date:20030703

That's just a FA*85 with FA*24 hood. Supposed to be a joke. Dream on...

regards,
Alan Chan
See this page:
http://www.cameraunion.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=139413&pagenumber=1
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

RE: FA* 2/14mm : new's or troll ??

> -Original Message-
> From: Michel Carrere-Gee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> See this page:
> http://www.cameraunion.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=139
> 413&pagenumber=1
> 
> Michel

Looks like the 24/2 to me.

tv

Re: FA* 2/14mm : new's or troll ??

2003-07-03 Thread Hans Imglueck

Hi Michel,

the picture is surely of a FA* 2/24mm. For the rest around
I have to admit that I cannot read it.

Hans.

--- Michel Carrère-Gée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>See this page:
>http://www.cameraunion.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=139413&pagenumber=1
>
>Michel

_
23a mail

FA* 2/14mm : new's or troll ??

2003-07-03 Thread Michel Carrère-Gée

See this page:
http://www.cameraunion.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=139413&pagenumber=1
Michel

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

Good usability is when a company has the solvency to get a product onto the
store shelves.  Bad usability is having no product, and no company, as a
result of clinging to old manufacturing inefficiencies in order to placate a
noisy but financially unrewarding minority of potential customers.

Give Pentax some credit for knowing how to make cameras that, in most cases,
sell well.  They don't make the camera I most want, either, but then nobody
else does because I'm a dinosaur in the age of automation.

It's ironic that I think using a camera manually means having only focus,
aperture and shutter speed to manipulate.  Others would say that manual mode
includes a meter, while yet others want the film wound and the focus
accomplished by the camera but still call it 'manual' mode because they
would bypass the AE mode of the meter.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Anthony Farr"
> Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
> "American Photo" magazine)
>
>
> > At it again, eh Peter.
> >
> > A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and
be
> > able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture.  How does that lack
> > "usability"?
>
> Good useability is when the manufacture tries to make it easier to use a
> product combination. Bad usability is when they make it usable at the
lowest
> level possible.
> I expect Peter assumed that when he used the term "usability", the reader
> would presume good, not bad as being desirable.
>
> William Robb
>
>

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you.  I know
your
> argument and I think you are short sighted.  Pål is passing opinion as
fact
> and
> he should be called on it.  I wasn't the only one who did.  I make no
other
> claim
> than that.
>

Peter,

That's a pretty empty comment, cheap and nasty in fact.  As I wasn't part of
the discussion until then you could ONLY have ignored me.  You may have been
responding immediately to Pål, but you were doing it in a public forum, so
any claim to exclude third party comments is invalid.  If you want your
discussion with Pål to be personal why was it accessable to anyone else?

Pål's writing style is well known and established on PDML, and it becomes
tiresome that you and some others can't adjust to it.  Give the Scandinavian
a break if he uses absolute definitions when something more flexible or
abstract would be more fitting.  The world is wider than English speaking
countries and I for one am impressed and pleased that so many people from
non-English speaking countries make the effort to correspond with us.

As for *ist compatability, I can equally say that I know your argument and I
think you are short sighted.  Pentax knows more about making and selling
cameras than you or I ever will.  They are looking towards the whole world
of new camera buyers, not a couple of hundred retro gear afficianados on an
email list.

Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in
recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even
prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses?

You expect Pentax to be cheaper than CN&M (I've read as much), but OTOH you
can't abide it when they actually apply the same measures as their
competitors in an effort to equalise the comparitive costs and qualities.

GET THIS.  Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their
current and planned lenses.  With the possible exception of the soft focus
lenses they are compatible with all lenses made for a little over TWENTY
YEARS at the level of function that the lens offered when new (and that's
extremely generous).  With any older Pentax K-mount lens they can either be
used fully manually, or in a  metered mode with a non-functional diaphragm,
and M42 lenses with adapters can be used in stopdown metered modes.

That's a pretty good effort IMO, better than most and vastly better than the
brand most often touted as the one to jump ship for.  But it's so typical of
the Bitch & Moan element of PDML that all one reads is reasons why CN&M are
better, and how Pentax should be more like them and yet remain
individualistic, have faster and quieter AF but still have sharper AF, and
have faster film wind, but be lighter with less battery consumption, and
have higher shutter speeds and X-synchs, but have more durable and
dependable shutters, and not be plastic, and always be weather sealed, and
have USM and IS (even though their target customers are not in the USM/IS
spending category), but still always be cheaper than CN&M.  Why don't you
just buy a Canon and be done with it?  Then you'll never be embarrassed for
your camera's sake, again.

And THEN you call me short sighted, WHAT A JOKE! (not laughing)

Anthony Farr

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr"
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"American Photo" magazine)

> At it again, eh Peter.
>
> A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be
> able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture.  How does that lack
> "usability"?

Good useability is when the manufacture tries to make it easier to use a
product combination. Bad usability is when they make it usable at the lowest
level possible.
I expect Peter assumed that when he used the term "usability", the reader
would presume good, not bad as being desirable.

William Robb

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

Rob,

It's relative.  I'm 'old school' in many ways.  I've never been a great
advocate of TTL metering, and certainly don't find it indispensable.  Only
my 35mm cameras have it, and only because I wasn't able to opt out of it and
apply the funds elsewhere, as I did with other formats.

Even in changeable conditions it usually only takes me a few minutes at
setup time to guage the exposure in each part of the field of interest, and
then apply the changes manually, from memory, as I move about.  That's for
fast working, most often I'd hand meter every shot even if the camera did
have a TTL meter.

How about this?http://www.cosina.co.jp/vc-meter/index.html   (sorry
about Japanese language only, their link to the English page was broken)

One of these might be handy if a pre-A lens and metering is required.  OK
it's not TTL and it's doesn't have the conceptual purity of internal
metering, but it would be usable, and it shouldn't make the user feel too
ridiculous  };-)>

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On 4 Jul 2003 at 12:23, Anthony Farr wrote:
>
> > Oh, that's right!  You can't use the internal light meter at the same
time
> > except at the largest aperture only.  That's a shame, and a nuisance,
but no
> > more than that.
>
> Only a nuisance? Not from my perspective, I find it ridiculous, very short
> sighted and a reason for me to have lost much enthusiasm.
>
> 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: Kodak Gold 100 - RIP

At 03:06 PM 7/3/2003 -0500, Gary L. Murphy wrote:
Mark Cassino wrote:

The other day I noticed that the mondo-super-ulta-one-stop store


Wally World?  :-)))
Naw - Meijers, the original superstore around these parts.  They have 
dropped their prices a lot since Wally showed up though!

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -

Re: It is about time for Limited zoom lenses

2003-07-03 Thread Caveman

Stan Halpin wrote:
Good idea Pål .  I agree except on the low end, I would opt for a 16-32mm/4
or an 18-35mm/4  Alternatively, we need a Limited wide angle prime in the
16-18 range. At the long end, I could nicely live with a 75-150mmm/4. I
don't know much about lens design, (basically zero, actually);
No problem, you can order them to your exact specifications:

http://www.opticalres.com/engr/imaging_f.html

cheers,
caveman

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

At 05:07 PM 7/3/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote:

The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX 
had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses 
compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses 
and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of 
compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway!
You make a good point but it's a technical point and I think you are 
confusing people.  At least I was confused the first few times I read your 
statement.

K mount lenses were introduced in 1975. The LX was introduced in 
1980.  While the LX could use screw-mount lenses with an adapter, that 
resulted in the loss of some features (like open aperture metering) so you 
deem the LX to have been "fully compatible" only with K mount lenses, and K 
mount lenses had a  5 year history at the time that the LX was introduced.

The *ist-D is compatible with all "A " lenses, and the later F and FA 
lenses.  "A" lenses were introduced approximately 20 years ago.  So this 
camera has 20 years worth of lenses that it can work with.

Personally, I'm not terribly upset about the *ist_D's lens 
compatibility.  I have precisely one lens - my Rikenon 55m f1.2 - that I 
would really like to use with a digital body.  But since I hardly ever use 
it with film, I'm not losing out too badly to be unable to use it with digital.

I don't pretend to be able to count, but I looked at the current PUG and 
wondered how many of the shots there could be taken with the *ist-D.  It 
looks like there are 63 entries, 20 of which were shot with K or M lenses, 
and 3 of which were shot with screw mount lenses.  When I did not know the 
particulars about a third party lens, I assumed it was A compatible.

I think that is a telling statistic. In regards the folks on this list, the 
compatibility issues of the *ist-D could be significant.

Of course, a lot of folks who use older lenses may not be interested in a 
digital body under any circumstance.

As a Pentax user, I hope the *ist-D works out well.  If it kicks out good, 
low-noise images, I'll buy one.

But the Pentax corporate and marketing types need to understand that if the 
Pentax brand does not have any meaning, they will fail.  Pentax used to be 
associated with Super Multi Coating, but as was discussed her some time 
ago, "SMC" is now just a trade mark.  Pentax used to stand for backwards 
compatibility, but  the *ist cameras toss that aside.  So what defines 
Pentax as a brand?  Auto focus abilities?  No.  Auto metering abilities? 
No.  Build quality? Except for the Mz-S, no.

It's not enough to be good at everything. To survive, a brand needs to be 
good at everything and outstanding at one or two things.  So what is Pentax 
outstanding at?  They used to be outstanding at compatibility.  Now??? 
Pentax is not outstanding at autofocus, they are not outstanding at 
autometering, they are not outstanding at pro level support (ie. -renting 
lenses, etc.), they are not outstanding in lens lineup (something they had 
with the A series)...

My personal analysis is that Pentax dug themselves in a hole with the 
compatibility issue, and now they are trying to pull themselves 
out.  Maintaining backwards compatibility is expensive, and gets you little 
in the market.  But they gotta come up with some defining factor, or they 
will fail.  They can produce perfectly fine and competent products, but if 
people don't associate "Pentax" with something outstanding, they won't buy 
into it as a brand

I can only hope that the management at Pentax is sophisticated and 
competent enough to actually understand the marketplace and produce 
products that will be successful. In that light, the *ist-D may be a step 
in the right direction.  But I worry that it may  be just another random 
step from a company that has seemingly wandered about randomly though the 
marketplace for the last 20 years.

- MCC





- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

You know, I was responding immediately to Pål, I was ignoring you.  I know your
argument and I think you are short sighted.  Pål is passing opinion as fact 
and
he should be called on it.  I wasn't the only one who did.  I make no other 
claim
than that.

At 12:23 PM 7/4/03 +1000, Anthony Farr wrote:
At it again, eh Peter.

A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be
able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture.  How does that lack
"usability"?
Oh, that's right!  You can't use the internal light meter at the same time
except at the largest aperture only.  That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no
more than that.  The problem is people on the list who don't know better
will take your word as gospel.
As you see I've quoted your entire message, including its preceding
messages, so I can't be accused of taking you out of context.  I'd quote the
whole thread if I thought it would better illustrate your context, but I'd
feel slightly ridiculous doing that  };-)>
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"American Photo" magazine)
> Pål
>
> When you take a position you defend it even when it's
> indefensible.  The problem is people on the list
> who don't know better will take your word as gospel.  The LX had at least
> limited but useable compatibility
> with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras.  As a
> "landscape photographer" you know exactly
> what that means.  The *ist series abandons the usability part of that
> equation.
>
> At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
> >Arnold wrote:
> >
> >It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because
> >they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market
> >for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard
> >sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards
> >compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only
> >spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not
> >unneccessarily devalued.
> >
> >
> >REPLY:
> >
> >It IS true. You are just an exception.
> >The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX
> >had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old
lenses
> >compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses
> >and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection
of
> >compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it
anyway!
> >
> >Pål
> >
> >
>
> To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything
is
> designed by
>  the post office, even the sleaze.
>  O'Rourke, P.J.
>
>
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

Re: It is about time for Limited zoom lenses

2003-07-03 Thread Stan Halpin

on 7/03/03 9:54 AM, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I think do. Theres a hole in the common lens line-ups that needs to be filled:
> the compact well built zoom. Eother zooms are consumer grade and lightweight
> or they are pro grade an heavy. A niche for us landscape shooters, or simply
> for those who wants something  better than the consume stuff, is the well
> made, compact, relatively slow zoom lens. Since the average consumer would
> probably not appreciate anything that cost a bit more, such lenses would be
> natural for the "Limited treatment".
> Consider how great the zoom lenses for Pentax medium format are. They are not
> particularly fast or have particularly large zoom range. Still they are
> excellent.
> May I suggest something like a 23-43/4.5 AL Limited and a 77-177/4.5 ED IF
> Limited. Two chrome such Limited lenses and a chrome MZ-S. That would be a
> dream lightweight landscape outfit for the connoisseur.
> 
> Pål  
> 
> 

Good idea Pål .  I agree except on the low end, I would opt for a 16-32mm/4
or an 18-35mm/4  Alternatively, we need a Limited wide angle prime in the
16-18 range. At the long end, I could nicely live with a 75-150mmm/4. I
don't know much about lens design, (basically zero, actually); I am assuming
that giving up anything beyond a 2X zoom range would make it easier to build
a faster lens. And I have no idea if those variables are in anyway involved
indirect tradeoffs...

Also note that the new Limiteds also need to be black to match the *ist-D,
the MZ-S and the LX (which are obviously the bodies where they are most
likely to be used).

Stan

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

2003-07-03 Thread Rob Studdert

On 4 Jul 2003 at 12:23, Anthony Farr wrote:

> Oh, that's right!  You can't use the internal light meter at the same time
> except at the largest aperture only.  That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no
> more than that.  

Only a nuisance? Not from my perspective, I find it ridiculous, very short 
sighted and a reason for me to have lost much enthusiasm.

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: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

"eBay does not permit wildcard (*) searches containing fewer than 2 letters.
Please enter more letters."

When I counted it, *ist had three letters, or four if you include the
asterisk.  eBay is flouting its own rules.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)
>
> But look what a search of *ist on ebay brings up:
>
>
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=*ist
>
> Maybe that is the real story behind the name - if you can't find it on
> eBay, people might actually buy it new
>
> - MCC
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Mark Cassino
> Kalamazoo, MI
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Photos:
> http://www.markcassino.com
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>

Re: Pentax FA 24-90 Lens

2003-07-03 Thread Ryan Charron

Hi Everyone,

Popular Photography tested the Pentax 24-90 mm lens
when it came out and I kept the results and compared
it to their test of the Tokina 28-80 f2.8 ATX Pro 
when it was released earlier.
The Tokina blew it away optically and in build
quality.

A Fellow Pentaxian,
Ryan

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: lightning

I tried this a few weeks back and the same trouble. Always seemed to be 
facing the wrong way.
I was very lucky when I took this shot. The lightning was lasting for 1/2 an 
hour that night and I started to setup my equipment 1/2 way. I took a few 
shots only and this was the only one turned out okay. Frame ovelapped, 
incorrect exposure, you name it. Eventually I just open the shutter and 
count how many lightning I got on film, then close the shutter.

I really like the lightning shot, where was it taken Alan?
It was taken in Hong Kong. Glad you like it.  :-)

regards,
Alan Chan
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

Arnold,

Apparently the *ist D isn't the right camera for you.  You could either hope
for better from future models above entry level, or you could look for
another DSLR that fits K-mount lenses.  Who knows, someone might make a K to
4/3 adapter.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this
> adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter
> works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount
> lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the
> *ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you
> explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all
> apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I
> should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC
> Takumars as those are more up-to-date?
>
> Arnold
>

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

At it again, eh Peter.

A camera user can use an *ist, and can use on it any K mount lens, and be
able to use any shutter speed and use any aperture.  How does that lack
"usability"?

Oh, that's right!  You can't use the internal light meter at the same time
except at the largest aperture only.  That's a shame, and a nuisance, but no
more than that.  The problem is people on the list who don't know better
will take your word as gospel.

As you see I've quoted your entire message, including its preceding
messages, so I can't be accused of taking you out of context.  I'd quote the
whole thread if I thought it would better illustrate your context, but I'd
feel slightly ridiculous doing that  };-)>

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"American Photo" magazine)


> Pål
>
> When you take a position you defend it even when it's
> indefensible.  The problem is people on the list
> who don't know better will take your word as gospel.  The LX had at least
> limited but useable compatibility
> with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras.  As a
> "landscape photographer" you know exactly
> what that means.  The *ist series abandons the usability part of that
> equation.
>
> At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
> >Arnold wrote:
> >
> >It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because
> >they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market
> >for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard
> >sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards
> >compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only
> >spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not
> >unneccessarily devalued.
> >
> >
> >REPLY:
> >
> >It IS true. You are just an exception.
> >The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX
> >had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old
lenses
> >compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses
> >and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection
of
> >compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it
anyway!
> >
> >Pål
> >
> >
>
> To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything
is
> designed by
>  the post office, even the sleaze.
>  O'Rourke, P.J.
>
>

MZ-50

2003-07-03 Thread Gary L. Murphy

This will go on eBay if no one here wants it. Email OFF-LIST for photos.

MZ-50 with strap and FG battry grip. In KEH (EX+ ) condition.

$100.00 plus actual shipping

Will accept PayPal, Cashiers Check, or Postal Money Orders.



--
Later,
Gary

Re: I Am Pissed!

2003-07-03 Thread zcaballero

I am home.  I understand your point, but Mr. B. went to an unknown (so 
I understand) source where the price was low.  It serves him right for 
using a cheap lab with an unknown (to him) history.

With all the $$ people spend on cameras, all the discussion about 
minutiea of quality, why take your film to an unknown cheap source?

BTW, I use labs of all qualities, including cheap and dirty 1 hour lab 
in local market.  It's all a matter of knowing the quality that you 
are willing to accept for a given roll of film. 

When in doubt, use a lab that you know and that you're satisfied with.

I understand the differences between cheap and quality.  Mr. B. 
certainly knew where to take his film for an opinion once it was 
ruined.  Methinks you take this too personally.

Z


- Original Message - 
From: "zcaballero"
Subject: Re: I Am Pissed!


> Imhave no sympathy for you.  After all the years you have spent 
making
> photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of
> concern to a cheap amateur lab like that.  At least you have now
> learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you
> paid for cheap crap!
>
> I read here and other places of people using inexpensive "labs" and
> cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not 
good.
> To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a
> few more pennies and get good quality always.

You are not only wrong, you are an ass.

The quality a lab puts out is controlled by the people operating the
equipment, and this has little bearing on the price point the lab runs 
at.
You stand as good a chance of having your film ruined by a tech who 
has come
to work pissed off that he didn't get laid the night before at an 
expensive
lab as anywhere else.

I have been working at a Wal-Mart (cheap processing) lab for 6 years, 
and
have processed close to a half million rolls of film while there. I 
can
count on one hand the number of times I have had to te
mer 
that we
damaged their film.

My previous employer was a specialty lab run by a cheap prick. We 
charged
pro rates and scratched every film that went through the processor 
because
the moron that ran the place wouldn't pay for needed parts to fix the
machinery.

Get your facts straight or go home.

William Robb





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Al Garden Center Peraga fioriscono nuove iniziative: ecco i Tour Day Peraga, per 
andare alla scoperta del Canavese! INFO 0125 665500
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1613&d=4-7

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Eactivist

>Care to set one up for NorCal PDML'ers?

>Bruce


Thinking about it. Late August, early September, maybe.

Could anyone in Northern CA. mail me off list and tell me where you live so I 
have some idea how many of us there are and how far we are scattered apart? 
Thanks.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: lightning

2003-07-03 Thread Scott D

I tried this a few weeks back and the same trouble. Always seemed to be 
facing the wrong way.

I really like the lightning shot, where was it taken Alan?

--
Scott
Alan Chan wrote:

I have done lightning once only, back in 1990 I think. The setting was 
like, as I remember, Kodak Gold 200, 35mm f5.6 30s. No filter.

http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/lightning.jpg

regards,
Alan Chan
I tried to capture some lightning strikes the other day and didn't 
have any
luck. The bolts always appeared in a direction other than where the 
camera
was pointing and then the rain came. Does anyone have any suggestions 
for a
good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a 
polarizer
so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my 
chances but
now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on 
the
film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and
underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes 
long when
I allowed for the polarizing filter.


_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: It is about time for Limited zoom lenses

2003-07-03 Thread Caveman

Pål Jensen wrote:

May I suggest something like a 23-43/4.5 AL Limited and a 77-177/4.5 ED IF Limited. Two chrome such Limited lenses and a chrome MZ-S. 
Got it, and we'll include a bonus 3-D effect, cream and a cherry. Would 
that be pick-up or delivery ?

cheers,
caveman

Re: FA 24-90 focal length

2003-07-03 Thread Rob Studdert

On 3 Jul 2003 at 16:50, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:

> on 03.07.03 15:29, keller.schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Interesting. But read test of this lens in Popular Photography:
> http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=327
> They rate 24-90 as 24.42-87.14 mm in reality. Who is right?
> Also, have you tried 24-90 at different focusing distances? Internal
> focusing AFAIK changes a bit focal length, so maybe here is the point?

At a 3m subject distance my A*85/1.4 definitely shows narrower field of view 
than my FA24-90 at 90mm. However what I noticed is that the magnification seems 
far more affected by focal distance using the zoom so at an effective infinity 
subject distance it may well measure more like 90mm (or ~87mm)

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: Future Pentax e-bay classics

2003-07-03 Thread Rob Studdert

On 3 Jul 2003 at 17:00, Pål Jensen wrote:

> Chrome MZ-S bodies and black Limited lenses are going to fetch stellar prices on
> e-bay in the future. You just mark my word...

Before of after Pentax is no longer?

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: *ist D was not production type :-(

- Original Message - 
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-(

> Hi
> OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic
> shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds
of
> rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new
> one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast.

I am still driving a 1995 car, my wife is driving a 1985 car. While the auto
industry has surely evolved greatly, especially in the past 18 years, we
have stayed with what we know.
Why would a person automatically junk a camera every couple of years, just
because something "better" (a vacuous justification at best) has come along?
If the product serves you well when you buy it, it will probably still serve
you well in a decade.
Perhaps all the screw heads or manual focus camera users on this list know
something you don't? Camera technology has surely passed these people by,
but they continue to plod along making pictures that make them happy with
very old technology equipment.

Regarding plastic camera bodies, they may or may not be more rugged. I have
seen more than enough plastic shelled SLR's that fell the wrong way and got
seriously damaged.
For myself, I still trust metal over plastic.

William Robb

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)


- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen"
Subject: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"American Photo" magazine)


> It IS true. You are just an exception.
> The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX
had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses
compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and
I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of
compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it
anyway!

What a hilarious pile of crap.

William Robb

Re: I Am Pissed!

- Original Message - 
From: "zcaballero"
Subject: Re: I Am Pissed!

> Imhave no sympathy for you.  After all the years you have spent making
> photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of
> concern to a cheap amateur lab like that.  At least you have now
> learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you
> paid for cheap crap!
>
> I read here and other places of people using inexpensive "labs" and
> cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good.
> To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a
> few more pennies and get good quality always.

You are not only wrong, you are an ass.

The quality a lab puts out is controlled by the people operating the
equipment, and this has little bearing on the price point the lab runs at.
You stand as good a chance of having your film ruined by a tech who has come
to work pissed off that he didn't get laid the night before at an expensive
lab as anywhere else.

I have been working at a Wal-Mart (cheap processing) lab for 6 years, and
have processed close to a half million rolls of film while there. I can
count on one hand the number of times I have had to tell a customer that we
damaged their film.

My previous employer was a specialty lab run by a cheap prick. We charged
pro rates and scratched every film that went through the processor because
the moron that ran the place wouldn't pay for needed parts to fix the
machinery.

Get your facts straight or go home.

William Robb

Re: AF TC?

2003-07-03 Thread Doug Franklin

On Thu,  3 Jul 2003 20:26:04 -0400, jerome wrote:

> Your understanding is correct. In that respect, I suppose it can be said that 
> it is not a "true" AF adaptor. Sorry to have misled you. However, I wouldn't 
> say that it is totally useless for an AF lens (I use it with an FA 300mm 2.8), 
> as it can be used in the same fashion as you described for the mf lenses. 

I used it with the FA* 200/2.8 last weekend.  Worked fine.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: AF TC?

> But isn't this the af adapter for mf lenses. The way I understand is that it
> moves the tc element to make mf lenes "af". It does not actually pass the af
> info to the lens

Your understanding is correct. In that respect, I suppose it can be said that 
it is not a "true" AF adaptor. Sorry to have misled you. However, I wouldn't 
say that it is totally useless for an AF lens (I use it with an FA 300mm 2.8), 
as it can be used in the same fashion as you described for the mf lenses. 

It is my hope (and I'm sure that of plenty others) that Pentax eventually gets 
around to fixing such omissions in their gear line-up.

I hope you find what you're looking for.
 - jerome

Re: AF TC?

2003-07-03 Thread Vick, Jason

But isn't this the af adapter for mf lenses. The way I understand is that it moves the 
tc element to make mf lenes "af". It does not actually pass the af info to the lens
Jason
 
Sent via wireless messaging device.

Re: SV: Future Pentax e-bay classics

2003-07-03 Thread Łukasz Kacperczyk

> Time to have a nice holiday in Japan and stock up every silver MZ-S you
can.
> This baby is even less common than black Limited.

But it sure looks much worse than black ltds.

Regards,
Łukasz

Re: 43mm Limited

2003-07-03 Thread Lukasz Kacperczyk

> Cheers!
>
> Karen Nakamura
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to
> make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself!
> :-)"

FWIW - I remember that woman from a RF List, and she seems an honest person.

Regards,
Lukasz

Re: AF TC?

> As far as I know, there are no pentax af tc's.

And now you know differently :o)

http://www.pentax.co.uk/cgi-
bin/pentax.storefront/3f04b3a1007a0f482740c2d886f006a5/Catalog/1023

There's a typo on that page, it should be 1.7x, not 17.x (boy, wouldn't that be 
interesting). In case the page doesn't load properly, that should be the Pentax 
1.7x AF adapter that you're looking at. You'll get very mixed responses with 
respect to how well the AF part of this TC actually works (basically you have 
to get it "close" to focused, and then the TC will do the rest)... but at least 
you now know it exists. 

Regards,
- jerome

Re: Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?

I wrote:

> I haven't noticed any distortion

I should clarify. I meant that I haven't noticed anything "abnormal" about the 
distortion at 24mm. Nothing that you wouldn't expect. And nothing (to me) that 
says, "hey! thats a wide angle lens".. which is what I *don't* want in my 
landscape shots (i.e., no funky fish-eye stuff going on). And in fact, IMO, 
even at 24mm it doesn't seem to distort anywhere close to how my Pentax PZ 28-
105 does at 28mm, which gives me very noticeable distortion when things are too 
close.  Again, I guess the bottom line is that in looking at my shots @ 24mm, 
distortion has never come to mind.

Re: AF TC?

2003-07-03 Thread Vick, Jason

As far as I know, there are no pentax af tc's.
Does anyone have any 3rd party recommendations for these lenses?
Jason

Sent via wireless messaging device.

Re: Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?

Firstly, I will readily admit that I haven't shot enough frames with this lens 
to give a *conclusive* review of it... but I do own it. And I must say that I 
love this lens thus far! For one (you didn't ask about it, but) the "feel" and 
the build quality are definitely to my liking (I'd say the build is "superb", 
but then someone will surely nit-pick behind me). 

As for the optics, personally I've been very pleased with it so far. I've only 
used it for landscapes thus far, and almost always at or close to the 24mm end, 
but the sharpness on the light-table has yet to let me down.

> Is this a good lens optically? 

I'd say yes, with no reservations.

> I am comparing it to the tokina atx 28-80mm
> and Sigma 28-70mm and tamron 28-105mm. 

Sorry... I can't compare since I only own this one.


> Much distortion at the 24mm end

I haven't noticed any distortion. That doesn't mean "no", but I guess it at 
least means that it's not obvious. Sorry I can't give more details, but I'm 
honestly not one to "test" lenses... I just use 'em until I find a problem.


> flare well controlled.

I've had no flare issues with this lens (and I'm very good at forgetting to use 
the hood with it)... but then I've yet to use it to shoot directly into the sun.

HTH,
jerome



http://www.exposedfilm.net

Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?

2003-07-03 Thread adphoto

Is this a good lens optically? I am comparing it to the tokina atx 28-80mm
and Sigma 28-70mm and tamron 28-105mm. Much distortion at the 24mm end, is
flare well controlled.

Re: Optio S Case;

2003-07-03 Thread Frits Wüthrich

http://www.fotoversand24.de/fotoversand24.htm?vid=3feb3e3c7fac1f70fdc20fda07680a91&pid=997&tid=shop/4&cp=1&pmid=1&psid=21&mid=2&sid=3&ssid=32&ptid=shop/2

399 euro excluding memory card.

Are you located in Europe, perhaps the Netherlands based on your name?

Regards,
Frits

On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 13:20, Jan van Wijk wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:15:57 -0400, Bill Owens wrote:
> 
> > Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ?
> >
> > They're hard to find in the USA right now, according to my local dealers
> 
> I will be near SF the first two weeks of october, so I can't use mail-order.
> I will be visiting a few of the big photo-stores I guess and see if I can find one.
> 
> >they're backordered due to higher than expected demand.  I got mine at the
> >Wal-Mart website (www.walmart.com) for $397.00 US including a 128 MB SD
> 
> That is a good price!
> 
> Maybe prices will even drop a bit, they might plan for an Optio-S upgrade
> end of the year or early 2004 ...
> 
> Regards, JvW
> --
> Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
-- 
Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

FS: 43mm Limited

2003-07-03 Thread frank theriault

This was recently posted on Leica Users Group, and I received the
author's permission to post it here, as some might be interested:

"[Sorry to break the Friday-posting rule, this is a one-time thing]

I was wandering around some used camera stores in Osaka today and found
two lenses that are of interested to the LUG and CVUG folks:

 * Pentax 43mm f/1.9  (new in box w/warrantee) - $600
 * Cosina Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2  (new in box w/ warrantee) - $1000

If you're interested in either of the two, please let me know.  The
store had two of the Pentaxes and two of the CV 35mm f1/.2s . I'm going
to the store again on Saturday, so please let me know if you're
interested.

I'll be returning to the U.S. on July 16th and you can pay me then by
Paypal, check, MO, bidpay, etc.  Shipping would be around $8 since I
live in St. Paul (Minnesota).

Please e-mail me privately ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you're interested.

Cheers!

Karen Nakamura
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to
make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself!
:-)"

cheers,
frank



--
"What a senseless waste of human life"
-The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch

Re: Pentax-A 300mm f2.8

2003-07-03 Thread Stephen Moore

Andre Langevin wrote:

> A little bit over eleven hundreds for a Pentax-A 300mm f2.8.  
> Is this a common price for this lens?

Sounds like a bargain...if you want a *green* one.


Stephen

Re: AF TC?

Which are the best AF teleconverters for use with F 100mm macro and the FA 
200mm f/2.8?
The best TC for FA*200/2.8 is A2X-L, as suggested by Pentax. However, it is 
not AF.

regards,
Alan Chan
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

>Cotty has, I think, been known to snap pix of waitresses.
>I seem to remember one on PDML, but I'm too damned lazy
>to confirm such.
>
>Cotty wrote:
>>>Did you at least get a shot of the waitress?

Good memory Lon. I'm impressed.






Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto" magazine

>If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this:
>http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/
>
>It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome

Needs a comb running through that hair.

Also, Pampita is a nice name, but the rest sounds like something you
paint on a fence.


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

2003-07-03 Thread Lon Williamson

Cotty has, I think, been known to snap pix of waitresses.
I seem to remember one on PDML, but I'm too damned lazy
to confirm such.
Cotty wrote:
Did you at least get a shot of the waitress?


Letch!



Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: FA 24-90 focal length

I always knew my FA77 is actually a FA85.  :-)

regards,
Alan Chan
Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality. 
Subsequently I
bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical 
quality as
very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good.

What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the 
lens
in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my 
M
2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super
K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. 
As
the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from
infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to 
measure
this with some precision.

The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1 
mm).

I have also tested some other Pentax lenses:
M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm
M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm
M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm
M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm
and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says.
Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm
designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does 
it
like that).

So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80.

I thought you might be interested.

Sven
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Kodak Gold 100 - RIP

2003-07-03 Thread Gary L. Murphy

Mark Cassino wrote:

The other day I noticed that the mondo-super-ulta-one-stop store


Wally World?  :-)))



--
Later,
Gary

SV: Future Pentax e-bay classics

Hi Pål
Have you got one?
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. juli 2003 17:00
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Future Pentax e-bay classics


Chrome MZ-S bodies and black Limited lenses are going to fetch stellar
prices on e-bay in the future. You just mark my word...

Pål

SV: lightning

Hi
I recently saw a TV show about an American who made GREAT lightning shots:
He was just shooting away - he didn't wait for the "flash" to appear on the
sky. That would be too late anyway. He fired ALL THE TIME - really -
pointing at the part of the sky where I believed the lighning show. Using
speeds about 2-0.5 second (AFAIR). This guy was working at a photolab but
had become a professional by doing this!  He's work was awesome!

Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. juli 2003 17:17
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: lightning


I tried to capture some lightning strikes the other day and didn't have any
luck. The bolts always appeared in a direction other than where the camera
was pointing and then the rain came. Does anyone have any suggestions for a
good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a polarizer
so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my chances but
now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on the
film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and
underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes long when
I allowed for the polarizing filter.

Re: Kodak Gold 100 - RIP

At 11:36 AM 7/3/2003 -0400, Caveman wrote:

What would the "replacement" be ? Or are they dropping 100 completely ? Or 
is it just a renaming game ?
The other day I noticed that the mondo-super-ulta-one-stop store that I use 
is not stocking ISO 100 color print film.  They _do_ have TMax 100 and both 
Elitechrome and Sensia 100 though.

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -

Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

At 11:17 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, jerome wrote:

>From the magazine (July / August issue):

 Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely
the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was
to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart not
to design this beauty with those folks in mind.
Okay Okay. !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call
that my editorial additions.


Har!

But look what a search of *ist on ebay brings up:

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&krd=1&from=R8&MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&ht=1&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&query=*ist

Maybe that is the real story behind the name - if you can't find it on 
eBay, people might actually buy it new

- MCC
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -

Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

2003-07-03 Thread Ed Matthew

If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this:
http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/
It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome

Regards

Albano

...a long way ahead of J Lo. Thanks.

Ed

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto" magazine)

2003-07-03 Thread Arnold Stark

Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this
adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter
works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount
lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the
*ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you
explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all
apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I
should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC
Takumars as those are more up-to-date?

Arnold

Pål Jensen schrieb:

Arnold wrote:

It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued.

REPLY:

It IS true. You are just an exception.
The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway!

Pål

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

Pål

   When you take a position you defend it even when it's 
indefensible.  The problem is people on the list
who don't know better will take your word as gospel.  The LX had at least 
limited but useable compatibility
with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras.  As a 
"landscape photographer" you know exactly
what that means.  The *ist series abandons the usability part of that 
equation.

At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
Arnold wrote:

It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because 
they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market 
for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard 
sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards 
compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only 
spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not 
unneccessarily devalued.

REPLY:

It IS true. You are just an exception.
The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX 
had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses 
compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses 
and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of 
compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway!

Pål


To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

SV: *ist D was not production type :-(

Hi
OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic
shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds of
rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new
one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast.
On the other hand, the new Kodak DCS 14n reaches 3000ppi. In a year or two
they may reach a "final level" of let's say 7000ppi - which pretty much is
high as any film. Mybe I'll wait for that. I'm quite happy with 16MB
scannings (2048 ppi). Enough for not too large enlargements.
The producers of digital cameras want to satisfy price tags not too much
above the current price level of film SLR's. A Leica M7 cost about the same
as the Kodak 14 MP diggie!
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. juli 2003 07:36
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(


Hi Alan,

on 02 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list:

>The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged.
>But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose
>any problem.

LOL. Hard but true... ;-)

Cheers, Heiko

RE: lightning

2003-07-03 Thread Brendan MacRae

I agree with f16 aperture but not the 100 speed film.
I've used 400 speed print film in the past with really
good results. Also, and though it's tricky, a 2-3
second exposure is ideal. After that reciprocity
failure creeps in and your color shifts plus the
blacks go all milky. 

Instead of a polarizer, try a filter for shooting in
fluorescent light...it helps correct the color shift
on longer exposures.

-Brendan MacRae

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You are not trying to set exposeure for the dark
> sky; you are exposing the lightning itself. I would
> start with f16 with 100 speed film.
> 
> BR
> 
> "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have any suggestions for a
> >good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting
> at f/22 with a polarizer
> >so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to
> increase my chances but
> >now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the
> lightning to register on the
> >film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light
> meter at the sky and
> >underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures
> were 5 minutes long when
> >I allowed for the polarizing filter.
> >
> >
> >
> 
>
__
> McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
> Comprehensive protection for your entire computer.
> Get your free trial today!
>
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397
> 
> Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. 
> Download Now!
>
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
> 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5

2003-07-03 Thread Arnold Stark

I use Netscape 7.0. From the "Anzeigen" (display) menue I choose 
"Zeichenkodierung" and then "Kyrillisch (Windows-1251)". 35 Russian 
Rubels are 1 Euro.

Arnold

Kristian-H. Schuessler schrieb:

Hallo Arnold,
  how do you manage to read from e-mails and and in www
russian letters as russian letter and not as any nonsense?
I use last version of Outlook Express.
And how much Euro or US-$ is one Russ.Rubel ?
Sincerely Yours
Kristian-Heinrich Schüssler
- Original Message - 
From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:13 PM
Subject: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5

 

I just looked at the russian Zenit homepage:
http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.htm
and I found some interesting lenses in k-mount like the fish-eye lens MC

No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

2003-07-03 Thread Albano Garcia

If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this:
http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/

It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome

Regards

Albano

--- jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I couldn't have said it better.
> 
> Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch.
> 

=
Albano Garcia
"El Pibe Asahi"

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: Saturday

Is that what it is...

At 03:26 PM 7/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
Apologies, please ignore this thread. Finger trouble.



Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

Gaud, I hope so.

At 07:25 AM 7/3/03 -0700, you wrote:
Clothes? What clothes??
Do you mean that I should actually wear something apart from the
camera hanging from my neck?
:-)
Gianfranco

- Original Message -
From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:12 PM
Subject:
> Don't forget to reserve some space for clothes! :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Jostein
>
> Onsdag, 2 juli 2003, skrev du:
>
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >That sounds really nice! I'm glad I'm going to join you by
the
> >end of the month, although not in London.
> >:-)
> >
> >Gianfranco
> >(thinking about what to put in the backpack, photographically
speaking.
> ..)
=

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine


> I couldn't have said it better.

Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch.

Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

Current pop/rap/soul star, a somewhat overrated actress/singer with about the
same talent as Madonna but better looking.  (Ok, so Madonna's better 
looking since
she's had a few corrections done too, or she's mellowed with age).

At 09:19 AM 7/3/03 +0100, you wrote:
>But back to the J-Lo thing

Drop me a big hint, Jerome. What is J-Lo ?

Cheers,
  Cotty
___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

RE: PDML Get-Togethers

Ok, it's been updated again.

http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml

--
Thomas Van Veen Photography
www.thomasvanveen.com
301-758-3085

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

2003-07-03 Thread Bob Walkden

Hi,

Thursday, July 3, 2003, 3:19:17 PM, you wrote:

> Is that the outdoor eating area near to Festival Hall? (I forget its
> name)

yes, indeed. Coin Street.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

2003-07-03 Thread Bob Walkden

Hi,

Thursday, July 3, 2003, 4:31:51 PM, you wrote:

>> 
>> 

> Did you at least get a shot of the waitress?

No, but Cotty was obviously having a shot _at_ her...

(let's hope La Cottette isn't reading )

-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: I Am Pissed!

2003-07-03 Thread T Rittenhouse

Unfortunately, in my own experience, price does not neccessarily mean
quality from a lab. I have found most so-called pro labs to be very
inconsistant. If you find a good one, give them your business. But, 99.9% of
the time you can depend on properly processed negatives from the 1 hour
labs. Prints on the other hand can not be depended on, though with the
Frontier machices they are more consistant that they used to be.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "zcaballero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: I Am Pissed!


> Imhave no sympathy for you.  After all the years you have spent making
> photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of
> concern to a cheap amateur lab like that.  At least you have now
> learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you
> paid for cheap crap!
>
> I read here and other places of people using inexpensive "labs" and
> cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good.
> To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a
> few more pennies and get good quality always.

Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

I couldn't have said it better.

At 07:40 AM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote:
It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because 
they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market 
for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard 
sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards 
compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only 
spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not 
unneccessarily devalued.

Arnold

jerome schrieb:

Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely 
the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it 
was to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was 
smart not to design this beauty with those folks in mind. Okay Okay. !! 
The last two sentences werent in the article You can call that my 
editorial additions.


To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is 
designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Bruce Dayton

tom,

He was John.  Had the big 250-600 zoom.  That was a sight.

Bruce

Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:24:13 AM, you wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever
>> get together?

t> I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who
t> worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year?

t> I remember him being in the group shot.

t> tv

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Bruce Dayton

Marnie,

Back in the days of Shel, we had one or two gatherings but it has been
quite a while.  Care to set one up for NorCal PDML'ers?


Bruce



Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:15:20 AM, you wrote:

Eac>   > In switching servers I've tried to clean things 
Eac> up 
Eac> a bit...I've
>> grouped my PDML images in one place:
>> 
>> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml
>> 
>> How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I
>> know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto
>> contingents?
>> 
>> Just give me a caption and a year...
>> 
>> tv

>>Hi Tom.
>>I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; 
Eac> send
>>1-2 of the better ones.Might be  Texas Leica in there too.

Eac> This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together?

Eac> Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: FA 24-90 focal length

2003-07-03 Thread Rüdiger Neumann

Hallo,
I just put my FA 1.4/85 and my 24-90 on my camera and compared the field of
view
on 85 and 90 at infinity. The zoom has a longer focal lenght than the 85,
maybe 88?
I think that the FA* 85 has a focal lenght of about 85.
I compared it also to the FA 2/24. There it looked the same.
I think the zoom is longer as 80.
Ones I have measured my SMC-F 28-80 and it was 77 at the long end.
I do not know how you did your measurement, but I think the 24-90 is not far
from the
specs.
regards
Rüdiger


Von: keller.schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality.
Subsequently I
>bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical
quality as
>very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good.
>
>What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the
lens
>in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my
M
>2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super
>K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it.
As
>the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from
>infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to
measure
>this with some precision.
>
>The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1
mm).
>
>I have also tested some other Pentax lenses:
>M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm
>M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm
>M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm
>M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm
>and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says.
>
>Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm
>designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does
it
>like that).
>
>So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80.
>
>I thought you might be interested.
>
>Sven
>

Re: Saturday

2003-07-03 Thread Steve Desjardins

Oh, sure, you're just showing off that you have a life besides the
list.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/03/03 10:14AM >>>
If Christine is fit, plan on turning up around mid-afternoon, say 3.30
?

Remind me - Christine eats fish, yes? Alma got some swordfish from
Waitrose and that barbeques well...




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps 
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1

2003-07-03 Thread Steve Desjardins

The real strength of this system will be that there is a group out there
who really liked the E-10,E-20 system and might like to continue along
these lines.  I suspect the price will come down quickly to the $1500
dollar level and they may try to make more money on the lenses, which is
an  old ploy.  I don't think the 5 vs, 6 MP will make much of a
difference in terms of sales.


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: PDML Get-Togethers

 -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> tom wrote:
> 
> > I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the 
> guy's name who
> > worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year?
> > 
> > I remember him being in the group shot.
> 
> John Francis? 

yep.

tv

Re: shooting fireworks from up high

2003-07-03 Thread arathi-sridhar

hi.
use your steadiest tripod, and a cable release.
Ive done this only once and very happy with the result. 
do have a look at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=149963
and keep enough film - I ran out of film that night !!
choice of lenses would be nice too.
do take shots of the skyline before the fireworks.
I would suggest experimenting with exposures ranging from 1 to 10 seconds.
Im sure you will have a nice time!
bests.
-Sridhar

- Original Message - 
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: shooting fireworks from up high


> Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire
> State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River.  I know that I
> should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens,
> but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light
> coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know
> about shooting a fireworks display in a city? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Amita

SV: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine

Hi Jerome
Your editorial work actually has a point. But not a lot of old farts (an
expresion covering people stupid enouhg to own some excellent 20 years old
lenses) would have to buy the camera to pay for a mechanical aperture
simulator, or whatever is missing to make it truely K-mount campatible. They
might even make it optional. Or an adition to the *its Dn, which is bound to
come in a year!
Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 3. juli 2003 05:17
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine


Admittedly, I picked up the mag because J-Lo was adorning the cover... oh
and I
was looking for some tips on environmental portraits (more on that later,
perhaps)... but (j) lo and behold, there was a blurb about the D-ist just a
few
pages over.

>From the magazine (July / August issue):

It's name may be in inpronounceable, but this model, the ist Pentax D-SLR,
has
impressive specs. Despite its claim to be the smallest interchangeable-lens
D-
SLR, it features a 6.1 megapixel sensor, 16 segment metering, and 11 point
wide-
angle autofocus. Its shutter speeds go up to 1/4000 second, and fires at up
to
2.7 frames per second.

Its viewfinder is excellent, especially by D-SLR standards, providing a 95
percent field of view and .95X magnification. Two separate dials control
lens
aperture and shutter speed. The camera gives you a choice of JPEG, TIFF, and
Raw image files, saved on CF Type I/II  cards. Its powered by four AA
batteries or two CR-V3 lithium cells, and can be used with an optional
battery
grip. Best of all, its compatible with current Pentax AF and manual focus
lenses. Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are
likely
the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it
was
to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart
not
to design this beauty with those folks in mind.


Okay Okay. !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call
that my editorial additions.

But back to the J-Lo thing  There was quite a spread of photos of the
pop
star (including 4 different cover shots on the stands "collect them all!"
) But to even keep this part of my rant on topic, youd be pleased to
know
that a handful of the shots were taken with a Pentax 67 [and Portra 160NC, I
believe].

Regards,
jerome

___
http://www.exposedfilm.net

RE: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Doug Brewer

John Francis

At 01:24 PM 7/3/03, throwing caution to the wind, tom wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever
> get together?
I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who
worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year?
I remember him being in the group shot.

tv

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Stephen Moore

tom wrote:

> I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who
> worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year?
> 
> I remember him being in the group shot.

John Francis? I seem to remember his departure was
prompted by a flame war that got personal.

(Killer motorsports photog, BTW)

Stephen

RE: PDML Get-Togethers

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever
> get together?

I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who
worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year?

I remember him being in the group shot.

tv

Re: FA 24-90 focal length

2003-07-03 Thread Joseph Tainter

Yes, the old FA Power Zoom 28-105 actually went to 101 mm. The Sigma AF 
70-200 f2.8 actually goes to 190 mm. or so. It is common practice.

Still I regard the FA 24-90 as a fine lens. Like you, I do not care for 
the built quality.

Joe

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread Eactivist

  > In switching servers I've tried to clean things 
up 
a bit...I've
> grouped my PDML images in one place:
> 
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml
> 
> How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I
> know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto
> contingents?
> 
> Just give me a caption and a year...
> 
> tv

>Hi Tom.
>I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; 
send
>1-2 of the better ones.Might be  Texas Leica in there too.

This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together?

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

2003-07-03 Thread brooksdj

> In switching servers I've tried to clean 
things up 
a bit...I've
> grouped my PDML images in one place:
> 
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml
> 
> How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I
> know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto
> contingents?
> 
> Just give me a caption and a year...
> 
> tv

Hi Tom.
I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; send
1-2 of the better ones.Might be  Texas Leica in there too.

Re: Optionally

2003-07-03 Thread Daniel J. Matyola

I second that emotion, Jostein.

Bill Owens wrote:

> You'll not regret it. Mine is in my pants pocket nearly everywhere I go, and
> for a P&S digital it's a great piece of equipment.
>
> Bill
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:21 AM
> Subject: Optionally
>
> > Ok.
> > I bit the digi-bait this morning, at Cameraworld in Wells Street,
> > London.
> >
> > Now I own an Optio S.
> >
> > If only this meeting could finish, so I could get out and play. :-)
> >
> > Jostein
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--
Daniel J. Matyola  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stanley, Powers & Matyola  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East  http://geocities.com/dmatyola/
Bridgewater, NJ 08807  (908)725-3322  fax: (908)707-0399

Re: PDML Get-Togethers

I sent that last email prematurely... actually there's a handful of them that 
are comical in their own rights. For one, I'd forgotten that Teddy Roosevelt 
was a devout PDMLer! Aside from that, the one with Cesar peering over your 
shoulder is hilarious for reasons that I can't even figure out. In all, it's 
always nice to put faces with names (well...usually ).. and some decent 
photos to boot! Thanks, Tv.

Your idea of centralizing the PDML photos (or at least the links to such pages) 
is a good one, IMO. Eventually we should have some photos of the Atlanta PDML 
mini-get together from a coupl of weeks ago, too. Give us time... we're a 
little slow here in the south  I'll letcha know.


 jerome

Re: PDML Get-Togethers


"Ed Mathews, Cesar Matamoros, Tom Van Veen, 5 of Tom's Assistants" 
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml/uhoh1.htm

Hilarious caption!

Re: lightning

2003-07-03 Thread Herb Chong

the lightning bolt itself is brighter than the sun. you can have very small apertures. 
you probably want to underexpose the sky by between two and three stops to get it to 
be near black. otherwise, the lightning won't contrast enough with the background. for 
such long exposures, you probably also want to figure in some reciprocity failure, 
depending on the film you are using.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:17
Subject: lightning

> I tried to capture some lightning strikes the other day and didn't have any
> luck. The bolts always appeared in a direction other than where the camera
> was pointing and then the rain came. Does anyone have any suggestions for a
> good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a polarizer
> so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my chances but
> now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on the
> film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and
> underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes long when
> I allowed for the polarizing filter.
> 
>

Re: FA 24-90 focal length

2003-07-03 Thread Sylwester Pietrzyk

on 03.07.03 15:29, keller.schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens
> in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M
> 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super
> K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As
> the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from
> infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure
> this with some precision.
[...]
> So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80.

Interesting. But read test of this lens in Popular Photography:
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=327
They rate 24-90 as 24.42-87.14 mm in reality. Who is right?
Also, have you tried 24-90 at different focusing distances? Internal
focusing AFAIK changes a bit focal length, so maybe here is the point?

-- 
Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: I Am Pissed!

2003-07-03 Thread zcaballero

Imhave no sympathy for you.  After all the years you have spent making 
photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of 
concern to a cheap amateur lab like that.  At least you have now 
learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you 
paid for cheap crap!

I read here and other places of people using inexpensive "labs" and 
cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good. 
To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a 
few more pennies and get good quality always.

Z 

===


I shot a couple of rolls of color print the other day, and since I 
intended
to just scan the negs and process the prints digitally, I dropped the 
rolls
off at the local 29 min photo place. BIG mistake! While there was, in 
fact,
image on the negs, they appeared to look unprocessed. The thick "beige 
haze"
covered over the images for the most part. The man said, "The film 
must be
old." He did manage to get some sucky prints out of them, but they 
will not
scan. Period. I took the negs to Pro Photo Connection in Irvine, CA to 
see
if anything could be recovered. After much examination and after
confirmation with film strips, the photo engineer at Pro Photo 
Connection
concluded that the problem was chemical in nature, the negs had not 
been
"bleached". The damage was permanent.

Lesson: Deal with professionals - only.





--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Lestate si avvicina.. dai unocchiata al nostro vasto assortimento di occhiali da 
sole i più trendy sono su.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1445&d=3-7

RE: shooting fireworks from up high

2003-07-03 Thread Blivit4

You'll be shooting at f11 or f16 with 100 speed film. The buildings will probably 
expose fine (not blown out) with an exposure of several seconds. Lit windows will be 
blown, don't worry, have fun.

BR

"Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire
>State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River.  I know that I
>should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens,
>but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light
>coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know
>about shooting a fireworks display in a city? 
>
>Thanks,
>Amita
>
>

__
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455

shooting fireworks from up high

2003-07-03 Thread Amita Guha

Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire
State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River.  I know that I
should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens,
but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light
coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know
about shooting a fireworks display in a city? 

Thanks,
Amita

Re: Saturday

Mm.. swordfish.  Shall I bring the sticky wine for afters?

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 12:14 AM
Subject: Saturday


> If Christine is fit, plan on turning up around mid-afternoon, say 3.30 ?
> 
> Remind me - Christine eats fish, yes? Alma got some swordfish from
> Waitrose and that barbeques well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
> 
>

Re: Saturday

Apologies, please ignore this thread. Finger trouble.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

re: FA 24-90 focal length

2003-07-03 Thread keller.schaefer

The difference between infinity and 1:1 is the focal length of any lens, by
definition. I had blocked the lens (with tape) in the infinity position
(verified by looking through the finder) so - more precisely - I should have
stated that what I measured is the focal length in the infinity position. With
internal focusing, away from infinity, the lens effectively becomes 'a
different lens'. So it may well be that when set to closer distances the focal
length is different... but at infinity it is significantly less than 90 mm.

The short end of the lens seemed to be o.k., but at short focal lengths it
becomes difficult to adjust the lens to exact 1:1 magnification, so I did not
measure this.

Sven


Zitat von Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Sven, I'm not familiar with your measuring system, but are you able to check
> the focal length at various focusing distances?  Some internal focusing (IF)
> lenses are known to have shorter effective focal lengths at shorter
> distances.  The FA 28-200 is around 180mm at infinity, but more like 110 mm
> at around 2 meters, as tested by Keppler at Popular Photography.
>
> Most other Pentax lenses are much closer to the specified focal length.
> Thanks for the info, Sven, it is of interest.
>
> Pat White
>
>

Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London

2003-07-03 Thread Gianfranco Irlanda

Clothes? What clothes??
Do you mean that I should actually wear something apart from the
camera hanging from my neck?
:-)

Gianfranco


- Original Message - 
From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:12 PM
Subject: 

> Don't forget to reserve some space for clothes! :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Jostein
> 
> Onsdag, 2 juli 2003, skrev du:
> 
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >That sounds really nice! I'm glad I'm going to join you by
the
> >end of the month, although not in London.
> >:-)
> >
> >Gianfranco
> >(thinking about what to put in the backpack, photographically
speaking.
> ..)


=


__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: Pentax Energizer bunny

2003-07-03 Thread mike wilson

Hi,

Jostein wrote:

> Seems to me that the electronics in these cameras are very tolerant 
> to dropping voltages.

No doubt due to them being "analogue" devices 8-)

BTW, an interesting comparison in today's newspaper.  Printer ink is up
to seven times more expensive than vintage champagne, per millilitre.

And, according to some members of this list, its effect is as
tranistory

mike

RE: A quick hello from South Bank, London

2003-07-03 Thread mike wilson

Hi,

Rob wrote:

> I wish I could have been there.  Glad someone was there to welcome you
> and represent the locals!

Having met all of them individually and some of them together, I'm not
sure being in a restaurant with _all_ of them would have been entirely
safe. 8-)

Although, as the waitress had Cotty by the, er, Canon, maybe they were
exceedingly well behaved.

Is that the outdoor eating area near to Festival Hall? (I forget its
name)

mike

Saturday