15 Juni, 20:14, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 14 Juni, 22:56, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
and it would have been completely impossible for anybody to have
done this handheld without IS.
Statistics say otherwise. Very very unlikely, yes, completely
impossible, no.
Depends entirely on which statistical distribution one chooses.
Whether handholding a shot at 900mm and 1/25 without IS is more
analogous to getting heads, say, fifteen times in a row,

That ain't that hard ... 1:2^{15}, that's only a ~1:33.000 chance.
Calling that "completely impossible" would be a bad idea ---
you'd probably get more than one such shot before your
shutter wears out.

You didn't read me very well. I most certainly didn't call this
"entirely impossible". This was one out of two alternative types of
probabilities the handholding probability might be analogous to. So,
if this alternative certainly isn't completely impossible, how about
examining the _other_ one a bit closer, without making a completely
pointless intended counterexample from the realm of pure physics?

or to manage
to lift 300 kg.s in a clean and jerk is ultimately purely a matter of
which assumptions one makes about human physiology.

Hey, if you want, you can calculate the probability that all
the air molecules will concentrate at the upper left corner
of the room, thus suffocating you --- or your PC's CPU
spontaneously turning into energy, according to e=m*c.

Physics, schmysics. However, determining the probability that any
existing human being manages to lift 300 kg:s in a clean and jerk
requires knowledge of a biological subdisclipline,.human physiology,
which is a disciplie quite unrelated to physics.

These 2 events may well be so rare that the lifetime of the galaxy
is "a bit" short for them to happen with any realistic chance.
But that most certainly does not imply "completely impossible".

....which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn't
impossible in a biological system, for reasons which really are both
simple and obvious.

Jan Böhme

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 15 Juni, 20:14, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Physics, schmysics. However, determining the probability that any
existing human being manages to lift 300 kg:s in a clean and jerk
requires knowledge of a biological subdisclipline,.human physiology,

Yes.

which is a disciplie quite unrelated to physics.

Ah, yes, force from the muscles and leverage from the bones
.... quite unrelated to physics, indeed.

Anyway, there is an very extremely (and I mean extremely) slight
chance that all the atoms of the weight lifting equipment
will just jump to positions like a "clean and jerk". Since
that chance is non-zero, the probability is non-zero that a
human being "manages to lift 300 kg in a clean and jerk", or
something not distinguishable from that.

You can argue that other probabilities --- like being able to
do that without a physically extremely unlikely event --- are
much higher.
Granted.
You can argue that that very extremely slight chance will beyond
the slightest reasonable doubt never happen in this universe.
Granted.

Categorically stating "impossible", well ...

...which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn't
impossible in a biological system, for reasons which really are both
simple and obvious.

.... depends on your definition of impossible.

But I am arguing *waaaay out there* possibilities.

-Wolfgang

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:26:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Jan Böhme wrote:
On 15 Juni, 20:14, Wolfgang Weisselberg

Physics, schmysics. However, determining the probability that any
existing human being manages to lift 300 kg:s in a clean and jerk
requires knowledge of a biological subdisclipline,.human physiology,

Yes.

which is a disciplie quite unrelated to physics.

Ah, yes, force from the muscles and leverage from the bones
... quite unrelated to physics, indeed.

Anyway, there is an very extremely (and I mean extremely) slight
chance that all the atoms of the weight lifting equipment
will just jump to positions like a "clean and jerk". Since
that chance is non-zero, the probability is non-zero that a
human being "manages to lift 300 kg in a clean and jerk", or
something not distinguishable from that.

You can argue that other probabilities --- like being able to
do that without a physically extremely unlikely event --- are
much higher.
Granted.
You can argue that that very extremely slight chance will beyond
the slightest reasonable doubt never happen in this universe.
Granted.

Categorically stating "impossible", well ...

...which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn't
impossible in a biological system, for reasons which really are both
simple and obvious.

... depends on your definition of impossible.

But I am arguing *waaaay out there* possibilities.

-Wolfgang


Staying away from trying to use statistics to analyze this, without
doing an experiment (sampling) to determine the probability would be a
good idea.

Professor of Statistics.

On 16 Juni, 15:26, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
Jan Böhme wrote:
On 15 Juni, 20:14, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Physics, schmysics. However, determining the probability that any
existing human being manages to lift 300 kg:s in a clean and jerk
requires knowledge of a biological subdisclipline,.human physiology,

Yes.

which is a disciplie quite unrelated to physics.

Ah, yes, force from the muscles and leverage from the bones
... quite unrelated to physics, indeed.

In very theoretical theory, all biological phenomena could be studied
with pure physics. In practice, the physical phenomena that build up
the life processes in a living organism are far too complex - by many
orders of magnitude - to be adequately studied with the methods of
physics. And this applies just as well to the purey intellectual
methods, as to the observational and experimental methods.That's why
there exists an academic discipline called biology, and why it is so
unrelated to physics in quite fundamental ways. For instance, such a
fundamental concept as causation is much more complex in biology than
in physics. Every biologcal phenomenon both has a "how" causation (how
did this happen mechanistically?) and a "why" causation (which
selctive forces has selected the trait which enables this to happen
mechanistically?)

Physicists who are not fully aware of such fundamental differences
tend to make utter fools out of themselves when they venture into the
realms of biology.

Anyway, there is an very extremely (and I mean extremely) slight
chance that all the atoms of the weight lifting equipment
will just jump to positions like a "clean and jerk". Since
that chance is non-zero, the probability is non-zero that a
human being "manages to lift 300 kg in a clean and jerk", or
something not distinguishable from that.

Biology isn't the only discipline one needs to have a grasp of before
one grapples with a question such as this. Philosophy is another,
actually. If the atoms of a barbell "just jump to positions like a
'clean and jerk'", has a true regulation clean and jerk really been
performed?

...which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or isn't
impossible in a biological system, for reasons which really are both
simple and obvious.

... depends on your definition of impossible.

Not really - at least not only. It equally depends on what is
compatible with life. If a given event isn't comptible with life, it
is truly impossible in a given biological system, for the simple
reason that the biological system would have ceased to exist when the
event takes place.

There is, quite simply, more to knowledge than physics, also within
the real of natural sciences.

Jan Böhme