Re: OT exploring Barcelona
Check out A Photographer's Guide to Barcelona at http://www.photo.net/spain/barcelona There is a link to "Photographic Exhibitions Pick up a copy of Guia del Ocio (www.guiadelociobcn.es) at a newsstand for full listings of photography shows at galleries and museums." I just now stumbled on it surfing around. Maris - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:20 AM Subject: OT exploring Barcelona Hello! Is there anybody out there from Spain? I'm looking for info on photo exhibitions in Barcelona next week (11.03 - 17.03). Tips on photo stores carrying K-mount equipment also highly appreciated :-) Thanks, Ivars - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Sears lens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A friend want to sell me several old manual lenses (K-mount). Two of which > are "Sears" lenses. I have no knowledge of this brand. Would you please > tell me about its quality? Sears is an American department store chain. They used to sell camera gear under their name from other manufacturers. Years ago they sold Asahiflex under Tower name. Their K mount cameras were made by Ricoh. So it's possible that you are dealing with a Ricoh lens. YMMV, but I would stay away. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>But Mike, Kyocera only relatively recently bailed Yashica out of trouble >and it >seems that the Yashica name won't appear on too many more SLRs either. >We will see if Kyocera has stepped in doggie-do soon since it turned the >C/Y >mount into a legacy system. At least Pentax isn't that >bold/stupid/inconsiderate? If Pentax would ever do that, you can be sure Pentax would have been a dead meat. They have to be REALLY stupid to do that. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
24mm-K's
While were on the subject. My K-24/2.8's aperture blades seem to get stuck in between f-11 and f-8. What would cause this. Oil or dirt or something on the blades? They look fairly clean to me. Is servicing recommended, or should i just deal with it? brent - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
K1000 light meter issues.
I am not sure if everyone experiences this proble., or if it is unique to me. It appears that i am unable to use the light meter at shutter speeds longer than about 1/100th of the ASA. Example-- at ASA 200, the light meter jumps(fast) to positive when the shutter is set at 1 second. Similarly, the meter jumps positive at 1/15 sec with ASA 3200. I am assuming this is a problem with the film and shutter speed being on the same knob, and why most of the other "K" models had the film speed being set alongside the rewind knob. thoughts...is this an isolated case? brent - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>Says who? Has anyone actually tried it and compared it to, say, the F100? I >won't make any judgements until I (or someone else) try it. Everybody so >far says it has very responsive AF. Even CDI for what its worth :-) I don't know about that. I think it's hard to beat USM/AF-S lenses. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>There is no doubt that our beloved Pentax has lagged behind C & N for years >in respect to AF. Even the Pentax P&S cameras have had more advanced AF >than the SLRs. The new AF system in the MZ-S is a big improvement but still >is behind the big 2. No cross sensors? What's with that? I have thought >for a long time that all the PZ-1p needed was a little tweaking to bring it >up to date. A new AF system, some new cosmetics to at least make it look >like a new model, maybe some small tweaking of the features and interface >and presto a new top of the line camera that would have cost very little to >develop. As a Z-1p user, I think an up-to-date AF ability, a metal shell and coated glass eyepiece would do. However, I also believe nobody would by the Z-1p anymore no matter how good it is. Afterall, business is business. You don't manufacture something that does not sell. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>I think you didn´t understand me. Why a photographer >should spend (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can >have the same features (I don´t agree that they have >the same features but it´s ok) on a F90X or F100 for >the same price, plus a wide range of lenses, >electronic / mechanical bodies and accessories that >Pentax doesn´t offer? Not sure about the F100, but F90 and F90X have plastic shells which are very cheap to make. Also, the AF ability of the F90X is far from excellent (a bit better than Z-1p IMO, but not much. I used one before). About the wide range of accesories you mentioned, I think the situation would be the same no matter how many features the MZ-S had offered. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
24mm-K's
How much do the K-24/2.8 go for? Think i got a pretty good deal on mine. I bought it along with a M-200/4 and a K-55/1.8 for about $270...i probably could have done a little better. brent - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>i read an e-mail sometime ago that someone took a pzip a part and found >out there was a metal frame under that plastic case If inspected carefully, you can see the frame under the mount, is metal. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pentax K1000
Though I am using Nikon FM2N for a last few years, during my last visit to USA in Jan 2001, I have forgotton to take it in hurry. I needed a camera, so I went to a camera shop in Sterling, Varginia who sell used equipment. I bought in good condition an used Ashi Pentax K1000 with SMC-A 1.4/50mm lens. Very pleasently surprised how good a camera and lens can be after taking pictures with five reels of film. Proud owner of a K1000. Reagrds Das, New Delhi, India Do any body have an idea how good is SMC-A 1.2/50 lens compared to 1.4/50? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
> > This was always the case. > >No. The electronic revolution broke a number of camera manufacturers. In >fact, developing cost have increased dramatically after camera became >electronic. So to the computing industries. The depredation of new technologies is so quick it's like flushing money into toilet, if not calculated carefully. Maybe that's the reason Pentax have decided not to stay on top because using yesteryears technology is so much cheaper. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>The MZ-S offers a package pretty much comparable to an Elan 7, a >$/EUR 550-600 camera. The built of the MZ-S is said to be better, so >it could cost a bit more. But like others, I see no reason why this >camera should cost more than $750-800. Especially I see no reason why >other cameras, like Elan 7 or Minolta 7, being small too, can offer >3.5+ fps, EV comp in 0.3+0.5 steps, flash exposure comp on the body, >larger finder (o.k., not Canon...), cross AF, AF-indication on the >screen and so on and so on, and Pentax can't. If some say: they never >intended - I simply don't belive this, since we are far away from >bells and whistles here but talk about class typical features with a >clear benefit for the user. I totaly agree we don't need another F5, >and it probably wouldn't sell with the name Pentax on it anyway. In order to answer this question, I think one might also ask why people would still buy the LX. I think the only answer (to me anyway) is, quality. This applies to Leica and Contax too. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
re: PZ-1pN
>There. Have I offended pretty much everyone now? Not to me, because I am too tired to read your post which is a bit long. 8-) regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>Larger negatives/transparencies (for architecture) ? For fashion, no camera >in existence >can improve ugly clothes. Nope, but a soft focus lens can add a bit artistic look. 8-) regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>I totally agree with you. I don´t think I´ll be a >better professional with this or that equipment. But I >feel uncomfortable on how Pentax have been showing >itself to the pro market as a supplier. It´s a matter >of confidence, I think. They are, but mainly with medium format equipments. From what I have read from books, Pentax was never meant to provide professional products (not counting the medium format). Their original philosophy was to provide affordable quality products so photography would be popular. In the case of the LX, I think the Pentax guys must think they could take on the Canon F1 and the Nikon F3 at the time. It turned out the LX has never been a financial success. Since then, Pentax have never been into professional 35mm bodies. So, to put it simple, there is really one pro camera from Pentax over the years - the LX (which I think, was a mistake if not entirely). But then many Pentax users have stayed with Pentax mainly because of the LX too. Without the LX, many Pentax fans might have never existed. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filters on 24mm F2.0
On 9 Mar 2001, at 16:55, Paul Jones wrote: > Someone mentioned that more than 1 filter may degrade image quality, i had > never considered this b4. One filter will degrade an image in the wrong circumstances, particularly with regard to flare caused by refections between the filter and the lens. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Preceptions of Pentax (Moderately OT)
All good points George!
Way way back in 1998 when I bought my first NEW Pentax, a PZ-1p, I went to
several photo/cam stores and the salesmen hung all over me and drooled when
I looked at Nikons. When I looked at the PZ-1p, about all they said was "Uh
Huh". I rewarded their assistance by buying mail order. :-)
Tom C.
>
> I am not arguing with the above statement but I would like to mention a
> couple of things that its first sentence ("What I'm seeing here on the
list
> is ... than the images they produce on film, too,") made me think of.
>
> Rambling Point I - It can be difficult to not become defensive about
anything
> if you are treated like a second class citizen long enough. Until I moved
> recently it was not at all uncommon for the sales person's attitude to
change
> to almost polite disinterest once they found out I was interested in 35mm
SLR
> Pentax. This is after I had walked past several feet of Nikon and Canon
> counter space and moved extra promotional material for yet other dealers
off
> of the 3 to 4 feet of Pentax counter space generally located in the least
> visible part of the store.
>
> In one way I do not fault these stores. It was most likely they were
selling
> fewer Pentax items then other brands. They are in the business of making
> money and I do not blame them going with their winners. In another way I
got
> tired of lack of knowledge or in some cases missinfomation. I realize
they
> are not selling one item and there is lot to know but I would much prefer
"I
> do not know" or if they are not busy "I do not know let me ask" instead of
> being given a line of BS. [There - I feel better now!!]
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
fisheye is sold... and *if* I find a perfect 24mm f2.8-K, I guess the 20mm f4-K and the 28mmf3.5-K will go, too ! macro 100mm? no no, I decided that 85mm was gonna be my longest lens and thats that! LOL okay you'll get the longer version offlist... as soon as I m back from my morning errands Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Sears lens
Hi A friend want to sell me several old manual lenses (K-mount). Two of which are "Sears" lenses. I have no knowledge of this brand. Would you please tell me about its quality? Thanks! Regards, Frankie - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seth wrote: > > > > As Pål is so fond of saying, this is utter bullshit. The cost of > > cameras was always primarily a function of materials used and the > > manufacturing process. That's why a Leica rangefinder will always > > have to cost more than latest plastic fantastic SLR. This is > > inspite of the fact that all of R&D money that went into M6 was > > spent years ago, while Canon has to come out with with a new Rebel > > evey couple of years. > > > I wasn't talking about the cost of the camera but the cost of developing it. R&D of the Leca M6 cost nothing compared to the latest plastic fantastic Canon. > Another issue is that when the electronic is already developed, adding electronic features cost close to nothing since most is already embedded on the microchip anyway. Maybe I haven't express mysel clarly enough. > I would certainly agree with your second point above. For exampe, after developing ZX-5, it was relatively simple to add a few features such as electronic DOF preview. And presto, ZX-5n is born. > > Pål's "proof" is just plain wrong. Many companies that went bust > > were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica > > is a good example. Konica didn't go belly up only because it could > > rely on its other businesses. On top of that, many companies > > disapeared long before electronic cameras became commonplace. > > > Miranda, Petri, Topcon basically went out of business when camera went computer controlled. The extra cost of developing AF took the rest. > The last Miranda appeared in 1976. Petri went bust in 1977. Topcon swan song was in 1979. This quiet some time before AF became commonplace. That's also the period when all mechanical Pentax MX was selling very well. Those companies got into trouble, mostly because of marketing failure, long before electronic cameras became standard. A better example might have been Chinon which hung on into the 80's. But even Chinon had a huge marketing disadvantage. The major manufacturers built extensive distribution networks that gave them huge advantage when the inevitable consolidation came. There may not be a Pentax today, if they had not taken over US distribution from Honeywell in the 70's. BTW, when refering to the demise of of Miranda/Petri/Topcon, I am only considering cameras actually made by these companies. The Petri name sputtered out for a few more years as re-badged Cosinas. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: First look at MZ-S
Hi Tom Treen Harp wrote > > you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people > > completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing > > anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford > > a new camera. It's great :o) Some days ago I was asked to do some photographs. A local PJ had allready made them (using his Leica M6), but the client didn't like the shots (the were very sharp, tecnically perfect, but nothing else was). I proudly acceepted the job and later showed up with two PZ1's, two flashes (Metz45 & AF500FTZ) and a tripod. When the client saw me and the cameras, she said: Look, he's got real cameras! (My shots PZ1-p/A2.8/20mm - Delta 100/Ilfotec HC/Multigrade paper - turned out to the client's satisfaction) I guess you've got a point! Jens - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: First look at MZ-S
TreenA Harp wrote -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]På; vegne af Tom Rittenhouse Sendt: 9. marts 2001 01:38 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: First look at MZ-S I have found this to be true myself. Congradulations on your move to "PRO" photography. --Tom Treena Harp wrote: > > I think everybody's got this whole camera body thing all wrong. :) I have > truly found the secret for respect (yeah, right ...). When I first started > using my ZX-5n with an AF280T at school functions, I noticed that parents > with larger cameras (like Rebels and N60s) seemed to feel free to jump in > front of me while I was trying to do my job. I then ended up having to do a > little pushing and shoving, because these were the same people who would > have complained to my publisher if their little darling's face wasn't in the > paper. > > I gave this dilemma some thought, and I decided that I didn't need a larger > camera -- I just needed a larger FLASH! It was an epiphany! I actually > needed another anyhow, so I shopped and shopped until I finally bought a > Sunpak handle-mount potato masher. Now when I enter the gymnasium, they > respectfully can't get out of my way fast enough. And I now have a good, > powerful flash that works with literally every camera we own. Not only do > people not notice what it's strapped to, they are somewhat frightened by it. > :)) > > In other words, gentlemen: Size really does matter ... > > > Hi, > > > > > If > > > I wanted respect for my camrea, not for my pictures, I'd buy a Leica or > > > perhaps a Nikon. > > > > you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people > > completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing > > anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford > > a new camera. It's great :o) > > > > --- > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Daphne wrote: > oh, long story.. you really wanna know? :-) Of course! Write me off-list. :) > lets just say that my newly-trimmed 'kit' now wishfully consists of: > > 24mm f2.8-K (? seeing Shel's for it!) > 35mm f2-K - for it > 50mm f1.4-K - hopefully got that too > 85mm f1.8-K - done > > plus maybe, maybe a 50mm macro... Nah, don't double up on that length. Spring for the 100/4 macro. > funniest thing is that I reached this slim concept after trying out > almost every K-prime in existence.. but David adviced me from day 1 to > get those precise focal lenghts! oh well *L* Funny the way that works out sometimes, isn't it? :) So nothing wider than a 24? What about the fisheye? And how did you convert to my 24/35 combo? :) I'll be waiting... chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
cwo 20995 wrote: > Why a photographer should spend (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he > can have the same features (I don´t agree that they have the same > features but it´s ok) on a F90X or F100 for the same price, plus a > wide range of lenses, electronic / mechanical bodies and accessories > that Pentax doesn´t offer? You got it totally mixed up. You'd better write: Why a photographer should spend (let's say) US$1000 on a F90X or F100 if he can have a wiser choice of features in a much smaller, more lightweight yet more durable body with a great user interface on a PENTAX MZ-S for the same price, plus fully compatible used bodies like the great MX and the even greater LX, plus a wide range of great, fully compatible used as well as new lenses that C and N do not offer, plus the accessories, that PENTAX does offer for the MZ-S? Arnold - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
>Yes, I´ve read all about MZ-S. And MZ-S (featured *by* >Pentax as a *semi-pro* gear) and its probable price >(serious, would you pay more than US$700 for that >camera?), make me believe too that they definetively >abandoned pro photographers. Or they want pro >photographers to abandon them (as somebody said). >That´s a question of common sense I think... > >Regards, > >Claude (ignoring depressed/bitter people and >depressed/stupid answers) I used to think the MZ-S worthed USD700 too. However, if it really offered the durability of the LX, the situation is different. Remember, high built quality does not come cheap (not just cameras). And from what I can see, MZ-S is not a muscle camera which Nikon and Canon rule. I think the backpackers and travellers would love the MZ-S - small and durable. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S First look
Just a maybe interesting point, here in Melbourne Australia, we have been getting Television ads for MZ-7. in semi prime time too... i havent actualy seen the ad, but my girlfriend takes note :) (she also has a pentax, but a p&s) - Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:50 PM Subject: Re: MZ-S First look > >Part of me hopes that you're right, Pal. A larger > >part of me hopes that you're wrong and that Pentax is > >forced to drop the price into my range. Don't get me > >wrong, I like most of what I've heard about the > >camera. Just don't want to part with that much > >money. > > I am hoping the price of MZ-S will drop after a year or so. Besides, I am > sceptical about the first production run. There might be many minor mistakes > should be corrected (like the LX). > > >I still worry about Pentax's marketing. Retailers > >I've spoken to about the MZ-S (in Charlottesville and > >and Abby and Penn in DC) think of Pentax as a maker of > >P&S and cheap SLRs (and high quality lenses that are > >too often difficult to find). To them the LX and MX > >are ancient history. They're going to steer anyone > >with nearly a grand to spend towards Nikon and Canon. > >How is Pentax going to overcome this prejudice? > > They never would I believe. You cannot change the perception of most people > unless your effort is persistant. A few products would never be able to > change the overall image of Pentax. Pentax sure don't have this persistence. > Their policy seemed to follow their mood instead of logic. > > >More on marketing... Wouldn't producing a silver > >version would be a mistake? (Yes, I know, matches the > >limited lenses.) But Nikon and Canon have trained > >consumers to see silver SLRs as low end. Pro cameras, > >the thinking goes, are black, unless they're high end > >rangefinders. > > Not necessarily so, the question is, do Pentax have the gut to market their > MZ-S and Limited lenses as a whole package, a high quality package. Konica > made a miracle by introducing Hexar (and now the Hexar RF), Ricoh with GR-1. > I know these two models are compact cameras, but also remember these two > brands were not considered professional too. Of course, if Pentax decided to > go ahead and put some ads on paper, just hope they were not some stupid > silly looking ads like so many other Pentax ads were (I'd rather not reading > them at all). Poor ads is worse than no ads at all. > > >A silver MZ-S, if it is actually manufactured, would > >reinforce people's impression that the camera not in > >the same class as, say, the F100. And overpriced as > >well. I'm not saying that black=pro, silver=entry > >level amateur makes sense. But is does seem to be the > >way the market operates. > >Or is all of this going in the wrong direction? Does > >Pentax simply accept that the MZ-S will sell in very > >small numbers and largely to Pentax fanatics? Is > >their model for the MZ-S the LX--a superb camera that > >failed in the marketplace, but has achieved cult > >status? > > I would expect the black version would sell better than the silver. But for > me, I would prefer the silver just to match with my lenses. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
It hasn't on my 50/1.4. Try using the HN-7 on your lens with a 49~52 step ring and see if you have a problem. I've even used the HN-8 on a 50 with no problems, as well as the hood for the ST 105/28. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. Daphne wrote: > > HN-7? I use it on my 85mm f1.8! wont it vignette on a 50mm f1.4? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
HN-7? I use it on my 85mm f1.8! wont it vignette on a 50mm f1.4? Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
oh, long story.. you really wanna know? :-) lets just say that my newly-trimmed 'kit' now wishfully consists of: 24mm f2.8-K (? seeing Shel's for it!) 35mm f2-K - for it 50mm f1.4-K - hopefully got that too 85mm f1.8-K - done plus maybe, maybe a 50mm macro... funniest thing is that I reached this slim concept after trying out almost every K-prime in existence.. but David adviced me from day 1 to get those precise focal lenghts! oh well Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Grip for Super Program or Super A
Hi, I'm after a grip for a SuperProgram or Super A. If any one has one or know any leads on one. Thanks - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S First look
>This is what happened to the Z-1p. I doubt, though, it will happen to the >MZ-S. The Z-1p was mass produced for warehouse stock. They probably at some >point wrote of the R&D at last years losses and reduced the price to clear >the stock. There is all reason to suspect that the MZ-S is built around >different principles. Fisrtly, is aparently geared for lower volumes. >Secondly, its very likely made on a flexible line and probably continuos >production with low stocks. The MZ-S is basically two cameras; the film and >digital version. This means that the film transport and digital electronics >must be modular. Theres no point in keeping large stocks of digital >cameras; the production must be able to respond to better chips and new >technology fast. It is to be expected that the MZ-S sales will decrease >over time and that the digital version(s) will increase with time. >Hopefully the sum will be reasonably constant. Its obvious that the digital >MZ-S will see several incarnations over time like the Nikon D1. Likewise >the MZ-S can easily be developed into other incarnations; eg. a high speed >version is conceivable if Pentax wants to. Whats probable is that pentax >can sustain very low MZ-S production volumes as long as the overall volume >is kept up by the digital version in the future. Thats why I think the >MZ-S, or variations of it, will be a long time stayer. But except one important factor - the digital Pentax might not be well received as you expected. It's not just the camera, but lenses too. I doubt many professionals would invest too deep into Pentax 135 lenses. >Yes, I believe this is correct except that I don't think LX failed in the >market place. It has sold very well for its price. In Japan, maybe. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
Hi Daphne ... Best hood I can recommend is the Nikon HN-7. Perfect fit, cheap. The hoods for the K lenses were generally plastic clip on. Not so good IMHO. Some aftermarket hoods, like B+W and Heliopan, while good, are quite a bit more expensive (at least over here) than a good used HN-7. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Daphne wrote: > > I *think* I finally found a 'good' K-50/1.4 lensie so chances are I will > soon be selling off my 50/1.4 -A (like new, pentax-capped, new case, new > metal hood - anyone interested in a potential buy, contact me off-list). > Need a hood for it though - anyone got a nice-looking metal screw-in > hood fs? 52mm thread size. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 24mm-K's
Shel, did you try the f3.5? :-) Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S First look
>Part of me hopes that you're right, Pal. A larger >part of me hopes that you're wrong and that Pentax is >forced to drop the price into my range. Don't get me >wrong, I like most of what I've heard about the >camera. Just don't want to part with that much >money. I am hoping the price of MZ-S will drop after a year or so. Besides, I am sceptical about the first production run. There might be many minor mistakes should be corrected (like the LX). >I still worry about Pentax's marketing. Retailers >I've spoken to about the MZ-S (in Charlottesville and >and Abby and Penn in DC) think of Pentax as a maker of >P&S and cheap SLRs (and high quality lenses that are >too often difficult to find). To them the LX and MX >are ancient history. They're going to steer anyone >with nearly a grand to spend towards Nikon and Canon. >How is Pentax going to overcome this prejudice? They never would I believe. You cannot change the perception of most people unless your effort is persistant. A few products would never be able to change the overall image of Pentax. Pentax sure don't have this persistence. Their policy seemed to follow their mood instead of logic. >More on marketing... Wouldn't producing a silver >version would be a mistake? (Yes, I know, matches the >limited lenses.) But Nikon and Canon have trained >consumers to see silver SLRs as low end. Pro cameras, >the thinking goes, are black, unless they're high end >rangefinders. Not necessarily so, the question is, do Pentax have the gut to market their MZ-S and Limited lenses as a whole package, a high quality package. Konica made a miracle by introducing Hexar (and now the Hexar RF), Ricoh with GR-1. I know these two models are compact cameras, but also remember these two brands were not considered professional too. Of course, if Pentax decided to go ahead and put some ads on paper, just hope they were not some stupid silly looking ads like so many other Pentax ads were (I'd rather not reading them at all). Poor ads is worse than no ads at all. >A silver MZ-S, if it is actually manufactured, would >reinforce people's impression that the camera not in >the same class as, say, the F100. And overpriced as >well. I'm not saying that black=pro, silver=entry >level amateur makes sense. But is does seem to be the >way the market operates. >Or is all of this going in the wrong direction? Does >Pentax simply accept that the MZ-S will sell in very >small numbers and largely to Pentax fanatics? Is >their model for the MZ-S the LX--a superb camera that >failed in the marketplace, but has achieved cult >status? I would expect the black version would sell better than the silver. But for me, I would prefer the silver just to match with my lenses. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filters on 24mm F2.0
David, Yeah think i will just use one at a time. Someone mentioned that more than 1 filter may degrade image quality, i had never considered this b4. Cya - Original Message - From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Filters on 24mm F2.0 > Paul Jones writes: > > > So now onto my question, wil the UV filter vignet? also what are my chances of > > getting a Polarising filter ontop of the UV filter without causing any > > vignetting? > > I managed to get a B+W standard-thickness warming filter onto mine > without vignetting. > > You'd be pushing it to stack filters, especially with a polariser (I'd remove the > UV before putting a polariser on anyway). > > Cheers, > > > - Dave > > David A. Mann, B.E. > email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ > > "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, > while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Daphne wrote: > ps that reminds me, I am also looking for a 'good' 24mm f3.5-K (pre-M) , > so if there's one FS, please let me know! You're looking for a 24mm? :) I never would have guessed. *L* What made you change your mind? chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 24mm-K's
K 24/2.8 - a real jewel! -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Daphne wrote: > > looks like 1975 vintage yielded both a 24mm f2.8 and a 24mm f3.5! but > the f3.5 lens has a 58mm thread - how come? dont fast-er lenses get the > bigger glass? > more to the point - which one would you advice me to look for, in terms > of optical performance? > > Daphne > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
24mm-K's
looks like 1975 vintage yielded both a 24mm f2.8 and a 24mm f3.5! but the f3.5 lens has a 58mm thread - how come? dont fast-er lenses get the bigger glass? more to the point - which one would you advice me to look for, in terms of optical performance? Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filters on 24mm F2.0
Paul Jones writes: > So now onto my question, wil the UV filter vignet? also what are my chances of > getting a Polarising filter ontop of the UV filter without causing any > vignetting? I managed to get a B+W standard-thickness warming filter onto mine without vignetting. You'd be pushing it to stack filters, especially with a polariser (I'd remove the UV before putting a polariser on anyway). Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
24mm f3.5 or 2.8?
Oups, I put 3.5 insteadof 2.8 on the 24mm-K lens (pentax SMC bien sur!). But I just realised that I dunno which is 'better' , the K- 24mm f3.5 or the K-24mm f2.8? was there a K-f2.8 at all? Daphne - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
WTB metal hood for Pentax SMC 50mm f1.4 (52mm)
I *think* I finally found a 'good' K-50/1.4 lensie so chances are I will soon be selling off my 50/1.4 -A (like new, pentax-capped, new case, new metal hood - anyone interested in a potential buy, contact me off-list). Need a hood for it though - anyone got a nice-looking metal screw-in hood fs? 52mm thread size. thanks, Daphne ps that reminds me, I am also looking for a 'good' 24mm f3.5-K (pre-M) , so if there's one FS, please let me know! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: First look at MZ-S
>Every single list member who has handled the MZ-S has said they >liked it and thought it was worth the money. So far, two have But to be fair, everyone on this list is Penrax user. The opinion is not entirely objective. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Preceptions of Pentax (Moderately OT)
In a message dated 3/8/01 9:49:36 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
What I'm seeing here on the list is that there seems to be a fair amount of
Pentax users that are more concerned about the image they present to their
friends, peers, and others, than the images they produce on film, too. To
those, I say, follow your heart. If you think you need to pursue a system
other than Pentax to get the recognition you believe that you so richly
deserve, then go for it. Pick your proper peer group in life and do your
best to fit in. You'll be happier that way.
>>
I am not arguing with the above statement but I would like to mention a
couple of things that its first sentence ("What I'm seeing here on the list
is ... than the images they produce on film, too,") made me think of.
Rambling Point I - It can be difficult to not become defensive about anything
if you are treated like a second class citizen long enough. Until I moved
recently it was not at all uncommon for the sales person's attitude to change
to almost polite disinterest once they found out I was interested in 35mm SLR
Pentax. This is after I had walked past several feet of Nikon and Canon
counter space and moved extra promotional material for yet other dealers off
of the 3 to 4 feet of Pentax counter space generally located in the least
visible part of the store.
In one way I do not fault these stores. It was most likely they were selling
fewer Pentax items then other brands. They are in the business of making
money and I do not blame them going with their winners. In another way I got
tired of lack of knowledge or in some cases missinfomation. I realize they
are not selling one item and there is lot to know but I would much prefer "I
do not know" or if they are not busy "I do not know let me ask" instead of
being given a line of BS. [There - I feel better now!!]
Much of this varies with location. Some products are more popular in one
part of a country then another (or from one country to another). Some of
this has to do with whoever is representing the merchandise. I suspect this
was at least part of the problem where I previously lived. Some of this has
to do with phases of the moon, prevailing winds, and signs read in animal
entrails. Where I recently lived, the Jeep Cherokee was the most common
entry level SUV. Where I live now the Isuzu fills that niche. Go figure.
Similar comparisons can be made for cameras.
Where I now live, the stores seem to like Pentax.
Not So Rambling Point II - I would also like to point out that decisions made
by an international company may not be made for all of its markets (e.g.,
black only camera bodies vs. silver bodies, etc.) Three or four years ago I
remember someone in this group complaining as to why in the world Pentax
would put the pusedo-panorama option on the PZ-1p. At least one answer came
back that it was probably done because it was popular in Japan. I suspect
similar reasoning can be made for at least a few of the debates among this
group's members now and in the future.
For what its worth.
George Baumgardner
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
"Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seth wrote: > > > Many companies that went bust > > were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica > > is a good example. > > > Heh. Yashica is Kyocera, which builds Contaxes. You might as well say GM > went out of business because the Oldsmobile nameplate was discontinued. Double Heh. Before Kyocera bailed out Yashica in the 80's, Yashica was on the verge of extinction. This similar to Voigtlander (the company) going poof in the 50's, while the Voigtlander (the name) persisted into the 70's (before being revived by yet another company in the 90's). Funny aside. Carl Zeiss chose Yashica to make Contax SLRs, because they thought it had better long term prospects than Pentax. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
49mm Pentax Lense Hoods are all sold.
- Original Message - From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: Re: 49mm Pentax Lense Hoods > wouldnt make any different when fitting it to a K mount 50mm though. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax Users Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:42 PM > Subject: Re: 49mm Pentax Lense Hoods > > > > Hi Gary, > > > > Nope wont fit, there 49mm. i think there for screw mount lenses. > > > > Cya > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:29 PM > > Subject: Re: 49mm Pentax Lense Hoods > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 14:03:02 +1100, Paul Jones wrote: > > > > > > >I have a few 49mm Plastic Lens hoods that i dont need, it says on the > > hood > > > >that there for a 50mm F1.4 or 55mm F1.8. There as new in the plastic > bad > > in > > > >a nifty little case and in the box, never used. > > > > > > > >shipping would be $3us, and i'm selling them for the grand sum of $5us > > > >each. > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > Either what I read doesn't make sense, or I have my head where the sun > > does not shine. > > > > > > I have a "K" 55mm f1.8 lens but it takes a 52mm lens cap. Will one of > > these hoods work on it? If so, I would > > > like one for that lens. Please let me know payment instructions. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > Later, > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
No Subject
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, cwo 20995 wrote: > Chris, > > This is my last reply to you about the PZ-1pN subject. So much for rational discussion. Why? All I did was ask you to stop speaking in generalities when criticizing Pentax. "Pentax bad, Nikon good" arguments are f** annoying to read. I don't have a problem with anyone not liking Pentax or preferring the advantages that another brand offers, but I *do* have a problem with people making blanket statements and sweeping generalizations. > My first question was solely about PZ-1p. You answered > me with a question about MZ-S. Why? Only God knows. Ok, let's back up. You wrote: > I just would like to understand one simple thing: why Pentax didn¥t > develop a new PZ-1p version? With few improvements (more efficient > autofocus, AA battery grip) it could become a professional camera able > to face its competitors! Besides, Pentax users that are becoming > professionals (like me) could keep their Pentax systems instead of > going to another brands... Why Pentax abandoned professionals? Any > ideas? You implied that either (1) you didn't know about the MZ-S, or (2) you thought that the MZ-S wasn't a "pro" camera in the same league as the F100. Pentax didn't make a new PZ-1p because they made the MZ-S instead. What's so hard to understand about that? Since you knew about the MZ-S, but obviously thought that a revised Z1-p would be superior and more pro, I asked you, "What benefits would an upgraded Z1-p offer that the MZ-S wouldn't?" A perfectly fair question, given your post. > You kept asking me to compare PZ-1p and MZ-S while my > first question was solely about PZ-1p. Why? Only God > knows. Ok, here's the answer. You asked why they didn't revise the Z1-p? Because they made the MZ-S instead. Why? Who knows? Probably because the "Z" series bodies never sold as well as the "MZ" series. > Then you started talking about MZ-S, PZ-1p and > F100 (while my question was the same). Your question went from a question about why they didn't revise the Z1-p (presumably instead of making the MZ-S) to why anyone would pay more than $700 for an MZ-S to whay anyone would by an MZ-S if they could get a Nikon for the same price. Why did you suddenly start saying that Nikon had a superior range of lenses and accessories? God only knows. :) > Why? Only God knows. Well, I answered your questions. If my arguments > are not enough for you, I´m sorry. Look, I'm trying to be helpful. When you asked why Pentax didn't upgrade the Z1-p, I asked you why they should have, given that the MZ-S is a sweet little camera. *You never answered this question about what you wanted in a 'pro' Z1-p that the MZ-S didn't have.* When you responded by saying that they were still abandoning the pro market by making the MZ-S too expensive, I asked you how it was a poorer value than the similarly-priced F100. *You never answered this question specifically, either, other than to ask why anyone would buy the MZ-S when they could get a Nikon system for the same money.* That's when I took the time to list--at length--some reasons why people might want to get an MZ-S instead of a Nikon. I then asked you why you would say that the Nikon system was better than Pentax's. I don't care either way if you think it is or not, but if you are going to argue that it is, then back it up. Don't walk on to a Pentax list, ask "Why a photographer should spend (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can have the same features (I don´t agree that they have the same features but it´s ok) on a F90X or F100 for the same price, plus a wide range of lenses, electronic / mechanical bodies and accessories that Pentax doesn´t offer?" and expect not to be asked what bodies and accessories you're referring to. As you may have noticed, I like both Nikon and Pentax; they're both good systems. I get just pissed off when someone comes on here saying that Pentax has abandoned the pro market (I'm assuming you mean 35mm PJ market... there is no such thing as a general "pro"), but doesn't supply any specifics. If you could at least tell us how the MZ-S is not as pro as a Nikon or Canon, then we could suggest ways that you could work around those inadequacies, or things that the MZ-S can do that other cameras can't, or--failing that--we can at least suggest what other camera might be suitable for you, given your specific needs and wishes. But if you're not going to be specific and want to just complain about the lack of a "pro" camera without specifying what a pro camera is to you and what the MZ-S lacks, then don't expect to be taken seriously. Consider this argument: A: "Pentax has abandoned the pro market!" B: "Ok, maybe they have, but which "pro" market are you talking about? How is the MZ-S not pro enough?" A: "It just isn't / It's too expensive / It's just not a pro camera" B: "It's the same price as the comparable F100. What's wrong with it?" A: "It's not a Nikon." No wonder we're jumping down peop
Re: Re[2]: First look at MZ-S
Treena Harp wrote: > I think everybody's got this whole camera body thing all wrong. :) I have > truly found the secret for respect (yeah, right ...). When I first started > using my ZX-5n with an AF280T at school functions, I noticed that parents > with larger cameras (like Rebels and N60s) seemed to feel free to jump in > front of me while I was trying to do my job. I then ended up having to do a > little pushing and shoving, because these were the same people who would > have complained to my publisher if their little darling's face wasn't in the > paper. > > I gave this dilemma some thought, and I decided that I didn't need a larger > camera -- I just needed a larger FLASH! It was an epiphany! I actually > needed another anyhow, so I shopped and shopped until I finally bought a > Sunpak handle-mount potato masher. Now when I enter the gymnasium, they > respectfully can't get out of my way fast enough. And I now have a good, > powerful flash that works with literally every camera we own. Not only do > people not notice what it's strapped to, they are somewhat frightened by it. > :)) > > In other words, gentlemen: Size really does matter ... That's a great story! --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SMCT / SMC-P / SMC-M 120 2.8
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > What's a little odd is that the SMCT 120 2.8 is a 49mm filter thread > and the SMCP 120 2.8 is a 52mm filter thread even though they are > same optically. BUT when the SMC-M 120 2.8 came out they reduced > it down to 49mm filter thread again but changed the optical design > to either save weight and/or cost and/or size. ( or to be positive, > maybe to increase performance??? ). For whatever reason, many of the K lenses use a 52mm thread diameter, as you observed on the SMCT and K comparison, even though they have the same optical formula (an interesting exception that comes to mind is the SMCT 85/1.8 and the K85/1.8, which used a 58mm thread and a 52mm thread respectively). If, however, you look carefully, you'll note that the difference is in the diameter of the barrel, and nothing more. In fact, the hoods from the 49mm Takumars work perfectly on the K lenses with a step down ring. There's no vignetting or any problems with interference. While I can't be sure, it would seem that Pentax enlarged the barrel diameter of the first K-mount lenses along with the diameter of the mount, which seems reasonable since the glass and optics were the same as the earlier lenses. But, when they designed the M series, they were designing not so much for optical superiority as they were for small size. The M series represented the first "all new" lenses from Pentax in many, many years, and so optics and ergonomics were able to be designed to work together, unlike the ergonomics of the K series which was designed around existing optics. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
I have one of those, it's a very good lens. I like it's size and the way it handles. As a matter of fact, my PUG entry for this month was taken with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/01mar/noparkin.html Since there is some interest in this lens, I scanned in a couple of places with more detail. The first is the bucket on the left side, and the second is the plywood board corner below the sign. Let's just say this is one SHARP lens. http://www.visi.com/~nickmpls/mrbucket.jpg http://www.visi.com/~nickmpls/plywood.jpg Of course, this isn't an ideal test situation, mostly because I never intended it to be a lens test - because the shot was handheld (though shutter speed was probably 1/250 or faster), plus it's scanned from an 8x10 print rather than the negative, and finally there is nothing really suitable in the middle that has a lot of detail like that bucket. But it should give you some ideas about the quality of this lens. The eBay price is a bit high, I say. I got mine with case, caps, and a beatup hood for $50. The seller advertised it as having some dust in it. When I got the lens I found it did have a sticky aperture, but the seller and I made a deal that left both of us happy, and when I got the lens back from the repair place the dust was gone too :) Todd At 02:29 PM 3/8/01 -0600, you wrote: > >There's one of these up on eBay right now at > >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1220461760 > >Has anyone used this lens before? How different is it from the >M28/2.8? My spec sheet says that the 3.5 version is a 6/6 design (the >28/2.8 is a 7/7) and yet is a heavier lens than the 28/2.8 (180g >vs. 156g). It's only half a millimeter longer, and the rest of the specs >are the same, so what gives? > >chris > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE67
Hi, I just sold my ME Super that is calculated into that figure and i bought an LX last week.. Also a SuperA a couple of weeks ago. - Original Message - From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE67 > On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:52:06 -0600, Todd Stanley wrote: > > >>- ME Super.104 > >>- ME Super SE3 > >>- LX...107 > > >Things are not looking so good for the LX, it's tied with the ME Super... > > Not for long. I just picked up another ME Super. :-) > > > > > Later, > Gary > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: SMCT / SMC-P / SMC-M 120 2.8
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: K120/2.8 > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > ARENT THE smct 120 2.8, k120 2.8 > > AND m120 2.8 All the same optically > > The SMCT and the may be, but the M is definitely different from the > K. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff Yes, the SMCT 120 2.8 and the SMCP 120 2.8 appear to be the same optical design. I've shot with the SMCT and it's every bit as good as the 105 SMCT which is saying a lot. The design of these 120 lenses seems to match the 105 2.8's ( both SMCT and SMCP ) exactly except on a slightly larger scale. The 120 2.8 SMC-M is also 5 element but a different OPTICAL design altogether. Has anyone here done a critcal comparison/test of either the SMCT or SMCP 120 2.8 to the SMC-M 120 2.8? What's a little odd is that the SMCT 120 2.8 is a 49mm filter thread and the SMCP 120 2.8 is a 52mm filter thread even though they are same optically. BUT when the SMC-M 120 2.8 came out they reduced it down to 49mm filter thread again but changed the optical design to either save weight and/or cost and/or size. ( or to be positive, maybe to increase performance??? ). JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE67
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:52:06 -0600, Todd Stanley wrote: >>- ME Super.104 >>- ME Super SE3 >>- LX...107 >Things are not looking so good for the LX, it's tied with the ME Super... Not for long. I just picked up another ME Super. :-) Later, Gary - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: scarce primes at great prices; how to share the news?
Paul, The comfortable collectors are getting your lens finds anyway. Have you noticed what is being paid on ebay for the truely rare stuff? They are buying them out and people are searching high and low for bargains. I'd like to have a K85/1.8 or an A or M28/2.0, but I'd want to use it. Nothing is so valuable as to stay 'in the house' instead of get used. Furthermore, none of my expensive lenses routinely carry filters. I bought Pentax to shoot their lenses, not the filter maker's glass! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << But it pains me to think that some struggling Joe or Ivan has been desperately seeking one of these lenses at an affordable price, and that if I post the URL now, the lenses will get snapped up by some comfortable collector who happened to beat him to the URL. >> - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
Treena, make that two. I was there and I only shoot Pentax. I'm not a freelancer and I don't work for any enforcement agency. I agree very much with your point ... it's not the equipment but the person that pushes the button. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Treena Harp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:13 AM Subject: Re: PZ-1pN > Here's a nice little story: My husband went to the last Evidence > Photographers International Council workshop this last November. Out of 250 > participants from free-lance and law enforcement organizations, he was the > ONLY one with a Pentax (a VERY proud owner of a PZ-1p). He works for a very > small department, and a lot of the people there came from super-large > departments like NY city and Chicago and were provided with very fancy > Canons and Nikons. The only thing they knew about using them was how to turn > the body and the flash on, point at something and press the shutter button. > During the various exercises, he ended up having to show some of them how to > use their own cameras. This story's point (and yes, I do have one) is that > it's not the camera, it's knowing what to do and then doing it that makes > good pictures. And, that one can be very much a pro and use any damn camera > they want. > > > > cwo 20995 wrote: > > > > I just would like to understand one simple thing: why > > Pentax didn´t develop a new PZ-1p version? With few > > improvements (more efficient autofocus, AA battery > > grip) it could become a professional camera able to > > face its competitors! Besides, Pentax users that are > > becoming professionals (like me) could keep their > > Pentax systems instead of going to another brands... > > Why Pentax abandoned professionals? Any ideas? > > I've got an idea: quite whining and go out a make some photographs. > Pros don't need all that crap to make good photos. By your > standards a Leica isn't a pro camera, nor is a MF Nikon, or a > Hasselblad. Oh, those poor foolish photographers who keep taking > pictures and making money with those outdated cameras. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > There are no rules for good photographs, > there are only good photographs. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: First look at MZ-S
I have found this to be true myself. Congradulations on your move to "PRO" photography. --Tom Treena Harp wrote: > > I think everybody's got this whole camera body thing all wrong. :) I have > truly found the secret for respect (yeah, right ...). When I first started > using my ZX-5n with an AF280T at school functions, I noticed that parents > with larger cameras (like Rebels and N60s) seemed to feel free to jump in > front of me while I was trying to do my job. I then ended up having to do a > little pushing and shoving, because these were the same people who would > have complained to my publisher if their little darling's face wasn't in the > paper. > > I gave this dilemma some thought, and I decided that I didn't need a larger > camera -- I just needed a larger FLASH! It was an epiphany! I actually > needed another anyhow, so I shopped and shopped until I finally bought a > Sunpak handle-mount potato masher. Now when I enter the gymnasium, they > respectfully can't get out of my way fast enough. And I now have a good, > powerful flash that works with literally every camera we own. Not only do > people not notice what it's strapped to, they are somewhat frightened by it. > :)) > > In other words, gentlemen: Size really does matter ... > > > Hi, > > > > > If > > > I wanted respect for my camrea, not for my pictures, I'd buy a Leica or > > > perhaps a Nikon. > > > > you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people > > completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing > > anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford > > a new camera. It's great :o) > > > > --- > > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: First look at MZ-S
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people >completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing >anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford >a new camera. You mean you aren't???! - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Help! Is this lens busted?
If it turns out to be defective, you could see if they would have it repaired instead of refunding the money. Many dealers will do this, a bird in hand being worth two in the bush, so to speak. And they will have to have it repaired before they can sell again anyway, or let it go for almost nothing. --Tom dosk wrote: > > (And if this lens is no good and costs too much to repair, then I'm stuck > damnit because after I get my money back from Ken-Mar I'm going to have to > spring for another, good, 24/2.. Because jeez man, the view thru a > frigging 24mm lens is FANTASTIC! Makes every room in our house look like an > "art" shot without even trying very hard to compose!) > (Uh-oh! Think I'm becoming a lens addict...!) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
I think the coolest way to build a hybrid body would be to put the sensor where the focus screen is. Then leave everything else alone like film transport. The only thing that would stink would be no optical viewfinder. But the metering system could be a lot like the LX, as it would have to be put behind the mirror as there would be no other place for it. Todd At 02:19 PM 3/8/01 -0800, you wrote: >"Alexandre A. P. Suaide" wrote: >> >> I mean, buy a digital back "should" be much cheaper than buy a >> digital body This is the main reason > >But the cost of a digital back, plus the cost of a hybrid body that >is capable of working both with a digital back and regular film will >almost certainly be higher than the cost of a dedicated digital body >plus the cost of a dedicated film-based body. > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
"Alexandre A. P. Suaide" wrote: > > You "really" don't need to have a body who talks to the digital > back. Does your camera bodies talk to the film Someone can > make a digital back that works the same way as film. You set > shutter speed and aperture in the camera, click, the curtain > opens, the CCD gets some light because of the curtain, it is > triggered by the light level and it send the digital information > to a memory stick. Don't need to much to go to digital But, > if you want a LCD display to see the picture, do gamma correction, > crop the image, and send it by e-mail to you address list that is > saved hundred miles away from you That is a different point Well, if you want it to behave almost exactly like film, why not just use film, and be done with it? Digital for the sake of digital doesn't seem worthwhile. And why on earth would you want to restrict the maximum flash synchronization speed to what you can achieve with a moving mechanical shutter? Fill flash at fast shutter speeds is a really nice feature, and one where digital sensors excel today. The only way you can get this with a traditional film-based camera with a focal-plane shutter is to pulse a flash several times. This only works if all your flashes have this capability. Another point - it will be quite some time before a full-frame sensor is available at a price point that makes sense for the mass market. So the digital sensors won't be full frame. This means you will have to show framing lines in the viewfinder somehow. At least the PZ-1p has interchangeable screens, so there is some way to do this. And if you start using digital to it's full abilities, those extra features come in handy. An LCD display to show me *exactly* 100% of what I will get in the frame is nice. So, too, would be the ability to zoom in to a small area of the frame for critical focus adjustments. A digital back *could* have these features, but only in an external LCD screen which is susceptible to scratches, and hard to see in bright daylight. And, again, if you add those features, that will increase the cost, making the putative price advantage much smaller. The ability to preview a histogram of the scene, before pressing the shutter, is a lot better than using the typical metering abilities. It's not quite as good as taking multiple spot-meter readings, but it's getting pretty close. Digital image capture technology offers a lot of potential features. A digital camera that manages to turn these into powerful tools for the photographer will have a good chance of selling quite well. I don't think there's enough of a market for a pure 'digital film' product - most of the people who might buy it will be better served by a simple digital camera that has no compromises made for film. And those who stick with film because of the advantages *it* offers are the one who are likely to demand more of their system as a whole, and least likely to be satisfied by the constraints of a hybrid. Your opinion, obviously, differs. But while you might be satisfied with the limitations such a system would enforce, I don't think you are representative of the typical consumer. Pentax (and the other manufacturers) will sell more cameras by ignoring you and putting their research and marketing dollars somewhere else. Don't feel too bad - they are ignoring me, too. I'd rather have a PZ-2p than an MZ-S, and I'd rather have a $2000 digital camera with a partial-frame sensor that a $7000 MZ-D. As for in-camera cropping, and email - those are your strawmen. But, since you mention them, I'm sure some folks would pay extra for those capabilities. -- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Here are the comments I've collected on the 28/3.5. Because it is so "slow" >compared to most 28s, it is in little demand and can be readily found for >less than $100. So don't feel compelled to buy the EBay article; with a >little Web searching, you can find this lens anytime, in most any >condition. > >Consider also its predecessor, the 28/3.5 SMC, regarded by many as the best >28 that Pentax ever made. Yep. Keep an eye on eBay and be patient. I got an M-28/3.5 in EX+ condition with hard case for about $40.00 and it is a super lens. The most flare-resistant lens I have and it's cpapble of producing some beautiful images. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE67
At 03:04 PM 3/8/01 -0300, you wrote: >- MX...113 >- ME Super.104 >- ME Super SE3 =107 >- LX...107 Things are not looking so good for the LX, it's tied with the ME Super... Todd - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
hahha, you gotta love being 100% misquoted :) - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question > I never said that. I don't even have an M28/3.5, but I do have the > K28/3.5, which I like quite a bit. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Shel Belinkoff: "I used the SMC-M 28mm f/3.5 lens to take my single most > > beautiful photograph. I had this enlarged to 12x18 and have it hanging over > > the mantle, where it is a source of continued pleasure. There's detail in > > it close to the grain size (Konica VX 400, probably). I bought mine at a > > local pawn/consignment/second-hand place as a small, light back-up lens but > > I'm sure I'm going to be using it a lot more than I first anticipated. I'd > > read that the earlier K-series 28/3.5 was the best but this one is > > certainly no slouch." > > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > There are no rules for good photographs, > there are only good photographs. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
Paul Jones wrote: > > hahha, you gotta love being 100% misquoted :) Well, it did give me a chuckle, especially because I don't, in general, find the M series lenses as enjoyable to use or as satisfactory optically as the earlier K-mounts. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kilometres of film (was Re: What's a professional?
Bob Walkden wrote: > David Hurn puts the official position quite well in 'On being a > photographer'. To paraphrase, the photographer is working the subject > by giving himself options, taking a lot of frames of the same subject, > where there may be some ever so slight difference in one frame which > lifts it out of the ordinary. Having a lot of frames to choose from > gives you the freedom to examine them in detail later, because you > can't always see everything that's going on in the frame at the time > you make the shot. It's very instructive to look at the contact prints > of a great photographer to see this at work. A few months ago I was watching a photographer do a photo shoot of the owner of a local produce market. He had the owner sitting amongst baskets of fruits and vegetables. Using his 'blad, he shot two magazines (24 pictures) of what was essentially the same picture. He then changed the pose slightly and shot 24 more frames of the new scene, and he did that one more time. I suspect he was looking for some nuance in the final print, which ended up as the cover for the Sunday magazine in the San Francisco newspaper. This technique is especially important when using an SLR, because you don't really know what you've got when the mirror blacks out the image. Even in a posed setting, such as the one described, all the subject has to do is blink, or move his eyes, or sneeze, at the wrong moment, and the shot is ruined. And, unless you've got lots of backup options, as a professional photographer who's required to deliver a useable photograph, you're screwed. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kilometres of film (was Re: What's a professional?
Bob, I agree with most of what you write, especially > So first, you have to be able to see a potentially strong picture. > Then you have to make sure you get it. Make sure you exploit the > potential to the full. However, I thought the following was a little biased toward the negative, assuming, and somewhat condescending: > > It might be instructive, if you've never done it, to go out and shoot a > lot of film on one subject - and see if you do get 'results'. Chances > are that if you haven't worked this way, and/or don't understand why > photographers work this way, that you won't get results. > I'm not at all sure of the above. If those photographers, were limited to 10 rolls, or 20 rolls whatever, their shooting style would likely be far different. I tend to think I get results when not shooting a lot of film, more good results naturally if I shoot more. I also tend to think (don't want to sound pompous) that, if I shot 1000+ rolls of film a year I'd have a "busting at the seams portfolio" I'd be proud of (also be broke probably). My point before was, I see stuff in NG and other magazines that's no more than a grab shot, but because it fits in with the written text, is a shot that gets published. Now it's possible that may be, because often NG photographers shoot in more of a PJ style than of a fine-art photographer. That thought was sparked by Mike's words: > Great photographers are seldom > professionals (even if they hire themselves out). Professionals seldom do > the best photographic work. And professional work isn't much to aspire to, > IMHO. I mean, we've all done it, we've all had to do it (I was a full-time > pro for years), but what professional would do exactly the same kind of > work if he or she didn't have to?!? To sum it up, I was pointing to what I perceived to be an example of Mike's statement which I think can be paraphrased as 'Pro's are often paid to produce a product, not necessarily the best product'. Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: scarce primes at great prices; how to share the news?
Post them and hope for the best, atleast it will be going to pdml member. Or you can give people clues and the one that finds the site first wins the prize. sorry before work i caught an episode of this bizzare kids show called Blues Clues :) - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:22 AM Subject: scarce primes at great prices; how to share the news? > I have just discovered a link to a dealer in Europe that is selling the > 35/2A and the 200/2.5M--two scarce Pentax primes--at less than half what I > typically see them sell for. The list was just updated March 6, so the > lenses might well still be there. > > What's the protocol for sharing this information with the group? If I just > tell everyone the URL now, the first person to get there and order will > grab it (or them.) I'll make no secret of the fact that I prefer that > scarce lenses go to users rather than collectors. > > At these prices, there's a chance that these lenses are rather beat up, in > which case a collector would not be as interested. This dealer generally > sells at market value; I bought my 105/2.8 SMC there for $260, and the > company was selling a 28/2.0 SMC for $280 in October 2000. > > But it pains me to think that some struggling Joe or Ivan has been > desperately seeking one of these lenses at an affordable price, and that if > I post the URL now, the lenses will get snapped up by some comfortable > collector who happened to beat him to the URL. > > What should I do? > > > Paul Franklin Stregevsky > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > (You might wheedle me by email, but call me by telephone and you stand no > chance of getting the URL out of me.) > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Help! Is this lens busted?
Skip, Last year I bought a Kiron 105/2.8 1:1 macro lens from a mail-order dealer. It was advertised to be in EX condition. When I tested it mechanically, I found it to have the exact problem that you have! I took it to my local dealer, an extremely knowedgeable camera buff. He advised me that the spring that is supposed to close the diaphgram is either missing, out of place, or weakened. He added, "Send it back. If the dealer is any good at all, he'll fix or replace it." Sure enough, the dealer was extremely apologetic. All used lenses are supposed to be tested, he explained, but this one somehow must have slipped through the cracks. One month later, it arrived, repaired. It probably helped that I first emailed him in a tone that did not put him on the defensive. Since it worked so well for me, here is my letter for one and all; the subject line read, "Kiron PK Macro: Diaphragm Problem": "I'm afraid there's a problem with the Kiron PK 100/2.8 macro that I picked up from my Post Office last Tuesday (Nov. 21): The diaphgram won't close; it stays fully open, both on the camera and off. My local dealer examined it and believes the diaphgram spring is missing or loose. He added that this could not be a result of an impact (recent or otherwise), because there are no scratches or dents anywhere. "I discovered the stuck diaphgram over the holiday weekend, when I removed the lens from the SLR and looked through the rear element while rotating the aperture ring. On the camera, the lens correctly tells the camera what aperture it "should" be set at; the shutter speed changes accordingly. "I assure you my SLR with the lens on it was cradled in my padded camera/lens case until then. "I would like to return the lens. Where do we go from here?" PS to Pentax discussion list: Quality control wasn't this dealer's only deficiency. After instructing him--and later reminding him--to send the lens to my work address or I'd be dead meat, he sent it to my home address. Lucky for him, I was able to intercept it at the Post Office. Then, after repairing the lens, his "shipping department" sent it again to my home. At least that time I could honestly tell my wife it was a repair job. Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT. Complaining about others (Was: What really matters...)
If my message was taken as a diatribe against Eduardo, I apologize to him, and anyone else that took it so. It was an out spoken comment I admit as I hope the last line made clear. And, please note, I did not say Eduardo was dumb, I said certain actions are dumb. That is so even when I am the one who takes those actions. It is just that I keep seeing posts which makes me believe that some people are trying to tell us what, and where, we should be allowed to comment on. Maybe that is a dumb response, I have made, and will no doubt make, many others. Well, Lasse, you have changed the subject let's see if what happens. I say that it will not start a new thread some people will reply to my post in the original thread and some will reply here and if it develops into a major thread, and I hope not, some will reply in both. Which is what is called splintering. This happens because we are human. In your mind, my impression, it shouldn't, so you claim it won't. Now, that is a dumb belief. To start a new thread you need to start a new thread. Putting (Was: something) in the subject does not accomplish that as pursuing such treads in this list will show. You wrote, "So why are you acting a moderator then? And in this case clearly without a cause." Am I? I didn't think so. I thought I was making a case about something controversial. I fully expected to get comments back. Evan comments as harsh as yours. I certainly didn't mean it to be taken as an attack on Eduardo as you seem to have. So, once again I apologize to him and any others who took it that way, I just felt his message was a good lead in to something I had been wanting to say. When I attack some one they have no doubt about it, and I try to do it privately. "So, how long a thread will you be running about how wrong Eduardo is?" Not long , it already has evolved to how wrong I am, and thence to how wrong you are. --Tom Lasse Karlsson wrote: > A bunch of stuff snipped. See his post for details. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Apologies for multiple posts
Netscape seems to have gone crazy on me. I'll try reloading it before I post this one. BTW it is doubling in both directions. --Tom - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vivitar Series 1 vs Tamron
The current Vivitar Series 1 lenses are a mere shadow of their older ones from decades past. Basically the newer Series 1 lenses are not very good. I belive the super zoom is the same one sold by Promaster, Quantary, etc., and usually scores last in tests of the superzooms. Todd At 09:12 PM 3/8/01 +0800, you wrote: >I've been reading really good comments on the Tamron >70-300mm APO lens. How about the Vivitar 28-210mm >superzoom? I know superzooms generally suck, but I >heard that Vivitar Series 1 is good... is it really? > >Kelvin > > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Free email you can access from anywhere! >http://mail.yahoo.com.sg/ >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Here's the "Good" one!
Spotted on eBay: Rare Pentax SMC 28mm F3.5 lens K mount - Item #1219249715 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1219249715 Later, Gary - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Re[2]: First look at MZ-S
> I gave this dilemma some thought, and I decided that > I didn't need a larger > camera -- I just needed a larger FLASH! It was an > epiphany! I actually > needed another anyhow, so I shopped and shopped until > I finally bought a > Sunpak handle-mount potato masher. Now when I enter > the gymnasium, they > respectfully can't get out of my way fast enough. And > I now have a good, > powerful flash that works with literally every camera > we own. Not only do > people not notice what it's strapped to, they are > somewhat frightened by it. > :)) > > In other words, gentlemen: Size really does matter ... Yes Treena! You are so right! When I want to clear a path through a crowd to shoot an event, I use my Metz 45CT4 and my FA* 85mm f/1.4 lens on the PZ-1p. This combination seems to be effective most anywhere. :-) Len --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: gfcermak@msn.com
On 8 Mar 2001, at 17:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You said it, Gerald. Several of my lenses took so difficult to find, I > hesitate to use them outside of the house. Is there a name for this affliction Paul? :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
I never said that. I don't even have an M28/3.5, but I do have the K28/3.5, which I like quite a bit. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Shel Belinkoff: "I used the SMC-M 28mm f/3.5 lens to take my single most > beautiful photograph. I had this enlarged to 12x18 and have it hanging over > the mantle, where it is a source of continued pleasure. There's detail in > it close to the grain size (Konica VX 400, probably). I bought mine at a > local pawn/consignment/second-hand place as a small, light back-up lens but > I'm sure I'm going to be using it a lot more than I first anticipated. I'd > read that the earlier K-series 28/3.5 was the best but this one is > certainly no slouch." -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SETH wroth: > > > This was always the case. > > > No. The electronic revolution broke a number of camera manufacturers. In fact, developing cost have increased dramatically after camera became electronic. As Pål is so fond of saying, this is utter bullshit. The cost of cameras was always primarily a function of materials used and the manufacturing process. That's why a Leica rangefinder will always have to cost more than latest plastic fantastic SLR. This is inspite of the fact that all of R&D money that went into M6 was spent years ago, while Canon has to come out with with a new Rebel evey couple of years. Pål's "proof" is just plain wrong. Many companies that went bust were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica is a good example. Konica didn't go belly up only because it could rely on its other businesses. On top of that, many companies disapeared long before electronic cameras became commonplace. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
scarce primes at great prices; how to share the news?
I have just discovered a link to a dealer in Europe that is selling the 35/2A and the 200/2.5M--two scarce Pentax primes--at less than half what I typically see them sell for. The list was just updated March 6, so the lenses might well still be there. What's the protocol for sharing this information with the group? If I just tell everyone the URL now, the first person to get there and order will grab it (or them.) I'll make no secret of the fact that I prefer that scarce lenses go to users rather than collectors. At these prices, there's a chance that these lenses are rather beat up, in which case a collector would not be as interested. This dealer generally sells at market value; I bought my 105/2.8 SMC there for $260, and the company was selling a 28/2.0 SMC for $280 in October 2000. But it pains me to think that some struggling Joe or Ivan has been desperately seeking one of these lenses at an affordable price, and that if I post the URL now, the lenses will get snapped up by some comfortable collector who happened to beat him to the URL. What should I do? Paul Franklin Stregevsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] (You might wheedle me by email, but call me by telephone and you stand no chance of getting the URL out of me.) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K120/2.8
I believe if you check, you'll find the number of aperture blades different on the M and the K versions of this lens, with the K having six. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Not quite, JCO. The 120/2.8 SMC has 5 elements in 4 groups; the M, 5 > elements in 5 groups. Both used eight-bladed diaphgrams. I don't know about > the screwmount. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
On 8 Mar 2001, at 14:38, cwo 20995 wrote: > I think you didn´t understand me. Why a photographer > should spend (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can > have the same features (I don´t agree that they have > the same features but it´s ok) on a F90X or F100 for > the same price, plus a wide range of lenses, > electronic / mechanical bodies and accessories that > Pentax doesn´t offer? Claude, Some of us already have a "wide range of lenses" at our disposal hence the supposed upgrade to the MZ-S is a drop in the ocean compared to a full system switch. In any case some of us are satisfied with what Pentax has to offer (and has offered in the past) even though we have the financial clout available to move to which ever system that we choose. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here are the comments I've collected on the 28/3.5. Because it is so "slow" > compared to most 28s, it is in little demand and can be readily found for > less than $100. So don't feel compelled to buy the EBay article; with a > little Web searching, you can find this lens anytime, in most any > condition. I second that. I got mine on ebay for less than $40, shipping included. It was in BGN+ condition, with excellent glass. It's my only 28mm prime, always in my bag. I like it a lot, yet I haven't used the M28 2.8. I'd only jump on it if it is $50 or less. j -- - Juan J. Buhler | FX Animator @ PDI | http://www.crosswinds.net/~jbuhler - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
You "really" don't need to have a body who talks to the digital back. Does your camera bodies talk to the film Someone can make a digital back that works the same way as film. You set shutter speed and aperture in the camera, click, the curtain opens, the CCD gets some light because of the curtain, it is triggered by the light level and it send the digital information to a memory stick. Don't need to much to go to digital But, if you want a LCD display to see the picture, do gamma correction, crop the image, and send it by e-mail to you address list that is saved hundred miles away from you That is a different point Alex John Francis wrote: > > "Alexandre A. P. Suaide" wrote: > > > > If the guys are smart enough we can make a digital back for pz-1p. > > the ccd can be triggered by some light level. It occurs when the > > curtain opens because there is light arriving in the CCD. > > We don't need to have electronic connections between the body and > > the CCD. We do a lot of this in Nuclear Physics with cosmic rays > > It is not so complicated > > Not complicated, perhaps. But it doesn't do very much. If you want > to be able to see what your digital camera is doing without taking your > eye away from the viewfinder it starts getting considerably more complex. > > A dedicated digital body that doesn't have to worry about mirror boxes, > electro-mechanicval shutters, film transport, and optical viewfinders will, > I assert, be cheaper than a digital back (especially since you have to take > into account the cost of the modifications to the film-based body to talk > to the digital back). > > -- > John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. > (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 > (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 > Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- --- Alexandre A. P. Suaide, Ph.D. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department University of Sao Paulo - BrazilPhone: 1-313-577-5419 Wayne State University - MI -USAICQ number: 78139605 --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-M 28mm f3.5 question
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] > Garjan van Oosten: "If you really need an almost distortion-free wide > angle lens, go for the 3.5/28 K or M. Distortion is under 0.5% for both." Thanks! The information is much appreciated. For the record, Gerjan's name has an "e," not an "a." chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN (long)
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, cwo 20995 wrote: > > What benefits would an upgraded Z1-P (or a > > Nikon F100) offer that the MZ-S wouldn't? > > The second question will be: What benefits > > does the MZ-S offer that the Z1-p and F100 > > don't? > > I think you didn´t understand me. Why a photographer should spend > (let´s say) US$1000 on a MZ-S if he can have the same features (I > don´t agree that they have the same features but it´s ok) on a F90X or > F100 for the same price, plus a wide range of lenses, electronic / > mechanical bodies and accessories that Pentax doesn´t offer? I was answering your earlier question as to why Pentax didn't ofer an updated Z1-p model to stay competitive. My question to you was: why would an updated Z1-p be better than the MZ-S? I don't think I misinterpreted your question there. So your question now basically boils down to this: If a photographer can get an MZ-S and an F100 for the same price, why would they choose the MZ-S? Here's a few possible answers: (1) They like the built-in flash, data imprinting, instant control over all shooting modes, the extra AF point and the small size and weight, and they would rather have these features than the extra weight and better viewfinder of the F100. (2) They like the fact that they can use any Pentax lens on the MZ-S. Not only the K-mount ones (K, M, A, F and FA), but *both* of the screwmounts (M37 and M42) with an adapter, and even the medium format lenses with an adapter. This is an incredibly versatile system. (3) They find the MZ-S easier to use than the F100. It seems to have quite an intuitive design (as does the F100, IMO), but its ability to switch between shooting modes just by changing the shutter speed and aperture is something that Nikon users can only dream of. When it comes down to it, the F100 is better in some ways and the MZ-S in others. I personally found the F100 too heavy for my relatively casual shooting needs, even though I liked its build quality. A lighter F100 with similar build quality and a built-in flash for basic fill-in would have been perfect, and it looks like that's what the MZ-S offers. You give up frames-per-second and a larger viewfinder in favour of a smaller body (which a lot of people like), built-in flash, etc. Depending on the importance you attach to each of these features you could go with either of these cameras and get a good piece of photographic equipment. As far as systems go, Nikon and Pentax both have a lot of things that the other doesn't. Nikon gives you a 2.8 wide angle zoom; Pentax has the 17-28 fisheye zoom. Pentax offers a 1.7x AF teleconverter that lets you AF with MF lenses, soft 28 and 85mm lenses, a 200mm macro (does Nikon? I can't remember), a 2000mm reflex lens, 400-600 reflex, 250-600/5.6, and all of the system accessories that they've made since *1975*. Not to mention the outstanding Limited lenses with exceptional build quality and optical performance. Both Nikon and Pentax have very good systems, and it's up to the individual which one to go with. I don't think you can say "A or B are better" as a general rule. Since you're talking about brands now, and not the specific models any more, why do you think that they should buy a Nikon instead of a Pentax? Why do you think it's okay to spend $1000 on an F100 but not on an MZ-S? Stop talking in general terms and be specific, please. > PS. Please, don´t understand my message as a "Nikon future user > attack", ok? If you don't want to come across like you're blindly attacking Pentax, then *please* don't be so general in your criticisms. If you post something implying that it's okay to spend $1000 on a Nikon but not on a comparable Pentax without giving any reasons for this, it's hard to treat it as a serious complaint. Why do you think the MZ-S is not worth it? Be specific. You originally posted that Pentax abandoned the pro market by not updating the Z1-p. I asked what was wrong with the MZ-S... what it lacked that an updated Z1-p would have. You then changed your criticism from Z1-p2 vs. MZ to criticizing the price of the MZ-S and saying that this would deter pro users. I responded that pro users are not deterred by high prices, and that if they'll pay $1000 for an F100 they'll pay it for an MZ-S. Now you're implying that the Nikon is worth it while the Pentax is not because of their systems and accessories. You shift arguments continually without addressing any of my points, AND, to make matters worse, you don't give any concrete examples of what features or accessories you're talking about. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Help! Is this lens busted?
You can easily test it by simply stopping the lens down and then pressing the DOF button on the camera. If the viewfinder darkens then the aperture blades are working properly. If there is no change, I'd say "Houston, we have a problem." Good luck, Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 2:39 PM Subject: Re: Help! Is this lens busted? > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, dosk wrote: > > > Now, this may sound dumb, but--- Never having owned a Kiron 24mm > > before, do these lenses operate a bit differently than, say, a Pentax > > FA 50mm? Or would Ken-Mar Camera be so idiotic (or larcenous?) as to > > send me an "excell+" rated lens that has its shutter blades frozen > > into only one f-stop? > > Sorry, I have no idea. I know that this is how Canon's FD lenses work, > but I've never heard of a Pentax doing it. Put it on the MZ-M and see if > it stops down properly when you take the shot. If it opens wide up to f2 > when you mount it on the camera and stops down properly when you press the > shutter button, I'd say it's okay. > > chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
Ed M. (one of them) wrote: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=178752 >> Ignore the photo, and read about the camera he says he used. >> >> Thanks, >> Ed Oh, I don't know. I think the photo is definitely part of the joke. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[2]: First look at MZ-S
I think everybody's got this whole camera body thing all wrong. :) I have truly found the secret for respect (yeah, right ...). When I first started using my ZX-5n with an AF280T at school functions, I noticed that parents with larger cameras (like Rebels and N60s) seemed to feel free to jump in front of me while I was trying to do my job. I then ended up having to do a little pushing and shoving, because these were the same people who would have complained to my publisher if their little darling's face wasn't in the paper. I gave this dilemma some thought, and I decided that I didn't need a larger camera -- I just needed a larger FLASH! It was an epiphany! I actually needed another anyhow, so I shopped and shopped until I finally bought a Sunpak handle-mount potato masher. Now when I enter the gymnasium, they respectfully can't get out of my way fast enough. And I now have a good, powerful flash that works with literally every camera we own. Not only do people not notice what it's strapped to, they are somewhat frightened by it. :)) In other words, gentlemen: Size really does matter ... > Hi, > > > If > > I wanted respect for my camrea, not for my pictures, I'd buy a Leica or > > perhaps a Nikon. > > you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people > completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing > anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford > a new camera. It's great :o) > > --- > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
"Alexandre A. P. Suaide" wrote: > > I mean, buy a digital back "should" be much cheaper than buy a > digital body This is the main reason But the cost of a digital back, plus the cost of a hybrid body that is capable of working both with a digital back and regular film will almost certainly be higher than the cost of a dedicated digital body plus the cost of a dedicated film-based body. -- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc. (650)933-82952011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991 (650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K120/2.8
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > ARENT THE smct 120 2.8, k120 2.8 > AND m120 2.8 All the same optically The SMCT and the may be, but the M is definitely different from the K. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
i read an e-mail sometime ago that someone took a pzip a part and found out there was a metal frame under that plastic case >Before I purchased my z1p I considered both Nikon and >Canon, but ultimately decided that for my money I >could not buy a better camera than the z1p. Since >then, I have ~never~ given it a second thought. Just >because it costs less than $1,000, does not have metal >shell, has only one AF point, etc etc etc etc... DOES >NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT A PRO CAMERA!!! Well there >I've had my little rant... thanks for listening. I think the Z-1p has serious AF tracking problem. For moving subjects, I'd rather use manual focus. It's been more than 10 years and their AF technology is still way behind the other three. Pentax should do something rather than toying around. regards, Alan Chan _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Tokina ATX270 28-70/2.8 (Not PRO model) opinion welcomed
i do have one of those lenses and i can't say enought good things about it . it is very well built ,all metal with hld glass . about $200.00 is a good price for it . Hi all, Well, I'm getting another body through auction. (Woo hoo!!) It'll be my first AF body, and come with F35-80/4-5.6. However, I prefer a constant open F value, and came across with the above lens. So, I'd like your frank opinions on this. If anyone has/had this zoom, how does it feel, and how well (or poorly) does it perform? And what is the appropriate price? I've searched KEH for its modest price, but they don't seem to have one in stock. Your opinions/comments will be highly appreciated. Sincerely, Take Ueda, Osaka, Japan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.co.jp/hayatama/photo/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: K120/2.8
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: K120/2.8 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I had a 120 2.8 M and a 50 1.4 M for > > years as my only 2 lenses, so naturally > > shot alot with both ... In all honesty, > > though, I found it a bit mushy when > > shot wide open ... > > Thanks for the information, however, I wasn't asking about the M > version, which, in all honesty, doesn't interest me. > -- > Shel Belinkoff ARENT THE smct 120 2.8, k120 2.8 AND m120 2.8 All the same optically JCO - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX year and other info from Serial
Hi, Thanks guys for the replys. >From the info provided i have worked out mine is the 1985 - 1987. it has all the other details that fit into this age group aswell as the serial. Thanks, Paul - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 3:22 AM Subject: LX year and other info from Serial > Paul, > Here's a quick (unedited) copy-and-paste list that I made from a posting > from 1999 or earlier. > >AGE/SERIAL NO.s :On older models, the shutter lock is simply a ribbed >collar with a corrugated tab on the outside for your finger (KX, K2, MX >style). On later models, there$B!G(Bs the tab, but immediately surrounding >the shutter button is a hollow collar that looks like a small bowl, but >it goes halfway around. Roller means when you open the back and look >beside the film pressure plate, there may be a long chrome roller beside >it about 1.5 in. long. > >x: 1980 (no roller, no meter activation, KX-style shutter lock_ >531 = 1985-87. Rubberized belt around ASA dial and shutter-speed >dial.Rubberized ASA was around in 81-82, too. >early 91: The button on the finder release lever was redesigned to allow >the user to activate the meter to avoid unwanted shutter release when >metering with a Motor Drive or Winder attached. >522xx: pre-82 >526xx: pre-82 >5269x: 1982 (no roller, meter activation, KX-style shutter lock) ASA >dial$B!G(Bs lock release button stand out from the dial; can easily be >pressed by accident, changing the ASA setting. The MLU button easily >fades, showing brass. >5274xx: 1982 (no roller, meter activation, KX-style shutter lock) >52787: 1982 (no roller, meter activation, hollow-shaped shutter lock) >52789: 1982 (meter activation, KX-style shutter lock) >531xx: year unknown, KX shutter release, no film roller. >531xx; year unknown. roller, KX-style shutter lock? film roller, hollow >shutter lock, meter activation on release button, rubberized ASSA and >shutter speed dial. >5317xxx: Newer ASA dial lock (3rd generation); flush against the ledge >that it sits on, preventing accidental change, a solution identical to >Super Program$B!G(Bs. >533xx: year unknown. hollow-shaped shutter lock. >533xx: How shutter release, film roller. >5336x: 1987: roller, meter activation, hollow-shaped shutter lock. ASA >dial is better protected against accidental change. The button is flush >with a small supporter/ protector on the dial. The MLU button is >plastic, fade-free. >535xx: 1992: KX shutter lock, no film roller. > >-- > > Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:09:14 +1100 > From: "Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: LX year and other info from Serial > > Hi, > > A while back someone spoke about being able to tell the year of manufacture > and other info from the serial on an LX. Can any one tell me any info on > mine, the serial starts with 5319. > > Thanks > > > Paul Franklin Stregevsky, > Herndon, VA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > W: (703) 834-4648 > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Graded Paper
Tom R. wrote: > Interesting. That is a very high percentage doing their own > darkroom work. I would guess it would be one or two percent for > color. Of course in pure numbers that would come out to about > 50-50 wouldn't it? Tom, I think the split is more like 60% B&W/40% color for home darkroom workers. It's getting a little wider as color folks defect to D.I. But like I said, all these numbers are pretty approximate. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
That's because Pentax & Contax will have 6+ mp cameras, followed by 8mp from Nikon, and on its heels 12mp from Canon. It's a new leapfrog game. Just like the AE-1 in the late 70s had everyone doing. What I'm looking forward to is a give-away D1, then swap the mount to a "K" and just do manual focus with it! Collin --- Original Message --- From: Chris Brogden Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:15:22 -0800 And two weeks after that there'll be a good reason to move to Canon, and then to Pentax, and then to Nikon, and then to MedF. If you think like that, the madness will never end. Stop the madness! Use a Pentax. chris *** "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." --James Madison, Federalist 47 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: First look at MZ-S
Pål Jensen wrote: > > I still like that Nikon MZ-S. The F100 alternative that trades fps for small size. >Instead it offers mirror lock (Gosh! finally in a Nikon below the F5); cool >dataimprinting between the frames (gosh); Mid roll rewind with memory (another gosh); >One more focus point than the F100 (yet another Gosh); a smooter and faster interface >than on any previous Nikon; built in flash wisch is great for saving weight (no need >for separate flash for eg. fill flash) and the list goes on. I'm certain any Nikon >sales person would be happy with this camera. > Thank goodness its a Pentax. > Very well said Paal. I can't agree with you more. But I would have exchanged the RTF for a better viewfinder (98%) with bigger magnification. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filters on 24mm F2.0
Paul Jones wrote: > > So now onto my question, wil the UV filter vignet? also what are my chances > of getting a Polarising filter ontop of the UV filter without causing any > vignetting? I have got a Hoya HMC filter on my FA* 24mm. 2.0 and it does not cause any vignetting. Regards -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain -- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: What's a professional?
we can settel what is a professional. go to a dictionary. it says (1) of or engaged in a profession. (2) engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood. So I guess all that commercial work that Michelangelo did pretty much disqualifies him as an artist? It's a pretty sweeping statement to make that professionals are not artists. I think it is quite possible (and quite likely) that there is a lot of talent in the ranks of professionals. Perhaps the real objection is that they "sold out"? Paul M. Provencher (ppro) -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What's a professional? John Mullan wrote: > It is not the camera that makes a photographer a professional. It is > their vision, their artistry...[snip]...Would Picasso be less of an artist if > he used a different paintbrush? Huh? Professionals aren't artists. Professionals are the furthest thing from artists. Artists make pictures to satisfy an inner need, and professionals make pictures to satisfy the needs of whoever hired them or whoever is going to buy the picture. There's a very big difference here that we seem to be ignoring. Is anybody of the opinion that "professionals" are somehow at the top of the pyramid? If so, I would beg to differ. Great photographers are seldom professionals (even if they hire themselves out). Professionals seldom do the best photographic work. And professional work isn't much to aspire to, IMHO. I mean, we've all done it, we've all had to do it (I was a full-time pro for years), but what professional would do exactly the same kind of work if he or she didn't have to?!? --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: CdI magazine feedback (was: Re: F, A, FA and FA* lens-except)
Nicolas wrote: > You know, the mailing of CdI often receive some > comments like what I already readed on the pdml list. > So I know a little of their answers. I already write > them about this I believe this is a futile excercise. What are you going to achieve? They certainly won't say their tests sucks. Furthermore, they seem to be aware of whats going on at PDML; they have refered to top model rumors here and also printed sarcastic comments on Pentax users. The latter probably because the've figured out that Pentax users ignore their "advices" and generally don't give a damn about their opinion. This apparently piss them off. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Mr. A vs Mr. B
B :-) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
I mean, buy a digital back "should" be much cheaper than buy a digital body This is the main reason My wife doesn't like me to spend so much money on photography. :) Alex Chris Brogden wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Alexandre A. P. Suaide wrote: > > > The reason I said that is because I really don't believe Pentax will > > sell a hybrid digital/film camera I would like so much to have a > > digital back in my camera and still can use it with film. I there is > > any reason to believe (not faith, please) please tell me. BTW, I > > don't want to give up Pentax. > > Ok, that makes sense. The digital SLR that Pentax announced is nice in > that it will at least accept our lenses, even if we have to carry around a > spare body as well. Much cheaper to get a spare body than to duplicate > all of our lenses. I imagine that Pentax will have to release a hybrid > body if the technology shifts that way, especially since they pride > themselves on their compatibility (and rightly so). My question is: would > having a hybrid body really be useful right now? If you're shooting both > film and digital in the same shoot, then you should probably have a > separate body for each so you don't have to change backs all the time. If > you shoot one or the other, but not both at the same time, then it might > come in handy. > > chris > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . -- --- Alexandre A. P. Suaide, Ph.D. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department University of Sao Paulo - BrazilPhone: 1-313-577-5419 Wayne State University - MI -USAICQ number: 78139605 --- - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
