> Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?
I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one (but certain ones might be
adequate for some particular uses).
> Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8?
I have never seen any evidence that any of them were made by Pentax.
And, especially since th
On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote:
> > The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> > shots
>
> ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
> subject.
I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my
125/135mm lenses,
> The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in
> the US$100/mm range.
> Good stuff ain't cheap.
>
> William Robb
Depends. A number of Pentax's good old lenses are expensive primarily
because of rarity. Similar lenses in Nikon mount are more readily
availible, and thus n
> The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> shots
...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
subject.
Fred
> Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a
> 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm.
> (focal length does not change perspective).
...if the 25mm and 85mm lenses are both used from the same distance.
Fred
Hi, Don.
> Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens
> Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of
> people being fond of it.
I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly "common".
> I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's
OK, I'm really late to this topic...
> FA* 24 f2.0 (I would like to exchange this for a DA 20 f1.8 or 2.0.)
OK, if Pentax makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it.
If Canon makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it.
Both seem unlikely. Nobody makes primes anymore except
Paul McEvoy a écrit :
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the
ability to use the light meter? I'm a little confused about that.
No !
You can use real aperture metering.
I fail to see what "growing up" has to do with inquiring about whether
or not there exists a lens that gives even better results. I can see
however, what "growing up" has to do with being an asshole.
Norm
Antonio wrote:
Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results the
> Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp
> results then why should you care what anyone else thinks?
Maybe we should abolish the PDML, then, and spend ~all~ of our time
shooting... (???)
> Grow up and go and take some photos for christs sake.
You managed to be disrespec
Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it
looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does
not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in portraits, being
one of the reasons for using short telephotos for portraits, where you
Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results then
why should you care what anyone else thinks? Grow up and go and take some
photos for christs sake.
A.
On 7/8/04 3:51 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've used this lens and got what I thought were very
JCO, I think it is you who is wrong. Perspective or AOV changes with the
lens you use, everyone knows that. If you think you can just use a different
focal lenght lens and just stand in a different postion and get exactly the
same image then you are clearly delusional.
Antonio.
On 6/8/04 11:51 p
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3542570.stm
>
(Replying to the title): I saw another version of the story earlier and also
thought of her.
And actually a pretty similar thought.
ERN
On 7 Aug 2004 at 13:10, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> Do you have a number for it?
> I use a Manfrotto 680B Monopod
225 for one which connects to the big hex plate and 323 for the small
rectangular plates, they come with a spare QR plate also and are very well
priced from recollection.
Rob Studdert
My vote is #3
Butch
This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2004 at 18:56, Otis Wright wrote:
>
> > The quick release feature is certainly a strong plus. If I used the
> > monopod more.
>
> Manfrotto have standard QR bases that will screw straight into th
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3542570.stm
Fine shot Shel, the series must be wonderful!
Don
Agreed. When is the coffee table book coming out?
Butch
Call me stupid, but what the hell is a "histogram"?
Norm
A telegram 10 years late
Butch
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Tokina 80-200/2.8
> I had the AT-X 80-200 F2.8 MF for a while in PK. Yes it is a very
nice
> lens but the Tamron Adaptall 80-200 f2.8 MF is even nicer. Better
build,
> even sharper but slightly larger. I havent tried it on DSLR t
- Original Message -
From: "Bob W"
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> > In this it has much in
> > common with hardcore pornography.
>
> Rubbish.
Absolutely.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein"
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> No question about it. This is the Pentax Dilldock Mailing list.
http://www.volcanorunning.com/runs/Sisters/
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: cost per mm
>
> The current Leica 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit M ASPH retails for well over
US$100/mm and
> that's without including the required finder.
The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in
the US$100/mm range
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: first question
>
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and
shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
> wit
On 6 Aug 2004 at 16:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the cost per mm basis, I'd nominate some of the Leica R-mount
> telephotos (they were giving away a CAR free with one of them for a while
> when I was in college) or the Nikkor 13/5.6 which was one of those "send
> us the money, we'll build i
I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results.
Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian
seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond
of it.
I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, con
Markus, is that your photo or someone else's?
Norm
Markus Maurer wrote:
Have a look at an example of good photo journalism imho:
The photographer is unknown to me, the Book is called "Zurich against
Zurich" - Zürich gegen Zürich:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2587369
On 6 Aug 2004 at 18:56, Otis Wright wrote:
> The quick release feature is certainly a strong plus. If I used the
> monopod more.
Manfrotto have standard QR bases that will screw straight into the top of the
334B or similar monos.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9
I don't believe so.
Norm
Paul McEvoy wrote:
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the
ability to use the light meter? I'm a little confused about that.
Pål We have something in common!
Norm
Pål Jensen wrote:
I like beer
>Edwin wrote:
>Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism.
>Pal's REPLY:
>. However, my issue was
>that
> when artistic factors supposedly are indeed put at the forefront for
>judging
> images lasting values beyond their immediate context, then one should
>expect arti
hi Norm
thanks for your email, I am glad that you like the pics.
Considering that it was the first time I had a camera in my hands I am a
still a bit impressed with the
chosen compositions despite the technical shortcomings :-)
So, would you like to see more of them?
happy pentaxing
Markus
-
>
You can visit Trillium Lake where you get a different view of Mt. Hood.
Visit Timberline Lodge, too. If I were coming down I-5 (from Washington
State?), I would take I-84 east to Hood River, Oregon and then drive south
on Highway 35. You can also get to Lost Lake that way, too.
Too bad you didn'
I read with great interest what people here say about HCB and
photojournalism.
Of course, good or bad sample photo links would add a lot for me and make
some point of views clearer and spicier too :-)
I'm positive influenced on photo journalism, because one of my personal
favorite photos from my y
I realize that many of you would suggest that I just get a real camera,
but I was wondering if anyone on the list might know a part# and or
vendor to get a replacement focusing screen for a ZX-30. I scratched
mine badly while trying to remove some foreign objects, and it is now
really annoying
How about a collage, they're all damn good :) If you're only going to
use one, I'd pick # 2. All three are cute but the direct eye contact
in # 2 makes it my pick.
Good job!
Badri
I don't see how the marketing of photojournalism as art or otherwise
has anything to do with the merit of the photographer, HCB or anyone
else. Any reasonably discerning viewer would know to judge the piece
in question based on what it is, not what it is claimed to be. Do
you really believe what
If he's water skiing his name is Skip.
Tom C.
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:46:24 -0400
And Bob is what you call the same guy in the water.
Kenneth Waller
- Or
I don't know about that... :) I just wonder where the tripod goes. I imagine
it could be good for closeup water shots, as long as flash was used.
Tom C.
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Date:
And Bob is what you call the same guy in the water.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> 'Art' is what you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on the wall.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "Herb Chong" <[EMA
Is this what's known as the A* Macro? I think I read something about Aloe in
the coating.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
>
>
> Yeah, but
Yeah, but I wonder if its SMC?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> Shel wrote:
> >
> >As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
with
> >(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the fr
Hey Folks,
Unemployment sucks so I've got lotsa stuff for sale.
1) Pentax ZX-7, Excellent condition. Hardly any signs
of use. Mechanically perfect. Comes w/ AF Quantaray
28-90 zoom (some scuffs on the body - glass clean),
55mm skylight filter, 55mm circular polarizer, Cambron
AF 1.4 Teleconverter
But it is always easier to shoot the messenger...
A.
On 6/8/04 11:29 pm, "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the violence is not in the media, it is in the world.
What about AOV? The main reason I love my 85mm for portaits is the AOV it
provides. Shure I could stand a bit further back with a 135mm, and even get
the same DOF by using a slightly larger f stop, but the AOV would still be
different. If lens choice were merely a matter of where to you want to sta
Hi,
> Of course there are good reason for photograph terrible deeds but
> when these photographs are being "marketed" or published as "art" in
> spite of being accidental snapshots, not a product of an unique or
> sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes highly speculative,
perhaps you could bac
Pal said:
>The problem I have with photo journalism is that a larger percentage of
>it sucks more than any other kind of photography I can think of.
This is a question of perspective. Speaking as a photojournalist I'd say
that a larger percentage of wedding photography sucks because it all l
That still isnt $100 a mm now is it??? The most expensive lenses per mm
are the super wide angles. I paid $50 per mm for my 15mm F3.5 SMCT,
($750).
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Coming back to the "no-cropping" issue. Surely there was a practical
aspect to that. HCB did not usually print his own pictures, and as a
photo-journalist might at times have had no input into the printing at
all. That being the case, a permanent injunction against cropping would
have ens
I did not get Jens Bladt's message below directly via the PDML,
only as part of someone else's reply.
but if it was a reply to me I do not understand your comments.
My point is that a natural perspective is achieved by being
the right DISTANCE from the subject of the portrait, the right
framing is
Antonio wrote:
Each to his own, reading your posts on this topic it is obvious that you
dont like people at all, although I suspect that necrofilia might be just up
your street ...
REPLY:
I like beer but I don't photograph it, I drink it..
I have nothing against people photography. What I h
Actually, I read somewhere that Canon has an AF lens in the 1200 range
that costs 50-70 thousand dollars. I found it on there site, but there
was no price given.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/6/2004 3:09:43 PM >>>
I wouldn't pay $100 a millimeter for ANY lens even a super wide angle!
:)
JCO
-Ori
Bob:
Photojournalism has nothing to do with artistic values, it is about reporting
news in the most effective way possible.
Any artistic value that photojournalism acquires is secondary.
REPLY:
Sure, but that doesn't prevent such images being prized and judged on artistic
merrits. At least t
Hello Tim,
I vote for #3. Cute shots, all of them. I doubt she would be
disappointed with any choice.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, August 6, 2004, 1:37:37 PM, you wrote:
TS> Hello all...
TS> Last month, I had my youngest daughter spend some time in front of the
TS> camera with the intent
Well, I'm in between you two. I use a head on the monopod for two
purposes - one is quick release, the other is for vertical shots with
lenses that do not have a tripod mount.
The head I use is very minimalist - Manfrotto 3229 - just swivels one
way. So it functions almost like no head unless on
Ouch.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/6/2004 4:17:19 PM >>>
Shel wrote:
>
>As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
with
>(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
>
You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
Tom C.
Dont forget the different AOV between an 85mm and 135mm lens - I am getting
rid of my SMC 135/2.5 - nice as it is I just dont use it. The SMC 85/1.8 and
105/2.8 cover that range very nicely for me. In fact I have ended up selling
all the 135mm lenses I have owned over the years - it just seems that
Each to his own, reading your posts on this topic it is obvious that you
dont like people at all, although I suspect that necrofilia might be just up
your street ...
> "Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything". Pål
That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it
looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be
different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the
true 85mm shot?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/
Hello all...
Last month, I had my youngest daughter spend some time in front of the
camera with the intention of giving an enlargement to my wife as an
anniversary present. I've gotta hand it to pros to do this for a living: the
patience of a saint is required to get good photos of babies.
Anyway
No really, creativity is not limited by the aspect ratio of your camera
given you can crop a square from a rectangle and/or a recgangle from a
square. In over 30 years of shooting I have never once lamented the aspect
ratio of the camera I was using, it really is a non issue.
Antonio
On 6/8/04 6
graywolf wrote:
I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.
I do not agree.
Understand.However, I have yet to "need" one. I like the simplicity
of just the monopod (nice walking stick :-\ ), and for what I do, it
works just fine without a head. Have looked at he
Hi,
Friday, August 6, 2004, 8:24:37 PM, Pål wrote:
> If you look at many of the price winning photograph in
> photojournalism the only merrit seem to be showing something
> terrible with no other artistic values.
Photojournalism has nothing to do with artistic values, it is about reporting
news
Shel wrote:
As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
Tom C.
I will sell you my Tamron adaptall 28mm f2.8 in excellent condition if you
can get an adaptall mount your self. I never ever use it, because I also
have a Pentax A 28mm. My adaptall mount I will keep - it is sitting on my
3.5/75-150mm Tamron, which is quite good for candid portraits.
Why don't you
Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper
body
shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!
JCO
-Original Message-
"Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything". Pål
Well stated
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
>From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
>Shel wrote:
>As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
>
Melchi wrote:
Personally, I love photojournalism (good photojournalism) and I think it represents
the highest form of photographic art. This despite the fact that I rarely do any
photojournalistic photography and when I do, I don't do it very well. Most people who
are into photojournalism will
Hey for once I agree with Pål! Mostly.
Tom C.
From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:09:35
+0200
Shel wrote:
As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flow
>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem
>to
>find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts. There
>are
>a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things?
The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
s
You beat me to it!
lol
mike wilson wrote:
Hi,
Jim Apilado wrote:
I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!
You paid $50,000 for a lens? Will you be my friend?
mike
Hi,
> Things are slow right now because they are preparing for the Ulan Bator rollout.
...of the Genghist-D.
...specially adapted for shooting from horseback.
--
Cheers,
Bob
I wouldn't pay $100 a millimeter for ANY lens even a super wide angle!
:)
JCO
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
Hi,
Jim Apilado wrote:
> I got on
Shel wrote:
As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
REPLY:
Thse assholes are at least not pretentious assholes claiming they make a statement
socially, or about the meaning of life and the fate of the universe
Hi,
Jim Apilado wrote:
I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!
You paid $50,000 for a lens? Will you be my friend?
mike
Third party a 100% recommendation?? Well, nothing is 100%, not even Pentax.
They all make lenses for different purposes, or valids. So check out tests
(i.e. www.photodo.com). But I kinda agree with Norm.
But, anyway, I beleive I can recommend Tamrons (i.e. Adaptall mounts and
especially "SP" ones)
Hi,
Paul McEvoy wrote:
I'm new here
Greetings.
As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or
is 28mm just as good?
Pentax used to make a 24-35 zoom. It's not fast and there is some
distortion at wider angles but it is sublimely sharp. Should be
available in "user" co
The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif
your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the
price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on
Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass.
I don't know about 3rd part
I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter! I used it
a few times but found it just too heavy for my Tiltall tripod. I got good
results, however. I got the cannon to add to my collection of SMC Takumar
lenses. I personally like the SMC 300mm Takumar because it has auto
aper
The following message was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
6 Aug 2004 13:19:44 -0400.
>
> From: graywolf
>
> I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.
>
> I do not agree.
That's allowed
> Since the way I use a monopod is to slope it back towards me while I lean
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the ability
to use the light meter? I'm a little confused about that.
Thanks
Paul
Just a wee note for the sake of it: I dropped what used to be Jaume
Lahuerta's AF500FTZ and broke the IR cover and the battery door, so I
got a local shop to order them for me. While I was at it, I ordered
the hood for the 24-90. It was still May when I did that. The IR cover
arrived fairly promptl
First of all, thanks for the awesome help.
Of course your help leads me to having other questions:
Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying? Were they made by Pentax?
Specifically the 135mm 2.8?
Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%? And
any to totally avoid?
I agree, graywolf. Also when I am walking in nature the terrain may not be
flat and I may not be able to hold the monopod straight all the time.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6.
Hi Paul, and welcome to you.
It sounds reasonable to me to use film for a trip like that.
A 135mm is a fin e portrait lens for outdoor purposes. Indoo it's often to
long - a 105 or 85 mm might be better there.
For inddor a 24mm is good, cause you can frame all the people at the dinner
table - a 28m
FYI,
This ends tonight:
NEW Pentax Screwmount Bellows and TWO Macro lens M42
NEW IN BOX Auto Bellows and High Quality Optics! Item number: 3831257254
http://jcoconnell.com/JCO_AUCT.HTM
J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMA
Hi,
> I got this offlist e-mail from a lurker (doesn't that sound bad?). He asked
> that I forward it to the list. So here you go.
[...]
> Thank you,
> Melchi
Thank you. I hope you will start to post more often to the list,
rather than remain a lurker. We need more people who can express
them
You may search eBay for SMC-M 28/2.8, SMC-A 28/2.8, SMC-M 100/2.8, SMC-A
100/2.8, SMC-A 70-210/4. SMC-M 135/3.5 is good, cheap, and plentiful as
well, but you may find the gap between 50mm and 135mm a little big. SMC-A
35-105/3.5 is a very good zoom worth to consider too. All these are common
You could not go far wrong with an M28/3.5 and an M135/3.5 as a starter outfit.
Cheap, excellent optics.
The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots, but
then 1/2 length or more works will with your 50mm, thus only compromising on
head and shoulder shots. The 28mm
Hi Jerome
I like the clean look of your website, the navigation and the photos of
course too.
I run my monitor at 1280x960 and I think it would be good if the main page
would fit on one side at
maybe a bit less than 1024X768 resolution.
Then, most of the surfers would see all of it at once without
Hi Pentax lovers
I really hope you enjoy seeing this pictures as much as I am rediscovering
them after more than 20 years.
I will post some more of (then) hidden China and Australia and Suez and crew
members at work later, if nobody complains.
The first series of photos was made with a compact Olym
It was the Super Program, I was afraid the tripod might fall over with
the 6x7 and injure him I put it on the tripod and asked him where he
wanted it then he did the rest... Unfortunately, he's seen a few of
Frank's photos.
Norm
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'm pretty sure Frank is older than that.
> Not only that, but they did a bad job of changing the name everywhere.
> They tried to fix the image of the camera box by manipulating the image,
> so they fixed the sides, but they completely forgot to fix the name on
> the top of the box!! LOL.
>
> rg
But IMO it *is* a better name ... :-)
It came from that series I shot last February at Imola track, but is not one
of those I already published in my website:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/f1_04e.htm
Here is the Manfrotto magazine page, including the picture:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/neotec.jpg
Dario
- Original Message
Not only that, but they did a bad job of changing the name everywhere.
They tried to fix the image of the camera box by manipulating the image,
so they fixed the sides, but they completely forgot to fix the name on
the top of the box!! LOL.
rg
Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
Dario Bonazza a écrit :
Hi John
not this time, no special story :-)
Don't know what happened to her eyes, the red is only on this picture.
thanks for your email.
Markus
>
> Wow! What did you (or she) do to get her eyes so red! Very interesting
> photo. Is there a story behind it?
> Here is another shot I took with th
I'm pretty sure Frank is older than that.
Actually considering the point of the post, just thinking of a
photograph as something that takes time to setup could be a valuable
lesson. What camera was it? Not the 67? That thing is bigger than
most 3 year olds.
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/5/2004 9:09:
The following message was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri,
6 Aug 2004 03:18:22 -0400.
> Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out there
> using, and why that particular head?
>
> Kind regards
> Kevin
>
None. I just mount the lens/camera directly onto the 'pod.
Whe
I'm selling my little Optio 220. The 220 is a great carry-everywhere
camera. Might make a nice gift for your favorite point-and-shooter.
Very good condition - there are a small nick on the front edge and a
couple of small scuffs on the edge of the lens housing.
2 megapixels
Flip-out screen for se
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
