Re: Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5
I have the 15/3.5 fisheye. Truly great lens. So, maybe I should go for the 15/3.5 wide angle. Even at 444 euro? :-) Paul Delcour From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: AudioBias Systems Engineering Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:05:24 +1000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:28:38 -0400 On 9 Oct 2003 at 22:45, Paul Delcour wrote: One of the 15/3.5 lenses I missed on ebay because I was overbid, is now on sale again as the buyer also bought the A version. He's asking more than he ended up paying for it (small wonder), but I wander, now with my fisheye (and my Tokina 17/3.5) whether it's worth going for it once more. No doubt great lens, but at 444 euro's or 555 buy now it's too much I feel. I think you'll find the P15/3.5 very different from the Tokina 17/3.5, the T won't last long. Which fisheye do you own? The 15/3.5 and the 16/2.8 make a great pair. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5
Oops. Sorry. It's a 17/4 fisheye. I got them all mixed up. :-) Paul From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:08:00 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:07:55 -0400 Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have the 15/3.5 fisheye. Truly great lens. Which 15/3.5 fisheye. Pentax never made one - just the 15/3.5 rectilinear (K and A versions). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5
Hi all, well, I have both the above mentioned lensen now. Both from ebay, both in excellent condition and I am very happy. Especially the fisheye is a joy to use. And to my amazement, depending on the subject and standpoint, the distortion is not bothering me at all. It even adds to the picture and in some I cannot even tell I used the fisheye, rather some super wide angle lens. Great! The 135/2.5 is wonderful, but as I do not use tele a lot, I'll need some getting used to this one. I'll post some pictures and let you know where to find them. No fancy artistic stuff, just on the fly ones. One of the 15/3.5 lenses I missed on ebay because I was overbid, is now on sale again as the buyer also bought the A version. He's asking more than he ended up paying for it (small wonder), but I wander, now with my fisheye (and my Tokina 17/3.5) whether it's worth going for it once more. No doubt great lens, but at 444 euro's or 555 buy now it's too much I feel. :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Evaluating Photographs
The composer is always right, no matter how far of historically he may be. :-) Paul Delcour From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:13:41 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:13:44 -0400 We had a unique experience in our community band last February. The local historical society commissioned a work for us to play as part of a local celebration. Our last 3 rehearsals were attended and critiqued by the composer. We played it as per the wishes of the composer and, if I may so myself, we did a good job with it. Now, what if there were a professional critic there who were to disagree with the way we played the music. Who would be correct, the critic, or us, who had the benefit of the composer's desire for how it should sound? Seems to me the same would apply to a photographer's interpretation of his image. Bill
Re: Evaluating Photographs
I thought you meant Louis... Idea is the same. :-) Paul Delcour From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:30:22 +0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:31:08 -0400 I distinguish between performers and composers and I should have written the latter. However, I meant Johnny Cash. He could not read music but wrote great stuff, and performed it, for more than 40 years. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages The Cement Company from HELL! Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:21 PM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs There's ton of musicians who cannot read a note: choral singers for one and folk music makers for another. In fact for thousand of years people made music purely by ear, not sight. But to get on topic: I'm sure wonderful photographs have been made by completely ignorant people. It's just a pitty they probably never knew... :-) Paul Delcour From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:11:35 +0300 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:12:28 -0400 True. I enjoy music but don't claim to understand it -- especially the twelve tonal stuff. However, one of the most successful musicians of our time could not read a note of music. I'm sure you all know who that was. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages The Cement Company from HELL! Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:58 PM Subject: Re: Evaluating Photographs O well, this brings up a lot. The story then states we shouldn't judge work by others unless we can produce the result we criticised. I do not agree. Any audience can say what they want about any work, no matter what their skills are in the particular field. The audience is the aim of the work in most cases, so why should they not speak their minds and hearts? A woman once said she couldn't say anything about a concert, because she didn't know the first thing about music. My dear lady, I said, please enjoy the music to your hearts content and let your ignorance play no part in that. Otherwise nobody would ever be able to enjoy anything anymore. There's few folk about that can judge a work of art with exceptional knowledge and experience. I remember discussing auditioning for the music conservatory. How do you judge someone to be musical and make it through to a diploma? There's no one set of fixed guidelines available. Even in photography no set of rules can be the perfect judging instrument. Technically two or more photographs could be close to perfection, but if the composition is not pleasing anyone, what good are they but perhaps to the maker only? Now however, being criticised by someone who thinks he has knowledge and understanding is terrible. There's no arguing with such a person. Happens in music a lot, must be so in any form of art. Lately a lady said the choir sang a hymn too fast as in Germany it was sung much slower. I knew immediately this was no historic argument, purely a being used to one. I try to be as open as I can possibly be about what I know and when I simply don't. But when a choir demands leadership sometimes I have to play know-all. In the end it is only the beholder and the beholder alone who judges anybodys work. The maker chooses to aim at pleasing the beholder or simply doing what he or she sees fit to make. And in between lies the whole fascinating world called life, where as a musician I aim to please, but also try to fulfill my own musical dreams which may never please anyone but me... :-) Paul Delcour
Tamron SP AF 24-135MM 3.5-5.6 AD
Hi all, Richard Ullakko some time ago suggested to look at this lens. Richard, do you have it? Can you tell me why you think it is so good? I've found one for $299,-. Would that be reasonable? Any idea how this Tamron compares quaility wise to a Tokina 28-85 3.5/4.5 ATX? Anyone else know this Tamron lens? Seems like a very flexible zoom, be it a bit dark at 135. Thanks! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Ah, well then I simply do not agree with mr. Wilde. :-) Paul Delcour From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:09:43 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:10:57 -0400 Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:25:52 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:26:11 -0400 You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else. Hear, hear. Cameras lie, we make the lies. The telling of beautiful, untrue things is the proper aim of art - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
Thanks Kenneth for your explanation. I may sound amateurish, but I'm the one who just sees a shot and takes it. I hate having to do a lot afterwards, be it in a darkroom or in a digital room. That's why I took to slides a certain period, they just gave me what I saw. Looking back I can all my mistakes all too clearly as well. What I certainly do not like about photgraphy is the amount of technique I need to get a picture rigt. I feel the technique is more a burden than a blessing. As a choir conductor I do not sense any limits like this. As a pianist I did however. My arms and fingers didn't want to do what I did. The piano was in my way, as are a lot of photographical technical aspects. The absurd limits of a film for instance. I hope that digital solves this all in due course. This sounds more negative than it really is, but as I'm picking up my photography now I do encounter the very same things that made me stop twcie before. So, I'm not a natural photographer I guess. :-) Paul Delcour From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:44 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:47 -0400 Paul, this image was submitted digitally to Outdoor Photographer. I used Photoshop to set white and dark points, clean dust spots with the clone stamp, apply a little unsharp mask, a slight crop and then size the image. The Image as printed pretty much agrees with the original slide. It is as straight forward as I can make it. This is pretty much the way I handle all my images that I either post or print. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Kenneth, really wonderful picture. I wander what you did do in Photshop as you say the image wasn't manipulated or anything. How straightforward a shoot was this? :-) Paul Delcour From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:50:57 +0200 To: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:50:11 -0400 Hi! Here's the correct URL: http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html Congratulations. Boris ===8==Original message text=== KW Well, after being advised a year ago that an image of mine was selected for KW publication in Outdoor Photographer, Your Gallery section, it finally KW appeared in the October 2003 issue. Check out pages 80/81 of that issue - KW the Your Gallery section. I've posted this previously to the PUG KW (http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwr.html). KW I also sent them a paragraph about the capture of this image but they chose KW to write their own. KW They did to use this image previously as a background for an story on KW Keeping Cool, KW in the June 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer. KW Kenneth Waller ===8===End of original message text===
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
That is very interesting. I never thought of it that way. So other brands put emphasis on a certain aspect of lens technique. Nikon on sharpness, Leica as well? Something like that? Is there any source on the web for this kind of info or is this typical user experience? It's impossible for a simple (read little money owning) amateur to test these things. Have several bodies with lenses from several manufacturers and go out testing: no way. It pleases me to know this overal compromise by Pentax. I think it's how I would like my lenses to be. :-) Paul Delcour PS I know, I know, you haven't seen any pictures of me yet. In due course I'll try and make a webpage with some representable ones and you can all shoot holes in them as much as you like. From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:22:39 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:23:04 -0400 William Robb wrote: I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. This matches my obsevations also. I have always said that Pentax optimises their lenses for best overall picture quality rather than best sharpness or best contrast as many other manufactures do. This is one of the reasons that our lenses that make those wonderful photos don't always have real high test scores in photo publications. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Tripod use
Hi William, since you wrote so convincingly a 90 degree tilt was possible, I had a look at my 128RC Manfrotto videohead and low and behold: with some arranging of the handle a 90 degree tilt was possible. Thanks! Now what to do with the photohead? I think I'll keep that for keeps. Never know when it may come in handy. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:59:33 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:59:39 -0400 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Re: Tripod use OK :-) I have a nice Manfrotto 058 tripod, the one where you can centrally control all three legs together or each leg seperately. Heavy, but very steady. Problem is, I had a photocamerahead and now I have a camcorder head. This one however doesn't take my K2 very well. I can only get it on horizontal,it won't tilt to vertical. And changing the head each time is too cumbersome. Now what? Big tripod. I went with the 028 for my mid size tripod, and a Zone VI for my heavyweight. You can get vertical tilt off the video head by rotating the camera 90º on the platform and tilting the platform vertical. William Robb
Re: Tripod use
I can indeed forget carrying the 058 around. However, it is very stable, partly due to the weight, partly due to the leg construction. Also it can reach enormous height. This was great when I needed to shoot over an audience. Nice also for my camcorder when tilting or panning. For taking pictures, adjusting it untill I have exactly the right position takes long. That's why I prefer handshooting. But for all kinds of jobs the 058 is great, for instance macro and copying photos. :-) Paul Delcour From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: AudioBias Systems Engineering Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:04:22 +1000 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 02:04:26 -0400 On 18 Sep 2003 at 20:59, William Robb wrote: Big tripod. I went with the 028 for my mid size tripod, and a Zone VI for my heavyweight. You can get vertical tilt off the video head by rotating the camera 90º on the platform and tilting the platform vertical. The 058 is a pretty big tripod it's already quite a bit heavier than the 028 without a head. The 058 is a great studio tripod but forget porting it about. Mine is on a 127VS Dolly and is fitted with a 229 head, all up the weight is around 11.5kg. My other tripod is a 440 which I use with a 460mg, 141RC or 308RC with and without the centre post (as a weight reducing option). For extra weight/greater stability you can fit the 166 apron support and load it up with drinks/rocks/spare photo kit. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Viewfinder
Been thinking about viewfinders. On my camcorder I can fold out my viewfinder, ie the LCD screen, giving me much more freedom of position than with my photocamera. Why do digital cameras not have such a folding LCD screen? Or do some have them? For this reason alone I've grown to love video more than photography. :-) Paul Delcour
Tokina 28-85 3.5/4.5 ATX
Hi all, anyone know and/or use this zoom? I have found the following on: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#tokina Tokina 28-85mm f/4 RMC and f/3.5-4.5 ATX Tokina designed an RMC f/4 version of this lens which had a constant aperture, unlike the later ATX variable aperture version. The RMC version lacked the macro ability added to the later ATX version too. The ATX lens had a 1:3.5 macro capability and was significantly lighter (17 1/2 ounces versus 21 ounces) and slightly shorter (3 inches versus 3 1/2 inches). One big advantage of the variable aperture ATX zoom is that it used much smaller, lighter, and cheaper filters (62mm versus 72mm for the original constant aperture f/4 zoom). This filter factor is quite important if that new zoom means you have to run out and get all new filters for your new bigger zoom lens. That constant aperture may be nice, but you may pay for it twice, once for the lens and again for a new set of larger and expensive filters! On the other hand, the original constant aperture f/4 RMC zoom was probably a bit better optically, and close-focused down to only 2 1/2 feet. And it did have a constant aperture, albeit f/4. Not surprisingly, the older optically superior lens is often significantly cheaper on the used third party lens market. Perhaps it isn't up to Pentax zoom standards, but it sounds like a nice lens to do candid work. From all the info I have gathered from you all and the web I'm still pretty confused as to what zoom within say 24-105 is a good one. Do I really need to go Pentax or, as some suggested, go Tamron or otherwise? I want to use this zoom when quick reacting is required, ie where changing primes is out of the question. :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Viewfinder
I think then the viewfinder on a photocamera is very different from a camcorder's. The former is merely a rough reminder what the picture will look like, the latter is, for me, an absolute neccesity because to me it's like watching TV, be it small, by which I can very well judge the resulting shoot. Still, the folding screen allows for the camera to be held high above your head, to get over crowds, and get an idea of the picture. You know the newsreporters just clicking ahead with their highheld cameras. It'll turn out pretty right anyway. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:04:45 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Viewfinder Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:04:47 -0400 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Viewfinder Been thinking about viewfinders. On my camcorder I can fold out my viewfinder, ie the LCD screen, giving me much more freedom of position than with my photocamera. Why do digital cameras not have such a folding LCD screen? Or do some have them? For this reason alone I've grown to love video more than photography. Some of the better digital point and shoots for sure have folding screens. My Canon G1 has just such a thing, for example. The problems with them is they are battery hogs, and really only good for rough composition. William Robb
Film limits - measuring light correctly
It sounds a bit of a strong viewpoint, doesn't it. What I mean is the limited lightvalues a film can take. It can soon be too light (my K2 only has 1/1000), but more sooner gets too dark to get any decent image on film. With a camcorder I can go till I have only the light of a matchstick. Of course the image changes in quality dramatically. But were I to be ready to take pictures in all of those extreme situations, I'd have to be carrying an awful lot of equipment and what's more, keep changing it to suit the situation. A digital camera can and has overcome these light problems. Bless them. That is certainly what I feel to be a very weak point of taking photographs. Yes, some time ago you needed to know quite a lot to get a decent picture. However, with all those automatic cameras, though many pictures are not that bad, you often see the limits of the automation. More than not encouter it myself if ever I handle one. Often they cannot be used manually. Try shooting without the flash. You often can't! On the other hand, if you make good use of the limits I mentioned above you can work wonders and truly create art as someone pointed out. The biggest problem I have is measuring the light correctly. One problem there is of course that the central processing and printing plant corrects my neg. no matter what I do to get a correct exposure. This is a real pain in the... But I cannot see myself print colourphotos at home. Have done so once and enjoyed it very much, but the effort and time. Phew. I have a very nice Minolta autometer IV which I use to measure the studioflash with. It's supposed to be able to do ambient light as well. Have to get the right diffusors for it. See if that helps. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:58:13 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:04:47 -0400 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer What I certainly do not like about photgraphy is the amount of technique I need to get a picture rigt. I feel the technique is more a burden than a blessing. As a choir conductor I do not sense any limits like this. As a pianist I did however. My arms and fingers didn't want to do what I did. The piano was in my way, as are a lot of photographical technical aspects. The absurd limits of a film for instance. I hope that digital solves this all in due course. I would like you to expand on the absurd limits of a film, I am curious to know what you mean. If you think phototechnique is hard now, you should have been doing photography 30 or more years ago, when a photographer actually had to have some photo technical knowledge. William Robb
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
You're right of course, but I find the limits of light values within which you can get a decent picture rather an obstruction than a blessing. Funny I do not experience this with my choral conducting, although the limits of waht a choir can do are sometimes enormous, considering the level of singing some choirs have (or not). But within those limits I do no find that a problem. You can sing when and whenever you want. Try that with a camera! :-) Paul Delcour From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:47:00 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:47:22 -0400 I don't think this is negative, I think it's the just the extreme expression of the aesthetic aspect of photography. Like most art forms, there is a technique side that puts constraints on pure aesthetics, and the resulting combination is art. One of the good parts about photography is that if you have the aesthetic sense (theeye) then you can probably learn enough technique or get an automatic enough camera to not limit yourself too much. This is not true in many arts (like painting) which is why I believe photography is such a popular hobby. Certainly, this is true in my case, although I think my enjoyment of the technical aspects is important to me and my eye is probably my limitation ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/19/03 05:50AM Thanks Kenneth for your explanation. I may sound amateurish, but I'm the one who just sees a shot and takes it. I hate having to do a lot afterwards, be it in a darkroom or in a digital room. That's why I took to slides a certain period, they just gave me what I saw. Looking back I can all my mistakes all too clearly as well. What I certainly do not like about photgraphy is the amount of technique I need to get a picture rigt. I feel the technique is more a burden than a blessing. As a choir conductor I do not sense any limits like this. As a pianist I did however. My arms and fingers didn't want to do what I did. The piano was in my way, as are a lot of photographical technical aspects. The absurd limits of a film for instance. I hope that digital solves this all in due course. This sounds more negative than it really is, but as I'm picking up my photography now I do encounter the very same things that made me stop twcie before. So, I'm not a natural photographer I guess. :-) Paul Delcour From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:44 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:47 -0400 Paul, this image was submitted digitally to Outdoor Photographer. I used Photoshop to set white and dark points, clean dust spots with the clone stamp, apply a little unsharp mask, a slight crop and then size the image. The Image as printed pretty much agrees with the original slide. It is as straight forward as I can make it. This is pretty much the way I handle all my images that I either post or print. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Kenneth, really wonderful picture. I wander what you did do in Photshop as you say the image wasn't manipulated or anything. How straightforward a shoot was this? :-) Paul Delcour From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:50:57 +0200 To: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:50:11 -0400 Hi! Here's the correct URL: http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html Congratulations. Boris ===8==Original message text=== KW Well, after being advised a year ago that an image of mine was selected for KW publication in Outdoor Photographer, Your Gallery section, it finally KW appeared in the October 2003 issue. Check out pages 80/81 of that issue - KW the Your Gallery section. I've posted this previously to the PUG KW (http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwr.html). KW I also sent them a paragraph about the capture of this image but they chose KW to write their own. KW They did to use this image previously as a background for an story on KW Keeping Cool, KW in the June 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer. KW Kenneth Waller ===8===End of original message text===
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
Yes I do, but you forget one thing. People have talents. The very first time I stood in front of a choir I simply knew what to do. Nobody told me, it just came out of me as if I had never done anything else. Of course I had to learn things and develop that talent, but as a photographer I find I have the talent to 'see' good shots, but lack the urge to learn and develop. Once I've seen the shot, that's it, I'm done. All that work afterwards downgrades that moment immensely for me. Choral music never bores me, photography does. Too many photographs are alike. Maybe the variation in music is bigger. Also, the human factor may be bigger: singing and conducting is something you do yourself. It's as personal as it can get. :-) Paul Delcour From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:39:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:40:04 -0400 Boy are you in trouble. The thing about digital to the serious photographer is it brings all those controls back into his hands. To do good digital photos you have to have more skills, not less. Face it to 99% of the people who take photos art does not enter the equation at all. The other 1% need quite a bit of technical skill to make the medium say what they want it to say. The interesting thing is that while the pros are dumping their darkroom stuff, many amateurs are setting up darkrooms (especially for BW work) because there is a certain joy to doing things the old way. One can in fact set up a pretty nice darkroom for the price of an istD. I am at the level in music that you seem to be in photography. I took two, two long years, wow, of lessons and still can not get what I want out of my mandolin. People who actually play them well tell me it will take 10 years of practice to get good at it. I may not have 10 years left, so I do not try too hard anymore. Of course I could program any music I want into MIDI and let the computer play it. Somehow I don't feel it is the same thing. Do you see the parallels in what I am saying? Paul Delcour wrote: Thanks Kenneth for your explanation. I may sound amateurish, but I'm the one who just sees a shot and takes it. I hate having to do a lot afterwards, be it in a darkroom or in a digital room. That's why I took to slides a certain period, they just gave me what I saw. Looking back I can all my mistakes all too clearly as well. What I certainly do not like about photgraphy is the amount of technique I need to get a picture rigt. I feel the technique is more a burden than a blessing. As a choir conductor I do not sense any limits like this. As a pianist I did however. My arms and fingers didn't want to do what I did. The piano was in my way, as are a lot of photographical technical aspects. The absurd limits of a film for instance. I hope that digital solves this all in due course. This sounds more negative than it really is, but as I'm picking up my photography now I do encounter the very same things that made me stop twcie before. So, I'm not a natural photographer I guess. :-) Paul Delcour From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:44 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:00:47 -0400 Paul, this image was submitted digitally to Outdoor Photographer. I used Photoshop to set white and dark points, clean dust spots with the clone stamp, apply a little unsharp mask, a slight crop and then size the image. The Image as printed pretty much agrees with the original slide. It is as straight forward as I can make it. This is pretty much the way I handle all my images that I either post or print. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 5:37 AM Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Kenneth, really wonderful picture. I wander what you did do in Photshop as you say the image wasn't manipulated or anything. How straightforward a shoot was this? :-) Paul Delcour From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 06:50:57 +0200 To: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 02:50:11 -0400 Hi! Here's the correct URL: http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html Congratulations. Boris ===8==Original message text=== KW Well, after being advised a year ago that an image of mine was selected for KW publication in Outdoor Photographer, Your Gallery section, it finally KW appeared in the October 2003 issue. Check out
Re: Viewfinder
I do now, reading your grin PS... Somehow it's wrong as it's lost its meaning a bit, putting it under every mail. :-) Paul From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:35:04 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Viewfinder Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:20:18 -0400 On 19/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Been thinking about viewfinders. On my camcorder I can fold out my viewfinder, ie the LCD screen, giving me much more freedom of position than with my photocamera. Why do digital cameras not have such a folding LCD screen? Or do some have them? For this reason alone I've grown to love video more than photography. Personally I can't stand LCD viewfinders, although they do have their uses. My Mrs has a Powershot G2 with a very versatile fold-out LCD screen and shooting from high or low level is a breeze with it, especially discreet street or reportage - nobody knows what the hell you're doing, they assume you're fiddling with a Walkman (or iPod in this day and age). That said, if I ever use the G2, I use the optical viewfinder - poor as it is - almost exclusively. This is the great thing about DSLRs. An optical viewfinder is a necessity because of the nature of the SLR. If you think about what you are seeing through the lens, how could the CMOS or CCD sensor 'see' what you are seeing? The mirror is down and in the way. LCD preview is not possible, unless by some pseudo means. I dare say someone will come up with a method that works one day. Much as I hate LCDs, I look down a viewfinder onto a small CRT display every day on my video camera. Bloody hate it! Give me optical or give me death. :-) You're a happy bunny Paul. I think I've read every one of your posts and they all include, without fail, a smiley at the end. Do you walk around with such a grin as well? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Film limits - measuring light correctly
Technique can be learned, seeing a shot not. You see it or you don't. Somebody can point it out to you, you may see it then, but is you who 'sees' it! In music, for instance putting your fingers on the right keys on a piano can be learned, making music by playing the piano can't. This may seem romantic or what, but since the end of the 18th century we are stuck with an analytic education system which adds up all your learned knowledge and thinks thusway you create a musician or whatever. This system forgets the forces within, talent, drive, what ever. I experience this everytime I work with an amateurchoir. They usually don't know the first thing about music, the theory, how to use their breath properly, yet I can make them sing in a way you wouldn't expect them too if you follow the analytic system. The intuitive system makes you perform far better than you think you could. Of course in the end I run into limits and then peopole do have to take singing lessons. Or in photography more knowledge would be required. But my starting point is the intuition, instinct, whatever you want to call it. It works. That's all I can say. :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 19:58:29 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film limits - measuring light correctly Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:20:20 -0400 On 19/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: What I mean is the limited lightvalues a film can take. It can soon be too light (my K2 only has 1/1000), but more sooner gets too dark to get any decent image on film. With a camcorder I can go till I have only the light of a matchstick. Of course the image changes in quality dramatically. But were I to be ready to take pictures in all of those extreme situations, I'd have to be carrying an awful lot of equipment and what's more, keep changing it to suit the situation. A digital camera can and has overcome these light problems. Bless them. That is certainly what I feel to be a very weak point of taking photographs. When an artist picks up a pencil, will it be hard or soft? What informs that judgement? Partly it is the feel of the work he/she is wanting to produce, and how that work translates as a finished drawing. The artist has to have the knowledge of the pencils, the chalk, the paint. That technique has to be learned, it is not instinctive. The finished work appears as instinct and expression and cannot be taught. When a director makes a film, he has to know how to handle actors to get the best out of them, as well as knowing how to handle the way the camera records the scene, how it will look when finished, how he/she wants it to look. That technique most definitely has to be learned. The finished work appears as instinct and expression and cannot be taught. When a photographer shoots with film, he or she has to know what film to select, what lens to use, what exposure to set in order to record the scene. Sometimes he or she will know how to develop and print the picture. That technique must be learned. The resulting photograph is an expression that cannot be taught. When a photographer shoots digitally, he or she has to know all the technique that the camera allows, has to understand the processing of that image, the way it is delivered onto a medium of storage, and even sometimes editing that image and printing it. Techniques learned. Results expressions of self and ability and desire. All these techniques involve tools, from carpentry to cake-making. They are as easy or as difficult as you make them. They all involve effort in studying the technical aspect. Art hurts! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hear, hear. Cameras lie, we make the lies. :-) Paul Delcour From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:25:52 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:26:11 -0400 You know, I don't think I am completely convinced that every picture has to be supersharp or even very sharp. Or that sharpness is the #1 indicator of a good picture. Or whatever. Re tripods. Marnie aka Doe Smacks to me of the concept that a photograph should be as close to realism as possible, because photography is all about realism and nothing else.
Re: Tripod use
I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing wrong? I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered plenty of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all be tripoding along, wouldn't we. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:05:23 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:00 -0400 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Re: Tripod use Try using a tripod in a crowded room where you're supposed to catch in a flash what's goin gon and the light's really low and you have no flash. You're overreacting I feel. When possible a tripod used of course improves, but when going candid it's out of the question. Besides, as with the discussion on lenses I wonder whether all this extra sharpness is needed of desired. Not always, so a tripod doesn't always improve the picture quaily by adding sharpness. If the image is stunning, nobody will question the technique. See, I knew some anal retentive would come up with an example of this. It doesn't matter, all you are doing is compromising your picture, and limiting what you can do with it. I have shot in precisely the situation you described. I chose to use a solid tripod. It was a professional decision. It allowed me enough personal space to work. Regarding your last statement, if the image is stunning, you used good technique, but more importantly, you also had a good concept. Nothing is worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. Except perhaps a just ever so slightly fuzzy picture, just enough to make it unviewable, of a sharp concept. William Robb
Re: Tripod use
William, you said very truly: There have been times when I have just sat and admired what was in front of me until the light was gone, rather than spoil the moment by pulling out a camera. It is amazing what we don't get to enjoy when we take a feeding frenzy approach to getting every great picture there is. Often, we don't get to enjoy what we went to photograph in the first place. That was exactly the reason why I didn't turn pro. I was just seeing photographs, nothing else. It drove me mad, not taking the moment to enjoy the moment. Still happy I made that decision. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:57:49 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:00 -0400 There have been times when I have just sat and admired what was in front of me until the light was gone, rather than spoil the moment by pulling out a camera. It is amazing what we don't get to enjoy when we take a feeding frenzy approach to getting every great picture there is. Often, we don't get to enjoy what we went to photograph in the first place.
Re: Tripod use
OK :-) I have a nice Manfrotto 058 tripod, the one where you can centrally control all three legs together or each leg seperately. Heavy, but very steady. Problem is, I had a photocamerahead and now I have a camcorder head. This one however doesn't take my K2 very well. I can only get it on horizontal,it won't tilt to vertical. And changing the head each time is too cumbersome. Now what? :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:23:10 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tripod use Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:24:03 -0400 - Original Message - From: Paul Delcour Subject: Re: Tripod use I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing wrong? I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered plenty of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all be tripoding along, wouldn't we. Sorry, I should have dropped a smiley in there someplace. William Robb
Tripod use
Hi all, there is an unwritten rule saying the focallength in mm, ie 200, makes 1/200 as the minimum shutterspeed to be used handheld. But a 500mm at 1/500 may not be OK. Weight is a factor, as is position. If your hands are steady you can go to a lower speed. I used to use 1/8 with 28 or 24mm and got a fine result. I used the 85 with 1/60 recently and if the people on stage weren't moving too much the result was fine. :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Long zoom macro lens?
I take this Panagor extension is just a tube, ie no lenses? This would otherwise surely degrade the Pentax lens quality considerably. I must say I'm impressed with your macro photo's. I want one of these! Might even get rid of my 100/4 macro then as I find very little use for it. Might just as well put thise macrozoom converter on my 85/1.8. Where would I end up in terms of image ratio putting it on my 200/4? :-) Paul Delcour From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:15:30 +0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Long zoom macro lens? Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:15:37 -0400 Panagor Macro Converter
Re: Long zoom macro lens?
What about the set of rings Pentax offered to get macro. What would be better: the Panagor macrozoomring or these Pentax rings? Seems ot me the zoom offers much mnore flexibility and less switching of lenses/rings. :-) Paul Delcour From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:15:30 +0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Long zoom macro lens? Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 02:15:37 -0400 Hi! On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:09:38 +0530 Gaurav Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have been reading the posts for around 5-6 months now. I have a Pentax ME Super with M50/1.7 (and a PZ-1 also which I don't use though). I now realize that I would like to have a longish zoom for taking portraits of family, street photography, birds etc. Also, I have never done macro but would want that feature as well. You already have 50/1.7 and ME Super. May I suggest slightly different approach? You could look for Panagor Macro Converter ($20 or so I think). It would turn your 50/1.7 into macro zoom lens with macro factor changing from 1:10 to 1:1 (lifesize). The weight of converter is no more than 200 gr. Adding to that weight of 50 mm lens, I think your weight requirement will be met. The results however are most probably better than any zoom lens with macro setting. Notice that you would be using a 50 mm prime as an optical basis. You can see few photos I made with this combo here: http://www.geocities.com/dunno57/macro-photos.htm. By the way all shots there were made handheld... As a starting kit for Macro Work I think this is very viable option. Good hunting. Boris
Re: Blame on me...
O well, findings bring tears of joy, and missed ones... :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:52:37 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Blame on me... Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:15:24 -0400 On 15/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: for letting this one slip away: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItemitem=2951616103category=8307rd=1 Somebody better explain to Paul that it's okay to post tear-jerker links to eBay auctions that have ended so the PDML can spend a few minutes pulling their hair out, wailing, gnashing teeth. D'oh, I just did. I think we could be renamed the Pentax Discussion Masochistic List... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Rules or guidelines
As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Free film
It's for UK residents only... :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:37:52 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Free film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:38:02 -0400 GC00094/entry.jhtml
Re: Rules or guidelines
Sure. I don't know what the equivalent is in the English language. There must be something. It's a general expression, not made up by me. :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:05:03 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rules or guidelines Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:05:11 -0400 On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Pentax users who really know the rim from the hat as we say in Holland. LOL. Love it. Can I use that? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Medical set on ebay.de
Here's something nice and special: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2951294327category=12877 Pentax 100/2.8 macro with ringflashset. Don't know about the price might it must be a very nice set to work with. :-) Paul Delcour
15/3.5 and 300/2.8
Sorry to go on, but at the moment I love browsing for Pentax lenses. 15/3.5: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2949823209category=12877 What would y'all say was the main difference between the Pentax 15/3.5 and the Tokina 17/3.5? I'm tempted to go for the Pentax 15/3.5 as several people have stated what a wonderful lens it is and I do like my wide angle views. It starts at 299 euro's though. 300/2.8 http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2949816937category=12877 28/2.8 shift (no pics though): http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2950622761category=12877 :-) Paul Delcour
Re: no moderation, no rules - pinhole - SMC 15/3.5 versus Tokina 17/3.5
It's all right. I checked for rules, but there appear to be none. It's just that the tone of the email telling me not to post ebay findings wasn't very pleasant. I have to say I've come across a lot of postings I didn't find very relevant at all or very OT. Click delete is the simple answer and this has kept many lists that I am a member of very happy indeed. Some lists though simply died as a result of flame wars... Just occured to me why I use Pentax. Simply because in the summer of 1978 the K2 was on sale and the photographer of the company where my father worked highly recommended it. I never felt any regret, though it seems Pentax isn't always as highly rated as some other brands. So, I'm not really a Pentax die-hard, but having got a lot of Pentax stuff and being really very happy with it, I see no reason to change to a different brand. In the end is the photos that count, nothing else. I once saw a documentary about a photographer who usde a really high tech pinhole camera. He exposed for about 16 minutes in the middle of Venice thereby eliminating all the people and producing stunning photos of Venice's monuments. Now there's a different approach. I have a documentary on tape about him. Forgot his name though. Anyone about who can favour the SMC 15/3.5 over the Tokina 17/35. RMC? :-) Paul Delcour From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:41:42 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Medical set on ebay.de Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:42:04 -0400 Well, this is not a moderated list, Paul. However, there are somethings that have been agreed upon by the long time PDMLers. The thing about not posting leads to Ebay auctions other than your own has the most support of any of those unwritten rules. Even the ban on talking about guns (the most controversal subject to hit the list) has less support. No you are not going to get kicked off the list if you insist upon continuimg to post Ebay listings, but you are not going to be very well liked either. Don't feel like we are attacking you here, Paul, we are just trying to give you, and others, a heads up on this. Besides, anyone too dumb to be able to type in an Ebay search for pentax can't be helped anyway. ;) Paul Delcour wrote: Hi Bob, are you a moderator? I take your point, but saw many postings where people were asking for Pentax gear so I thought I'd point out a few. This is ebay Germany mind you, not USA. And as for prices going up, so what? It's only fair to share opportunities I feel. :-) Paul Delcour From: Bob S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:01:19 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Medical set on ebay.de Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:01:29 -0400 Paul, This is the 5th or 6th time you have mentioned eBay auctions to the list. Many people on this list follow eBay closely for bargains on Pentax gear. In the past, they have become irritated by the posting of live auctions to the list. If you are the seller, it is fine to mention your auction, but if not... Calling the attention of 400 Pentax enthusiasts to an interesting or cheap item is a certain way to get it's price bid-up and make bargains disappear. There is always somebody on the list who is willing and able to pay more than you. Three points on the medical set you highlighted. 1) This is sold by TEAM-PHOTO. There is a separate thread running on this list about how they are a problem to deal with. 2) They have been listing this set for the past 3 months. I have personally seen it close without any bidders at least 4 other times. 3) Their price is way too high. This is a Pentax ringlight flash and a Pentax F or FA100/2.8 Macro. US$550 would be a good retail price. US$350 would be closer to a bargain. Your enthuisam is great. You should spend some time at Boz's site as it is a virtual encyclopedia on Pentax K-Mount gear. Ask your questions about the gear, just don't bombard us with eBay links. Regards, Bob S. From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's something nice and special: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2951294327category=12877 Pentax 100/2.8 macro with ringflashset. Don't know about the price might it must be a very nice set to work with. :-) Paul Delcour _ Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Medical set on ebay.de
Ay ay sir! :-) Paul Delcour From: Otis C. Wright, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:44:08 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Medical set on ebay.de Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:44:12 -0400 It was a good bit of information all of this projectionist horse. notwithstanding. I appreciated it and offer a word of thanks from here in the bleachers. Go shoot some film. Otis Wright graywolf wrote: Well, this is not a moderated list, Paul. However, there are somethings that have been agreed upon by the long time PDMLers. The thing about not posting leads to Ebay auctions other than your own has the most support of any of those unwritten rules. Even the ban on talking about guns (the most controversal subject to hit the list) has less support. No you are not going to get kicked off the list if you insist upon continuimg to post Ebay listings, but you are not going to be very well liked either. Don't feel like we are attacking you here, Paul, we are just trying to give you, and others, a heads up on this. Besides, anyone too dumb to be able to type in an Ebay search for pentax can't be helped anyway. ;) Paul Delcour wrote: Hi Bob, are you a moderator? I take your point, but saw many postings where people were asking for Pentax gear so I thought I'd point out a few. This is ebay Germany mind you, not USA. And as for prices going up, so what? It's only fair to share opportunities I feel. :-) Paul Delcour From: Bob S [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:01:19 + To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Medical set on ebay.de Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:01:29 -0400 Paul, This is the 5th or 6th time you have mentioned eBay auctions to the list. Many people on this list follow eBay closely for bargains on Pentax gear. In the past, they have become irritated by the posting of live auctions to the list. If you are the seller, it is fine to mention your auction, but if not... Calling the attention of 400 Pentax enthusiasts to an interesting or cheap item is a certain way to get it's price bid-up and make bargains disappear. There is always somebody on the list who is willing and able to pay more than you. Three points on the medical set you highlighted. 1) This is sold by TEAM-PHOTO. There is a separate thread running on this list about how they are a problem to deal with. 2) They have been listing this set for the past 3 months. I have personally seen it close without any bidders at least 4 other times. 3) Their price is way too high. This is a Pentax ringlight flash and a Pentax F or FA100/2.8 Macro. US$550 would be a good retail price. US$350 would be closer to a bargain. Your enthuisam is great. You should spend some time at Boz's site as it is a virtual encyclopedia on Pentax K-Mount gear. Ask your questions about the gear, just don't bombard us with eBay links. Regards, Bob S. From: Paul Delcour [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's something nice and special: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2951294327category=1287 7 Pentax 100/2.8 macro with ringflashset. Don't know about the price might it must be a very nice set to work with. :-) Paul Delcour _ Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Digital versus film
This is interesting. What strikes me is the absolute smoothness of the digital images and the very very grainy film ones. If all this is correct I want the *ist! http://www.mindspring.com/~focalfire/DigitalvsFilm.html http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Digital versus film
Ah! I thought TV was... Very nice photo's TV, just the way I like 'm. :-) Paul Delcour From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital versus film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:50:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). When I show them stuff side by side they prefer digital 95% of the time. tv
Re: Digital versus film
TV, just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of the time? Any striking reason? :-) Paul Delcour From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:53:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital versus film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:50:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am getting real tired of digital vs. film arguments by people who have no idea what they are comparing. Digital has reached the point where it is professionally acceptable (ask TV if his customers have any complaints). When I show them stuff side by side they prefer digital 95% of the time. tv
Subject!
Hi all, could we all please check that the contents of our mails match the subject heading. Sorry to mingle in this, but it is annoying finding message after message not covering the subject heading. :-) Paul Delcour
Reaction by Paul Fox on the 135/2.5 mailthread
Hi all, this is from Paul Fox who had an excellent response. He may join us, but for the moment couldn't work out how to join. I showed him the way... :-) Paul Delcour From Paul Fox: I just found the thread on pentax discission forum but I don't know to reply.. Anyway : I have made my expperiences with many Pentax 135 lenses : The 1.8 A, K2.5, K-Takumar 2.5, M42-Takumar 2.5, A 2.8, M 3.5 First : The 1.8 is the best of them all but nearly noone will sell it (by good reason !). The second best is the K 2.5 (that U mentioned being on ebay) The 3.5 is not THAT good (in my opinion) - and that is supported by a big 135 lens test in german ColorFoto magazin in the early 80's. There were nearly all 135mm lenses... (and they support my opinion about the K 2.5 being one of the best 135 in the world and the 3.5 being good but not phantastic). The A 2.8 is really not a good lens ! The M42-Takumar 2.5 I have is an SMC one and really great - but not on same level as K 2.5 (maybe because it's older and the SMC has been improved then). I use it with adaptor ring on my Canon EOS that I'm using too. The K Takumar is really not bad ! It's made quite fine, has built-in lens hood (the K 2.5 and M42-Takumar or 1.8 don't have ! you have to screw a lens shade on), is lighter, you have to beware of flare - you should leave the sun behind you - not in front, otherwise... o.K. : I've been making indoor sport shots with it and portraits as well and this lens lens was very good in both cases. I just sold it because I could get the K 2.5 and that is really heavy ! - but for indoor sports a little bit better (even not THAT much !). 40 EUR is a fair price for the Takumar ! The K 2.5 mostly sells for 60-90 Euro on ebay. You have to decide whether this extra money is it worth for you ! One thing : If you want to take portraits the K 2.5 may even be too sharp and contrasty - every line in the face can be seen. There the K-Takkumar is even smoother - many people liked portraits with the K-Takumar even better ! Kind reagrds Paul Fox
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Ah Fred, that reminds me that the min. focus disctance at 1.7m makes the lens partly useless. I often get much closer than that. Can any zoom handle that better? It's primes for now then. :-) Paul Delcour From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:36:48 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:36:58 -0400 The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe rectilinear distortion. heavy frown It is true that the A 28-135/4's strongest point is certainly not its distortion (it does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at the wide end of its zoom range, and it does show more distortion in this regard than its sibling, the A 35-105/3.5), but it ~IS~ a good lens overall (considering that it ~is~ a zoom and that it ~does~ cover a rather wide range). Yes, it's heavy, too, but I've gladly lugged one of these critters over many a mile - it's one of my favorite walking around lenses. Some quotes from a review of the lens from Amateur Photographer for August 6, 1983: 28-35mm must be the most versatile 'standard lens' around. Other examples of this focal length are on the way but Pentax were first on the scene. The lens incorporates most popular wideangle and telephoto lengths, plus everything in between. The f/4 aperture is modest but quite good considering the range. It's a fairly large lens and very heavy, but feels comparatively well balanced on camera. Focusing ring is large with a chunky grip, with minimum focusing distance of 1.7m. Behind this, the zooming ring has a short throw (like the focusing ring) with a click stop at the 28mm setting. Turning past this click stop engages the 'macro' mode, which enables focusing down to under 8in. Because the focal length at this setting is still wideangle, this isn't particularly close and well off true 1:1 macro. Focusing and zooming controls on our sample were not particularly smooth; the zooming ring was also a little stiff. Despite this, the short twist required to zoom or focus makes for fast handling. Overall, the lens is built to a high standard. Filter size of 77mm means more expensive filters - but this can't really be avoided if you want the range and decent working maximum aperture. Handling is fast and generally as good as a lens of much shorter range. It matches well with the Super A body. It's one thing to design a lens with such a long range, but quite another to build in good performance. here the Pentax comes as a pleasant surprise. Definition was very adequate throughout, with edge performance lagging just a little behind the centre. Softness was evident at full aperture and one stop down (f/5.6) at the edge, but otherwise the lens will cope with most assignments on any type of film. The 28-135mm lens is expensive but takes the place of three or four other lenses comfortably. Overall Performance - Very Good Central Definition - Very Good Edge Definition - Good Image Contrast - Very Good Optical balance - Good Best Central Definition - f/8, f/11, f/16 Best Overall Definition - f/11 Best Edge Definition - f/11 Fred
Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional
If people look at me and say, but you're a professional conductor, they mean that word implies I know it all, or at least a lot. I don't of course. The word just means I conduct for a living, no matter how good ar bad: that has nothing to do with it. Amateurs can be better at things than many a pro. However, the experience and routine of a pro nearly always outdo the amateur. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:44:58 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:45:18 -0400 - Original Message - From: Charlton Vaughan Subject: Pentax Users Gallery I'm new to the group and have a question. I noticed in the gallery this coming month's gallery theme is Professional. What is the criteria for Professional? Is this in regards to professional photography, photographs of a profession or speaks of a profession or what? Please give me a hint, thanks. Think about what the word professional means to you. Then try to capture it in a single frame. Good luck. I am really looking forward to seeing this gallery. William (blame this one on me) Robb
2000mm
There's one on ebay.de http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2950656543category=12877 Wow! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional
Hilversum and surrounding areas, Netherlands. :-) Paul From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:06:34 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:06:53 -0400 Musical type conductor? If so, where. Bill -Original Message- From: Paul Delcour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional If people look at me and say, but you're a professional conductor, they mean that word implies I know it all, or at least a lot. I don't of course. The word just means I conduct for a living, no matter how good ar bad: that has nothing to do with it. Amateurs can be better at things than many a pro. However, the experience and routine of a pro nearly always outdo the amateur. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:44:58 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:45:18 -0400 - Original Message - From: Charlton Vaughan Subject: Pentax Users Gallery I'm new to the group and have a question. I noticed in the gallery this coming month's gallery theme is Professional. What is the criteria for Professional? Is this in regards to professional photography, photographs of a profession or speaks of a profession or what? Please give me a hint, thanks. Think about what the word professional means to you. Then try to capture it in a single frame. Good luck. I am really looking forward to seeing this gallery. William (blame this one on me) Robb
Re: Four lenses
Keith, I have the SMC 85/1.8 and absolutely love it. It may not be full portrait, but the 1.8 gives a lot of candid opportunities with little light. Great to observe people and snap. :-) Paul Delcour From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:44:05 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Four lenses Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:44:02 -0400 It occurs to me, I've never had an 80 or 85mm lens! I jump from 55mm to 105mm (beautiful little SMC Takumar f/2.8...) and up. I think I'll start reviewing the reports on which is recommended and go looking for one! Unless there are recommendations from the list... Thanks, Clive! keith whaley Clive evans wrote: Hi All In one of his books Galen Rowell said that 60% of his best images were made with either a 20mm or a 180mm. of the remaining 40%, 60% were with a 35mm or 85mm.[This is all pre-zoom] OK these are Nikon focal lenghts but its an interesting exercise..especialy considering his subject range. Conversely the classic Leica 4 is 21,35,50,90 Just my .2 euros worth. Clive Antibes France
Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional
You'be amazed at much electricity I conduct when conducting... :-) Paul Delcour From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:52:49 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:54:14 -0400 Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Musical type conductor? If so, where. And if *not* a musical type conductor, what type??? (I've never met a professional electrical conductor!) -Original Message- From: Paul Delcour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional If people look at me and say, but you're a professional conductor, they mean that word implies I know it all, or at least a lot. I don't of course. The word just means I conduct for a living, no matter how good ar bad: that has nothing to do with it. Amateurs can be better at things than many a pro. However, the experience and routine of a pro nearly always outdo the amateur. :-) Paul Delcour From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:44:58 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Users Gallery Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:45:18 -0400 - Original Message - From: Charlton Vaughan Subject: Pentax Users Gallery I'm new to the group and have a question. I noticed in the gallery this coming month's gallery theme is Professional. What is the criteria for Professional? Is this in regards to professional photography, photographs of a profession or speaks of a profession or what? Please give me a hint, thanks. Think about what the word professional means to you. Then try to capture it in a single frame. Good luck. I am really looking forward to seeing this gallery. William (blame this one on me) Robb -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional
I'd love to have railroad as a theme being a mad train lover myself, though, whenever I take pictures of trains myself I am never happy with the result. Somnehow I do not seem to have the feel for how to put them in the frame properly. O well, I'll just enjoy the real thing. :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
I'll go for the K 135/2.5 since the F and FA are probably more expensive. I may decide to get the Takumar as well as some of the pictures I have seen taken with it look very nice indeed. Then I'll choose. Got the fisheye 17/4 for 230 euro's. Probably a bit too much, but I really wanted one. :-) Paul Delcour From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:29:43 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:29:53 -0400 Sorry to disapoint you, the K 135/2.5 you narrowed your search to is limited to 1.5 m (enough for portraits if you ask me, but tastes may vary). To get closer than that you'll have to look at FA 135/2.8. Or the F135/2.8, but I recommend the FA which has better mechanical design. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Subject! - sympathy
My commiserations :-) Paul Delcour From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:51:13 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Subject! Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:51:27 -0400 What a lousy day. First thing the cat died. Then the car wouldn't start. how the hell can a guy go on? Paul Delcour wrote: Hi all, could we all please check that the contents of our mails match the subject heading. Sorry to mingle in this, but it is annoying finding message after message not covering the subject heading. :-) Paul Delcour
Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Hi all, you may think I'm trying to collect Pentax lenses... I'm still considering to get a good zoom for parties, weddings, any situation where switching primes can be tedious and makeing me miss shots. There's an A28-135/4 on a secondhand site for sale at about 200$. From what I've read on some Pentax lens review sites it is not a bad lens. Someone advised to look at a Tamron 24-135, said to be a great lens. How do these two compare? There are so many zooms about. I feel my decision for the 135/2.5 has to be the SMC. In the end I think I'll appreciate the quality. The Takumar is probably very nice, but softer which for some subject such as portraits might be very nice. But I like good sharp contyrasty picture. Does this help in indicating which zoom would be good? It seems that using studioflash with zooms that have changing aperture (ie 3.5-4.5) is a pain, since you never know which aperture is actually used. So if the 28-135/4 has a constant aperture, that looks good. Many thanka to all who responded to my questions. Hope to be able return something useful soon! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Which four lenses? Was: some more *ist D samples
I love my 24/2.8 50/1.7 85/1.8 If I would have to add one more, I think it would either be the Tokina 17/3.5 or my 100/4 macro. I seldom use my 200/4, though I have the Pentax 2x converter giving me a 400/8. :-) Paul Delcour From: whickersworld [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:09:55 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Which four lenses? Was: some more *ist D samples Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:10:05 -0400 Patrick Wunsch wrote: If you could only have four lenses in your camera bag, which ones would you chose and why. I ask this because I am trying to narrow down my choices and assess my needs versus wants while still be able to pay the mortgage! I have the K1000 and ZX-5n cameras and am most interested in landscapes, sunsets and lightning photography. Hi Pat, I would recommend: 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 200mm (my personal choice), or 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 135mm (for wider angles of view), or 28mm, 50mm, 135mm, 300mm (if you want a longer outfit). John
Re: Lens test in German Color Foto
But I gues the PDML is right, right? :-) Paul Delcour From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:25:35 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens test in German Color Foto Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:26:17 -0400 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax SMC-FA 3,5-5.6/28-90mm, (130 Euros) 28/50/90mm: 68/75/65 pts, averag 69 pts. Pentax SMC-FA 3,2-4,5/28-105mm, (300 Euros) 28/70/105mm: 66/66/65 pts, average 66 pts. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the first of the two is a kit zoom lens, which can be bought in States for less than $100. The second one is at least one class higher and can be bought in States for $200 (Adorama). So how come the prices? How come the ratings? Or I am missing something very basic here... All lens tests are wrong. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 135/2.5 Pentax or Takumar - what's the difference?
This is the ad with the 135/2.5. Have a look at the photo and tell me which version this lens is: http://www.fotobeurs.com/zoekertjes/bekijk_details.asp?i=628u=177 Sorry, text is Dutch only, eh Flemisch actually. For that money maybe I just ought to buy it and keep looking for the real SMC 135/2.5 while using this one? What do y'all think? One thing: I'm extremely happy with all my Pentax lenses. Anything lens I do notice. As I said: my Tokina 17/3,5 is very nice, but soft. I'd like an SMC 15mm, but the price... I keep getting more and more confused and since there is no single site displaying ALL Pentax lenses, browsingand posting is the word. :-) Paul Delcour
Re: 135/2.5 Pentax or Takumar - what's the difference?
How about this one then (with hte danger that one of you may bid, but that's only fair: sharing info and all that): http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2949993396category=12877 rd=1 Is this the real one? Seems like it! :-) Paul Delcour
Re: 135/2.5 Pentax or Takumar - what's the difference?
Hi Jos, found your picture of the footballer. Very nice! Certainly the kind of picture the 135 is quite ideal for. Difficult to judge whether the SMC 135/2.5 would be noticibly better than your Takumar 135/2.5. O dear, decisions, decisions (as my mother would say). I have my eye on the SMC 135/2.5, but maybe whgen getting too expensive I'll have to go back to the Takumar. The zoom fish-eye has distortion along the whole zoom range which I simply forgot or let's just say: overlooked... I don't need the distortion effect, I need the wide view. So the prime would be better for me I feel. What would be a reasonable price? :-) Paul Delcour From: josvdh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:33:52 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 135/2.5 Pentax or Takumar - what's the difference? Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:33:07 -0400 Hi Paul, In the last pug several pictures are made with the Takumar 135/2.5 bayonet (including my picture of the little football player) I think the lens is performing quite well (I had also the Pentax 135/2.5) and certainly worth 40. Note: the word Pentaxis nowhere on the lens, only Asahi Opticaland Takumar Regards, Jos van der Hijden
Re: Fisheye zoom
How does this Russion lens compare to the Pentax fish-eye? I'm bidding on a Pentax 17mm/4 fish-eye lens right now. It ends tomorrow early evening (my time that is). What's a reasonable prive for this Pentax lens? Saw the Russian one on Ebay. :-) Paul Delcour From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11:34:51 -0600 To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fisheye zoom Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 13:32:47 -0400 Paul, several of us own the F 17-28 fisheye. It is quite a fun lens. If you don't need the zoom, an alternative that is sharper and less expensive is the Russian Zenitar 16 mm. f2.8 fisheye. It is available in both K and M42 mounts. It does not have the A setting, though, and likely never will. Thus it may not work, or work as you would want, with the latest Pentax bodies (starkist and starkistdee). Joe
New member
Hi all, let me just properly introduce myself. Should have done that before imposing my questions about the K2. My name is Paul Delcour from Hilversum, Netherlands. If you want to know a lot: http://www.delcour.org I started photography at the age of 8 or 9 woth a very simple all plastic camera. I still have those first pictures. Then my father gave me his 6x6 rollfilm camera and I made some really lovely snaps with it. Sensation when I was allowed a colour film. Then in 1978 I did a holiday job and with that money bought the then outgoing K2, a black one, for 780 Dutch guilders. Difficult to say what that would have been in pounds or dollars, let alone euro's. Wonderful camera and I was amazed at having such a fine piece of photographic equipment all at my very own disposal. Did a lot of photography with it for a couple of years. Joined a photography club linked to the university of Groningen. Learned a lot from the teaching photographer there called Ton Broekhuis. He's still an active photographer and I have to say I think he's very good. Bit of an odd one at that, but that can go with being artistic I know from my own experience. Changed studies, found my wife and didn't do all that much photography for a long time. Then in 1992 (I think) I decided I was a bit fed up with being a choir conductor and thought I'd make a serious job of being a photographer. So I started a course in photography at the Fotovakschool in Apeldoorn. Got me a second K2 (silver) and a Metz 60 flash (wonderful) to be fully armed for assignments. Reason I quitted the course: there's a hell of lot of photographers about and who am I to be another competitor. Besides, anybody can push a release buttons. As one of the teachers explained: most people are happy if uncle Bill's head AND feet are in the picture and he's in focus as well. I couldn't see myself being pleased with a lot of that kind of assignments. Apart form that, I simply couldn't master the proper film development and printing techniques. Hated it and still do. I can drool over a wonderfully well measured balk and white picture, but don't ask me to do it. I feel the technique is in my way. Felt the same when playing the piano. As a conductor I feel I have direct control over the singing. Not so over the keys. I can't say that I picked up photography again very seriously, but it's always lurking in the back of my mind. I 'see' pictures everywhere I go. But there's not much point in taking all of them if there's no purpose behind them. So I'm looking for small assignments in my circles of family and friends. To get going again and get some practise. I know this is beside the topic of this list, but I also picked up video. Got a Canon XM1 for the purpose of making a documentary about my father in law who is (since 21st of may was) an exceptional wood artist or sculpter. So I need to skill myself in video and photography both. I already took some pictures of his work: http://www.janvantol.nl They were shot in his workplace with light coming form above from three large windows. I bought a Visatec flashset however, because we would like to make an inventory of as much of his work as we can trace. That means going to people's homes and taking pictures there. In order to get the same result we felt a flashset was needed. Kep you posted on this as I have a lot of trouble of measuring the flashlight properly. My best subjects are those I simply run in to. I did some weddings and parties and those I love best. I am able to be very not present and thus am able to quietly go about and observe and shoot unposed scenes. That's my strongest point: abserve and be ready to click. I do like setting up a scene, especially since we got the flashset. It's fascinating setting up a table top and trying to get the light right. So far, after just 2 testfilms, I'm not that happy, but than I guess this takes some time before I'll know how to get it right. Equipment. I still have two K2's and somehow do not wish to part with not h of them. The black has always been my camera to use and I cannot see a lot of advances if I take up a much more recent model. Sometimes I feel the lack of autofocus as I'm always manual focussing and thus sometimes am simply too late to take the snap I 'saw'. Also 1/4000 would be nice as with 200 and 400 being the standard I sometimes run out of time... I like a large aperture to get depth. I have all Pentax SMC K lenses, except for one: Tokina 17/3.5 (very nice, though clearly softer than my Pentax lenses, but this was simply affordable - use it a lot indoors to get a room in one go) Pentax 24/2.8 (love it) Pentax 35/2 (hardly use it) Pentax 50/1.7 (great for low light, but do not use it a lot) Pentax 85/1.8 (love it) Pentax 100/4 macro (great, though not much in use) Pentax 200/4 (good, but seldom used) Pentax converter 2x (great with the 200 to get 400, but seldom used. I had a Panagor converter once which was terrible compared to the Pentax one
Re: New member
It's very easu to put up with things through emaillists... :-) Paul Delcour From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.urbancaravan.com/ Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 07:03:22 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New member Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:17:29 -0400 This must be Netherlands week, and no one told us! g You're the second new Dutch member in two days. Welcome aboard, Paul. Hopefully, if you can put up with us, you'll actually learn something! cheers, frank Paul Delcour wrote: Hi all, let me just properly introduce myself. Should have done that before imposing my questions about the K2. My name is Paul Delcour from Hilversum, Netherlands. If you want to know a lot: http://www.delcour.org I started photography at the age of 8 or 9 woth a very simple all plastic camera. I still have those first pictures. Then my father gave me his 6x6 rollfilm camera and I made some really lovely snaps with it. Sensation when I was allowed a colour film. Then in 1978 I did a holiday job and with that money bought the then outgoing K2, a black one, for 780 Dutch guilders. Difficult to say what that would have been in pounds or dollars, let alone euro's. Wonderful camera and I was amazed at having such a fine piece of photographic equipment all at my very own disposal. Did a lot of photography with it for a couple of years. Joined a photography club linked to the university of Groningen. Learned a lot from the teaching photographer there called Ton Broekhuis. He's still an active photographer and I have to say I think he's very good. Bit of an odd one at that, but that can go with being artistic I know from my own experience. Changed studies, found my wife and didn't do all that much photography for a long time. Then in 1992 (I think) I decided I was a bit fed up with being a choir conductor and thought I'd make a serious job of being a photographer. So I started a course in photography at the Fotovakschool in Apeldoorn. Got me a second K2 (silver) and a Metz 60 flash (wonderful) to be fully armed for assignments. Reason I quitted the course: there's a hell of lot of photographers about and who am I to be another competitor. Besides, anybody can push a release buttons. As one of the teachers explained: most people are happy if uncle Bill's head AND feet are in the picture and he's in focus as well. I couldn't see myself being pleased with a lot of that kind of assignments. Apart form that, I simply couldn't master the proper film development and printing techniques. Hated it and still do. I can drool over a wonderfully well measured balk and white picture, but don't ask me to do it. I feel the technique is in my way. Felt the same when playing the piano. As a conductor I feel I have direct control over the singing. Not so over the keys. I can't say that I picked up photography again very seriously, but it's always lurking in the back of my mind. I 'see' pictures everywhere I go. But there's not much point in taking all of them if there's no purpose behind them. So I'm looking for small assignments in my circles of family and friends. To get going again and get some practise. I know this is beside the topic of this list, but I also picked up video. Got a Canon XM1 for the purpose of making a documentary about my father in law who is (since 21st of may was) an exceptional wood artist or sculpter. So I need to skill myself in video and photography both. I already took some pictures of his work: http://www.janvantol.nl They were shot in his workplace with light coming form above from three large windows. I bought a Visatec flashset however, because we would like to make an inventory of as much of his work as we can trace. That means going to people's homes and taking pictures there. In order to get the same result we felt a flashset was needed. Kep you posted on this as I have a lot of trouble of measuring the flashlight properly. My best subjects are those I simply run in to. I did some weddings and parties and those I love best. I am able to be very not present and thus am able to quietly go about and observe and shoot unposed scenes. That's my strongest point: abserve and be ready to click. I do like setting up a scene, especially since we got the flashset. It's fascinating setting up a table top and trying to get the light right. So far, after just 2 testfilms, I'm not that happy, but than I guess this takes some time before I'll know how to get it right. Equipment. I still have two K2's and somehow do not wish to part with not h of them. The black has always been my camera to use and I cannot see a lot of advances if I take up a much more recent model. Sometimes I feel the lack of autofocus as I'm always manual focussing and thus sometimes am simply too late to take the snap I 'saw'. Also 1/4000 would be nice
Re: New member
That reminds me: who on this list still owns a K2 and still uses it? I'm very glad to read that many of you still use older models, sometimes even quite old. :-) Paul Delcour From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:12:27 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New member Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:03:15 -0400 Paul Delcour wrote, in part: Thanks for all the response on my K2 and now what posting. For now, I'm still very happy with it so unless someone convinces me I should get this or that model, K2's my way. The _problem_ with this list is euphamistically called enabling. What that means is that after reading about 4000 messages, you are convinced you need more. Stick with that K2 for as long as possible. And when you get the enabling bug and need to sell your K2, of course, email me _privately_. Grin. -Lon
After K2: Super A/Program or...
Meaning the Super A/Program is loud? I have a K2 and was just considering getting a Super A/Program. But there have been so many models after the K2 (which I still deeply love) that I've completely lost my way among them trying to determine which one would be the one for me. My K2 has served me now for 25 years on end without any fault whatsoever. Didn't shoot that much in all those years, maybe some 400 films, but it's a difficult count. So far the K2 has never disappointed me, so why change? Unless you know better... :-) Paul Delcour PS anyone else from Holland? From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:42:00 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Disadvantages of 6X7 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:42:07 -0400 Like the Super A/Program... Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan It is rather a noisy camera, perhaps the person who started this legend was standing beside one in use and decided that anything that loud had to vibrate. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: [Finale] Re: conveying musical meaning
You are entitled to what ever way you enjoy and make music, but in placing the notes before or over the lyrics you are forgetting that all composers started with the lyrics, were inspired by them and set their music according to the meaning of the words. You must always try and convey the meaning. Even if the lyrics cannot be understood by an audience, in the way you sing you can convey the meaning with just the sound, be it orchestral or choral. You mention that you do not know the meaning of the words. Surely you are missing the gist of every piece than. I find myself at a loss not knowing what it's all about. I've heard far too many choral performances where it was quite obvious hardly anyone knew what they were singing about. You may be surprised what you find out when you start to understand the lyrics. Even find out you're interpretation was quite wrong. Most audiences do not mind and feel they had a good time when everyone sang in pitch and the choir sounded fine. But the meaning is the point, not the sound. How ever much I am deeply in love with the sound of a choir, I cannot fall in love with a meaningless sound. I've had far too many instrumental performances too which conveyed very little meaning as well. And all of these were professional performances. All this was not my outset when I started conducting. It is my experience after 15 years of working with choral music. I often find amateur choirs to be more conveying than professionals. The pro choir sound is far too often only aimed at just sounding good. Also pro choirs are too often collections of solo singers. They do not blend, become one. I'm sorry to sound too firm or self minded, but it is because I have been disappointed so often in those 15 years. Imagine being deeply in love with something and not getting the best when you know and feel it could just as easily have been the very best. :-) Paul Delcour ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: conveying musical meaning
That may be the case, but as a conductor it is impossible to learn a choir a piece without knowing something of the intention of the piece which comes both from the words and the choral sound. Teach a choir a piece in a language they have no clue what ever it means and they will be lost, be it not all the way of course, since the music has some meaning and therefore gives guidance. But add the meaning of the words and away they go. At least my choirs do so. Apart from this: adding lyrics to existing music is much harder than the other way round. And it shows, I mean hears. O well, you know what I mean. :-) Paul Delcour Christopher BJ Smith wrote: At 10:25 PM +0200 6/05/02, Paul Delcour wrote: You are entitled to what ever way you enjoy and make music, but in placing the notes before or over the lyrics you are forgetting that all composers started with the lyrics, were inspired by them and set their music according to the meaning of the words. Nah, that's not true. Lots of composers start with the tune, or something else. I think your opinion is one (albeit an excellent one) way among many of approaching the composition of a piece of choral music. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: conveying musical meaning
What I mean is: if there are obvious lyrics with a clear meaning, this meaning has to be conveyed, ie used in the expression of the piece. But even children using nonsense lyrics show an intention. And it's this intention I mean. So meaning is a wrong word I admit. But doesn't knowing the meaning of the words add so much more to your already great enjoyment and thrill? Many lyrics may be banal,but so is most of the music I hear... I write lyrics myself and always try to compose them as carefully as I do my music: taking care of sound, metre, rhythm. I feel I am obliged to do so, even if audiences may not appreciate this. Most of life's things have been said in words and expressed in sounds millions of times over and over again. Still, we long for 'new' lyrics and sounds on and on. Looking at musical history there's not much really new going on. Some aspects go back 1000's of years. Yet somehow that is what we want: over and over again 'new' lyrics and sounds. I mean that the sound of a piece conveys a meaning, an intention, an atmosphere. Therefore you can deduce something of the meaning of the lyrics, can't you? The choir won't sound jumping for joy when singing a requiem, will they? And please forget Randy. He's can easily be caught himself for following far too generalised and not well researched methods. I know. I've spoken with him on issues. He wants to disbelief just as hard as some people want to believe. The blindness is on both sides. Sorry for this far too much OT... My essential point: what's the point of singing if you have no words? You can bla bla and la la all you want, but you cannot build many compositions on that for long. A Finale point to end with: I still hate it that when copying notes with lyrics, those lyrics end up in different verses than they were originally. I still solve this, when I need to, by erasing all lyrics and typing them in again. Why? Because when changing the height of the line of lyrics I don't have to search in what verse they are. Thanks for all your remarks. It helps me to become more conscious of what I do as a conductor and composer/arranger and what I want to achieve. All the best! :-) Paul Delcour Stu McIntire wrote: To each his own! But I don't believe that composers always started with lyrics. I think the earliest melodies eons ago might have been sung to words, syllables, or vocables that were just interesting or rhythmic in themselves. Think how much children (ontogeny begets phylogeny?) like to sing nonsense tunes, like zoom golly golly golly zoom golly gol-ly. Even effective poetry - without music - sometimes frequently emphasizes sheer sound over meaning, like Jabberwockey. The earliest composers in the Western Art tradition wrote for the church, so yes, they set lyrics with very definite meanings appropriate for their use. But they quickly, in a few hundred years, developed compositional techniques that sometimes render the lyrics secondary, at least to my ears. Okeghem and others of that time and ilk, whose music I love. I sometimes don't know the words, such as when I hear a new piece on the radio or when I'm in a concert when I haven't had a chance to read a translation in the program, if there is one. I always prefer to know them, but enjoy music with non-English lyrics if they are not available. I can enjoy voices simply as the instruments they are, particularly when blended well. The lyrics of a tremendous amount of choral and vocal music, including great pieces, are banal at best anyway, even when the sentiments they express are worthy enough. If a composition is exciting and interesting, the choral performance top notch, and the words clear but express the same thing that's been expressed a thousand times before in a mundane way, what then? Has your need for meaning been met? I might truly love the piece. Might love it even more if the lyrics had been artfully written. I cannot agree with you at all that an audience can potentially understand lyrics in a language they don't know because of the way they are sung. That is a metaphysical proposition that could be easily disproved by someone with far less skill than the Amazing Randy! Unless your use of the word meaning in this sentence means something broader than what the words literally mean, in which case you would be starting to sound like me and I would be very confused. In any case, I think we agree that the best experience comes when the music is good, the performance is good, the lyrics are clearly heard and understood, and are well written. We do disagree on the bottom line, though: to me, if whatever it is is a musical composition, the sound is the point, not the meaning of the words. Hey, it's a big world! Cheers! Stu -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Delcour Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:26 PM Cc: Finale Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: conveying musical meaning You
Re: Macintosh Owners
Well pointed out and I have looked at the site and have made a link. Thanks for the info. :-) Paul Delcour - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Introduction
Ah, I made the list from memory and as I seldom use it I thought it might be a 3.5. It is of course a 35/2.8. So hold the emails folks. Just to add that all my Pentax lenses are non AF, ie the normal K bajonet type. :-) Paul Delcour - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: 2001 Tokyo Motor Show
Hi Jeff, please tell me what camera you are using, specially the pix number. These look great. I'm seriously considering switching to digital. :-) Paul Delcour - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Introduction
Is there really a 35/3.5 Pentax lens about? If so, why is it so special? :-) Paul Delcour - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
