t;
Päivä: 23. maaliskuuta 2003 14:47
Aihe: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
>Okay, now that I've calmed down, and read past the first paragraph (and
>commented thereupon in another post ), I have to congratulate you, Mark, for
>an excellent post.
>
>In a much m
Paul wrote:
Excellent post, Mark. I enjoyed it thoroughly. But one of your
statements is an absolute falsehood. You wrote:
>
> I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice
> a year I take one that seems to be good.
I agree with Paul. I think your post explains why y
Mark. This is one thing i never really had a handle on,up until 2 years or so ago.
Having
read many
posts on the subject in those 2 years, made me realize how much i did NOT know about
taking good
pictures.Now that i understand light/metering better,i am taking better
pictures(IMHO)
I too carry
to do.
- MCC
At 10:03 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times. That's not because
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. marts 2003 10:03
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS:
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times. That's not because Pentax can't meter
> accurately. That's b
I'll go digital when a small format (APS/35mm) sized
sensor can produce a 16 x 20 wall sized portrait like
my Pentax WR-90 and PZ1-p can (and do). Otherwise,
small format digital "imaging" is a toy, like APS was,
not the tool so many claim it is... unless of course
you sell cars or real estate or
At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pe
Since Roland was defending Pentax, I saw little or no need to defend as
well. I just tried to point out the flaws of Pentax. That doesn't mean I
don't like Pentax, but trying to say Pentax isn't perfect. Just think it
this way, if Pentax were so perfect, why most people used Canon & Nikon? It
i
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
>From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan,
>why are we using Pentax??
Right now I'm storing Pentax gear, not using it, except for an
occasional photo using a bellows and the D100. But that will change
soon. I'll again be a ful
On March 22, 2003 04:56 pm, Peter Jansen wrote:
>
> Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the
> latest and the greatest can improve your photography
> immensely, then???
Depending on what you're doing "latest and greatest" varies from a big yawn
to essential. For me it's all
ki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Peter Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
>
>
> > From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland &
> Alan,
> > why are we usin
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:39
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
>From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer&#
From: Peter Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST)
why are we using Pentax??
The optical character of the lenses (low flare, nice colour rendition,
lifelike images).
Ergonomics, handling, compact size and low weight
Fast AF performance and accurate metering syst
>From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Recently, I've gotten my first digicam. Also, I
> recently "enabled" myself to
> buy an ES II. I got a chrome one in *really* nice
> condition. I really like
> it--starting with the premise that I want to shoot
> TX with the 50mm f/1.4
> Super-Multi-
Yeah ... but Mike's been wanting the Pentax lenses for quite a while.
At one point he was after my M85/2.0 ...
Of course, you get no disagreement wrt the leica glass. In fact, I'm
toying with the idea of a 35/1.4 ... but that's after a scanner and a
computer upgrade and some dental work, and ca
Hi,
Contax don't have them in their lineup. It goes: 35/1.4 to 35/2.8 and
85/1.4 to nowhere, although there is a 100/2 (discontinued, and a lot
bigger than eg the SMCP M 85/2).
I agree with Mike about this. I have both the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4,
but they're both very big and it would sometimes b
> Why do you choose or stay in Pentax ?
I got interested in photography seriously in 1980. I considered a Leica R3
but, although I could afford it, I knew I couldn't afford additional lenses.
I ended up buying a Contax 139, which I used all the way through photo
school (I have a BFA in photograph
Jim Tempe,
Here's my take on their EBay value, based on your descriptions:
a) SMC 50/1.2 ($275 to $350)
b) SMC-A 85/1.4 ($800 to $1000; one just went for $1100)
c) SMC 200/2.5 ($350 to $550)
d) SMC shift 28/3.5 ($600 to $800)
e) 500/4.5 ($800 to $1200 in K
Hi Jim
I'm a regular here and lurk a lot on the Oly list. Welcome aboard and stick
around awhile. We can get just as OT here as you do over there :-).
Bill KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the d
Original Message-
>From: Carlos Royo
Since this thread seems to be on a sentimental bent, allow me to briefly
introduce myself and why I popped in. My name is Jim Timpe and I'm a
regular participant on the Ol*mpus list. My father is and has always been a
Pentax guy, but his failing
>I think the question can also be phrased "Why not Pentax?"
>
>Solid, dependable, high quality, simple to use, robust are some words that
>can be used to describe a pentax system.
>
>Just pick up any pentax camera and you'll know "Why Pentax"!
You sho
My father died when I was eight (1975), and some of the most vivid memories I
have are of him and his camera equipment - his beloved Pentax Spotmatic SP (which
will always be my favorite body, no matter what) and a variety of oddball screw
mount lenses.
I used to tag along with him when I was fiv
I think the question can also be phrased "Why not Pentax?"
Solid, dependable, high quality, simple to use, robust are some words that
can be used to describe a pentax system.
Just pick up any pentax camera and you'll know "Why Pentax"!
Francis M. Alviar
-
This m
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
