Enablement - Cave stream
Hi, I fixed a Christmas present for myself and ordered Dave Mann's Cave Stream #105. Its really great. Even on A4 to my eye the 6x7 really makes a difference to the 35mm/APS sized photos. Daves service was splendid. Thanks Dave, Cheers, Ronald
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Hi, I belive that if you are a beginner, prepare the camera for falls, i.e. have it cussioned and protcted in e.g. a backpack. In my expereince beginners can fall in any direction. I usually have the camreas there, even though not a beginner, learned to ski at the age of two, I tend to fall in any direction, depending of course on how aggresively one uses the skis. When doing photos of downhill skiing - use fast shutterspeed as skiers move quite fast. Add a +1 of exposure compensation since the snow might be greyish otherwise or meter directly of some neutral surface for correct exposure. I've never broken a camera dong skiing but its quite possible to do if its unprotected and you crash. With precaution it should be OK. If its cold, make sure you have fresh batteries as old ones run out of juice in cold weather. Cheers, Ronald Toralf Lund wrote: ...wise or foolish? Discuss. I'm going skiing for the first time at the end of February. [ ... ] Does anybody have any experiences, hints and tips about Alpine-style photography that they'd like to share, please? I was sort of inspired to take a quick trip to the local hill when I read this, but apparently it was open only at daytime today... Anyhow, I once tried skiing with my MESuper+M40 lens in my pocket, and it worked rather well, but I generally don't expect to fall very often, if you know what I mean. I ended up taking only one or two pictures at the time, and took my gloves off when I did the actual shots, as far as I recall. I can also operate the above mentioned camera if I keep them on, but only just (I tried right now.) Maybe a backpack would be more ideal for carrying the camera. Like someone else said, that might be slightly hazardous if you were to fall on your back, but in my experience, landing on your side or ending up with the face buried deep in the snow is a lot more likely when skiing... - T
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Pawel Bartuzi wrote: Ronald Arvidsson wrote: aggresively one uses the skis. When doing photos of downhill skiing - use fast shutterspeed as skiers move quite fast. I know it depends on actual shooting conditions (focal length, skiers speed etc.) but that is exactly what I will try to avoid on my next winter holidays. I noticed that slides exposed on 1/500 or even 1/250 s. (using 50 or 24-35mm as I was skiing along with other skiers) simply show no feeling of movement, even the snow ploughed from under the skis is frozen. Next time I will sacrifice some sharpness and try some panning using 1/125 or even 1/60 s. :-) Yes, That could be a nice pictures when panning with somewhat slower speed. Cheers, Ronald
Re: PESO - Great Sand Dunes - National Park
Hi, It loks certainly very artistic. I'd never thought of sand dunes if you hadn't mentioned it. How on Earth did you get that color? Was it reflected light or a photoshop job? I think its a nice piece of artistic graphics (photos can be that way sometimes) but as a desert picture? I don't know? Cheers, Ronald Kenneth Waller wrote: Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html All comments solicited Yeah, nay, and/or otherwise What would you do differently? Thanks in advance Kenneth Waller
Re: Medical Interlude - Resolution
Hi Cotty, Good to hear that it wasnt so bad. I didn't want to write earlier but everythings seems OK. I once had similar symptoms and it turned out to be extremely bad - lymphoma in terminal stage - however the doctors made me well and cured the whole thing. However, when ones children are sick - that feels - I know this too, one rather be sick oneself. Merry Christmas and take care, Ronald
Re: Pentax 645
David Mann wrote: On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: I've at times thought to use seismometers to measure the vibratins from different cameras - being a seismologist. The measurements are in time domain - i.e. one measure during the time before at and after exposure. It would be necessary to use recording equipment that is utilizedin mines (for control of mine shocks) which have high enough time resolution. In this way one could possibly record tripping of shutter, mirror movements and stop, shutter opening and closing. There is still a problem of translatingthe actual ground motions to the motions at the camera. Still the frequency of ringing would be recorded and how fast this would be damped out. A possibly better setup would be to use a high speed camera, such as being used when recording bullets moving in the air. That's an interesting idea but I'm not sure if it'd be very accurate. For an accurate measurement of the vibration that actually affects the image you'd have to only measure the vibration while the shutter is open. These instruments can measure the exact frequencies of the vibrations and one could have a deterministic measured value and not just guesses which are based on how solid/loosely camrea is fixed to tripod or hand. Maybe I'll make a test within the next few weeks of this? It'd also depend on the tripod itself. I've heard that wooden tripods are far superior because they actually damp the vibrations, where metal legs will just ring at their resonant frequency. Sure, the whole setup, camera tripod has its own eigenfrequency combination and damping. If the eigenfrequency of camera is very different from tripod these to movements should counteract, if similar they will amplify the movements. Cheers, Ronald - Dave
Re: PESO - another in my cold bird series
Hi, Really nice shot. If I could have made it different I would have used a standing - - portrait mode of the picture instead of landscape- but the photo is good! Cheers, Ronald Kenneth Waller wrote: Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html All comments solicited Yeah, nay, and/or otherwise What would you do differently? Thanks in advance Kenneth Waller
Re: PESO: Library add
Hi Jens, Interesting photo. I first thought that shooting with a 50mm is to short a focal length until I recalled that it was on the istD making it a75mm in the old 35mm world. Very nice, Cheers, Ronald Jens Bladt wrote: This shot (heavily cropped) was one of a series I made for an advertising campaign for the public library. The library had appointed this model, in order to promote the library to the ethnic minorities in the community. Comments are as always welcome. BTW: Soon I have taken 26000 pictures with my * ist D. In one year and 4 months - that's still 54 shots a day in average. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/74728359/ Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: PESO: Library add
On second thought, if there's anything that could be better with the pphoto I'd think a shorter depth of field rendering the edges of the model not so sharp. Cheers, Ronald Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Hi Jens, Interesting photo. I first thought that shooting with a 50mm is to short a focal length until I recalled that it was on the istD making it a75mm in the old 35mm world. Very nice, Cheers, Ronald Jens Bladt wrote: This shot (heavily cropped) was one of a series I made for an advertising campaign for the public library. The library had appointed this model, in order to promote the library to the ethnic minorities in the community. Comments are as always welcome. BTW: Soon I have taken 26000 pictures with my * ist D. In one year and 4 months - that's still 54 shots a day in average. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/74728359/ Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: Pentax 645
Of course there are times when mirror lock-up is needed. Whether its a bigger problem in MF than 35mm I'm nor really sure. I've had few problems with mirror vibrations on my hasselblad. The thing with mirror vibrations is the the relative weight of the mirror vs the body and the eigen /own) frequency of the body. I've at times thought to use seismometers to measure the vibratins from different cameras - being a seismologist. These instruments can measure the exact frequencies of the vibrations and one could have a deterministic measured value and not just guesses which are based on how solid/loosely camrea is fixed to tripod or hand. Maybe I'll make a test within the next few weeks of this? Cheers, Ronald Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] No it doesn't, and the 645N demonstrated that there is no difference between using the MLU or not using it with a well damped mirror like the one of the 645. MLU on the 645N was only added for marketing reasons, since so many asked for it. I disagree. There are several instances when you cannot put a camera on a ideal surface where the small difference with or without mirror lock actually makes a difference. However, for ordinary shooting condition the lack of mirror lock is a non-issue. The mirror pre-fire function is also nice elimination the need for a remote release. Pål
Re: Pentax 645
You're quite right. The vibrations depend upon the combination of tripod - length of tripod and camera. If the tripod at a certain length has a eigen frequency same as the camera - even fastened well it will actually increase vibrations. If different, it will damp them. And of course how solid its fastened to ground etc affects a lot to this isuue as well. Cheers, Ronald Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] But anyway both 645N/NII have so greatly damped mirror, that MLU under normal circumstances gives nothing. And that was proved by Michael Reichmann (who loved 67II/645 a few years ago) in short test here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645-mlu.shtml The problem with these kinds of tests is that they are performed under ideal conditions. I have no doubt that Pentax mirror damping is good enough if you use the largest tripod you can find and place it on flat tarmac in a parking lot. Unfortunately, most outdoor photographers put their tripods on less than ideal surfaces such as soft moss or in the middle of a bog Pål
Re: PESO - Six of one, half a dozen of another
A very nice photo. If I should be critical the only disctraction to me is the incoming wave. Cheers, Ronald Bruce Dayton wrote: I found it almost comical how these big birds were seemingly herding around these little birds. Almost like they were taking them out for a walk. Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld ISO 200, 1/1000 sec @ f/8.0, Manual mode, Center weighted metering Converted from Raw using Capture One LE Cropped for presentation http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2416a.htm Comments welcome - Bruce
Re: AA bis
A type of scene that is timeless... Thanks, Ronald Bob W wrote: Hi, interesting shot for Ansel Adams fans: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html follow the last link for a related story. Bob
Re: PESO: You give it a title... :)
Really interesting setup. I think though the model looks to irritated - a more relaxed look would be more in line with the levitating girl. Ttitle - floating in the air??? Cheers, Ronald Glen wrote: I thought some of you might like taking a peek at one of my latest images: http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/ni/Barbie.jpg I'm interested in any comments you might have. take care, Glen
Re: Amature
Hi Sunny, Nice and beatiful photography. Thanks for sharing. Ronald Sunny Chung wrote: Hey everyone thank you for all your quick and extremely informative responses. Just wanted to introduce myself a little more I've only just began to work with DSLR's and I'm a poor college student :-(. So after all your advice, I definately want the 50/1.4 FA lens... but don't have $200 to spend right now. The only lens I have right now is the kit lens that came with my ist DL, which isn't bad. Once again, thank you for all your responses. If you care to look at my amature photography, I've posted my best pictures so far at: http://dapjang.deviantart.com/gallery/
Re: need a favor
HJmm, I'm obviously not up to date with acroread. Thanks for the information. Cheers, Ronald John Francis wrote: The last couple of versions of Acrobat (6.0 7.0, I believe) have support for forms with areas that can be filled in by the user. It's also possible to re-save the form with those same areas filled in (if the original document creator desires). That's all just using the (free) Acrobat reader. The original form needs to be created using the full Acrobat product, of course, but the end user only needs the reader. On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:39:35AM +0100, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Hi Ann, I I guess one needs Acrobat and not an acroba reader for putting stuff into a pdf file. Readers are just readers and in say acroread you can put text in text fields but text cannot be saved. For saving text one needs an acrobat editor like acrobat. The ordinary acroread wont do. The question is which wordprocessors/other programs can edit a pdf file? Cheers, Ronald Ann Sanfedele wrote: Don Sanderson wrote: Ann, I make a living coaching people in how to avoid viruses, malicious software, etc. And most of all how to keep things _simple_. I wouldn't recommend a piece of software, or a web site, unless I had used it myself and found it safe, reliable, functional and useful. Only then is it good enough for my customers. Or my friends. Been at it for 30+ years, no lawsuits yet. ;-) Give it a try, it's rather fun! Don Don , I have a willing person to do it for me - that is the best of all :) I'm neurotic about some of this stuff - I'm not judging your choice, most of you here are so much more savvy in many techy areas I'm in awe... you cant imagine the lack of savvy I have in these areas - and I have such a hard time retaining ANY info these days - it is just too daunting for me. (At this point I'm starting to feel guilty about sending my lurker friend the CD - :) ) My dream for the calendar - which I think doesnt exist - is to have it in a form so that someone can input their schedule into each box on the page without anything else moving around - somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind was the idea that one could do this with a PDF file... back to cooking dinner - friend about to arrive ann -Original Message- From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:40 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: need a favor Don Sanderson wrote: Hi Ann, I left this on the list because it may be of use to others. If you go to www.download.com and search for: PDF Printer Driver or Convert to PDF or Print to PDF you will find several small programs that install like a printer driver. You then simply print _any_ document to it and it turns it into a .PDF file. Some are free, and some are very cheap. Look at the rating on downloads.com, it tells you which ones people have found the most useful. I use one called docuPrinter LT from http://www.neevia.com/ it works very well for me and several of my customers. HTH Don I actually got an offer for a conversion and I'm taking him up on it. I'm a little leary of downloading stuff from the web and have a few serious techno gaps in my so-called brain. though the file is a document, it needs to be able to hold onto the right color space (I may be making this up though:) :) The only reason I have for putting it in PDF format is so that the document would be read only for people who wanted and were able to print out the calendar for themselves more cheaply and better than I can. ann
Re: PESO - not a skimmer
Thanks for the ifno Christian. I'll make one myself. Cheers, Ronald Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:50 AM Subject: Re: PESO - not a skimmer Hi Christian, Do you have any picutre of the ballhead-frying pan pod? How did you mount the ballhead to the frying pan -? Sounds really interesting! :-) no picture of the pod, but I'll post one soon. It was really quite simple. 1. Buy a really nice 10 heavy-duty aluminum skillet pan (not one with a long handle; it has two small handles) for about US$30. 2. Drill a hole dead center. 3. Get a short carriage bolt, several large flat washers, a couple of lock washers and one nut for about US$5. 4. Stick the bolt and one large washer through the bottom of the pan, another large washer, a lock washer on the bolt and tighten it all with the nut. 5. The tripod head then threads on to the bolt. Instant ground pod. Here was my inspiration: http://www.naturescapes.net/store/product.php?productid=41cat=19page=1 my home-made job beats the $125 Greg charges for his. The funny thing is, the other photogs in the workshop had a laugh about my pod until Greg told him his prototype was exactly what I had built :-) Christian
Re: PESO - not a skimmer
Hi, Its a lovely shot. Did you lie on the beach for it? If so you got wet? What type of equipment did you use? Cheers, Ronald Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] So it's a Joisey bird! with the accent and everything! :-) I like it, especially with the inclusion of the reflection in the sand, that raises it to another level. Only wish would be for a more spectular light, but hey that'll be the next time. Thanks Ken. I actually exercised a seldom used skill of mine - patience :-) I waited for the waves to go out leaving just enough sheen in the sand for the reflection, while at the same time, waiting for a bird to get into the right position. Christian -Original Message- From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://photography.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?pos=-42 you can click it to make the image slightly larger.
Re: PAW - Cave Stream
Thanks David, I might visit the place on my next trip to South island, Cheers, Ronald David Mann wrote: On Dec 12, 2005, at 11:28 PM, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Wonderful picture. You really got the rocks right. Is it some kind of limestone? Yes, it's limestone. The river has been gradually carving its way through for thousands of years. Where in Canterbury is it? It's about halfway between Christchurch and Arthurs Pass. Not far from Lake Pearson if you have a good map. Just follow highway 73. - Dave
Re: Critiques please
Hi Ralf, I kind of think its a cool picture. I like the stars from the lights. They ad to the mood. Cheers, Ronald Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: First tests with DRI. I'm not exactly happy with the result. I find it looks a tad dull, but all attempts to raise the contrast or saturation make things look even worse. http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1177031ref=sectionrefid=7 Oh, and did I say I hate those stars? Any suggestions other than repeating the shot with medium format which is what I'll do anyway on saturday? Ralf
Re: PAW - Cave Stream
Hi, I actually think it gies some extra depth to a picture when small river rocks are sharp. I howver liked the framing better of your first picture. Cheers, Ronald David Mann wrote: On Dec 13, 2005, at 6:56 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: What bothers me: Just doesn't appear sharp - the walls look very detailed, but soft and the stream rocks likewise - perhaps just need sharpening The walls were probably quite soft anyway... limestone is a bit like that and the texture isn't cracks. I guess it's some kind of weathering process. The lighting was also quite diffused (cloudy weather). Having said that I didn't put a huge amount of effort into sharpening. I masked out the edges of the stream rocks because of halos and didn't come back for a second, more subtle sharpening. Even though you worked hard on the hole, it still is pretty dark - Velvia was probably a wrong choice here It's quite subtle and is meant to still be quite dark. If I get the time I might put up the before version later. Don't look for detail in the middle of the hole - it's just an extra section on the right. You're correct about Velvia being a bad choice. I'm actually surprised I was able to get anything useful out of it at all. I do wish I'd used something else but that was what I had in the camera at the time. I can always go back and re-shoot. Here's another view from a medium format slide that I scanned a few months ago. The river rocks look a bit sharper, actually a little too sharp for my liking. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=6 Thanks for commenting. - Dave
Re: PAW - Cave Stream
HI, The texture isnt cracks - thats correct. I once upon a time was a geologist before rurning into earthquakes. The tecture of rock e.g. limestone, is due to - 1. The deposits (coral reef or whatever was the basis for the limestone) are layered and when squeezed deeper into the Earth they appear as layers in the rock. Another process which tranforms the rock is pressure - finally it gives marble - that may also give rise to layered texture. Weatheringbrings forward these phenomenas. Cracks can form around these surfaces - or due to temperature changes. And in some places like New Zealand due to so called tectonic movements which create earthquakes (faults and cracks is the result of earthquakes). Cheers, Ronald David Mann wrote: On Dec 13, 2005, at 6:56 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: What bothers me: Just doesn't appear sharp - the walls look very detailed, but soft and the stream rocks likewise - perhaps just need sharpening The walls were probably quite soft anyway... limestone is a bit like that and the texture isn't cracks. I guess it's some kind of weathering process. The lighting was also quite diffused (cloudy weather). Having said that I didn't put a huge amount of effort into sharpening. I masked out the edges of the stream rocks because of halos and didn't come back for a second, more subtle sharpening. Even though you worked hard on the hole, it still is pretty dark - Velvia was probably a wrong choice here It's quite subtle and is meant to still be quite dark. If I get the time I might put up the before version later. Don't look for detail in the middle of the hole - it's just an extra section on the right. You're correct about Velvia being a bad choice. I'm actually surprised I was able to get anything useful out of it at all. I do wish I'd used something else but that was what I had in the camera at the time. I can always go back and re-shoot. Here's another view from a medium format slide that I scanned a few months ago. The river rocks look a bit sharper, actually a little too sharp for my liking. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=6 Thanks for commenting. - Dave
Re: Planned closure of Pentax Benelux and Breda repair lab
My LX was serviced by Belgium center. Ronald Thibouille wrote: :'( I had to go t them a couple of times and they always served me very well. Also their Belgian centre is/was established just next to my parents home so it was really easy for me. My ist-D and me would like to thank them ;) -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: need a favor
Hi Ann, I I guess one needs Acrobat and not an acroba reader for putting stuff into a pdf file. Readers are just readers and in say acroread you can put text in text fields but text cannot be saved. For saving text one needs an acrobat editor like acrobat. The ordinary acroread wont do. The question is which wordprocessors/other programs can edit a pdf file? Cheers, Ronald Ann Sanfedele wrote: Don Sanderson wrote: Ann, I make a living coaching people in how to avoid viruses, malicious software, etc. And most of all how to keep things _simple_. I wouldn't recommend a piece of software, or a web site, unless I had used it myself and found it safe, reliable, functional and useful. Only then is it good enough for my customers. Or my friends. Been at it for 30+ years, no lawsuits yet. ;-) Give it a try, it's rather fun! Don Don , I have a willing person to do it for me - that is the best of all :) I'm neurotic about some of this stuff - I'm not judging your choice, most of you here are so much more savvy in many techy areas I'm in awe... you cant imagine the lack of savvy I have in these areas - and I have such a hard time retaining ANY info these days - it is just too daunting for me. (At this point I'm starting to feel guilty about sending my lurker friend the CD - :) ) My dream for the calendar - which I think doesnt exist - is to have it in a form so that someone can input their schedule into each box on the page without anything else moving around - somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind was the idea that one could do this with a PDF file... back to cooking dinner - friend about to arrive ann -Original Message- From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:40 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: need a favor Don Sanderson wrote: Hi Ann, I left this on the list because it may be of use to others. If you go to www.download.com and search for: PDF Printer Driver or Convert to PDF or Print to PDF you will find several small programs that install like a printer driver. You then simply print _any_ document to it and it turns it into a .PDF file. Some are free, and some are very cheap. Look at the rating on downloads.com, it tells you which ones people have found the most useful. I use one called docuPrinter LT from http://www.neevia.com/ it works very well for me and several of my customers. HTH Don I actually got an offer for a conversion and I'm taking him up on it. I'm a little leary of downloading stuff from the web and have a few serious techno gaps in my so-called brain. though the file is a document, it needs to be able to hold onto the right color space (I may be making this up though:) :) The only reason I have for putting it in PDF format is so that the document would be read only for people who wanted and were able to print out the calendar for themselves more cheaply and better than I can. ann
Re: PAW - Cave Stream
Thts right. New Zealand is on shaky ground. If I would live there I 'd check out that my hose is safe and sound. Otherwise so called retrofitting is needed. I agree with you Wellington is a nice place. I believe that New Zealand engineers are up to world standrds when it comes into constructing earthquake proof buildings. Wether everythings is built according to norms thats another question. The gallery is quite fascinating for a rock geek like me. It looks like something out of Tolkien. Cheers, I've changed my mind. I like the fifth picture the best. The slow flow of the water and the foreground gives it a tranquil atmosphere. Ronald Cheers, Ronald David Mann wrote: Thanks for the info. Rocks can be quite fascinating... I'm not exactly fond of earthquakes but it seems we're somewhat overdue for a decent-sized one. We went and built our capital city right on top of a large fault line... I really like the city but I wouldn't want to live there. BTW I processed the other shots last night and put up a small gallery: http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=28 Now I want to go back and get some better ones. - Dave On Dec 14, 2005, at 12:12 AM, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: HI, The texture isnt cracks - thats correct. I once upon a time was a geologist before rurning into earthquakes. The tecture of rock e.g. limestone, is due to - 1. The deposits (coral reef or whatever was the basis for the limestone) are layered and when squeezed deeper into the Earth they appear as layers in the rock. Another process which tranforms the rock is pressure - finally it gives marble - that may also give rise to layered texture. Weatheringbrings forward these phenomenas. Cracks can form around these surfaces - or due to temperature changes. And in some places like New Zealand due to so called tectonic movements which create earthquakes (faults and cracks is the result of earthquakes). Cheers, Ronald
Re: PESO - not a skimmer
Hi Christian, Sometimes it takes the bit extra to get a picture. Well done. Cheers, Ronald Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its a lovely shot. Thanks! Did you lie on the beach for it? If so you got wet? Yes I was lying on my belly with the camera and lens mounted on a ballhead that was secured to an aluminum frying pan that I use as a ground pod. It was a rainy, windy, nasty day and yes I got wet. I wear a Goretex jacket so my upper body was dry but my legs got wet and sandy. While the waves got close to me, they never threatened to inundate me (I kept an eye out for rougue waves). Crawling forward on the beach filled my pants pockets with sand too. I suffer for my craft! :-) What type of equipment did you use? The exif info is displayed below the picture. Canon 20D, 300/4 EF IS with 1.4x TC; mounted on a Studioball on the afore-mentioned ground pod. Thanks again for looking and commenting. Christian http://photography.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?pos=-42 you can click it to make the image slightly larger.
Re: PESO - not a skimmer
Hi Christian, Do you have any picutre of the ballhead-frying pan pod? How did you mount the ballhead to the frying pan -? Sounds really interesting! Ronald Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Its a lovely shot. Thanks! Did you lie on the beach for it? If so you got wet? Yes I was lying on my belly with the camera and lens mounted on a ballhead that was secured to an aluminum frying pan that I use as a ground pod. It was a rainy, windy, nasty day and yes I got wet. I wear a Goretex jacket so my upper body was dry but my legs got wet and sandy. While the waves got close to me, they never threatened to inundate me (I kept an eye out for rougue waves). Crawling forward on the beach filled my pants pockets with sand too. I suffer for my craft! :-) What type of equipment did you use? The exif info is displayed below the picture. Canon 20D, 300/4 EF IS with 1.4x TC; mounted on a Studioball on the afore-mentioned ground pod. Thanks again for looking and commenting. Christian http://photography.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?pos=-42 you can click it to make the image slightly larger.
Re: Grand Canyon
Horrible - it makes me shudder - not the height but O old untouched nature... I'm not agains making the wild unobtainable for handicaped but this is Ronald Tom C wrote: Probably old news to some of you. I just heard of it. No not the Grand Canyon itself. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0826_050826_grandcanyon.html Tom C.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I have not either made move to digital. I like the stuff I have. However, for bird photography I'm considering getting a digital - also for the sake of being able to check out exposures. Otherwise I'm quite happy with my MF and 35mm stuff. I do some cold weather photography and my LX and Hasselblad do the job much better than LCD dependent cameras do. I'm also in the same league as Jack - sometimes using my wifes compact digital. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: Not yet..aside from my wife's compact. Don't know exactly what it will take, but it will have to come from Pentax. As the saying goes, I'll know it when I see it. --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Sure is nice
For your information. In science a lot of people - including myself dont use MS unless forced to by external party. In the Unix/Linux community there are a lot of software that will do the job as well or even better than MS stuff which often can only be used on MS platforms which sometimes is a pain in the butt for certain publishers. When it comes to writing software its quite expensive to get all the MS compilers compared to that they are free in Linux. So when your on a tight research budget thats what you go for. Also there are a lot of nice free publishing software to be used. For us working with pictures and text - PDMLs should check out SCRIBUS - http://www.scribs.org.uk free DTP program which is quite good, Cheers, Ronald John Francis wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:53:24PM +1300, David Mann wrote: On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:43 AM, Bob Shell wrote: I'm not sure I understand that distinction. I live in a college town and all of the professors I know get their software at the academic price. Many of them then write books with Microsoft Word and get paid for doing so. I'm sure Microsoft knows about this. That certainly seems to be commercial use. I know the profs are entitled to buy the academic version, but I don't know if there are actual usage restrictions (there probably are, but I doubt MS is stupid enough to start pulling RIAA tactics). BTW I hope those profs keep good backups! - Dave It's arguable that a professor writing a book is to be expected; I suspect that could well be within the academic use restrictions. But if I enrolled in the local photographic class and used that to pick up a copy of Photoshop I'd be on very shaky ground if I were to use that to edit photographs for anything other than my own personal use. Furthermore, it's not really an issue about what MS or Adobe do or do not choose to enforce. I make my living writing software, so I try to be self-policing about violating intellectual property agreements. If I don't like the agreement, then I don't use the software (just like I won't put my photographs up on any website where I don't like the conditions - meetup.com, to name but one).
Re: PAW - Cave Stream
Hi David, Wonderful picture. You really got the rocks right. Is it some kind of limestone? Where in Canterbury is it? I've been to NZ some four times and plan to go there again withthe family. We went together there and they were so taken that they just wanted to go back. Its a lovely place with lots of interesting natural phomenas including caves like the one shown on your photo. Cheers, Ronald David Mann wrote: It's about time I posted another pic... I have several versions of this one; this is just the first I came to when scanning. The others are on the next row which I'll process at a future date :) I've put in a fair bit of work trying to maintain some detail inside the big hole... you may need to be in a darkened room to get the most out of this pic. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=154t=1 There are still a couple of minor faults to my eye but I'd rather put the effort into the medium format version which is a much better pic (and will be scanned at a later date). - Dave
Re: PAW: Evening Bryce
Who said an MX with a standard lens couldnt take nice pictures. Wonderfult colors and cropping. Cheers, Ronald Peter Lacus wrote: This one is from Bryce National Park, UT: http://www.misenet.sk/USA/Br.html Bedo.
Re: PAW: Evening Bryce
Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who said an MX with a standard lens couldnt take nice pictures. I don't think anyone in their right mind COULD say that. It's an awesome combination. YES! Christian
Re: PAW: Evening Bryce
Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who said an MX with a standard lens couldnt take nice pictures. I don't think anyone in their right mind COULD say that. It's an awesome combination. YES! I mean YES awsome combination!!! Christian
Re: Sigma XQ 200mm - strange soft-focus macro
Hi, The YS-mount to begin with was used in the 70's by a number of lens manufacturers (maybe they were al Sigma?). Sun, Focal, Sigma. Its also called the T3 mount. This mount was developed by Sigma. Some reading can be found at moghans website about medium format http://medfmt.8k.com. In 200 mm thre were three vieities. First your f3.5. The the f4 - focus down to 1/3 in macro mode. Its quite an OK lens when not used in macro - otherwise its a real softfocus. The last is the f2.8 which is a decent lens. If you want the lens to be sharp. Don't use the fine focusing ring which is really the macro ring. It extends the front elements from the rest of optics getting you closer to the subject. The XQ was a series of lenses from wide angle to 400 mm. The 200mm and 135mm are quite common. The 200mm f2.8 and 300mm and 400mm lenses show only up occasionally. I have a 200mm f2.8 for sale right now by the way. Cheers, Ronald Derby Chang wrote: Does anyone know anything about this lens? Its a manual focus Sigma XQ 200mm/f3.5 on an interchangeable lens mount. The focusing mechanism is interesting. It has a quick focusing ring, and a second, fine focusing ring that gets it into the macro mode, although I think it is actually around about 1:2. The feel of the focusing is pleasant. Its a pretty soft lens to begin with, but in macro, it goes sooper soft focus. http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index5/05_12_dreamy/01.htm I picked it up for about $40 so I can't complain. But it certainly is has an odd personality. D
Re: Sigma XQ 200mm - strange soft-focus macro
Hi Bob, On my Sigma f4 lens its written T3/YS Is the T3 a development of the YS or... Cheers, Ronald Bob Shell wrote: On Dec 10, 2005, at 9:54 AM, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: The YS-mount to begin with was used in the 70's by a number of lens manufacturers (maybe they were al Sigma?). Sun, Focal, Sigma. Its also called the T3 mount. This mount was developed by Sigma. The YS mount was a Sigma exclusive. It is not the same as T3. Bob
Re: No fur, No photos
Hi, I couldn't agree more with Jostein about the behaviour of anima rights activists. They do the same in Sweden. Release north american minks into the wild making enormous environmental catastrophy onto bird and fish since they have few natural predators to give them a fight. From where I originate, southern Swedish Lapland, minik is major problem with the local fish and birdlife - of course originally it was the pelt farmers who had a poor fencing allowing some animals to escape. Thus they and the animal rights activists work hand in hand to destroy our local fauna. Ironic isn't it. Anyhow, resorting to violence and doing stupid things like releasing non-wild non-domestic animals into the wild is just a lazy method (quick and dirty is the term) instead for taking the hard working line and work through democratic methods. Josteins website - You got some really nice pictures there Jostein, making me want to go to Norway on holiday soon. Cheers, Ronald Jostein wrote: Markus, I can stay on topic here. :-) My first photographic assignment (all done with Pentax) some nine years ago was to produce a series of landscapes from the local community where we lived at the time. One day while working the landscape of a neighbouring island, a Toyota Hilux approached at high speed. A farmer jumped out and was outright aggressive to me. Nasty words and threats I will not repeat here. Fortunately I was about 20 cm taller than the guy, otherwise I think he would have attacked me physically. After a while I got out of him that he suspected me to be an animal rights activist spying out his pelt farm. I tried to reassure him that I was not, but he didn't really want to believe me. However, he got back into his car and let me continue. The experience shook me too much to do anything more that day. As it turned out, he was very tense at the time because a nearby pelt farmer had been threatened by an activist. This particular activist had walked straight into the farm and began taking photos of the caged animals with flash. Later, the photos turned up at the local photo club, and it was all too obvious that the activist's behaviour was scaring the animals badly. Besides, the photos were not good. Overexposed, slightly blurred and not really showing the photographer's intent. I was a teacher at that time, and to my surprise the activist was one of my students; a woman of age 25. Over the next couple of days I talked things over with her, and learned her reasoning. She had much love and empathy for the caged animals, of course, but it was all emotions and no knowledge. She categorically denied that her behaviour at the farm had scared the animals. She was confident in that the animals, mostly silver fox, would get a much better life if the cage doors were just opened. I asked her specifically what she believed would happen to the local wildlife, and she replied that she couldn't care less. :-o The nice end to the story is that the farmer came to see the exhibition a year later, and then came up to me and apologised his behaviour. If you'd like to see some of the images produced for that project, there's an essay about the place on my website et http://www.oksne.net . It's called fnnoy. No pelt farms there, only a salmon pen. Finally, I'd like to say that I'm not particularly in favour of pelt farming. I just find the methods of the activists to be outright stupid. Jostein - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:48 AM Subject: RE: No fur, No photos Hi Jostein I disagree completely with you here. Do I really have to look out for some (Pentax) photos of Scandinavia pelt animal farms and show them here to stay on topic? greetings Markus The foot-soldiers are just naïve young adults with reduced ability to see the consequences of their actions. In other words, prime candidates for darwininan selection...:-) Jostein
FS: MX motordrive and Battery Grip for MX/LX
Hi, I have for sale MX Motordrive that looks very nice with some small scratches and slight color wear. Overall a nice item. Asking 120 Euro Battery Grip M for MX or LX motordrive. This grip is the one that takes AA batteries. Looks used but not abused. Asking 110 Euro. I will ship anywhere at actual mailing cost. Contact me offlist if interested. I might be a bit slow in ansering emails during the weekend due to other activities. But I'll be in touch as soon as I can. Cheers, Ronald
FS: 200 f2.8 screwmount - Mint
I have for sale a Sigma 200 f2.8, YS- screwmount. The lens comes with a macromode making focusing to !/3 of full size possible. This part though I believe is more of a softfocus thing than the real macro. The lens has only been used a couple of times. Aperture and focusing works snappy and smoothly. Aperture is the so called automatic for pentax M42. Optics fine and without marks and blemishes. Asking 140 Euro. Ship from Sweden at actual cost. Cheers, Ronald
FS: Friday MX Motordrive and Battery Grip
Hi, I have for sale MX Motordrive that looks very nice with some small scratches and slight color wear. Overall a nice item. Asking 120 Euro Battery Grip M for MX or LX motordrive. This grip is the one that takes AA batteries. Looks used but not abused. Asking 110 Euro. I will ship anywhere at actual mailing cost. Cheers, Ronald
Re: No fur, No photos
Here in the old world we learned the wild west - it should maybe the wild east Cheers, ronald Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several years ago I was on one of my driving trips in rural Virginia looking for interesting photographs. I was deep in the backwoods on a dirt road. I saw a stunning landscape so I stopped the car and got out (no room to pull over) planning to explore the possibilities of the scene. Just as I had gotten my tripod set up and was mounting the camera, a very rough looking country fellow in bib overalls stepped out of the woods, rifle in hand. He didn't say a word, just looked at me really hard. At about the same time a breeze kicked up from his direction carrying the unmistakable smell -- a corn whiskey still. I packed everything back in the car as quickly as I could and continued on my way. Some people you just don't mess with. A good friend of mine is the medical examiner for Winston-Salem, NC (and a lot of surrounding area). He knows all the general areas where the stills and marijuana farms (pot is estimated by some to be North Carolina's number 2 cash crop) are so he can make sure to get a police escort when he needs to retrieve a body from one of these places. Some of them have virtual private armies.
Re: No fur, No photos
Could easily be transformed into the Wild Feast Ronald Jostein wrote: It's pretty much universal for rural areas, I think. Maybe the Wild Yeast? Jostein - Original Message - From: Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: Re: No fur, No photos Here in the old world we learned the wild west - it should maybe the wild east Cheers, ronald Mark Roberts wrote: Bob Shell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several years ago I was on one of my driving trips in rural Virginia looking for interesting photographs. I was deep in the backwoods on a dirt road. I saw a stunning landscape so I stopped the car and got out (no room to pull over) planning to explore the possibilities of the scene. Just as I had gotten my tripod set up and was mounting the camera, a very rough looking country fellow in bib overalls stepped out of the woods, rifle in hand. He didn't say a word, just looked at me really hard. At about the same time a breeze kicked up from his direction carrying the unmistakable smell -- a corn whiskey still. I packed everything back in the car as quickly as I could and continued on my way. Some people you just don't mess with. A good friend of mine is the medical examiner for Winston-Salem, NC (and a lot of surrounding area). He knows all the general areas where the stills and marijuana farms (pot is estimated by some to be North Carolina's number 2 cash crop) are so he can make sure to get a police escort when he needs to retrieve a body from one of these places. Some of them have virtual private armies.
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
Yes, The Swedish era appear to be ending. Nevertheless, the design of the H1 was the product of the old firm. However, the digital evolution, speed and need of money to survive the initial years of change brought forward this change. Still the new H1 is a very good camera. One should remember that the japanese camera manufactrrs have had a similar development with a lot of assembleing in other parts of Asia. Even the old Blads - not all stuff was made in Sweden for those - even though amount made in house and out of their own plants was far less than its now.. Ronald Bob Shell wrote: On Dec 1, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: P. J. Alling wrote: Word is that the new Hassy is made by Fuji. You mean the actual body? Surely the digital bits are by Imacon? They didn't so much desert Zeiss and desert themselves... Lenses and film magazines are from Fuji. Body is assembled by Hasselblad from parts made by Minolta (prism, metering system, focusing screen) and other Asian suppliers. Assembly is being moved from Sweden to Denmark (Imacon). There are so few employees left at the Swedish facility that each one has the square meters of a very large house!! I suspect it won't be too long before the Swedish operation is shut down entirely. End of an era, for sure. Bob
FS: MX motordrive and Battery Grip for MX/LX
Hi, I have for sale MX Motordrive that looks very nice with some small scratches and slight color wear. Asking 120 Euro Battery Grip M for MX or LX motordrive. This grip is the one that takes AA batteries. Asking 110 Euro. I will ship anywhere. Contact me offlist if interested. I might be a bit slow in ansering emails during the weekend due to other activities. But I'll be in touch as soon as I can. Cheers, Ronald
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
Hi Jostein, Its intersting to hear about H1 being used by outdoor photographer. I would be very interested if you could ask your friend if its usable in low temperatures? Are we getting into the age when only old obsolete cameras can be used for a longer period in cold climates say -30C? Even so, if the Pentax 45D will be below 1$ this will be a hit because Blad digital is expensive. Cheers, Ronald Jostein wrote: Quoting Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, do you have any thoughts about the ruggedness of the H1 system? Would it be possible to expose a H1 to more hostile environments, like shorelines, deserts or wet conditions? In my opinion the Hasselblad is strictly a studio item... Not much substance provided to that opinion? I know a professional nature photographer using H1 for his work. You can have a look at his work on the Samfoto website; his name is Svein Grønvold. Since he's dependent on his tool for his income, he'd be out of business if it was strictly a studio item. Most of the film-based MedFs had a problem with sealing around the detachable magazines. The Pentax 645 insert solution was much better in this respect, and also providing more rigor to the body itself compared to the competition. I was curious to hear if the H1 was somewhat better in this respect than was the old 6x6 'Blad systems, but apparently it's neither worse nor better. For Norewgian conditions, I'm very sceptical to the use of triple-A batteries. They are more sensitive to low temperatures than larger cells. I will see if I can pose Svein some questions about this. :-) Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
It is not true that the main focus of Hasselblad was indoor wedding. Victor Hasselblads aim with the first camera was to produce a versatile camera for outdoor photography as this was his main interest. The camera turned out to be very versatile for other purposes as well. I've personnaly used Blad in the field. The 2000 series with lenses without shutters. It has worked very well for me under some rather difficult conditions. The good thing has been its reliability under various conditions from really cold weather to warm humid conditions. Cheers, Ronald Pål Jensen wrote: - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not much substance provided to that opinion? I know a professional nature photographer using H1 for his work. You can have a look at his work on the Samfoto website; his name is Svein Grønvold. Since he's dependent on his tool for his income, he'd be out of business if it was strictly a studio item. Most of the film-based MedFs had a problem with sealing around the detachable magazines. The Pentax 645 insert solution was much better in this respect, and also providing more rigor to the body itself compared to the competition. I was curious to hear if the H1 was somewhat better in this respect than was the old 6x6 'Blad systems, but apparently it's neither worse nor better. Probably every camera conceived is used by somebody outdoors. However, it is obvious that the Hasselblad was designed for studio and indoor shooters like wedding photographers etc (BTW like most MF equipment). Another camera that comes to mind is the Contax 645. Perhaps the only MF equipment that is meant for and marketed towards outdoor use is the Pentax MF cameras Pål
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
I saw it on TV as a kid - Armstrong and Aldrin stepping down. In those days we used to believe TV.maybe... Cheers, ronald frank theriault wrote: On 12/2/05, Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not true that the main focus of Hasselblad was indoor wedding. Victor Hasselblads aim with the first camera was to produce a versatile camera for outdoor photography as this was his main interest. The camera turned out to be very versatile for other purposes as well. I've personnaly used Blad in the field. The 2000 series with lenses without shutters. It has worked very well for me under some rather difficult conditions. The good thing has been its reliability under various conditions from really cold weather to warm humid conditions. They worked pretty well on the moon. If you actually believe that we went to the moon, that is... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: H1 Blad - some gains, some loses
Hi, Thanks for the review Kevin. I'm sick of such a camrea myself having had an old 2000FC with assorted lenses for years together with my Pentax equipment. The camera with digital back got a very good review in the Swedish magazine FOTO where they concluded that it offered a superior image in terms of resolution and noise compared to the top of the notch Canon. The oldrule still is valid - the bigger the better- However with one exception - that is the lack of antialiasing filter whichmight give moire at times. This is due t the fact that the lenses have a higher resolution than the lenses and thus cannot sample all the details (accurately) that the lenses put on the sensor. An old known problem in signal analysis. However, they concluded that this was not really a major problem and that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. I would be curious to hear your experience on this with highly detailed subjects further on. Yes its a bit strange they deserted Zeiss. It could have been that at a time Zeiss thought that they could not produce high quality AF optics - again accroding to FOTO (Swedish magazine if I remeber correctly). Actually some of the most recent Blad optics for their old line was not made by Zeiss either. It turned out that they had started some devlopment - design of optics - with modern software - the could give them the optical quality they were looking for. The magazine FOTO claimed in on sentence - that the new lenses for H1/H2 were as good or maybe even better than the old. If the camera is as rugged as the old Hasselbads then one should be able to take them anywhere - but Josteins might be right - maybe dust could be a problem? With old Blads this is not any problem. I've used mine in environments rangin from -40C up to +30C from snow to beach - however one needs to be careful particularly at the beach. One always should. As for backpacking - I do it with some 5 kilos of Blad eequipment and add som Pentax gear to that. It works but is of course not as fast as moving around with a much smaller 35mm/APSC-digi stuff. Cheers Ronald Jostein Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:00:14 -0800 Thanks for a very comprehensive report, Kevin. Very interesting to read what to expect from a MedF digital over the current APS size offerings from Pentax. If the Pentax digital 645 materialises, this is probably what it has to match. At least in terms of noise characteristics, AF performance and interface. Even if the Pentax sensor size will be only 16 Mpix, it will be sufficient for most uses. Do you have any idea about the battery performance of the H1 kit? Using triple-As sound like a short-lived solution...:-) Also, do you have any thoughts about the ruggedness of the H1 system? Would it be possible to expose a H1 to more hostile environments, like shorelines, deserts or wet conditions? Cheers, Jostein Quoting Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I took the H1 for a test drive today and I must say I was thoroughly impressed. From the moment I first held it, the feeling of the camera let the operator know this was not a toy. Looking through the view finder I found it to be a vast improvement from that offered by pentax. The view was light and bright, even under low light it was easy to find an edge to work with. A change from the tradition backs of the blads, no darkslide is needed when changing backs, very convenient when working in the dark. The digital back offers a 22 megapixel 48.9mm x 36.7mm sensor and various backs have various sizes available. The Kodak back is 22 megapixel 36mm x 36mm. This is a welcome change from the APS size as it allows much better cropping. The first big hit comes with CF cards, each image is 96Meg but it does allow saving in PS's DMG format. Also the ability to hook up firewire directly to a computer/laptop is something I believe all pro models should have. If you have anything less than a 2 gig card, you need to start spending. This is a real plus for the APS size images as it affords much cheaper and smaller CF cards. Another plus in the Pentax camp was the use of AA batteries, the H1 uses 3 CR-123 lithium batteries or an extension which carries 8 AAA batteries. There is not a large range of lenses available and I spent my time with the 80mm f2.8 as this is something I am familiar with in low light. There is nowhere near the range of AF lenses available for Pentax. What impressed me instantly was the Auto Focus speed. This was a vast improvement on Pentax, although it did struggle with object coming directly at the camera. The AF in low light was impressive also. In situations where the *istD spent its time hunting, the H1 nailed it and had the image on disk. A great gain was the ISO rating which is available up to 6400. I have use the *istD at 3200 and the image is horribly noisy. The Blad was not totally clean at 6400 but gave a good result, and at 3200 was comparable with the 800 of the Pentax. On using a strobe with
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Hi, I'd like 5fps/s for at least 4-5 secs High Speed flash sync Sealed body against dust and hunidity Buttons for stuff like speed, focus select, Button for metering mode Button for exposure compensation Full compataibility with older lenses If possible full frame. Cheers, Ronald After spending about four lifetimes following the recent spew about non-A lens support, I started to think about what I would really WANT in a digital camera. (This has nothing to do with the possible petition to Pentax.) Just for kicks (and a bit of flame-free fun) I'd like to know what you would WANT if you could have your DSLR your way. Throw caution to the wind. Don't even consider what is feasible or marketable. Just let us know what your dream digital camera looks like. Here's mine: I wanna be able to select ISO and shutter speed with knobs. It should support an available line of manual focus lenses. K-mount (un-crippled) is good. Screw mount or M-mount would be cool, too. I don't need auto focus, auto aperture, or auto anything. Monochrome sensor. Something in the 4 to 6 MP range is good. Metal chassis. Metal body. RAW and JPEG. PC sync. No built-in flash. Less than $1500 US. Things I don't need, but could live with: Hot shoe. Picture modes. Features I would like, but could live without: In-camera DNG support. That's about it.
Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
The internal buffer memeory thats probably something really good to have upgraded. Like certain PDA's that some people soldered some extra memory chips on top of the old one and double the RAM memory. This made these machines much faster. BUT. Sometimes they wre ruined and its really tricky to do so I wouldnt do it with my stuff.. Also the operating system kernels needed modification to work with the extra memeory, maybe this is the case if anyone would try to upgrade the istD? However, as always in computer business , probably digital cameras, an upgrade of memeory sometimes makes better performance than just getting a faster processor. Lets hope Pentax will increase the buffer memory. The price nowadays cant be much of an issue since most meorychips are falling in price. Mark Roberts Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:50:09 -0700 From DP Review: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05092001s3pro256.asp Fujifilm Japan has today announced that it will make available an upgrade for the S3 Pro digital SLR which will increase the camera's internal buffer from 128 MB to 256 MB. I don't know about anyone else, but *I'd* pay a couple of hundred dollars to upgrade the buffer in my ist-D. :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
Hi, I'm sure you're right. The whole idea of the digital revolution is that you dont upgrade but buy new stuff. However, I'm sure more memory can be pressed into the cameras without incresing the space. The whole evolution of the elctronics world goes in the direction boudble the stuff in a year or so on the same space as before, or alternatively double the prestanda for the sme price as the the worse capacity component. So the problem is not if its doable its what the manufacturers want. I heard recently a camera repairman complain that newer Canons and Minoltas were not easily repaired and just made for consumption whereas the other camera brands are repairable. Cheers, Ronald Lucas Rijnders Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:48:07 -0700 On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:16 +0200, Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The internal buffer memeory thats probably something really good to have upgraded. Like certain PDA's that some people soldered some extra memory My wholly uneducated guess is that if Pentax has to choose between upgradablility of memory and compactness of the camera during design the latter is going to win. It's their great selling point (and obviously nor Fuji's ;-) The DS and DL marketing blurb talks about seven-layer circuit boards. That does not sound like you can easily pull out a SIMM... So: I'd only expect a larger buffer in a new camera... Sorry, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Re: Buffer upgrade to DSLR
Hi, Interesting points. I just thought about sending the camera in for service, they would exchange the memory. However, making the memory upgradable like PCs that would of course make for a bigger camera but what a camera then witha large buffer. Interesting dream I think. Regarding MF backs. They made a test in the Swedish magazine phot comparing a hasselblad back 37*48 mm (Leaf if remember) to Canon 35 mm digital and the mf back was giving far more information. I think, I'm not sure that they have a Kodak sensor which pentax also discussed about using - same sensor or not I don't know. Signal processing on the Canon appeared better but there was no contest about resolution, separation of colors.. In all the MF back was phantastic - however the price was like a new car. It just made want to be a millionaire. The quality difference came down to the same old 35mm vs 120 6'6 or 6'4.5 or 6'7 difference on can see on film. Cheers, Ronald Lucas Rijnders Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:13:27 -0700 On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:49:36 +0200, Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure you're right. The whole idea of the digital revolution is that you dont upgrade but buy new stuff. Except PC's of course: they have a fully open architecture. Worked pretty well to corner the market, too... Conventional wisdom however says that a modular digital camera does not make much sense. The attempts at it (MF backs, Leica Digital back) do show some severe compromises in price and size, so conventional wisdom might even be right, though I am the first to admit that comparing a Leica to a Rebel on price is not completely fair :o) In that regard it will be very interesting to see how the D645 will do against the digital-back competition... However, I'm sure more memorycan be pressed into the cameras without incresing the space. The whole Oh sure. I meant that I think that a camera without exchangeable memory modules will be smaller than one with exchangeble ones: not the module per sé are smaller, but you can leave out the connection mechanism, the 'motherboard' need not be very strong, the memory does not need to be easily reachable, etc. etc. -- Regards, Lucas
Re:Re:
Thanks for the info Don, Ronald Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:50:19 -0500 From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just timed it at 16 Green Buttons in 10 seconds, so .625 secomds per push. The only way around it is to leave the lens wide open and use AV mode, the camera then meters automagically. OR use an M42 lens stopped down in AV mode, same thing. One other consideration, not mentioned here I don't believe: Wireless flash _won't work_ with non-A lenses, this is a bigger factor for me sometimes then the Green Button. Don -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 6:39 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Hi, I've mainly browsed the list and asked some questions from time to time. However, this interest me. I'm thinking of getting a Pentax DSLR, having mainly shot Pentax 35mm and Hassie mf. 1. One thing I've wondered about is how fast in real life is the use of the Green button?. Once activated to shot being taken - is it a few tenths of second prolongation, or is it a second..? 2. I can understand some of JCO's queries here. I e.g. sometimes shot hummingbirds - small fast moving creature and you move the lens while shooting of a rapid series of shots (LX and its of the film metering is really good) and while you do that the light sometimes changes so that expousre must be metered at or close to real time of shooting. I guess that this might be a problem if you need to press the Green button on every change of the light or is there a way round this? I'd appreaciated some pondering on these question. If this is to slow then I'm thinking of keeping my fast 35 mm for certain situations and digital for other type o slower photography. Cheers, Ronald Arvidss
Re: Pentax *ist-DL
Hmm, I often present myself as Scandinavian abroad since many more people in certain parts would rather know that then one of the specific countries. I guess also the EU maps showing some countries and others not show the same ignorance of geography as Europeans ascribe to Americans. My observation is that people wherever they live tend to have their own special geocentric world. Ours is pentaxian land in cyberspace galaxy. Cheers, Ronald Well, as we are celebrating 100 years freedom from Sweden these days I´ve seen a reprint of a map of Scandinavia without Sweden. It´s only fair, since the EU often print maps of Europe without Norway. DagT På 1. jun. 2005 kl. 19.58 skrev Ronald Arvidsson: Hi, Sweden been in place since about 1100-1200 AD when it was consolidated, and its still there. Haven't seen any temporary time-space shutdowns - either. Problems though are called digital revolution. Cheers, Ronald Re: Pentax *ist-DL P. J. Alling Wed, 01 Jun 2005 07:52:47 -0700 That's very strange, did the entire country of Sweden just disappear, I can't seem to get to that web site. End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 Issue #1282 **
Re: Pentax *ist-DL
Hi, Sweden been in place since about 1100-1200 AD when it was consolidated, and its still there. Haven't seen any temporary time-space shutdowns - either. Problems though are called digital revolution. Cheers, Ronald Re: Pentax *ist-DL P. J. Alling Wed, 01 Jun 2005 07:52:47 -0700 That's very strange, did the entire country of Sweden just disappear, I can't seem to get to that web site.
Re: Feeling inadequate (was: Why and How I switched to Canon)
Light it and kill the fire - the firebrigade is only interested in having the zero. The 1 is when its burning. As in all photography to expose or not to expose is the question cit. Pamphlet Ronald P. J. Alling wrote Tue, 03 May 2005 19:41:21 -0700 Isn't it difficult to find binary Kerosene? Shel Belinkoff wrote: I don't have RAID and my computer is kerosene powered. Shel [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert On 3 May 2005 at 21:22, Herb Chong wrote: i have much more than Paul has, 1.2 terabyte RAID array. My server RAID is only 0.75TB :-(
Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass.
Hi, Actually I believe that in the past some lenses included ED and aAL lenses also without being mentioned. However, in recenmt years, say last 10-15 years or so, high tech has also come into glass manufacturing. New ED glasses have come, cheaper than before and AL can be made much easier and faster than in the past by high-precision compurezied grinding or moulding of plastic elements onto ordinary glass to produce AL. Also designing of optics is now a much easier feat, due to computers. ray imaging and modeling, using so called inversion methods or even trial and error can design a lens in little time due to the massive computing powers of even desktop computers. Hasselblad was e.g., reported to have designed their own converters to very high standards using cheap software for lens modeling. SOme if not all of their new lenses to the new autofocus H1 series and digital H1D, which are not Carl Zeiss by the way but Hasselblad lenses, where probably also designed and assembled by Hasselblad even though a lot of manufacturing is done in Japan. These methods was by the way developed in the late 60's and early 70's (to use the computing power of computers) for imaging the interior of the Earth, beign used to show the inner features of the planet and explain e.g., our magnetic field. Cheers, Ronald Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass. David Oswald Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:53:50 -0700 I'm curious. In the days of 35mm SLR's, Pentax had a few ED lenses; mostly fairly long telephotos. Now that DSLR's are the up-and-coming thing, suddenly we're seeing ED glass in the 16-45, 50-200 (as yet unreleased), and the 12-24 (newly announced). AL elements have also become more commonplace. So the question is, what's going on here? I see a few possibilities: * ED glass has suddenly become cheap enough to use in a broader range of lenses. * ED glass has become necessary to produce acceptible results with DSLR's. * ED glass has become enough of a recognized feature that using it pays dividends in improved lens sales. * Pentax has become committed to producing better zooms than ever before, possibly to try to close the door on 3rd party lenses (much like SMC does). Much as I love my Pentax equipment, I can't help but wonder if the sudden proliferation of ED glass in Pentax's DA lenses is because without the ED glass the lenses on DSLR's wouldn't live up to the performance of their FA equivilants in 35mm format. The same question could apply to the proliferation of AL elements in recent lenses, though this trend actually began back around the late 90's, so it's not as new of a trend. I would love to hear that AL and ED elements common in recent Pentax lenses represent actual improvements to image quality, size, weight, and/or cost/value over lenses produced without these types of elements. Is this actually the case?
Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass.
Hi, I'm not sure you got my point. Design of optics is not necessarily a difficult thing anymore even though all of these companies, Fuji as well as Hasselblad has the ability to do good lenses. My reason for not stating that the hasselblad lenses were Fujinons is that they might be Hasselblad design, some stuff done by Fuji (but not all) because its cheaper than having Hasselbad people locally doing it, same thing with the H1 camera, assembly is most likely local - stated in an interview with Swedish magazine Foto a few years ago. Very few western countries today do production in their home countries do to high costs. However, AL and ED designs are important to make more compact and sometimes sharper optics, of course just the name is not worth anything but with modern computer technology the mix of different lenses with different refraction indexes make it much easier to make better and more compact optics with minimal input in the design. The best and sharpest optics is however a combination of good design and minute exactness. This last point is where the best glass is achieved from e.g. Pentax - also quality control. Cheers, Ronald Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass. Frantisek Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:59:32 -0700 RA new autofocus H1 series and digital H1D, which are not Carl Zeiss by the RA way but Hasselblad lenses, where probably also designed and assembled by RA Hasselblad even though a lot of manufacturing is done in Japan. AFAIK these are Fujinons, made by Fuji (as is the whole H1 camera, and the X-pan film rangefinder). Which is not a bad thing, both are gorgeous cameras with great lenses (just ask any LF shooter about Fujinons). Today, IMNSHO, ED glass is quite a meaningless term. It doesn't say anything about the good or bad of the lens, nor about its aberrations. It doesn't mean the lens is Apochromatic. It doesn't even hint at it. Same with APO. Also, I have never saw any manufacturer actually disclose what actual index does they mean by e.g. ED designation, and how much extreme it is compared to normal glass. Pentax was always quite conservative in its lens designations, which was good - but today market terms are more important than actual quality, so they must adapt to the market which asks for lens names longer than the lens barrel itself!!! Good light! fra
Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass.
Hi Fran, Didn't wan't to sound to bully. I'm not always quite clear in mails myself. Yes, the latest new designs have benefitted of new glasses, ED and AL, however the computerization is equally important in the design. Today any feature of the lens, sharpness, contrast, flare,... can be quite thouroughly modelled. This is field I know some things about since the tools are basically the same as in my field of sounding the Earth with so called elastic waves. The tools where actually first developed within my field (geophysics and seismology) and two pioneers were Dziewonski and Gilbert and Gilbert was one of the very first (if not the first - havent checked it for a while though) to fomulate the problem. It all stems to the basics that waves whether elastic (in solid media), acoustic or optic all behave the same way for practical reasons when it comes to modelling. Cheers, Ronald Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass. Frantisek Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:04:09 -0700 RA I'm not sure you got my point. Design of optics is not necessarily a Perhaps not :-) I am sometimes not sure if I even understand my point... g Personally, I don't care much if the lenses are Fuji design or Hassy specified or Schneider or whatever... as long as they are good, which they are. I would be glad to own any Hasselblad :-) One example of good lens is the Cosina 4/25mm - it is small and has that Leica look in pictures, at a fraction of the price. RA However, AL and ED designs are important to make more compact and RA sometimes sharper optics, of course just the name is not worth anything RA but with modern computer technology the mix of different lenses with RA different refraction indexes make it much easier to make better and more I am no expert here. But definitely we lately saw many extreme lenses not done before, full frame 12-24 zooms, 12mm rectilinear rangefinder lenses, etc. Most probably because of the things you mentioned. Aspheric surface is said to count as two normal surfaces regarding the designers' freedom, IIRC. RA compact optics with minimal input in the design. The best and sharpest RA optics is however a combination of good design and minute exactness. RA This last point is where the best glass is achieved from e.g. Pentax - RA also quality control. I definitely agree. Even though I am no expert :) In the end, it comes to good lenses or bad lenses, no matter what designations they have. Frantisek
Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass.
Hi Fran, Didn't wan't to sound bully. I'm not always quite clear in mails myself. Yes, the latest new designs have benefitted of new glasses, ED and AL, however the computerization is equally important in the design. Today any feature of the lens, sharpness, contrast, flare,... can be quite thouroughly modelled. This is field I know some things about since the tools are basically the same as in my field of sounding the Earth with so called elastic waves. The tools where actually first developed within my field (geophysics and seismology) and two pioneers were Dziewonski and Gilbert and Gilbert was one of the very first (if not the first - havent checked it for a while though) to fomulate the problem. It all stems to the basics that waves whether elastic (in solid media), acoustic or optic all behave the same way for practical reasons when it comes to modelling. Cheers, Ronald Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass. Frantisek Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:04:09 -0700 RA I'm not sure you got my point. Design of optics is not necessarily a Perhaps not :-) I am sometimes not sure if I even understand my point... g Personally, I don't care much if the lenses are Fuji design or Hassy specified or Schneider or whatever... as long as they are good, which they are. I would be glad to own any Hasselblad :-) One example of good lens is the Cosina 4/25mm - it is small and has that Leica look in pictures, at a fraction of the price. RA However, AL and ED designs are important to make more compact and RA sometimes sharper optics, of course just the name is not worth anything RA but with modern computer technology the mix of different lenses with RA different refraction indexes make it much easier to make better and more I am no expert here. But definitely we lately saw many extreme lenses not done before, full frame 12-24 zooms, 12mm rectilinear rangefinder lenses, etc. Most probably because of the things you mentioned. Aspheric surface is said to count as two normal surfaces regarding the designers' freedom, IIRC. RA compact optics with minimal input in the design. The best and sharpest RA optics is however a combination of good design and minute exactness. RA This last point is where the best glass is achieved from e.g. Pentax - RA also quality control. I definitely agree. Even though I am no expert :) In the end, it comes to good lenses or bad lenses, no matter what designations they have. Frantisek
Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass.
Hi Joe, Re: Pentax's sudden infatuation with ED glass. Joseph Tainter Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:37:07 -0700 David asked: * ED glass has suddenly become cheap enough to use in a broader range of lenses. * ED glass has become necessary to produce acceptible results with DSLR's. * ED glass has become enough of a recognized feature that using it pays dividends in improved lens sales. * Pentax has become committed to producing better zooms than ever before, possibly to try to close the door on 3rd party lenses (much like SMC does). - I have wondered if ED glass is now less expensive to produce. Mentioning its presence is certainly an advertising point. - Yes I believe so too. There are a number of new glasses. Just go into your opricians shop and ask for thinglasses - that will give a few ED glasses to choose from. Then Fra wrote: Today, IMNSHO, ED glass is quite a meaningless term. It doesn't say anything about the good or bad of the lens, nor about its aberrations. It doesn't mean the lens is Apochromatic. It doesn't even hint at it. Same with APO. Also, I have never saw any manufacturer actually disclose what actual index does they mean by e.g. ED designation, and how much extreme it is compared to normal glass. - This is right. Some third-party zooms with ED (or SD or LD) and/or apochromatic designs are rather poor performers. - And Ronald wrote: However, AL and ED designs are important to make more compact and sometimes sharper optics, of course just the name is not worth anything but with modern computer technology the mix of different lenses with different refraction indexes make it much easier to make better and more compact optics with minimal input in the design. The best and sharpest optics is however a combination of good design and minute exactness. - I am relatively unknowledgeable about optical design. But I have begun to suspect that ED and AL glass mainly allow for more compact designs/fewer elements. The FA 20 contains neither, yet it seems to be a better 20/2.8 than the offerings from Nikon, Canon, or Minolta. It is also a sharper lens than the DA 14 ED. The FA 20-35 contains no ED elements, yet at 20 mm. it performs slightly better on the D than the DA 16-45 does. (Of course, it also has a more conservative zoom range. I consider them essentially equivalent in their performance.) Well it can help lenses become sharp not only in the center but also in the edges - have you ever had AL glasses - I mean those on your nose. Who knows exactly what optical glasses the FA20 and 20-35 contains? Yes zooms become either sharper or more compact. Making it too compact with expensive glass will make it harder to produce a good lens than a somewhat larger zoom with good glasses. It is however as someone earlier in this post said not only ED and AL but the whole design together with the other glasses that makes the lens - nevertheless ED and AL makes it easier to produce sharp optics zoom or prime. How sharp the lenses need to be is a decision of how many and for what prize they can sell. I would be very interested though to know how expensive for the manufacturers the glass in reality is or is it the exactness of the design that costs money Even so I guess that recently industrial robots do a lot of the work - how good are these for a reasonable price?? Maybe someone who knows more could chime in on these last observations. We know that third-party manufacturers can produce very fine lenses when they want to. But they need to undercut the first-party manufacturers on price, so often their lenses come up just a bit short. Joe Cheers, Ronald
Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts
Hi, Lovely picture. I get really sick of going to Boston. We lived there for a year in the 90's and we had a small pond in Arlington heights which looked just the same in the winter. The winter was by the way really nice with white snow and fantastic blue skies. Cheers, Ronald About 10 miles NE of Boston http://www.hemenway.com/1stDayofSpring-05/pages/TwistedTree.htm isDS with 43mm Limited
Re: Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts
Hi Jim, Well that's exactly the weather we got where I am now, Uppsala , Sweden. Since I grew up in the far north, this time of the winter, we call it spring winter, its the best for going out on skis, picknick etc. And yes it has got quite a differerent meaning compared to California. I guess that one really appreaciate winter first when one goes outside, with proper clothing, and do things, today I had a several hour long ski trip, cross country. Still, your description makes me really nostalgic. Boston is a very nice place with lots of room (well maybe a bit crowded but..) for a lot of different people with a fantastic atmosphere. Cheers, Ronald Jim Hemenway Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:17:16 -0800 Ronald: Thanks! You're right about the blue skies, hardly any yesterday and none today. A weather forecast of Sunny and Clear has a whole different meaning here as opposed to the California and the rest of the southwest. Jim Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Hi, Lovely picture. I get really sick of going to Boston. We lived there for a year in the 90's and we had a small pond in Arlington heights which looked just the same in the winter. The winter was by the way really nice with white snow and fantastic blue skies. Cheers, Ronald About 10 miles NE of Boston http://www.hemenway.com/1stDayofSpring-05/pages/TwistedTree.htm isDS with 43mm Limited
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
Doesn't A look a little bit like the Leica R8? Cheers, Ronald From: Marco Alpert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Pentax List pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: 645D Photos (under glass) here Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:36:16 -0800 Not one, not two, but three different mock ups: http://www.digitalcamera.jp/ I'm thinking this thing is still pretty far away. There also seems to be a chart with a lens development timeline, but unfortunately there's no large version yet. -Marco
Re: Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
I guess this discussion is going into the most beautiful advertizing ... From what I know of medium format cameras its the specs and the durability that's the main stuff, not the looks.. well maybe not-- if you say its canon and olympus like then its not a camera A canon is for the military to make serious noise and confusion, The Olympos is a mountatin in Greece where the Greecian gods live. Pentax is tool, yearning, complaint, spouse irritator, and hopwfully camera. Cheers, Ronald On 17 Mar 2005 at 13:40, Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Doesn't A look a little bit like the Leica R8? I think maybe it's more like mongrel cross between a Canon IX APS SLR and an Oly E-10 :-( I think the B camera is short for Butt-ugly 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: Movin' Up from the istD
Hi, I haven't yet got an istD or istDS but what I would like in a newer body to buy it instead of istD or istDS is: 1. More frames/second. At least 5 frames per second as my LX and MX motordrives do. 2. Larger dynamic range. 3. Larger sensor. 4. ISO controls as dials, controlsd for focus point - as in MZS (maybe istD has it but its discontinued). Speed dial ala MZ-5. 5. Abel to set aperture on lens. Cheers, Ronald Movin' Up from the istD Shel Belinkoff Wed, 09 Mar 2005 06:36:09 -0800 It seems that Pentax may soon be coming out with a replacement for the istD. How many istD owners would be interested in trading in the D for the newer camera, and what features or improvements would be needed in order to make that choice? Shel
Re: PESO: This Is Not a Blizzard
Hi, I guess its really what one is used to - here in Sweden we also use headlights during daytime. I really think its the headlights with the woman that brings life into the picture. It really shows what its like in bad weather with some occasional light source needed because its a bit dark in bad weather during winter time. Great Photo frank, Cheers, Ronald It's not the car itself. It's the headlights. For whatever reason, not sure how to explain it, they just don't do it for me. The two little bright spots tend to pull my eye away from the woman. Personal aesthetics, I guess. snip Ah, I getcha now, and I can see yer point. Sometimes these things just distract for some unexplainable reason - kinda like the candy cane sticking out of Dave Brooks' cats ear (in the PAW he just posted). It also may be that the headlights don't bother me because here in Canada, daytime running lights have been the law for 10 years or more, so it would be most peculiar for us to see a car without them on. Or maybe that has nothing to do with it, and it's just a personal thang... vbg Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments, Scott, they're really appreciated! cheers, frank
Re: TESO: Winter is here...
Hej Jens, That was really beautiful. Was the -18 C in Denmark humid too? When was the last time you had these temperatures? From where I come, Swedish Lappland its not much but I guess that with the open sea nearby it really goes under your skin. Up north the air is ususually very dry when its cold so it doesnt get to you in the same way as it does for you. Very nice photography, Cheers, Ronald
Re: Survey: How do you do exposure?
1. I shoot manual or Av, however in manual mode I set the aperture for having the depth of field I want to achieve. Even when shooting fast moving birds I see that I have the desired depth of field - so knowledge of aperture is my priority. 2. I shoot film - dont see how the above discussion would chenge for digital shooting. Cheers, Ronald
Re: PESOs - Couple of quick snaps
Hi David, I really liked the close up of the lobelias. The colours are great. The BW reminds of when I was in NZ over Xmas with my family. we had a lot of rain but the forests you got they are just amazing (Karamea). Cheers, Ronald
Re: You have to 'love' electronics.
Hmm, I belive you are talking just about zeros 000 Cheers, Ronald Persnickety things electronics -- they have off days. :-) Yeah - it's just like computers - they're not all ones and zeroes - g. Fred
Re: FA 80-320 on the *istD
Hej Paul, Nice shot. Iwould have tried to move the polar bear a little bit to the left. I have one question though. I've found that with some of these zoomes, high contrast targets make for fine pictures but low constrast really makes for a poor picture. Is this true for the FA 80320 and is it as good at 300 mm as at 200 mm? Cheers, Ronald Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: FA 80-320 on the *istD I've defended this lens before, and you know what? I still like it. It's a great and inexpensive lens for casual picture taking on the *istD.
Re: PESO: Djupvasshytta
Hi Guys, Well I have been in the field measuring earthquakes. However, we don't really do it the way the tornadochasers do. True is that there are some groups who deploy instruments after big EQs to get the smaller aftershocks that almost always occurs after the bigies. We are however not very close to what we call prediction, i.e., when we can say that in say five days we will have this and that size of an earthquake. There are some examples where people have been able to but they are rare and disputed by some. What we are better at is making prognoses where we can postulate say for a chance one out of ten that it will shake to a certain level. This is the basis for building norms in many earthquake prone areas around the globe. This is my field together with the actual physics and causes of earthquakes. We can study eartquakes thanks to internet without going to most places. A lot of our data is on line. However, a lot of cooperation is also the deal for me so I've been to Central America and Greece, e.g., in the line of work. I hope to post some nice hummingbird pictures taken with LX in the near future. I have though once experienced an earthquake, medium size M about 6, in hotel room in Greece. It was really interesting, the bed was shaking very rapidly and doors and windows where shaking and rattling, and since I knew it was safe it really fun for me. However, for people who get there homes devastaed its of course not fun. Cheers, Ronald
PESO: Automaton
Hi, I really like a picture out of everyday life. I hate commuting but its the life for many people. I would have liked the incoming cars in foreground though. Cheers, Ronald
Re: PESO: Djupvasshytta
I disagree about morning light. I think the shadows will be too large and contrast to great for this deep lake at sunset. It is in itself right now beatiful. Good shot, Cheers, Ronald Hello Kenneth, Nicely done. Would love to see this either around sunrise or sunset - better light. me too. Unfortunately I had to go well before the evening came. Maybe next time - Norway is a beautiful country. Thank you for your comment. Bedo.
Re: PESO: Djupvasshytta
I disagree about morning light. I think the shadows will be too large and contrast to great for this deep lake at sunset. It is in itself right now beatiful. Good shot, Cheers, Ronald Hello Kenneth, Nicely done. Would love to see this either around sunrise or sunset - better light. me too. Unfortunately I had to go well before the evening came. Maybe next time - Norway is a beautiful country. Thank you for your comment. Bedo.
Re: PESO: Djupvasshytta
Hi, Being a seismologist (having taught this stuff) I think youre views are stimulating. Therefore I would like to add some stuff here. You are thinking of fjord-tsunamis and there is a special example in Alaska, the Lituya bay, about 240 km north of Sitka in Alaska, where landslides causes waves to splash up to 500m in height on the other side. There is also a modern case from Norway!!! which was the most disastrous tsunami like thing in northwestern Europe in modern history. These tsunamis are although high only dangerous in the near vicinity as opposed to earthquake induced tsunamis which may hit half a globe away. The other two BIG sources for tsunamis - apart from earthquakes - are deep water landslides ( also known from Norway some 6500 years ago) and collapse of volcanoes Krakatoa 19th century San Torini (Greece) 1500 BC which are as bad as the Indonesian earthquake. My appology for writing this is that I'm a Pentaxian. Cheers, Ronald Ryan Lee Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:59:09 -0800 Bedo, That's a great shot. It reminds me of a documentary I watched on megatsunamis, hundreds of metres high. Considering the recent catastrophic tsunami was not even close to that, the trailer caught my attention and I had to watch it. It turns out that the rare phenomenon is caused by massive landslides into specifically featured lakes. It was quite frightening how high they got (they cut down trees to inspect the rings to find out). Anyway, your picture looks just like the scene they were researching.. Cheers, Ryan
Re: PESO: Djupvasshytta
I disagree about morning light. I think the shadows will be too large and contrast to great for this deep lake at sunset. It is in itself right now beatiful. Good shot, Cheers, Ronald Hello Kenneth, Nicely done. Would love to see this either around sunrise or sunset - better light. me too. Unfortunately I had to go well before the evening came. Maybe next time - Norway is a beautiful country. Thank you for your comment. Bedo.
RE: Pentax Pro DSLR (WAS: RE: Spotted on another group ...)
Just cant let this post pass. There are many opinions and irritated people in this issue. I understand and I'm one of them to a certain extent. However. I feel that Pentax for sure will have full frame when it is cost effective. In the same way we will see cameras with faster buffers and so on. We must remember that the appearance of these cameras, (unless for the cost of several thousand dollars - too much for most of us) is following the development of cheaper and more efficient in camera hardware, such as microcomputers, lcds (were very expensive just a few years ago) and not to mention CCDs. This will happen because the development of digital camreas is still racing and e.g. SONY hos one of the main players in CCDs is still throwing out nwer and better versions. So in other words don't give up hope. As long as Pentax is in the DSLR market we will se better cameras within reasonable time. For me to throw away film theywill need something that can make at least 5 frames per second - my wish. Have they had more than 5 PRO cameras? Well as someone mentioned all cameras of the early era. Of k-mount days KX KX-DMD, K2, K2DMD, MX, LX, maybe PZ1(P) MZ-S and 654 645N 645NII 67 67II. So there are a few. Cheers, Ronald
Re: MB /frame size
This was the explanation I got from the BH salesman in New York. Emulsion is not necessarily the same as silver grains.. I believe that the thickness is different for 24x36 wr to 6x6. As to whether this makes any real difference for a small piece of film scanned I'm not sure - its was my subjektive evaluation - which could be wrong. Ronald Jens Bladt wrote: I don'tunderstand the thing about thicker or better emulsion. Basicly I guess it's about the same. The 6x6 image will have about 4,5 times as much silver grain or whatever defines the image info. So what can be defind by 4,5 pixel in an 6x6 image must be defined by just one in the 24x36 image. A 6x6 image image does't demand so much as the scanner as the 24x36 image. Many scanners are not really good enough for small negs. At least my Epson Perfection 3200 Photo isn't. This was one of the reasons I switched to digital - because continuing shooting 35mm negs would mean, that I'd have invest as much as the cost of the *ist D in a dedicated film scanner. Then I'd still have to buy film, pay for development etc. So to me, buying the *ist D was actaully saving a lot of money. I already (2? months) shot pictures worth (6500 shots) the same money as the *ist D. I kept my 6x6 equipment, because some jobs (like aerial photography) need the higher resolution. My scans from 6x6 negs look great, but the 35mm scans can't really compete with my *ist D - neither in regard to quality nor cost. I know 35mm negs have theoreticly better resolution than the *ist D, but my scanner couldn't cope. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ronald Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. november 2004 19:35 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: MB /frame size Actually, I find that I get more detail (subjectively) from a 6x6 scan and discussed this with some people at a camerashop. they told me that I probably was right since they though that the quality of the 6x6 film also is bettter. I dont know it this is true - but it could be that the 6x6 has a bit thicker emulsion which maybe improves the result. I havent made any scientific check on resoultion though but I'm sure it easier for me to get god scans from 6x6 than 24x36. I use an Epson 2400 scanner by the way - not top of the professional but still giving me very god 6x6 scans with a lot of detail in them. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: Thanks, Ron, Realizing that the 6x6 records more detail, it at long last, occurred to me that I might be limiting it's recovery by using a single scan level for both formats. My excuse is that I was thinking (?) in terms of square inches rather that frame size. Jack --- Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You will have more detail in the 6x6 since there is more detail in the 6x6 negative than the 24x36. Its two equations basically resiloution6x6*resolution-scanner=scanned image6x6 resolution24-36*resolution scanner= scanned image24x36 However, you are right in the sense that you can get out more of the 6x6 if the scanner has the resoution allowing it. Still I think if the scanner is of high enough quality 100MB would suffice. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: MB /frame size
You will have more detail in the 6x6 since there is more detail in the 6x6 negative than the 24x36. Its two equations basically resiloution6x6*resolution-scanner=scanned image6x6 resolution24-36*resolution scanner= scanned image24x36 However, you are right in the sense that you can get out more of the 6x6 if the scanner has the resoution allowing it. Still I think if the scanner is of high enough quality 100MB would suffice. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: MB /frame size
Actually, I find that I get more detail (subjectively) from a 6x6 scan and discussed this with some people at a camerashop. they told me that I probably was right since they though that the quality of the 6x6 film also is bettter. I dont know it this is true - but it could be that the 6x6 has a bit thicker emulsion which maybe improves the result. I havent made any scientific check on resoultion though but I'm sure it easier for me to get god scans from 6x6 than 24x36. I use an Epson 2400 scanner by the way - not top of the professional but still giving me very god 6x6 scans with a lot of detail in them. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: Thanks, Ron, Realizing that the 6x6 records more detail, it at long last, occurred to me that I might be limiting it's recovery by using a single scan level for both formats. My excuse is that I was thinking (?) in terms of square inches rather that frame size. Jack --- Ronald Arvidsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You will have more detail in the 6x6 since there is more detail in the 6x6 negative than the 24x36. Its two equations basically resiloution6x6*resolution-scanner=scanned image6x6 resolution24-36*resolution scanner= scanned image24x36 However, you are right in the sense that you can get out more of the 6x6 if the scanner has the resoution allowing it. Still I think if the scanner is of high enough quality 100MB would suffice. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: FA135 /2.8 opinions
Hi, I got the FA 135 2.8, I'm actually quite happy with the focusing as I play it with one or two fingers only. I find it quite valuable when working close to small birds (really close) as its faster than the old manual focus lenses. I think its a great performer also creating sellable pictures with nice rendition and high contrast. Cheers, Ronald Margus Männik wrote: Hi, not great focus feel - what does it mean? If it means too easy movement with no proper fixation, I can probably live with that. When using MF, I keep my left hand always at focus ring with one finger clamping the ring. Or it's just not smooth (feels something like cheap zooms) ? However, I would very interested to hear about optical quality... BR, Margus (why, oh why, doesn't our dealer have it on stock :[ Otherwise I could just go and take it for testing) Peter J. Alling wrote: Seems to be well liked but has not great focus feel. If that's important I'd wait. OTOH you could get a nice manual focus 135. Like the K135 f2.5 and the FA 135 f2.8 for autofocus. (Just helping you along with your enablement). Margus Männik wrote: Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia
Re: Hi folks- Survived open-heart monitoring site
For LN or mint condition - dont rush the recovery more than the doctors advice - good luck, Cheers, Ronald Fred wrote: Hoping for a speedy recovery to an excellent condition, speaking in second hand gear terms. Gee, why not shoot for LN- - g. Fred
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
OK, I'll have to make a short MOOSE fac 1. You don't take out the whole Moose - you remove the intestines (maybe except the liver) the hide and lots of time the lower parts of he legs. 2. Believe or not but up to the 1970's people in my area used to carry the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont have the stamina for some excercise anymore. 3. European - Scandinavian Moose is a bit smaller than Canadian with slaughtered weight ranging from say 150kg up 400 kg (rare size), nevertheless it was a heavy job to carry the burden out. The Scandinavian Moose however is a Moose and not an Elk or Wapititi as some people translate it into. 4. Nowadays when people are getting lazy terrain going vehicles - small 4wd buggies, tractors, particular draggers are being used to haul out the Moose. 5. You are right about the killing distance in the sense that one want a good clean shoot - the risk of injuring the Moose is to big at larger distances. 6. In our area the shooting is done through tracking with a dog (very skilled hunters can do it by themselves but they dont have the intricate smell of the dog) from one end of the are to the other - at the end of the area there is usually the rest of the hunting team posted at regular intervalls where one think the chased Moose might pass. 7. Why do we do it with such fine animals- we simply get too many otherwise - they become a hazard both in the traffic and for the woods (they eat small tree plants) - to few natural predators. Also it was in the past an important source of food and in parts of Scandinavia is one of the largest sorts of meats being consumed. 8. In the mountains where there are longer distances, the Lapps or Same as they want to be called actually use helicopters to get the meat out. 9. I'd love to see the secret service guys hauling the Moose in their slacks in one of the frequent northern wetlands. Cheers, Ronald Cheers, Ronald Peter J. Alling wrote: The point is that a Moose weighs in at a conservative 1200-1500lbs, (thats 550-700kg for the metricly impaired). If you shoot one farther than 100 yards from a road you'll never get it out of the woods, (unless you do have a helicopter, or maybe a detachment of, quietly swearing, secret service agents). Ronald Arvidsson wrote: Not from some kind of transportation, car, helicopter, whatever... Peter J. Alling wrote: Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
You should be enrolled, Good light, Ronald Frantisek wrote: RA the meat - it could be distances up to 20 kms. They were quite tough, RA many had been lumberjacks. Some of my generation can do it but many dont RA have the stamina for some excercise anymore. I am a lumberjack and I am ok... Good light! fra
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Not from some kind of transportation, car, helicopter, whatever... Peter J. Alling wrote: Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
To be honest probably just spending more money... Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Hi, Thanks Cotty, I didn't mean AF speed. I meant easier - I kind a prefer fixed focal lengths as I find them easier to work with than zoomz when only one focal length is needed. However, I've got an old Sigma 200/2.8, fixed focal length, and I don't quite like that lens -its good enough but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 200/2.5. Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Cotty, Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear. Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics. If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I guess a monopod would do the trick if one wants to be mobile. Thats what I prefer when photographing birds and wildlife if I need to be mobile rather than handheld. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Fred, Cheers, Ronald Fred wrote: I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.) Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I can compare the K 200/2.5 to the manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 (which I still have) and to the A* 200/2.8 (which I no longer have). I'd say the ease of focusing is essentially the same in all three. I'd say that the focusing feel is slightly stiffer (although still very smooth) in the 200/2.5 than in the others (while the A* 200/2.8 has the easiest-to-turn focus feel). I did own the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 both at the same time for a while. I actually had the A* first, and picked up the K lens later. I liked the K so much that I ended up selling the A*. (Go figure...) Actually, the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 are my two most favorite K-era Pentax lenses (not including a few dear VS1 lenses of that era that I also love). That's not too surprising, I guess, inasmuch as the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 share the same optical design as the premium A* 200/2.8 (and these are the only three Pentax lenses to share this particular design, I believe). (It's not just the 6 elements in 6 groups configuration that they share - their optical diagrams are also virtually identical.) (The K 200/4, in contrast, also has a 6/6 formula, but a different optical diagram.) See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/135f2.5-i.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.5.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.8-i.gif (The A* lens, probably due to its use of LD glass, has just a ~very~ slightly different shape to some of the elements, but the two K lenses are virtually identical.) Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. ...which is a real pleasure, if you're a manual focus fan. Objects really seem to snap into focus at 200mm and at f/2.5. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Agreed. An f/2.5 lens is supposed to be faster than an f/2.8 one, but it's not a big difference. And, I'm just a bit dubious about the f/2.5 in the K 200/2.5, anyway - with a 77mm front filter mount (and with a clear aperture of therefore a little less than 77mm), it seems to me (who admittedly doesn't know much about optics) that 200mm divided by 2.5 should require a clear aperture of 80mm. The A* 200/2.8 also uses 77mm filters, but the actual diameter of the 200/2.5's front element is definitely a little wider than that of the 200/2.8's front element - i.e., the circular frame around the outer edge of the 2.8's front element is definitely more restrictive than is the thinner frame on the 2.5. Still, 200mm divided by 2.8 is only 71mm, while 200mm divided by 2.5 is 80mm. The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. If it really is a true f/2.5 lens, then that would be true. When the lens was first introduced, the Pentax Lenses and Accessories booklets of the time stated: In testimony of its role as a leader in the field of optics, and ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer, Asahi Optical has introduced the first 200 lens with an f/2.5 maximum aperture. This ultra high-speed telephoto lens is well suited for available light photography, such as indoor and nighttime sporting events. Even when used wide-open, its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and resolution, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights. And that's an objective opinion (no pun intended) - g, but, it's true - sharpness, contrast, and good bokeh are definitely characteristics of this lens. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). True. (I do think someone here on PDML tried out one of those custom tripod mounts - from a UK company, if I remember correctly - for this lens some time ago.) I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Mounted to a body that is mounted through its base to a tripod, the lens is extremely front heavy (and probably would strain the frame of the body if it's at all plasticky - most of the metal-bodied camera bodies would handle the load OK, however). The lens really works well with a monopod (especially for low-light use, which is where it really shines). With one hand cradling the focus ring on the lens, and the other handling the body, the font-heaviness of tripod use seems to disappear (with monopod use). Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. True, true, and true. I'd say its optical performance is essentially identical to that of the A* 200/2.8 (despite the latter's LD elements). Theoretically, I should see just a slight sharpening of edge
YS K-mount
Has anyone a YS K-mount for spare? I'd like to buy one. Contact me off list. Cheers, Ronald
Re: Buying used lenses in Scandinavia / ordering from KEH
You can try with www.l-foto.se and call the guy. He's probably really slow with emails. If the price is competitive I dont know you'll have to compare with KEH or BH photo and customs, shipping and so on. Cheers, Ronald michal mesko wrote: Hi list, I have saved a little money and am thinking of buying some neat wideangle lens. Since Pentax does not seem to be very popular in Finland (at least not in Tampere), I will have to mail-order. Does anybody from Europe have an experience with buying used lens from KEH? How about the typical shipping costs or customs? Alternatively, can anyone from Scandinavia or Germany point me to a reputable online dealer of used lens? Thanks, Michal http://skwid.wz.cz Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I guess this is not what... From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Vader It is your *destiny* Luke, er Ronald! /Vader Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Northern Lights
Hi, Welcome to the tricky world of Aurora photography. I beleive you are facing several obstacles - to overcome of course. 1. Are you doing film or digital? For film there is the reciprocity factor which means that exposure must be increased at long exposre times - not so severe with some modern films. I don't know if digital faces this problem - maybe not - if so shorter exposure time for digital. 2. Aurora varies a lot in intensity - if possible meter it and use that exposure and again double the time - you need varied exposures tpo really get it right. Its tricky with the dark sky and the bright Aurora 3. Dress warmly - as Aurora in the the north is usually seen on cold nights. Might be a problem for digital cameras with lcd screens. 4. I prefer slower films as the faster films might not give you a dark blue sky but a black one. However - experiment with this. Good luck, Chilly photos, Ronald
Re: Customer relations (Was Re: National symbols)
Reminds me when I worked as a teacher for awhile in the 80's. At the end of the lesson 10 minutes left (I was new to the class), a curvy high school girl came to the desk leaned forward, showing of her torso, flashing with the eyes, and asked in a very sweet voice if the class could end earlier. I ooked at her and siad.. No! She had this instantaneous change from seet to steem coming out of her ears in nill time. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 22/9/04, mike.wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: Standard procedure these days is to have some pretty, young female as Customer relations consultant so that when you (the usually male complainer) go in breathing fire the prettiness, caring voice and concerned manner put you off. I either carry on regardless or, if I'm feeling really mean, say Actually, my wife is the person who needs to speak to you. I get as much pleasure watching their expressions change as their hair streams out behind in the blast, as I do in the recompense. We got a total refund on our last service from the local 5star Ford dealer. Manners have no place in complaints to large corporations. I'm sorry, Complaints is down the hall. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: On topic?!
Hi Boris, I like the picture and the softness into it. I'm myself weak to soft colors so I like how its being exposed - no need for a polarizer or nything you haven't used. What I don't like is that the foreground is cut. I'm disturbed by a third or half of a tree so in my opinion you could have used more of the foreground. I find in my own pictures when I frame it like the way you do with the tree's that something is missing in the picture which one is looking for. This is however my only negative point. Cheers Ronald
