Re: It's Time To Go
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I'll be leaving the list for an indefinite period. I'd like to thank > the many good folks who have been helpful to me on a personal level, > and for the friendship and kindness you've offered and provided. [snip] Aw, we're going to miss you, Shel. Good luck in doing whatever it is that you're doing instead of wasting time with us. :) Come back soon! 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: It's Time To Go
Shel, It's been a pleasure to know you. I hope that things go well for you. Please touch base and let us know how you are doing. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:30 PM Subject: It's Time To Go > I'll be leaving the list for an indefinite period - 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: It's Time To Go
Shel, Sad to see you go. Its definately a loss to the pdml community. I have always enjoyed your posts as they you took the time to make them indepth and very informative. I have a nunber of them in my saved folder. All the best, Paul Jones - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 3:30 PM Subject: It's Time To Go > I'll be leaving the list for an indefinite period. I'd like to > thank the many good folks who have been helpful to me on a personal > level, and for the friendship and kindness you've offered and > provided. Special thanks to Bill Robb, Chris Brogden, Yoshi, Ken > Takeshita and his niece, Bob Sullivan, Cameron Hood, Bob Walkden, > Rob Studdert, Mike Broom, and I'm sure a few others, for their > special favors and considerations. I hope my contributions have > helped or amused some of you, or given you something to think > about. Many of the contributions and contributors to the list have > certainly entertained and enlightened. > > Please keep in touch ... I'll try to do likewise. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "It matters little how much equipment we use; it > matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell > > - > 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: It's Time To Go
Damn! I'll miss you while you're gone. Regards, Bob... -- "Those who say that life is worth living at any cost have already written an epitaph of infamy, for there is no cause and no person that they will not betray to stay alive." Sidney Hook From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I'll be leaving the list for an indefinite period. I'd like to > thank the many good folks who have been helpful to me on a personal > level, and for the friendship and kindness you've offered and > provided. Special thanks to Bill Robb, Chris Brogden, Yoshi, Ken > Takeshita and his niece, Bob Sullivan, Cameron Hood, Bob Walkden, > Rob Studdert, Mike Broom, and I'm sure a few others, for their > special favors and considerations. I hope my contributions have > helped or amused some of you, or given you something to think > about. All three. > Many of the contributions and contributors to the list have > certainly entertained and enlightened. > > Please keep in touch ... I'll try to do likewise. - 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 .
It's Time To Go
I'll be leaving the list for an indefinite period. I'd like to thank the many good folks who have been helpful to me on a personal level, and for the friendship and kindness you've offered and provided. Special thanks to Bill Robb, Chris Brogden, Yoshi, Ken Takeshita and his niece, Bob Sullivan, Cameron Hood, Bob Walkden, Rob Studdert, Mike Broom, and I'm sure a few others, for their special favors and considerations. I hope my contributions have helped or amused some of you, or given you something to think about. Many of the contributions and contributors to the list have certainly entertained and enlightened. Please keep in touch ... I'll try to do likewise. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell - 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: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: "aimcompute" Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) > William Robb wrote: > > > Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light > > falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron > > the subject is far more accurate. > > > > Bill, > > Could you offer an explanation as to why this may be the case? No, Sorry, that is a postulate. William Robb - 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: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 4, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) > William Robb wrote: > > > I have seen hand held light meters with "spot" attchments. These > > give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. > > Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light > > falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron > > the subject is far more accurate. > > Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the > scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. > However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and > you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best > exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't > give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. > Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about > light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter > every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be > and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what > development will be needed. Pleas allow me to obfuscate further, the muzzification that I was attempting to induce in your less than obtuse mind. For me, there is pretty much always a SUBJECT in the photograph. If I can walk up to that subject and stick a meter in it's face and get a reading, then I know exactly how much light is falling on it. I am about to admit to the world, something that I probably shouldn't admit. I don't give a rats ass about metering. I meter the subject, I decide where on the film curve I want it placed. I look (not meter, but look) at the subject in its context and decide what development strategy to follow with the negative I am about to expose. I then set aperture based on needed DOF and my shutter to give what I figure will give me a nice fat negative to play with. As I get older, I find that fat isn't so bad. I carry three empty film boxes with me. One is marked "-", one "N" and one "+". "-" gets 20% less development, and "+" gets 20% more, than normal. Sometimes. I will put the film sheet from one side of the film holder into one box, and the other into a different box. Sometimes I just expose one sheet, sometimes I expose a dozen on the same (exactly) scene and spread them indiscrimanately through all the boxes. I like to be where the fish are. Sometimes, I cast my hook and get a mermaid. Sometimes, just an ugly old carp. When I was younger, a pretty carp would pass as a mermaid. This is no longer the case. The only way to get better is to raise the bar above your head. > > > > Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a > > tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be > > colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). > > I agree 100%. > > > As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how > > to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on > > the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to > > be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the > > film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if > > your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and > > if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. > > And that was my original point in suggesting that some knowledge > beforehand (Adams' Zone System, for example) is an important > consideration when using a spot meter. The spot meter makes more > demands of the user, but, in time, the user will better understand > light and exposure. Personally, I think that anyone who wants to learn "photography" (Latin for "painting with light") needs to use completely manual equipment. This is the only way to get to know what you are doing to the point it is second nature. Exposing film is not rocket science. It is driving a car, or a nail. Eventually, you can do it without a lot of concious thought. I suspect that the reason I am so lassez faire about my technique is because I know light. William Robb - 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-discuss-digest V1 #807
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <<>> Jack, I was unaware of this film. I quit shooting slide film several years ago when I quit competing in slide competitions. Thanks for the update and correction. Keith Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.dave-world.net/~vkzimm/gallery5.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: 100/f4 Bellows Takumar Macro - Weed Photo
John Mustarde wrote: > I got a 100/f4 Bellows Takumar recently, and thought > I'd share one of my first photos taken with it. > > http://web2.airmail.net/linnm3/takbell-1.jpg I like it! > The bellows extension gave magnification a little more > than 1:1. The photo is cropped, about 1/4 off the top > and 1/6 off the bottom. > > First, I wandered out by the bird feeder and plucked > the top off some unknown weed growing from dropped bird > seed. Then, I placed the flower on my battery-powered > slide viewer light box, so I could get the white > background. Then I set the flower and light box on my > copy stand, which has dual daylight flourescent lamps > for overall lighting. > > Aperture was f32; spot metered; shutter speed on PZ1p > set to Automatic. Film was Fuji Superia 400 negative > film. Scanned at 2700dpi, resized in Photoshop with one > shot of 60% Unsharp Mask applied, saved as jpg at 6 > setting. Aperture f/32 seems somewhat... extreme. Diffraction severely limits your ultimate sharpness at such a small stop. It's usually good to try to keep the aperture up to f/11 or f/8, but sometimes the need for DOF won't allow it. It's not always necessary (or even desirable) to have the entire subject in sharp focus. A slower film with more saturation might be in order . These are just ramblings. Photo is good! > The 100/4 Bellows Takumar seems like a pretty good > lens. It's one of the best! Regards, Bob... -- "Those who say that life is worth living at any cost have already written an epitaph of infamy, for there is no cause and no person that they will not betray to stay alive." Sidney Hook - 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: Wide Angle Lens Dilemma
I recently bought the PENTAX SMC-FA 20-35mm f/4 AL and LOVE it. The contrasty, full-frame sharpness, and distortion-free images have been phenomenal. The lens also handles well, and is relatively small. Yeah, it's f/4, but the one-stop loss vs. size is often handy. It is, without a doubt, one of the nicer lenses I own (though I hear the 20mm Pentax is sweet, too... probably even better.) I have run a ton of stuff through this lens in the three months I have had it, and all the shots are flawless. No flare, no soft edges. If I had the cash and did it over again, I might also consider the 20mm Pentax for the distortion-free wides, and then also get the Pentax F 17-28 fish for kicks. I hear it is a "fun" lens. Note, too, that if a 24 would do the trick, the Pentax FA* 24 f/2 EDIF is killer. As anyone who knows me knows, I am none often too hot on Sigma lenses. My experiences have all been dismal. Soft edges, unsharp images all around. I DO hear that the 14 is killer, though. Haven't used it myself. I'd look at a Tokina, if any options exist, before Sigma. Just my two cents. Pete - 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: Fill flash
If I am not mistaken, he's talking about photos taken with a really slow flash sync, like 1/30 or 1/15. You get something that's a little sharp and the rest is just a whole lot of motion blur. I think it's supposed to be artsy, but it gets old real fast. - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: Re: Fill flash > > - Original Message - > From: "Francis Tang" > Subject: Fill flash > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:25:01PM +0200, Carlos Royo wrote: > > > > > By the way, I have observed lately that the use of fill > > > in flash, combined with a slow shutter speed, seems to have > become > > > "fashionable" among a number of photographers, including > most of the > > > ones who work for the National Geographic magazine. And I > can't help > > > feeling that most of the time what they get are boring and > > > repetitive-looking photos. > > > > I've noticed this too, especially in the National Geographic. > It feels like all the newspapers are using it too, at least in > the UK. Personally I don't like this "artificial" look either > (I think your description is bang-on.) Most non-photographic > people don't notice it though: they just think I'm crazy > complaining about newspaper photographs. > > Would this be the downside of high speed sync? > > William Robb > Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. > Please see: > http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html > for more information. > > > > - > 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: HELP! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touchingthem?
If it does turn out that it needs repair, the repair is not that difficult. A couple of years ago I changed a roll of film in my (almost new) PZ-1p while crossing a lagoon as a passenger in a dugout canoe. The canoe rolled a bit in the wake of a powerboat, I did something to the shutter (like maybe I put my thumb through it). Whatever, I closed it up, tried to shoot, the shutter jammed, and I had a broken camera. Cost about $125 to fix, took Pentax Colorado about 4 weeks. Stan > From: Chaso DeChaso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:06:14 -0700 (PDT) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: HELP! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them? > > Hello, > > Some of you may have read in another thread of my > incompetent attempt to shoot a local band (the drummer > of which is my close friend) in a bar recently. I've > decided to post another on-topic message soliciting > advice on how to progress with a problem caused by my > own idiocy during this ill-fated shoot. > > At some point in the evening, when re-loading my > PZ-1p, I managed to press my thumb directly into the > shutter curtains. It was hard enough so that I > actually felt some deflection of the curtains under my > touch. I cannot begin to tell you the feeling in my > stomach when I realized what I had done. I am so > angry with myself, I cannot even describe it. I am > always so careful not to let even the film leader > graze these curtains because I understand that they > are manufactured to such a high precision that they > may be misaligned and damaged very easily. > > My question is what to do next. How much damage am I > like to have caused? Can this be assessed easily? > What expense is involved in fixing or replacing this > part of the camera? Should I send it to Pentax or > what? > > The sad thing is that this was a brand new camera > (one-month old!) - and now I feel like I will never > trust it to be working properly unless I have so much > of the "guts" replaced. > > Thanks everyone, > > Chaso (rethinking whether he deserves to own a Pentax) > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
I was going to post something more on this subject, but after this, anything I put in would be redundant. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 4, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: Re[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) > Hi, > > I wrote the following earlier today to be a reply to Shel's post. Some > of it has been superceded by other people's replies, but I thought I'd > send it anyway. > > --- > > Bob - 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: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)
- Original Message - From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 4, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???) > ??? > > Resolving power is not spread over the image (lenses are > essentially holographic devices). The medium format lens > simply has a wider field of view. Older MF lenses may not > have been as highly corrected as 35 mm lenses, but in these > days of CAD/CAM the resolving power of the lenses are > essentially the same. Furthermore, the MF lens on a 35mm or > Digital camera is only using the center of the image which > tends to be sharper than the corners. There is no reason, > with modern lenses, for the MF lens to be less sharp than > the 35mm lens. I suspect that cost might be a factor. Really good lenses to cover big negatives are horrifically expensive. A Schneider Super-Symmar HM 150mm f/5.6 is over US$2800.00 at B&H Photo. I suppose this is the ultimate standard lens for 4x5. I bet it out resolves anyone's 50mm lens for 35mm. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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: 100/f4 Bellows Takumar Macro - Weed Photo
- Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 4, 2001 5:25 PM Subject: 100/f4 Bellows Takumar Macro - Weed Photo > I got a 100/f4 Bellows Takumar recently, and thought > I'd share one of my first photos taken with it. > > http://web2.airmail.net/linnm3/takbell-1.jpg > > > The 100/4 Bellows Takumar seems like a pretty good > lens. Ve Nez. The 100 bellows is an excellent lens. If you get the helicoid extension tube, you can use it as a fairly normal camera lens also. The tube will allow infinity focus down to about 1/2 life size. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" Subject: Re: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???) > Rob wrote: > > > > There is no truth in the statement the MF lenses have lower MTF values > > either, > > > Whatever resolving power a MF lens has it has to be distributed over a larger area than a 35mm lens. HUH? By that arguement, my 210mm NikkorW should only resolve about 8 LPPM. I know for a fact it resolves closer to 60 on the film. Format doesn't matter. William Robb - 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: Jarring Bokeh was: re:Which Picture is Better
- Original Message - From: "Evan Hanson" Subject: Jarring Bokeh was: re:Which Picture is Better - Original Message - From: Evan Hanson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: Jarring Bokeh was: re:Which Picture is Better Shel wrote: >What I meant is that the out of focus areas are, to my eyes and >sensibilities, harsh, not smooth. I'd prefer something more "creamy" >and soft, which would better compliment the portrait, IMO. Is it just me or does bad bokeh below f2.8 seem to occur with all the Pentax 50s. I know I've seen it plenty of times with mine. And I seem to remember in a discussion about the 50 1.2 that some posted some pics of a dog with comments about the bokeh. Has anyone else noticed this. That was me with the dog pictures. The problem was more one with unsharp mask in Photoshop. The A50mm 1.2 has OK bokeh. Not great, but not as bad as the pictures that were on my website would have indicated. I did find that the 50 1.2 was sort of all bokeh all the time wide open. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them?
- Original Message - From: "Chaso DeChaso" Subject: HELP! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them? > At some point in the evening, when re-loading my > PZ-1p, I managed to press my thumb directly into the > shutter curtains. It was hard enough so that I > actually felt some deflection of the curtains under my > touch. > My question is what to do next. How much damage am I > like to have caused? Can this be assessed easily? > What expense is involved in fixing or replacing this > part of the camera? Should I send it to Pentax or > what? The likelihood of having done any damage is pretty small. An anecdotal story about shutters. This took place several years ago. I was working at my lab when I heard a customer being very loud and abusive to my co-worker in the store. I went to see what the deal was, and as I rounded the counter I saw that my co-worker was holding a Pentax SF-10 body. Being the sensitive girl that she was, she handed me the camera and ran into the back room. So, there I am, with a camera that I have never seen before, and a screaming abusive customer. Being somewhat larger than him, and definitely possessing a far worse attitude than he was able to muster, I calmed him down to the point where he became lucid again. This didn't go far towards resolving the issue at hand. At this point, he told me what he thought about my company, me, Pentax, and the world in general, using multiple repetitions of a rather coarse word that starts with "f". He then told me to throw the camera into the garbage. I asked him if he was sure about that, and he assured me twice more that this was what he wanted. After he left the store, I decided to see exactly what it was that I had been abused over. It turned out that the shutter curtain had been punched in hard enough that they were actually deformed quite badly, and the shutter was non functional. The problem was that this was the second time that the shutter had "failed", and the customer was miffed that Pentax wanted another $170.00 to replace it. I took out my Swiss Army Knife, gently pulled the blades out of the shutter completely on their free side (the blades are attached on one side only, on the other side they just run on a guide). Much to my surprise, the blades appeared to regain their former shape, with no visible signs of bending or warpage. So, I very carefully put the blades back into their guide. and tested to see if it worked. It worked perfectly. I ended up giving the camera to a friend who is using it to this day, with absolutely no problems. So, I would just put this little incident behind me and go out and enjoy the camera. If you are really curious, you could take the lens off and point the thing at the sun for a half minute or so to see if the shutter leaks light and run the shutter through all it's speeds to see if it is relatively linear. Personally, I would just keep using it. > > The sad thing is that this was a brand new camera > (one-month old!) - and now I feel like I will never > trust it to be working properly unless I have so much > of the "guts" replaced. Suck it up big boy!! It ain't that serious. > > Thanks everyone, Yer welcome. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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: Fill flash
- Original Message - From: "Francis Tang" Subject: Fill flash > On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:25:01PM +0200, Carlos Royo wrote: > > > By the way, I have observed lately that the use of fill > > in flash, combined with a slow shutter speed, seems to have become > > "fashionable" among a number of photographers, including most of the > > ones who work for the National Geographic magazine. And I can't help > > feeling that most of the time what they get are boring and > > repetitive-looking photos. > > I've noticed this too, especially in the National Geographic. It feels like all the newspapers are using it too, at least in the UK. Personally I don't like this "artificial" look either (I think your description is bang-on.) Most non-photographic people don't notice it though: they just think I'm crazy complaining about newspaper photographs. Would this be the downside of high speed sync? William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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: June PUG Thoughts
Thank you, Tom. I had similar concerns as you, since no one commented on my entry from last month, and I thought maybe this month I'd submitted a second dud Bill Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: June 03, 2001 1:08 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: June PUG Thoughts My shot was obviously a flop as was last months. It's what I get for waiting until an hour before the PUG deadline to choose a photo and scan it. My thoughts for the month: " Renaissance Bridge " by Bill Sawyer, USA Definitely an attention getter. Reminds me of the 60's "Time Tunnel" television show which is one of my favorites. Very nice. - 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: Wide Angle Lens Dilemma
I have the older Sigma 14mm - the 14mm f3.5. I've been pretty satisfied with it, though it's not something I use very often. Here's a cat photo taken with it: http://www.net-link.net/~cassino/stuff/01010702pandora_e1.jpg The SMC F 17-28 fisheye zoom is a really interesting lens, but the fisheye effect is not always what's needed. But it sure is a lot of fun to work with. On the cheap side of things, I recently picked up a Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm zoom. The test roll I shot looks OK and it was cheap - someday to be replaced by the FA 20-35 f4 AL... - MCC At 07:42 PM 6/4/01 +0200, you wrote: I have been saving up to buy a good ultra wide angle lens. Below is my shortlist (in no particular order). - PENTAX SMC-FA 20-35mm f/4 AL - PENTAX SMC-FA 20mm f/2.8 - SIGMA 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF - SIGMA 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical - SIGMA 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical Since whatever I choose the investment will be substantial, I would like some expert advice on the issue. My priorities are as follows: 1) Sharpness (duh!) 2) Good rendition of out of focus areas. 3) As little barrel/pincushion distortion as possible. 4) Good resistance to flare. 5) Non rotating front element. - I frequently use a circular polariser and other Cokin P System filters. 6) Fast Maximum Aperture - Since I will stop down the lens to f8 or f11 in most situations this is not absolutely essential. 7) Zoom - desirable but not essential. Any words of wisdom / personal experience will be very apreceated. I would also be interested in positive experiences with lenses other than those on my shortlist. My camera is a Pentax MZ5n Regards Patrick - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
OT: Old Canon repair advice needed
A good friend of mine is using an original Canon F1, which is now in need of some repair service. He has checked with the Canadian supplier, who was of no help at all. Here is his description of the problem: "One of the 2 pins which release the removable viewfinder has fallen out and disappeared. Doesn't affect operation, but now I can't clean off the focus screen, at least not conveniently. So, I'm thinking I will have to find a used pentaprism (preferably trashed) from which I can salvage one of the release pins." If anyone can help out with advice about who in the world (literally) might be able to put this fine old camera back into perfect working order, we would be much obliged. Thanks William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. (Pentax content here) - 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 (sort of) Ilfospeed Deluxe paper
Thanks to those who replied to this. I'm not going into all the details about why I think I would prefer a graded paper, but suffice to say I've been printing for a while. I've arrived at and have been using graded Fiber with cold light for some time now, and I want to extend that preference to my quicker RC prints. The response about Ilfospeed was all positive, so I ordered a pack of grade 2 and a pack of grade 3. Thanks for the input, gang. Most the time, I do better when I have less choices. Less choices leads to less confusion and better familiarity for my simple mind. Thanks, Ed - 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: 100/f4 Bellows Takumar Macro - Weed Photo
Hi John Check: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1242947732 Don - Original Message - > Excellent stuff. I was close to bidding on an SMC 100 Takumar bellows > lens & bellows recently for the lens alone (I already have a bellows). > The 100 bellows lens is high on my wants list. > > David S. > > - > 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: Film development
> Is there a kind of instruction I can give the lab to avoid this problem? > Something like "don't compensate exposure"? Yep, the very few times I've used a place like Wolf photo, I've said exactly that: "don't compensate exposure". j -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.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: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Using any meter (including the one in the camera) requires some knowledge and common sense. A spot meter makes sense with a view camera and the zone system. However, I think that an incident light meter is better for general photography. It gives you an 18% gray reading every time. If you want more detail in the shadows you open up one or two stops. For more highlight detail you close down a stop. You can not have both, no matter what type meter you use. If you want maximum detail over all the incident meter will nail the center and the film latitude will will give you the widest highlight to shadow range. Your paper grade will determine the final contrast range on the print for B&W, for color an incident meter will nail the best exposure every time. Using these techniques I have several times had lab people comment how consistent my exposure from frame to frame was. --Tom Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the > scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. > However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and > you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best > exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't > give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. > Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about > light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter > every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be > and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what > development will be needed. > - 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: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)
??? Resolving power is not spread over the image (lenses are essentially holographic devices). The medium format lens simply has a wider field of view. Older MF lenses may not have been as highly corrected as 35 mm lenses, but in these days of CAD/CAM the resolving power of the lenses are essentially the same. Furthermore, the MF lens on a 35mm or Digital camera is only using the center of the image which tends to be sharper than the corners. There is no reason, with modern lenses, for the MF lens to be less sharp than the 35mm lens. --Tom Pål Jensen wrote: > > Rob wrote: > > > There is no truth in the statement the MF lenses have lower MTF values > > either, > > Whatever resolving power a MF lens has it has to be distributed over a larger area >than a 35mm lens. - 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: AF Macro Lens Question
At 01:28 5/06/01, you wrote: Hi Len >I believe the ZX-5n has a flash sync up to and including 1/250th. It should >be easy to verify at either Boz's site or at Pentax's sites. The (P)Z-1p has 1/250th flash sync. The ZX-5n (MZ-5n) has 1/100 and the MZ-3 has 1/125 flash sync. I have owned all three, so I'm pretty well aware of that. Cheers Jon Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind - 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: Tamron lens advise requested f1:3.8-4.0 80-210mm
While I can't find this exact lens, I'd say not too much, unfortunently. Probably <$50 with that dent. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1237402543 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1237851344 http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1241636108 Todd At 07:57 PM 6/4/01 +0100, you wrote: >A colleague of my wants to sell some of his equipment. I'll take his ME >Super with a 50mm/f1.7, but there is also a Tamron lens in the kit. I want >to offer him to sell it for him on eBay, but I have no idea about the value >of this lens, can someone advise please? > >TAMRON >CF TELE MACRO >BBAR MC o58 (means round 58mm filter size) >30 - 11.1 (30 degrees to 11.1 degrees) >1:3.8-1:4 >80-210mm >103A No.3049800 >Build like a tank, one ring focus/zoom, very smooth operation, not loose. >Ding on front barrel preventing the use of a filter at the moment, no other >obvious signs of use, no brassing, etc., >glass is clean and free of damage and fungus, >adaptall mount for Pentax K mount >front and end caps included > >Frits > - 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: Hanimex flash advise requested TZ*2
Well, unless there is something special, it's probably just another used 3rd party flash that's worth almost nothing. I would just keep it. http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1236893464 Todd At 07:57 PM 6/4/01 +0100, you wrote: >A colleague of my wants to sell some of his equipment. I'll take his ME >Super with a 50mm/f1.7, but there is also a Hanimex flash in the kit. I want >to offer him to sell it for him on eBay, but I have no idea about the value >of this flash, can someone advise please? > >Hanimex TZ*2 >0-90 tilt head >hot shoe, single middle contact >Signs of use, but no cuts or damage. > >Frits > - 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! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them?
I'm unclear on exactly what happened. Are the curtains bent or otherwise damaged? Or do they look just fine? If it's #2 I would slap a roll of film in the camera, and take a good look at the results. Chances are the shutter is fine. If damage is present, I would take it to a repair shop, or send it to Pentax. Todd At 10:06 AM 6/4/01 -0700, you wrote: >Hello, > >Some of you may have read in another thread of my >incompetent attempt to shoot a local band (the drummer >of which is my close friend) in a bar recently. I've >decided to post another on-topic message soliciting >advice on how to progress with a problem caused by my >own idiocy during this ill-fated shoot. > >At some point in the evening, when re-loading my >PZ-1p, I managed to press my thumb directly into the >shutter curtains. It was hard enough so that I >actually felt some deflection of the curtains under my >touch. I cannot begin to tell you the feeling in my >stomach when I realized what I had done. I am so >angry with myself, I cannot even describe it. I am >always so careful not to let even the film leader >graze these curtains because I understand that they >are manufactured to such a high precision that they >may be misaligned and damaged very easily. > >My question is what to do next. How much damage am I >like to have caused? Can this be assessed easily? >What expense is involved in fixing or replacing this >part of the camera? Should I send it to Pentax or >what? > >The sad thing is that this was a brand new camera >(one-month old!) - and now I feel like I will never >trust it to be working properly unless I have so much >of the "guts" replaced. > >Thanks everyone, > >Chaso (rethinking whether he deserves to own a 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 .
Re: MZ-S
Hi Todd, I made a comparison chart with MZ-S, PZ-1P and MZ-5N. In the features says FA and F. It's just a mistake? Martin -Original Message- From: Todd Stanley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: Re: MZ-S "Usable Lenses: Pentax KAF2-, KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses." Seems K-mount (AKA K and M series) lenses should be fine. Todd At 10:20 AM 6/4/01 -0300, you wrote: >Did you see in the features that the only lenses that accept are FA and F? >What about K and M?? >Martin >-Original Message- >From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:31 PM >Subject: MZ-S > > >The MZ-S is now on U.S. Pentax page!! >http://www.pentax.com/products/cameras/camera_overview.cfm?productID=1385 > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > - 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: Close focusing wide angle lens?
Aaron Reynolds wrote: > I have the manual focus Sigma 24mm f2.8 macro, and I am quite happy with > it. The minimum focus distance is really phenomenal and wonderful to > have, even though I don't use it for super-close stuff very often. ...and I posted that four or five days ago. Whee! -Aaron - 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! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them?
Don't panic about damage until you know if there really is some. The shutter mechanism is a bit more sturdy than you have been lead to believe. You may not have done any damage at all. The first question is do you see any obvious damage to the shutter? For example bent or miss aligned shutter blades? If not does the shutter fire? If it does then try shooting a test roll of film under different lighting conditions to see if there are any problems at high or low speeds. Then examine the negatives for dark bands at the top and bottom of the film and light leaks. If you don't find any of these problems then the shutter is probably all right. If there is obvious physical damage you should probably send the camera to repair, however if you feel brave you could try the tests outlined above, examine the resulting negatives and if there are no problems shoot with the camera until it stops working, or develops exposure problems. At that point it probably won't cost any more to have it repaired that it would right now, since the repair shop is most like to swap out the shutter anyway. I've seen older ME's who's shutters looked totally miss aligned that continued to take acceptable photographs, but that would be up to you. At 10:06 AM 6/4/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Hello, > >Some of you may have read in another thread of my >incompetent attempt to shoot a local band (the drummer >of which is my close friend) in a bar recently. I've >decided to post another on-topic message soliciting >advice on how to progress with a problem caused by my >own idiocy during this ill-fated shoot. > >At some point in the evening, when re-loading my >PZ-1p, I managed to press my thumb directly into the >shutter curtains. It was hard enough so that I >actually felt some deflection of the curtains under my >touch. I cannot begin to tell you the feeling in my >stomach when I realized what I had done. I am so >angry with myself, I cannot even describe it. I am >always so careful not to let even the film leader >graze these curtains because I understand that they >are manufactured to such a high precision that they >may be misaligned and damaged very easily. > >My question is what to do next. How much damage am I >like to have caused? Can this be assessed easily? >What expense is involved in fixing or replacing this >part of the camera? Should I send it to Pentax or >what? > >The sad thing is that this was a brand new camera >(one-month old!) - and now I feel like I will never >trust it to be working properly unless I have so much >of the "guts" replaced. > >Thanks everyone, > >Chaso (rethinking whether he deserves to own a Pentax) > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 >a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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: Bad Moon Rising
I was close with my Ephemeris program on my PPC. I mentioned 8:22PM, 101 degrees magnetic north or 117 degrees true north. Illumination at 99% increasing. This program will also track the moon across the sky, giving me the Altitude and Azimuth every 15 minutes. Neat little free program. Jeff - Original Message - From: "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: RE: Bad Moon Rising > Bob Blakely wrote: > [Ephemeris information for full moon from Los Angeles area] > > Hi Shel & Bob (and anyone else still looking for this information), > > I checked a couple of sky charting programs I have on my computer. For > Oakland, CA (pretty close to El Cerrito), moonrise will be about 8:21:53 PM > local time on the evening of June 5, 2001. The moon will rise at an > apparent local azimuth angle of 117 degrees, 15 minutes (or about 117 and > one quarter degrees). This is 27.25 degrees south of due East, and these > angles are with respect to *true* north -- not magnetic north. To get a > very good estimate of true north, you can either look up your magnetic > declination on a USGS topo map, or you can just look for Polaris in the > night sky and see where it sits with respect to a magnetic north compass > heading. > > Hope this helps, and I hope your local weather tomorrow night will be better > than mine here. > > Bill Peifer > Rochester, NY > > - > 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: Focussing problems
Very cool Conrad. I like it. Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Conrad wrote: >As an experiment I cut and ground a rectangular (not circular) +1.5 >correction lens to fit inside the actual viewfinder of my Spotmatic. Once >shaped and ground to size I held it in place with a little model >cement. The results are spectacular. I am now able to bring my eye right >up to the viewfinder eyepiece and see most if not all of the focussing >screen even with my specs on. > >Greatly encouraged I did this also for my MX and this is the greatest >success story of all. The viewfinder is transformed. It is better >brighter and larger than even my Olympus. I am really very impressed. OK >so fitting a lens like this looks somewhat home made but man does it work! > - 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 .
Favorite Film Roll Call Results UPDATE 11
These are the conditions: 1 - You must answer off-list, right to me. 2 - You must choose your favorite emulsion (35 and 120/220 allowed. Color and b and w) 3 - You must choose ONLY ONE (color print OR slide OR b and w, etc). 4 - You must have personal experience with it. WINNER by now: Tri-X with 8 votes. Members: 57 COLOR (Print and Slide): Kodak Kodachrome 25 (2) Fuji Velvia (4) Kodak Kodachrome 64 (3) Kodak Elitechrome Extra Color 100 (2) Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS (3) Fuji Sensia II 100 (3) Fuji Provia 100F (5) Kodak Supra 100 (1) Fuji Reala 100 (1) Kodak Portra 160 NC (1) Kodak Kodachrome 200 (1) Kodak Ektachrome E200 (2) Agfa HDC Plus 200 (1) Kodak Max 400 (1) Kodak Ektapress PJ 400 (1) Kodak Supra 400 (1) Kodak Portra 400 NC (1) Agfa Optima Prestige II 400 (1) Fuji Press 400 (1) Kodak Portra 800 (1) Fuji Press 800 (1) Kodak PJC 1600 (1) BLACK AND WHITE: Ilford Delta 100 (2) Kodak Plus-X (2) Ilford FP4 Plus (2) Agfa Scala 200x (1) Kodak Tri-X (8) Fuji Neopan 400 (1) Agfa APX 400 (1) Ilford HP5 (1) INFRARED: Kodak HIE (1) - 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: mounting an AF500FTZ off-camera
My Stroboframe is coated so it doesn't short out the contacts. I have mounted my AF500FTZ directly on it many times and it works great. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: "Peter Popp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: mounting an AF500FTZ off-camera > I'm exploring some off-camera options for macro work, and I'm trying to decide specifically how to mount the AF500FTZ once I decide where I want to put it. It doesn't need a Pentax accessory shoe mount, because the F5P cord attaches directly to the flash. But all the accessory shoe mounts I've seen (including the Stroboframe mini ball head with shoe mount that I'd like to use) look like they will touch the contacts on the bottom of the flash shoe. > > Will I damage the flash if I use an accessory shoe mount that makes contact with all of the contacts onthe bottom of the flash shoe? And doesn anyone know of an accessory shoe mount that doesn't touch the contacts on the bottom of the flash shoe. Thanks. > > Peter > > --- > Peter J. Popp W: (303) 497-5181 > Research AssociateH: (303) 691-1632 > NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory F: (303) 497-5373 > 325 Broadway, R/AL6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boulder, CO 80305 > --- > > - > 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: OT: A wider latitude slide film
Patrick White wrote: > Or are you simply looking for a film that will capture a wider range of > light? I've been suprised by Kodak's Ektacrome in the past. Looked to > capture detail down to about -3.5 stops and up to +2 or +3 stops. Flashing > is also an option. > That's more or less what I meant, although you explained it in a slightly different manner. But I didn't know that Ektachrome had such wide latitude. I've used it, and that's not what I have observed in my experience, and I have also used other Ektachrome family films, such as Elite and Elite II. Whilst they may have a slightly better behaviour in contrasty scenes than, say, Sensia II, I haven't seen them to offer such wide latitude. And the best behaviour of the slide films I've used so far, regarding this latitude issue, has been Fuji Provia. Using fill-in flash is not always an option, although sometimes can be a good solution, but if you are far away from your subject, or your flash hasn't got enough power, it is useless. I sometimes use fill in flash, but I'm not very keen on it. Very often, it gives the scene a harsh and artificial look. By the way, I have observed lately that the use of fill in flash, combined with a slow shutter speed, seems to have become "fashionable" among a number of photographers, including most of the ones who work for the National Geographic magazine. And I can't help feeling that most of the time what they get are boring and repetitive-looking photos. 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 .
Bodies Roll Call Results UPDATE 96 (includes first MZ S)
Please send the messages to me directly, to not disturb other members, thanks. Also, I've not included 110 and digital cameras, just because I started this way, and I didn't want to change in the middle of the way. Also, if you already submited and want to add new items, please put clearly in your message: this is not my first submission, so I don't put you twice in the total answers. Thanks to all contributors. TOTAL ANSWERS: 384 members MANUAL FOCUS: Screw Mount: - Asahiflex IIa3 - Asahiflex IIb2 - Asahi Pentax (AP)3 - K2 - SL...8 - SV...9 - S1...1 - S1a.10 - S2...1 - S3...3 - SP500...10 - SP1000..11 - Spotmatic...32 - Spotmatic II13 - Spotmatic IIa1 - Spotmatic SP26 - Spotmatic SP II..8 - Spotmatic F.33 - Spotmatic F MD...2 - Spotmatic MD.3 - ES..15 - ES II...20 - ElectroSpotmatic.3 - H1...2 - H1a..5 - H2...4 - H3...7 - H3v..5 Bayonette: - KM14 - KX41 - KX MD..1 - K231 - K2 DMD.9 - K1000.71 - K1000 SE...9 - MX...117 - ME38 - ME SE..2 - ME Super.115 - ME Super SE4 - MV.6 - MV11 - MG12 - LX...131 - Super Program.69 - Super A...40 - Program Plus..17 - Program A.10 - A3000..3 - A3.2 - A3(date)...1 - P3.6 - P3n8 - P308 - P30n...1 - P30t..12 - P5.7 - P502 - ZX M..19 - MZ M..10 AUTOFOCUS: - ME F..12 - SF 1...6 - SFX3 - SF 1n..6 - SFXn...9 - SF 7...2 - SF 10..6 - PZ 1..18 - PZ 1 SE2 - Z124 - PZ 1p.66 - Z1p...40 - PZ 10..5 - Z 10...2 - PZ 20.11 - Z 20...4 - Z 50p..2 - PZ 70..6 - Z 70...1 - Z5.1 - MZ 3..17 - ZX 5..10 - MZ 5..13 - ZX 5n.53 - MZ 5n.35 - ZX 7...9 - MZ 7...6 - ZX 10..9 - MZ 10.13 - ZX 30..7 - MZ 30..1 - ZX 50..7 - MZ 50..7 - MZ S...1 MEDIUM FORMAT: - 64517 - 645n3 - 6x712 - 67..9 - 67 II...7 - 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: Bad Moon Rising
Bob Blakely wrote: [Ephemeris information for full moon from Los Angeles area] Hi Shel & Bob (and anyone else still looking for this information), I checked a couple of sky charting programs I have on my computer. For Oakland, CA (pretty close to El Cerrito), moonrise will be about 8:21:53 PM local time on the evening of June 5, 2001. The moon will rise at an apparent local azimuth angle of 117 degrees, 15 minutes (or about 117 and one quarter degrees). This is 27.25 degrees south of due East, and these angles are with respect to *true* north -- not magnetic north. To get a very good estimate of true north, you can either look up your magnetic declination on a USGS topo map, or you can just look for Polaris in the night sky and see where it sits with respect to a magnetic north compass heading. Hope this helps, and I hope your local weather tomorrow night will be better than mine here. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY - 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 .
mounting an AF500FTZ off-camera
I'm exploring some off-camera options for macro work, and I'm trying to decide specifically how to mount the AF500FTZ once I decide where I want to put it. It doesn't need a Pentax accessory shoe mount, because the F5P cord attaches directly to the flash. But all the accessory shoe mounts I've seen (including the Stroboframe mini ball head with shoe mount that I'd like to use) look like they will touch the contacts on the bottom of the flash shoe. Will I damage the flash if I use an accessory shoe mount that makes contact with all of the contacts onthe bottom of the flash shoe? And doesn anyone know of an accessory shoe mount that doesn't touch the contacts on the bottom of the flash shoe. Thanks. Peter --- Peter J. Popp W: (303) 497-5181 Research AssociateH: (303) 691-1632 NOAA Aeronomy Laboratory F: (303) 497-5373 325 Broadway, R/AL6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boulder, CO 80305 --- - 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: Learning To make a Photograph
I'm glad you wrote this, now I don't have to. A camera is only a tool in a larger toolbox of skills and equipment. Sending someone off with a manual camera is like sending someone off to build a structure using only s stone ax. It may be appropriate, it may not. Seriously, to me, being a competent photographer has almost nothing to do with equipment, but (as is pointed out) in vision. Shel seems to think that mastering the equipment will automatically make the user more artistic. I have seen professional work done only with a Holga or Diana camera, grainy, warped, misexposed, but artistic none the less. There seem to be many here who have trouble coming to grips with the 21st century (basing this on the discussion of computers and digital photography some weeks ago). I prefer to have the tools at my disposal and how I use them (well...or not so well) is part of what makes photography both technical and artistic at the same time. Jerry in Houston -Original Message- From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Learning To make a Photograph Shel wrote: >Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but >carefully examine the work of the great photographers, >regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo >journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion >photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you >can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm >willing to bet that there are people on this list who have >never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut >Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or >magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, >too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints not >only from a contextual POV but from a technical perspective as >well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have the >detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is >their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same >film? Shel, I'm really not clear on this email. You go on about how having a completely manual camera will force one to make decisions about exposure as well as learn quality of light and critical focusing. Clearly, an all manual camera will certainly go a long way to helping you show what you don't understand about the mechanics of taking a picture. But then you mention photographs by Gene Smith, HC-B, and Helmet Newton. Gene Smith was an excellent photographer and printer, although many of his photographs were staged and heavily manipulated. And, there are times when he would print for days on end fueled by stimulants. HC-B didn't do his own printing and half his photographs show clear exposure errors, are not pin sharp, excessively grainy, and have poor shadow detail. Maybe cause he didn't do his own printing. I don't know if he even did his own developing. One story I've read indicated that he shot most things at 1/125th @ f8 and let the printers figure the rest out. Helmet Newton, who's photography you know I love, has produced some of the most garish prints I've seen. Many are blurry. Often, there is crappy shadow detail, excessive grain, blown out highlighs, and a whole lot of contrast. Hell! He uses Tmax 100! Yuck! Despite that, I love all three of those photographers' work. Why? Not cause they shot manual cameras without meters or decided to go on some quest to make sure they aren't lazy and understood every minute detail of making a photograph. They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? Cause I didn't catch that part in your diatribe... Mark - 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 .
Wide Angle Lens Dilemma
I think all the options you have listed are really quite decent, and for what it seems, budget is no real object. As such, stick with the OEM Pentax lenses. re: 14mm, I find that 20mm is the widest that I could ever find a practical use for... and 24mm was probably more useful 50% of the time, anyway. Hence , I think the uses for a 14mm (which I borrowed several times) is too limited for consideration unless you already have a lens in the 20-24mm range. Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:42:12 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Wide Angle Lens Dilemma This is a multipart message in MIME format. - --=_alternative 005FECA7C1256A61_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have been saving up to buy a good ultra wide angle lens. Below is my shortlist (in no particular order). - - PENTAX SMC-FA 20-35mm f/4 AL - - PENTAX SMC-FA 20mm f/2.8 - - SIGMA 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF - - SIGMA 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical - - SIGMA 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical Since whatever I choose the investment will be substantial, I would like some expert advice on the issue. My priorities are as follows: 1) Sharpness (duh!) 2) Good rendition of out of focus areas. 3) As little barrel/pincushion distortion as possible. 4) Good resistance to flare. 5) Non rotating front element. - I frequently use a circular polariser and other Cokin P System filters. 6) Fast Maximum Aperture - Since I will stop down the lens to f8 or f11 in most situations this is not absolutely essential. 7) Zoom - desirable but not essential. Any words of wisdom / personal experience will be very apreceated. I would also be interested in positive experiences with lenses other than those on my shortlist. My camera is a Pentax MZ5n Regards Patrick - 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 .
SV help!
Hi Ed I can vouch for what Mike says. I got lighter fluid on the rollers of my SV and now the shutter came undone. Can't figure why your lens won't dismount though, but you can safely remove the front plate of the lensmount and all should be dandy. If it still won't come off... chances are that it's binding to the m42 threadmount... an unlikely problem. Suspect your diaphram pin is jammed against the diaphram actuator... Have you tried setting the lens to wide-open and aperture setting to manual? This takes pressure off the pin and make help make it easier to remove. Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:33:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: SV help! Hi Ed, I have about 4 SV's some of which I've resurrected by cleaning, lube , adjustments...a couple of which I bought with mirrors that got hung up. There have been quite a few postings on this subject in the last 2-3 months, so you may want to try finding those. But here's what I would suggest: (1) unscrew the 4 screws that hold the front screwmount baseplate to the camera body and remove both the lens and screwmount baseplate together. You then have a clear shot at figuring out what is causing the lens/ mount problem. I suspect that the lever that trips the "automatic" feature on the Takumar is out of synch. (2) The mirror problem is likely caused by accumulated grime and can be fixed by (1) taking off the camera body baseplate (4 screws), (2) using an old pie tin to catch the excess, squirt lighter fluid in the mirror mechanism which is visible on the inner left hand side of the mirror box and the outer left hand side of the mirror box. (3) Then repeatedly trip the shutter. This should release the mirror. USE CARE TO KEEP THE LIGHTER FLUID AWAY FROM THE SHUTTER CLOTH, AS THE FLUID WILL DESOLVE THE GLUE WHICH HOLDS THE CLOTH TO THE ROLLERS This assumes that the shutter advance mechanism is not jammed, and that the camera is firing on all shutter speeds. If you can give a more detailed description of your ailments...I or others can probably be of more assistance! The old SV's are really easy to CLAbut if the shutter advance mechanism is truly jammed...it really should be sent to a Camera Hospital.really requires a professional touch! Good Luck! Mike Steele - --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Combination and problem: > SV + Super-Takumar (not SMCT) > The mirror is stuck in the up/fired position and > will not drop. The lens will > neither screw on tight nor unscrew and come off > I have tried - in vain - the self-timer, the clutch > button, and both auto and > manual on the lens. > What do I do to remove the #@&*% lens without > wrecking something? > Thanks in advance for suggestions, commiseration, > and sympathy. > Ed Matthew > - > 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: June PUG Thoughts
aimcompute wrote: " Nature's Architecture - Capilano Canyon, Vancouver, B.C. " by Cameron Hood Lovely shot of the canyon. Been there many times. Who would know it was in town? A question... Why the multiple exposure?" It was a long exposure shot at about f=32 on a F*300 on a coudy, dull, rainy day with slow iso 40 film. Instead of taking 1 - 8 second exposure, I took 8 - 1 second exposures, which I believe yields a sharper image. It doesn't do anything about reciprocity failure, however. Thank you for your kind comments. Cameron - 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: Portrait lens wanted
This email arrived on 4 June, so that's 5 days! Snail mail is faster! Frits > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Creature's Comfort > Sent: 31 May 2001 15:51 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Portrait lens wanted > > > William Robb wrote: > > > > That's about what I paid for mine about a year ago, KEH EX+ > > > condition - and I love it! > > > > Does this mean I got a deal? I paid $110.00 Canadian for mine, > > in EX+ condition. It really is a nice lens. > > I've come to the conclusion that Canadian lens ratings, like > Canadian $$, are worth less when converted to U.S. values -- > Sheldon Belinkoff > CREATURE'S COMFORT > 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 . > > - > 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: Learning To make a Photograph
Mark Dalal wrote: >They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that > went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their > images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an > all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? > > Mark > While many of us appreciate the technical side of things, and while some of us choose, MF, AF, metering TTL or handheld, in the end the only thing that counts is whether we like the results. Most of us also care a wee bit about whether anyone else likes the results. I've noticed for quite a while that you can have all the head knowledge in the world about film, photography, cameras and that doesn't make a great shot. Apply that knowledge to your shooting and combine it with artistic vision, and you'll get some great shots. Heck, you may have virtually no knowledge and still get some great shots if you have the eye for what looks good and the ability to capture what excites you on film, in a way that it still excites you and others when you look at it again, and then again. 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 .
Focussing problems
Greetings once again! Just the other day I started a mini-thread about focussing problems and so on. Since then I have been experimenting somewhat with the various Pentaxes in my collection. I have been using a diopter correction lens in the clip-on attachment with the rubber eyecup which fits the earlier models such as the Spotmatics and the SV, S1a and so on. The problem I encountered was that this attachment removed my eye still further from the viewfinder than usual so that even less of the focussing screen was visible. For a spectacle wearer the situation becomes unpleasant and even untenable. As an experiment I cut and ground a rectangular (not circular) +1.5 correction lens to fit inside the actual viewfinder of my Spotmatic. Once shaped and ground to size I held it in place with a little model cement. The results are spectacular. I am now able to bring my eye right up to the viewfinder eyepiece and see most if not all of the focussing screen even with my specs on. Greatly encouraged I did this also for my MX and this is the greatest success story of all. The viewfinder is transformed. It is better brighter and larger than even my Olympus. I am really very impressed. OK so fitting a lens like this looks somewhat home made but man does it work! For the information of those who would want to try this: ordinary reading glasses using acrylic lenses can be cut up and ground to shape with a bit of practice for a fraction of the cost of glass correction lenses. And the results are really amazing! - 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 .
Tamron lens advise requested f1:3.8-4.0 80-210mm
A colleague of my wants to sell some of his equipment. I'll take his ME Super with a 50mm/f1.7, but there is also a Tamron lens in the kit. I want to offer him to sell it for him on eBay, but I have no idea about the value of this lens, can someone advise please? TAMRON CF TELE MACRO BBAR MC o58 (means round 58mm filter size) 30 - 11.1 (30 degrees to 11.1 degrees) 1:3.8-1:4 80-210mm 103A No.3049800 Build like a tank, one ring focus/zoom, very smooth operation, not loose. Ding on front barrel preventing the use of a filter at the moment, no other obvious signs of use, no brassing, etc., glass is clean and free of damage and fungus, adaptall mount for Pentax K mount front and end caps included Frits - 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 .
Hanimex flash advise requested TZ*2
A colleague of my wants to sell some of his equipment. I'll take his ME Super with a 50mm/f1.7, but there is also a Hanimex flash in the kit. I want to offer him to sell it for him on eBay, but I have no idea about the value of this flash, can someone advise please? Hanimex TZ*2 0-90 tilt head hot shoe, single middle contact Signs of use, but no cuts or damage. Frits - 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: Learning To make a Photograph
Shel wrote: >Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but >carefully examine the work of the great photographers, >regardless of their style. Look at the work of photo >journalists, those who do documentary work, fashion >photographers, and the like. Look at their prints whenever you >can rather looking at their books or photos in magazines. I'm >willing to bet that there are people on this list who have >never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or HC-B, or Helmut >Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in books or >magazines. Look at the work of less experienced photographers, >too. Go to galleries and exhibitions. Examine the prints not >only from a contextual POV but from a technical perspective as >well. Are your prints as sharp? Do your prints have the >detail in the shadows? Are your highlights blown out? Why is >their print less/more grainy than yours - you both use the same >film? Shel, I'm really not clear on this email. You go on about how having a completely manual camera will force one to make decisions about exposure as well as learn quality of light and critical focusing. Clearly, an all manual camera will certainly go a long way to helping you show what you don't understand about the mechanics of taking a picture. But then you mention photographs by Gene Smith, HC-B, and Helmet Newton. Gene Smith was an excellent photographer and printer, although many of his photographs were staged and heavily manipulated. And, there are times when he would print for days on end fueled by stimulants. HC-B didn't do his own printing and half his photographs show clear exposure errors, are not pin sharp, excessively grainy, and have poor shadow detail. Maybe cause he didn't do his own printing. I don't know if he even did his own developing. One story I've read indicated that he shot most things at 1/125th @ f8 and let the printers figure the rest out. Helmet Newton, who's photography you know I love, has produced some of the most garish prints I've seen. Many are blurry. Often, there is crappy shadow detail, excessive grain, blown out highlighs, and a whole lot of contrast. Hell! He uses Tmax 100! Yuck! Despite that, I love all three of those photographers' work. Why? Not cause they shot manual cameras without meters or decided to go on some quest to make sure they aren't lazy and understood every minute detail of making a photograph. They had a vision, an artistic drive. They produced images that went far beyond the technical and penetrated the psyche. In fact, their images succeed despite all the technical flaws. Can you argue that owning an all manual camera will give you an artistic vision? Cause I didn't catch that part in your diatribe... Mark - 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: Which picture is better?
I prefer picture 2. It is less symmetrical, and the reflective expression is one I like, although the smile of #1 does work as well. Frits - 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[2]: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Hi, I wrote the following earlier today to be a reply to Shel's post. Some of it has been superceded by other people's replies, but I thought I'd send it anyway. The type of photography that I most enjoy looking at, and trying to emulate, is exemplified by the Magnum agency. In many, perhaps most, of the instances where I've seen the data, it seems that the photographers, although they frequently use hi-tech cameras with tons of automation options, tend to use incident meters to measure the light. This implies that their exposure automation features are switched off. An example I saw recently was a short video documentary of Don McCullin shooting his 'AIDS in Africa' project last year, and there were examples in a recent edition of one of the US photo mags when some Magnum photographers were discussing their technique. Of course, there are also plenty of counterexamples. For instance, Steve McCurry has said on many occasions that he relies completely on his Nikon matrix metering; similarly, one of my friends relies outside the studio on his Nikon matrix meters exclusively. However, neither of them is a beginner. I prefer to use incident light rather than reflected light, and now, having started all-manual and been briefly seduced into AE by the LX, prefer not to use AE in non-standard situations. The trick is to recognise the non-standard situations. I do use the 'spot' meter in my cameras quite a lot now that I have them - they're the first spotmeters I've used - but that is for situations where I can't physically get the incident meter into the same light that I want to measure. And I always try to spot-meter a mid-tone because I'm not going to get into the Zone system - it's just not appropriate for what I do. It seems to me that spotmeters - that is, 1-degree meters, rather than the ones built into cameras - are most useful when you want to sample the range of measurements in a scene with a view to using that information later when you're processing and printing. This lends itself mainly to quite static subjects, but is not much use if you're covering a fairly dynamic situation, which is why it's popular with Ansel Adamites but less so with Bob Capa-bles. >From the point of view of the beginning photographer it is surely simpler and easier to use incident light measurements than it is to take multiple spot measurements, write them down, choose one for setting the camera, and use the remainder for the darkroom calculations. Like any learning process it is more likely to be successful if it is built on incremental steps. It seems to me that there is so much to learn in the zone system that it is not worth it for the beginning 35mm photographer, who will be more successful, more quickly, using incident readings as the basis of their understanding of exposure. For anybody who might be thinking of buying a spotmeter because they are not happy with their in-camera readings I would recommend buying first an incident meter and seeing how you get on with that. An incident meter is nice and neutral, uninfluenced by reflectivity of tone and colour. If the problem is about measuring *reflected* light then a spotmeter may not help to solve the problem. An incident meter is also likely to be cheaper than a spot meter, and some of them come with spotmeter attachments. The zone system, after all, really has nothing to do with photography per se. It is a workround designed to overcome the different technical limitations of film and paper and their inability to handle the full subject brightness range or even the same sub-range within it. It's about trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. If these limitations did not exist, I don't believe anybody would have invented the zone system. So for a learner who's interested primarily in understanding light and metering I would suggest that the zone system, and by implication spot-metering, is likely to confuse rather than help because there are so many inter-dependent variables. That was certainly my experience 25+ years ago. It's certainly useful to understand the principles of the zone system in this less-than-ideal world, but an ideal film and an ideal paper, both able to handle the full brightness range that we ordinarily meet, would make the zone system redundant (all other things being equal). Such a 'film' & paper will become available as digital capture & inkjet printing technology improve. The print will be the end product of the photographic process, which is precisely the situation we have now in the fine-art photography world. One instance where the end justifies the means. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, June 04, 2001, 4:39:07 PM, you wrote: > William Robb wrote: >> I have seen hand held light meters with "spot" attchments. These >> give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. >> Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light >> falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron >> the subject i
FS: Super Takumar 50/1.4 and Super Carenar 135/2.8
Hi all Sorry to interrupt all of you from your regular discussion. I'm clearing out some stuff to make way for newer stuff... these are extras from sets I've purchased for my own use. Have the pair of M42 lenses to sell : 1. Pentax Super Takumar 50/1.4 - glass is practically mint - body shows signs of light use but otherwise, very nice - everything functions perfectly and smoothly, aperture blades are clean 2. Super Carenar (automatic) 135/2.8 in M42 - glass is very nice except for some fine scratches which will not affect photo - body shows light signs of use otherwise very nice - everything functions perfectly and smoothly, aperture blades are clean Take both for US$36 + shipping (US$10). Can provide my ebay references. This is your opportunity to grab both toghether before they go up on ebay . Paypal payment preferred. - 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 .
MZ-S sighting
Just some brief comments... Last Saturday thay had a dealers day (or whatever they call it) at my local photo shop, Keeble and Shutchat in Palo Alto. The Pentax guy didn't have the MZ-S visible, but showed one to me when I asked. I was very surprised at how light it is. It didn't really feel too much heavier than the ZX-5. The AF seems fast, although on first impression the method of changing the point feels a bit cumbersome. The camera had a 24-90 on it. It looks like a nice lens, build quality comparable to the FA28-70 f4. The rep said that the camera won't be available in the US until July. Now, the better set up dealer in the shop was Leica, they tested my M6 speeds and meter, didn't laugh at the Jupiter lens hanging from it, and gave me a $100 rewind knob for free, to replace the one I crushed when I dropped the thing. j -- - Juan J. Buhler | Sr. 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: Which picture is better?
Shel Belinkoff writes: > What I meant is that the out of focus areas are, to my eyes and > sensibilities, harsh, not smooth. I'd prefer something more "creamy" > and soft, which would better compliment the portrait, IMO. This may be an artifact of the 50/1.2 in the 2.0-2.8 range, which I have never shot much before (I'm usually at 1.2 wishing for a 1.0 lens, or f/8-16 in full light). Something to keep in mind for the future. I'm sure the 85/1.8 in my fiance's hands would have done better at f/2 for a variety of reasons. > Is there a reason you can't send both? Each shows a different, and > nice, quality. Heck, Gerald, they're your pics, why do you want > someone else's opinion on which is better. None of us know your > girlfriend as well as you and her family. I want others' opinions simply to improve my craft. I'd like to put up a web gallery of the 4 years of pictures I have taken of her while she has been away from home. I plan to present this as a wedding gift to her parents. The better I make the pictures, the better the gift, or so goes my thinking. > Why shoot Velvia for portrait work. It's been said that other films > are superior and offer better characteristics for that type of > photography. Velvia was in the camera doing primary duty capturing landscapes and scenics. I'm thinking it is time to self-enable and pic up a second LX body to act as an alternate film holder. :) > I forgot which camera/lens combination you were using, but if it's > one of the newer bodies, with a smaller finder view, it may be > difficult to get an exact crop in the finder, so cropping later may > be the only alternative in that situation. Of course, once you > understand the limits of the camera's viewfinder, you can probably > move in a little tighter. Unless you've got a 100% finder there's > always the possibility of some surprises in the final print. It was an LX with an FA-1 finder and K50/1.2. I own the high eyepoint FC/FD finder, but wasn't carrying that day. > Ahh, but the story isn't for us, it's for you, your girlfriend, and > your families. They will know what the expression means. Remember > who you made the photo for. While this shot might just be for family, I do desire to be able to shoot for a wider audience, and I'm one that learns best through experience and feedback. > > I'm wondering what I could have done differently. > > From the few photos of yours that I've seen, I believe that B&W > could work very nicely for you. What aspects of B&W would work nicely for me? I shot hundreds of rolls on HP5 and Tri-X some 20 years ago in high-school. I like color. But I do know that B&W has a much broader lattitude, something like 7-9 stops? > Flash is an insult to a nice environmental portrait such as what you > were attempting with your girlfriend. In this case a less contrasty > film may have been a good option. While I'm far from well-versed in > color photography, some of the lower contrast negative films appear > to offer a solution. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these > matters can jump in here with a comment or two. Yes, had I intended to be shooting portraits of her that day, a better film choice would have been nice. However, the print films lack the saturation I am currently enjoying from scanned Velvia. > And for that they are just fine. These were pics for you, not Life > magazine. But that is the quality I desire in my efforts (Life Magazine), and not just in photography. > Her brother will probably not notice the details we're discussing > here. He will see his sister, and think kindly of you for sending > the pictures. He will not be looking at these photographs with the > more critical eye of a "photographer" (unless he's a photographer > himself). Very true. Most neophytes/novices' reactions to my photos are very positive, though I am able to see their flaws immediately. I guess I have graduated past the stage of tourist point-no-shooter. :) Thanks for the critique, Gerald - 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! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them?
- Original Message - From: "Chaso DeChaso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: HELP! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touching them? > At some point in the evening, when re-loading my > PZ-1p, I managed to press my thumb directly into the > shutter curtains. It was hard enough so that I > actually felt some deflection of the curtains under my > touch. I cannot begin to tell you the feeling in my > stomach when I realized what I had done. I damaged my shutter completely in the darkroom by doing the same with the curtains. I could not do any test with the damaged camera and got a new shutter for about 300 German Marks (DM) from PENTAX at Hamburg/Germany. Kristian-H. Schuessler - 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: AF Macro Lens Question
> Simply put, the ZX-5n which the original poster said he was > using has a > sync of 1/100. To hand hold, 1/200th is preferable for the > 200mm, and 1/180 > for the 180mm. I followed my own suggestions and checked Pentax and Boz's web pages. I was amazed to learn that the max flash sync of the ZX-5n is indeed 1/100th!!! That is amazing for a camera that was introduced in 1997!!! One of my "off brand" cameras is much older than that (1983 or so) and it syncs at 1/250th. The ZX-5n is a lot newer than the PZ-1p but the PZ-1p syncs at 1/250th too. So, consider me corrected. The answer to camera shake could possibly be shooting in lower ambient light with a powerful flash and a smaller aperture, thereby making the effective shutter speed the duration of the electronic flash, which will usually be a lot faster than a 1/100th second shutter speed. So, I guess the answer could be to use a higher powered, shorter duration, electronic flash when limited to slow sync speeds. 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: HELP! - Have I ruined my PZ-1p's shutter curtains by touchingthem?
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Go shoot some film and see if the camera works properly. If not, > get it fixed. More than likely all is fine. The shutter curtain is > not so delicate that it's easily damaged. Yep, I agree. I have accidentally touched my ME-Super's curtain as well (also getting them to deflect a bit) without any visible effects on my subsequent pictures (unless bad composition can be blamed on shutter curtains, that is :-) Chances are nothing bad happened. j -- - Juan J. Buhler | Sr. 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 .
Mz-S
Hi I had chance to touch Mz-S in Keeble's exhibition in PaloAlto, CA. I was curious about the hunting while focussing and found that MZ-S does not hunt while focussing uni-colored target. There were 2 Pentax reps and they said Mz-S will be sold in July. They said the price for 24-90 is 399USD. Bye Ramesh - 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: Weekend Digital Adventure
Plus you're starting out with a much lower res image than film would record, and it's already recorded as discrete points of light by the CCD, not "washed" over the film. (I know that was unscientific). Tom C. - Original Message - From: Evan Hanson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:59 AM Subject: Weekend Digital Adventure First I want to thank Shel for his great post on making photographs. This weekend I had three days use of a Nikon Coolpix 990 and three days was all it took to cure my digital bug. Recently I've expressed interest in digital imaging, this weekend I got my hands dirty, the results I've convinced myself that digital isn't ready for me, or maybe I'm not ready for it. The Nikon is back with it owner and the money I may have spent on a digital camera will surely buy me some more screwmount stuff or maybe a couple of new lenses for my Contax 159mm. I do have a question for the more experianced digital users. Is it normal to develop blockiness in digital photos after heavy cropping. For me this was on of the most annoying aspects of the digital camera. Evan (heavy cropper) Hanson
Re: AF Macro Lens Question
The ZX-5n does *not* have flash sync up to 1/250th. It is either 1/100 or 1/125. The PZ-1p is the only current model that syncs to that speed. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: "Paris, Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: RE: AF Macro Lens Question > > > > Simply put, the ZX-5n which the original poster said he was > > using has a > > sync of 1/100. To hand hold, 1/200th is preferable for the > > 200mm, and 1/180 > > for the 180mm. > > > > If you are using a tripod then it becomes a rather moot point, but if > > you're not then shutter speeds start to become important. > > I believe the ZX-5n has a flash sync up to and including 1/250th. It should > be easy to verify at either Boz's site or at Pentax's sites. > > 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 . > - 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: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
Shel wrote: > Try this some time: go out on a bright, sunny day and focus > on a dark or medium colored car, but don't include the bright > highlights from the chrome trim in the metering. Then move the > camera slightly to pick up the bright specular highlights. I'll bet > the exposure set by the camera changes, yet the light in the scene > is the same. > Thank you. I agree that with a handheld spotmeter you would essentially get the "details" of what your cameras meter is seeing, affording the photographer more control. An additional observation (probably picking it to death)... If the exposure set by the camera changes, then that means the light entering the lens has "changed". The light in the scene is not the same and the meter is doing exactly what it should. I would assume that the cameras meter would give readings indicating a shorter exposure would be necessary when including the highlights. But I think, what you are saying in the example is that this lead to underexposing the main subject, the car, whereas the specular highlights may be burnt out regardless of how the car itself is exposed. If the difference between lightest/darkest parts of the scene were not as drastic, the onboard camera metering may work just fine. And this probably is just repeating what you said... in both the portrait example and the car example, the key factor is not the overall scene, but which part of the scene you are most interested in metering for and exposing correctly. In the portrait scene you would not sacrifice the person for the sky. (Boring analysis finished) 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: Learning To make a Photograph
The point is whether or not you use modern tecknology for getting lazy or for realizing photographic vision. If you are concious of light no old mechanical camera or separate light meter will ever make you able to put the exposure value accurately to the camera for demanding slide film like Velvia. You have shutterspeed setting in 1 stop increments and slide film like Velviua need 1/3 stop accuracy. You then have to brackett and you could then just as well use the camera on fully automatic and brackett from there. With print film the issue is somewhat different and there you can really get away with sloppy metering and even sloppy shutters. The fact remains that modern cameras makes it possible to nail exposure more accurately than ever before. If a photographer fails to do this, then it tells more about the photographer than anyone else. Pål - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:09 AM Subject: Learning To make a Photograph > There's been some discussion here about how many of us have felt > that our photographs are not of the quality we'd like them to be. I > have some thoughts on that, which, I hope, will lead to further > discussion and help a few list members improve their skills and > creativity. > > I firmly believe that using AF gear and automatic metering does not > help one to really learn about making photographs (notice I said > "making", not taking). Recently I've returned to using 100% manual > cameras - they don't even have light meters. The first thing I've > become more conscious of is light, and the quality of light. Not > that I didn't think about it before, but now I must pay more > attention to it. I've been using a hand held spot meter and paying > careful attention to what's in the shadows and where the specular > highlights fall. My negs are looking a lot better, and my ability > to read the light has improved to the point where using a meter is > no longer as necessary as it had been. > > There are those who will argue against my position, and that's all > well and good. However, to those people I'd say go out and start > shooting with fully manual cameras again, eliminate the use of TTL > metering and eschew autofocus and zoom lenses. It'll be some work, > but in time I can almost guarantee that your pictures will improve. > Why? Well, when you better understand the light, you'll get better > images. But more than that, you'll be able to concentrate more on > composition rather than being distracted by lights, needles, and a > plethora of information in the viewfinder, and the need to fiddle > with knobs, dials, and buttons to put the camera into the correct > mode. You don't need all that stuff to make a photograph. > > And when you better understand focus and DOF - by focusing yourself, > which I believe you can do more critically with a fully manual > camera - and you start to understand where the zone of sharp focus > is, you can begin to become more competent and creative. > > Stay away from zoom lenses with variable apertures. You never know > for sure what the aperture is, or the focal length is, and how can > that help your creativity in the long run. Sure, those lenses make > taking a picture easier, and built-in meters make taking a picture > easier, and autofocus makes taking a picture easier, but it doesn't > always help you to ~make~ a superb photograph. > > Grab a fully manual camera, a prime lens, and go out and practice. > Shoot every day. Process the film quickly and review the results. > Learn from your mistakes, and go out and shoot another roll, and > another, and another. Don't rely on the latitude of the film to > carry you through. Learn to understand what the perfect exposure is > for each frame you shoot, even if it means that you have to work > slowly at first, and perhaps miss some "great" shots. Most of our > great shots are crap anyway. > > When I returned to a fully manual camera I was surprised at how lazy > I'd become. Somehow it seemed easier to let the camera's meter set > the exposure, but then I had to think about the metering pattern, > and how that might effect the exposure I wanted. How much simpler > it is to read the light first and then just concentrate of shooting, > and finding the best way to capture the subject. > > Look at photographs. Not the crap in most magazines, but carefully > examine the work of the great photographers, regardless of their > style. Look at the work of photo journalists, those who do > documentary work, fashion photographers, and the like. Look at > their prints whenever you can rather looking at their books or > photos in magazines. I'm willing to bet that there are people on > this list who have never seen a photograph made by Gene Smith or > HC-B, or Helmut Newton, or photographers of their ilk, other than in > books or magazines. Look at the work of less experienced >
Re: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
William Robb wrote: > I have seen hand held light meters with "spot" attchments. These > give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. > Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light > falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron > the subject is far more accurate. Maybe ... but essentially I disagree with that statement. If the scene is an average scene, then an incident meter can be useful. However, add some deep shadows and some very bright highlights, and you're not going to get a reading that will allow for the best exposure, i.e., relying on what the incident meter tells you won't give you the opportunity to place shadow or highlight values. Further, there will be little opportunity to really learn about light and exposure. With a 1-degree spot meter you you can meter every part of the scene, and know exactly where the values will be and what you have to do to properly expose the film and what development will be needed. > Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a > tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be > colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). I agree 100%. > As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how > to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on > the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to > be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the > film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if > your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and > if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. And that was my original point in suggesting that some knowledge beforehand (Adams' Zone System, for example) is an important consideration when using a spot meter. The spot meter makes more demands of the user, but, in time, the user will better understand light and exposure. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell - 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: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)
Rob wrote: > There is no truth in the statement the MF lenses have lower MTF values > either, Whatever resolving power a MF lens has it has to be distributed over a larger area than a 35mm lens. 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: Which picture is better?
Gerald, I took the liberty of manipulating the image using a photo editor. I cropped the image, threw the background more out of focus, made the image lighter, and took away some green. The image would probably benefit from finer adjustments than the quick 1-2 punch I gave it but I think this shows what I was getting at in my note http://whitemetal.com/pdml/example.htm Paul M. Provencher (ppro) - 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: SV help!
Is the shutter jammed open? You might be able to go in through the back, but if the thing suddenly unjams it could be a disaster for the shutter and mirror. Another thing to try would be to gently roll the film rollers, and see if it becomes unstuck. That has fixed a couple of Canons. Todd At 11:02 AM 6/4/01 EDT, you wrote: >Combination and problem: >SV + Super-Takumar (not SMCT) >The mirror is stuck in the up/fired position and will not drop. The lens will >neither screw on tight nor unscrew and come off >I have tried - in vain - the self-timer, the clutch button, and both auto and >manual on the lens. >What do I do to remove the #@&*% lens without wrecking something? >Thanks in advance for suggestions, commiseration, and sympathy. >Ed Matthew >- - 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: Which picture is better?
I liked #1 and share many of the comments that the other viewers have shared. The boken is a bit rough, perhaps because it is dark enough to be noticable and also because it appears that you used a fairly small aperture - a larger opening combined with faster shutter speed would have softened it considerably. You might also have exposed more for the main subject which would have lightened the background. As for the green cast, you can probably correct that out in a custom print or with photoshop if you plan to print it with your computer. Paul M. Provencher (ppro) - 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. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
Mine looks like Francis Tang's. Brown bottles are film developer. Windshield washer liquid bottle is paper developer. Vinegar bottle is stop. Milk jug is fixer. The joys of the $50 darkroom! (Or was it even that much?) Collin * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< - 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
"Usable Lenses: Pentax KAF2-, KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses." Seems K-mount (AKA K and M series) lenses should be fine. Todd At 10:20 AM 6/4/01 -0300, you wrote: >Did you see in the features that the only lenses that accept are FA and F? >What about K and M?? >Martin >-Original Message- >From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:31 PM >Subject: MZ-S > > >The MZ-S is now on U.S. Pentax page!! >http://www.pentax.com/products/cameras/camera_overview.cfm?productID=1385 > >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< > - 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 .
SV help!
Combination and problem: SV + Super-Takumar (not SMCT) The mirror is stuck in the up/fired position and will not drop. The lens will neither screw on tight nor unscrew and come off I have tried - in vain - the self-timer, the clutch button, and both auto and manual on the lens. What do I do to remove the #@&*% lens without wrecking something? Thanks in advance for suggestions, commiseration, and sympathy. Ed Matthew - 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. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
In a message dated 6/4/2001 9:57:10 AM US Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Mr. Stoopid would like to thank everyone who offered good ideas for > > preventing this foolish mistake from happening again, and for not > > making Mr. Stoopid feel too much like Mr. Sphincter. > This should make you feel a little less "stoopid". Years ago, I did the same thing - with another person's film. Regards and sympathy, Ed Matthew - 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: AF Macro Lens Question
If you are using the flash as fill in bright light, you will run into camera shake problems with a long lens, and slower sync. This is not a problem if you use a tripod, or use the flash as the main light. Todd At 07:27 AM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >Jon Hope wrote: > >> >> I found that for flowers and non moving objects the 50mm is fine. For >> things that move, or things that tend to fly/run/crawl away when you get >> too close, 105mm can be a tad on the short side. 50mm is usually way too >> close. The problem with the next step, 180mm or 200mm is the flash sync >> required. > >With apologies: what is the problem with flash sync at 180mm 200mm. I am new >to the macro scene --- just picked up my first macro lens (100mm). > >Thank you. > >Otis Wright > >- - 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. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Mr. Stoopid would like to thank everyone who offered good ideas for > preventing this foolish mistake from happening again, and for not > making Mr. Stoopid feel too much like Mr. Sphincter. :-) Wish you all the best. Ayash K. - 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: Which picture is better?
Hi Gerald ... > What do you mean by "jarring bokeh"? I see a lot of shots in print these > days that use that as an artistic technique. I'm wearing my thick skin, so > please critique away. :) What I meant is that the out of focus areas are, to my eyes and sensibilities, harsh, not smooth. I'd prefer something more "creamy" and soft, which would better compliment the portrait, IMO. > > More on the shots: I want to send her brother in Korea a pic or 2 of his > sister in Paris. I liked both of these pics myself, but couldn't decide > which one, hence my request to the list. Is there a reason you can't send both? Each shows a different, and nice, quality. Heck, Gerald, they're your pics, why do you want someone else's opinion on which is better. None of us know your girlfriend as well as you and her family. > Other responses: the light wasn't so great, and even after getting a > Velvia-corrected scan from my RFS3600 with it's film LUTs, it still looked > like I was shooting with a lime Jell-O filter attached (exaggeration). Why shoot Velvia for portrait work. It's been said that other films are superior and offer better characteristics for that type of photography. > I tried cropping the bottle and knee from #1, but couldn't get a pleasing > picture. The pose for #2 is probably better, but the expression in #1 is > best. As you noted below, a better crop in the viewfinder would have been the answer. > Lately, my shooting technique has been focused on cropping only in my > viewfinder, so I tend to shy away from cropping on the computer. I forgot which camera/lens combination you were using, but if it's one of the newer bodies, with a smaller finder view, it may be difficult to get an exact crop in the finder, so cropping later may be the only alternative in that situation. Of course, once you understand the limits of the camera's viewfinder, you can probably move in a little tighter. Unless you've got a 100% finder there's always the possibility of some surprises in the final print. > The strand of hair gives the pic character, imho. She's not a fashion > model, but an aspiring architect. It fits her. I agree 100%. The strand of hair is real, it's the way people appear sometimes. The hair lends a nice, natural look to the shot. > > To know her, pic #2's expression is not pensive, but reflective. I was > hoping that this would come across (tell a story?), but alas it appears that > subtle expressions like these are not so universally recognizable, so I > failed in capturing that. Ahh, but the story isn't for us, it's for you, your girlfriend, and your families. They will know what the expression means. Remember who you made the photo for. > The bright background lights appeal to me, but this is probably because of > the power of the memory of the moment for the photographer, and isn't > transferred in the image to the casual observer. Indeed - and this is one of the things that gets in the way of good photographs. What ends up being captured on film is not the image in front of you, but what the image means to you, and the emotional effect it has based on memory, experience, and the like. Sometimes one needs to be more objective when snapping the shutter, i.e., take yourself and your emotions out of the picture, and see the photo for what it is and not memories it conjures up for you. Of course, this depends on why you're taking the picture. If it's for your own memories - something to look back on later - that's one thing, and it matters not a whit whether other people get it. But if the photo is for others it may be better to be more objective. > I'm wondering what I could have done differently. >From the few photos of yours that I've seen, I believe that B&W could work very nicely for you. > I generally don't haul flash gear around, not liking it's harsh shadows, even > as fill. Flash is an insult to a nice environmental portrait such as what you were attempting with your girlfriend. In this case a less contrasty film may have been a good option. While I'm far from well-versed in color photography, some of the lower contrast negative films appear to offer a solution. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matters can jump in here with a comment or two. > I could have found a darker background, or used a smaller aperture to get it > more >in focus A more focused background, unless it contributes to the "story", is often a distraction. I don't think more background detail would add much, if anything, to these pictures. > ... but these were just some grab shots while resting a while in a chair. And for that they are just fine. These were pics for you, not Life magazine. > In the end, I have plenty more shots of her from the weekend, and might pass > a few of them along for comments. I'll see if there is a better one I could > send to her bro. Her brother will probably not notice the details we're discussing here. He will see his sister, and thi
RE: Sticky foam
the materials can be purchased at micro-tools.com Paul M. Provencher (ppro) - 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: Ricoh XR-8 Super!
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Yoshihiko Takinami wrote: > Hello Ayash, > > At 3 Jun 2001 10:25:20 +0530 (IST), > Ayash Kanto Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote; > > > Do any of you happen to possess this body or used it sometime? Please > > comment (good or bad) on this body. > > I have two. :^) > > They are really workhorses and have great price/performance > ratios. I like them very much. > > They are reliable, compact in size, easy to handle. I like > them very much. > > The only flaw would be their poor focusing screens. > > Hope this helps. > -- > Yoshihiko Takinami > Osaka, Japan > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hallo! I am very glad to recieve atleast one reply regarding this string. Your suggestion really helped me because I am planning to purchase that body. To be precise, I was quite determined to purchase Vivitar 3800N since it is very chip but many people objected to my decision and convinced me that the body is not at all rugged (quite delicate) and the performance is very poor. Now I have decided to go for the Ricoh body. I have already looked over the body in the shop, it sounded good. Many thanks. With best regards, Ayash Kanto. - 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 happened... to PDML and PUG?
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Eduardo Carone Costa Júnior wrote: > Perhaps I'm just getting a little nervous. It seems that, the more I learn > about photography, the worse my photos get... Had anyone felt like this > before? I find that with all forms of creativity. What happens is that your ambitions and conceptions of what you *could* do grow faster than your abilities do. You are actually getting better and better, but your standards are growing faster yet. It's a sign of growth. If your abilities catch up with your ambition, you've stagnated. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - 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: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: June 4, 2001 3:13 AM Subject: Spotmeters (Was: Learning To make a Photograph) > Is it necessary to buy a spotmeter with a sighting scope? These are > extremely expensive, but without one I do not see how you can accurately > point it at a spot you want to meter. Without being able to accurately > line up, you could only do general or incident readings surely? This is > why I think you may be better off using the TTL spotmeter which you can > aim accurately rather than a handheld which you hope you pointed in the > right direction. I have seen hand held light meters with "spot" attchments. These give about 5º angle of acceptance, hardly a spot meter at all. Dont discount incident light readings. Metering the light falling on the subject, rather than the light reflecting fron the subject is far more accurate. > > I ask this because my MZ30 does not have spotmeter and I would go and > buy a cheap lightmeter if it could be aimed accurately. Otherwise I > have to think long and har whether to spend the extra dosh on one with a > scope - it would be cheaper to take a second body to use as a lightmeter > (although obviously I would lose the incident metering)!! Would a cheap light meter be more accurate? Perhaps a better choice would be to buy a longish lens, so that you could turn your present in camera meter into a spot meter of sorts. > > I am currently waiting to see whether to buy MZ-S (favourite at the > moment), Z1P or MZ5N but in the meantime would like a spotmeter - just > not sure which one and whether its worth the money. I dont want to > spend hundreds, but I dont really want one which is not as good as that > which I will get in my upgraded camera when that happens. Cheap light meters are not a good investment, IMO. The have a tendency to not be accurate, not have good linearity and not be colour blind (a fatal flaw in most light meters). As an aside, spot meters are not the easiest things to learn how to use. It is not enough to just point the thing at a spot on the subject and transfer the reading to the camera. You have to be able to estimate accurately where on the tonal range of the film the area you are metering will fall, you have to know if your meter shows colour bias towards what you are measuring, and if so, how much so that it can be accounted for. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. William Robb Remember, the LX Gallery is coming up. Please see: http://pug.komkon.org/LX_Gallery/LX_Submit.html for more information. - 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: seeking advice on shooting a live music show in a bar.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << This may sound a really silly few questions, but I've > never seen a monopod. I realise it has one leg, but > how do you hold it steady? And when is it better than > a tripod? Is it as steady as a tripod? What does it > look like? >> > You provide the support that is missing from the other two legs. > You hold it as steady as you can, but it is never steadier than a tripod. You can easily get a steady shot with a monopod at about 1/15, maybe 1/8. But by that time it's already too slow: if you're shooting musicians, you get motion blur from their antics on stage. So the regions where a tripod is more stable than a monopod (the world of exposures slower than 1/15) is totally useless when shooting action anyway, and therefore a tripod never gets to realize is advantages over a monopod in those situations, and you're much better of with a lighter, less cumbersome support anyway. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - 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: seeking advice on shooting a live music show in a bar.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Hernán Mouro wrote: > Pieter Nagel wrote: > > > 2) Spot meter. Read the light of the musicians skin... > 2a) Does this apply to portraits in general? I would say so - the people are the focus of the shot - unless your goal is to get all the detail of the black stitching in their dark clothes and don't care that the faces are overexposed to the heavens. > 2b) So I measure the light of the musicians skin and just shoot? Is skin > lighter > than middle grey? My gut feel goes with Aaron's, that caucasian skin is roughly one stop brighter than middle grey. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - 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. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
Mr. Stoopid would like to thank everyone who offered good ideas for preventing this foolish mistake from happening again, and for not making Mr. Stoopid feel too much like Mr. Sphincter. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It matters little how much equipment we use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell - 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: Which picture is better?
What do you mean by "jarring bokeh"? I see a lot of shots in print these days that use that as an artistic technique. I'm wearing my thick skin, so please critique away. :) More on the shots: I want to send her brother in Korea a pic or 2 of his sister in Paris. I liked both of these pics myself, but couldn't decide which one, hence my request to the list. Other responses: the light wasn't so great, and even after getting a Velvia-corrected scan from my RFS3600 with it's film LUTs, it still looked like I was shooting with a lime Jell-O filter attached (exaggeration). I tried cropping the bottle and knee from #1, but couldn't get a pleasing picture. The pose for #2 is probably better, but the expression in #1 is best. Lately, my shooting technique has been focused on cropping only in my viewfinder, so I tend to shy away from cropping on the computer. The strand of hair gives the pic character, imho. She's not a fashion model, but an aspiring architect. It fits her. To know her, pic #2's expression is not pensive, but reflective. I was hoping that this would come across (tell a story?), but alas it appears that subtle expressions like these are not so universally recognizable, so I failed in capturing that. The bright background lights appeal to me, but this is probably because of the power of the memory of the moment for the photographer, and isn't transferred in the image to the casual observer. I'm wondering what I could have done differently. I generally don't haul flash gear around, not liking it's harsh shadows, even as fill. I could have found a darker background, or used a smaller aperture to get it more in focus, ... but these were just some grab shots while resting a while in a chair. In the end, I have plenty more shots of her from the weekend, and might pass a few of them along for comments. I'll see if there is a better one I could send to her bro. Thanks to all, Gerald - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Which picture is better? > Hi Gerald ... > > Both pictures have merit, but both suffer from jarring bokeh and > harsh background colors. Compositionally, photo #2 works better for > me, although photo #1 captures a more vibrant spirit. However, the > odd item in the lower right hand corner is distracting, as is the > knee on the left side of the picture. For typical family snaps > these are certainly fine. However, you didn't ask for criticism, so > I'll not open that can of worms again. > > > #1 http://www.spotmatic.com/images/hk_jl_01.jpg > > #2 http://www.spotmatic.com/images/hk_jl_02.jpg > > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "... there is no point in pressing the shutter > unless you are making some caustic comment > on the incongruities of life" - Phillip Jones Griffiths > - > 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: Mr. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
Well as long as you didn't refill your wine glass with fixer, all should be ok in the morning. :) I've got a stoopid camera trick that rates up with that one and might make you feel better. Last weekend in Paris on a fine clear summery morning, jet-lagged and unable to sleep, I took a cab with my sleepy-eyed fiance in tow and all my gear to the top of Monmarte to catch the sunrise over Paris. After shooting most of a roll of Paris from in front of Sacre-Coeur, I started to pack up for a new location, and noticed that my LX shutter speed dial was still set to the 2000 I used to clear the first few frames of the roll. Every shot was nearly black. And It was Velvia. Cheers, Gerald - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:40 PM Subject: Mr. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph > If you've ever processed your own film, you'll know how some days > everything is perfect. The chemicals were mixed precisely, the > background music you've chosen is perfect, the temperatures on the > money, and every time you lift the tank to agitate the rhythm and > timing are spot on. Such was this evening's experience, as I was > processing some wonderful happy snaps of a dinner we had at a > friend's house last week. Tri-X in Acufine, EI 1000. Everything > was perfect, except that I developed the film in the fixer! > > May ~your~ darkroom experiences all be better than this one. > -- > Shel Belinkoff > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "It matters little how much equipment we use; it > matters much that we be masters of all we do use." - Sam Abell > - > 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 .
Sticky foam
I use the black foam from the underside of a spare mousepad, and after cutting to size, stick it to the front-side of the focus screen with standard UHU brand glue from the stationary shop. Works well... and if I change my mind about something, I can pull it off with a pair of tweezers and remove the glue residue easily. >On 4 Jun 2001, at 1:31, Lon Williamson wrote: > >> Buy some black craft foam sheet, thin as you can find. Cut with >> scissors. >> Superglue carefully the right size strip in front of your focus screen. >> The stuff will last longer, and, I'd guess, damp the mirror better >> because >> it's stiffer. And much more resistant to oxidation. >> >> This is either insane or a great fix. The choice is yours. > >Probably tending towards insane :-) Super glue has a nasty habit of out- >gassing as it cures which would probaly leave white marks on the focussing >screen and surrounding areas, acetone might clean it off but the screen >might be further damaged in the process. Also the foam need to be a little >complient, stiff foam may creat unwanted jarring as the mirror hits it. The >adhesive foam from Micro-tools is quite good quality. - 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: 50mm Lens Dilemma
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:32:17 -0700 martin tammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Good choices. I believe you will be very happy with the Vivitar macro. A little too >much plastic but very sharp. The great part is that you can use the attachment lens, >which is of good quality, also on your 50mm. I hope so. Of course after taking so long to research and decide, I couldn't wait to get my hands on them so I payed for 2 day delivery! LOL _ - 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. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph
William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: June 4, 2001 12:40 AM > Subject: Mr. Stoopid's Darkroom Triumph > > > > > > May ~your~ darkroom experiences all be better than this one. > > OUCH > Ummm, here is a little hint: Put a small quantity of stopbath > into your fixer as part of your chemical mixing. It doesn't take > much, all you want is a bit of acetic acid smell. Then, if it > smells like stopbath, and you haven't used developer yet, you > know it is time to stop pouring and start reading. > All fixer formulations are acetic acid tolerant, and many > formulae use it as an ingredient. I usually have the fixer in a 2 litres bottle, while the developer is in a 1 litre bottle. It is impossible to mistake one for the other even in complete darkness. Gianfranco Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 - 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 x many:To make a Photograph
At 20:23 4/06/01, you wrote: >Shel I agree with you here.I recently bought a used AF to help >with my horse shots(to compliment my K1000 and SP 500)but my manual >cameras still take the best pic's.I find i concentrate an the >composition a lot more and pre set the shots.With the AF set on Sports >i just shoot(although this is very handy for the Dressage shows as >ths horses are constently on the move and with manual focus if i try >to pre focus and they do not take the exact route,fuzzy rider)However >when i have the time i will set the AF on metered manual and treat it >as such. I too am shooting a lot of moving horses. For me it is harness racing. I find it very testing, mainly because a lot of it is at night, or when it's in the day it always seems to be back lit. Add to that the horses are moving at the best part of 60+ KMH, and their legs many times that. I've found that if I meter the shots before I start shooting I can concentrate on the composition and focusing. I usually let the camera do the focusing, and that is usually the least of my problems. I don't know how many shots of a crisp, sharp [insert immovable object here] with a motion blurred image of a horse in there somewhere. :-) >Many times i look at my results from a show and are not happy but the >people i shoot are so i quess that counts for something.I have and >will always try to improve my photography as this is what i love to >do and WANT to be better I know that feeling. My benefit is that I don't sell the photographs I take, so all I have to please is me. Sometimes that isn't an easy thing to do, but when I feel like I get it right there isn't a better feeling in the world. Cheers Jon Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind - 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: 50mm Lens Dilemma
> > > At 3:37 PM 6/3/01 -0700 Jaroslaw Brzeziñski wrote: > > "As regards a 50mm f/1.4 with close-up lens(es), it does give you easier > > focusing, especially in poor available light conditions due to te high > > speed (and close-up lenses - in contrast to extension tubes or a bellows - > > do not slow it down) but since depth of field is so shallow at higher > > magnifications you will have to stop it down..." > > > > I hadn't thought of that! humm, I am sorry but I think that I always counted 1 stop per extention size... all extention together was 6 stop less light... Philippe - 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
Did you see in the features that the only lenses that accept are FA and F? What about K and M?? Martin -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:31 PM Subject: MZ-S The MZ-S is now on U.S. Pentax page!! http://www.pentax.com/products/cameras/camera_overview.cfm?productID=1385 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< - 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: Ricoh XR-8 Super!
Hello Ayash, At 3 Jun 2001 10:25:20 +0530 (IST), Ayash Kanto Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote; > Do any of you happen to possess this body or used it sometime? Please > comment (good or bad) on this body. I have two. :^) They are really workhorses and have great price/performance ratios. I like them very much. They are reliable, compact in size, easy to handle. I like them very much. The only flaw would be their poor focusing screens. Hope this helps. -- Yoshihiko Takinami Osaka, Japan [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: AF Macro Lens Question
At 20:40 4/06/01, you wrote: Hi Len and Otis >Could you expand on the flash sync problem? I don't do a lot of macro work >but you have caught my interest, I being a heavy flash user, it's unusual >when I don't have flash mounted on the camera. I may not turn it on, but >it's usually there. Either my AF500FTZ or the 45CT4 w/Quantum battery. Simply put, the ZX-5n which the original poster said he was using has a sync of 1/100. To hand hold, 1/200th is preferable for the 200mm, and 1/180 for the 180mm. If you are using a tripod then it becomes a rather moot point, but if you're not then shutter speeds start to become important. A good starting point for this can be Mark Cassino's essay on the basics of insect photography (and macro work in general). His web site is http://www.markcassino.com/ and just follow the essay links. While you are there drool over his photo galleries. Cheers >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 . Jon Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind - 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: 50mm Lens Dilemma
Good choices. I believe you will be very happy with the Vivitar macro. A little too much plastic but very sharp. The great part is that you can use the attachment lens, which is of good quality, also on your 50mm. --- Ed Dombek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone that replied to my > messages and helped me get off my rear and make a decision. Specifically: > > > At 06:05 AM 5/31/01 -0700, I wrote: > "I have 4 lens to go with my ZX-5n: > > - Pentax A 28mm f2.8 (which I may sell?) > - Pentax FA 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 > - Pentax FA 80-320mm f4.5-5.6 > - Vivitar Series 1 AF 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 > > I'd like to add a lens that can support macro photography..." > > > At 06:15 AM 5/3/01 -0700 Jon Hope wrote: > "I found that for flowers and non moving objects the 50mm is fine. For > things that move, or things that tend to fly/run/crawl away when you get > too close, 105mm can be a tad on the short side. 50mm is usually way too > close." > > Hmmm. Should I reconsider my preliminary idea to purchase a 50mm macro > lens? > > > At 09:26 AM 5/31/01 -0700 Ramesh Kumar wrote: > "I have Pentax FA Macro 50mm f2.8 and has worked beautifully since 2 yrs. > It's sharpness is apparent in results. My experience is it's too short for > macro work. Some time I feel I should have gone for FA 100 f2.8." > > I really considered your 100mm recommendation. It greatly influenced my > decision (see below). > > > At 06:35 AM 6/1/01 -0700 Tiger Moses wrote: > "The 90-100 macros seem to give you more flexibility, farther back for > your flash to work, etc!" > > I'm starting to see a trend here! > > > At 06:52 AM 6/3/01 -0700 Mark Cassio wrote: > "Personally, I'd go for a fast 50mm over a macro if it was my only 50mm > prime. The ability to shoot in low light and selectively focus that a > fast lens gives outweighs the macro capability, especially when you can > get the macro by adding an inexpensive extension tube." > > I agree! See what I bought below! > > > At 3:37 PM 6/3/01 -0700 Jaroslaw Brzeziñski wrote: > "As regards a 50mm f/1.4 with close-up lens(es), it does give you easier > focusing, especially in poor available light conditions due to te high > speed (and close-up lenses - in contrast to extension tubes or a bellows - > do not slow it down) but since depth of field is so shallow at higher > magnifications you will have to stop it down..." > > I hadn't thought of that! > > So after much reconsideration, the comments above, and looking at lens > reviews on photo.net, I placed an order today with B&H for the following > lenses: > > - Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 > - Vivitar AF Macro 100mm f/3.5 > > I decided that I really wanted a fast normal lens in my bag. The Pentax > Macro 100mm f/2.8 was too expensive and the Pentax Macro 100mm f/3.5 only > goes to 1:2 magnification. The "Life Size Attachment" lens on the Vivitar > allows 1:1 magnification. Since I don't do a lot of macro photography it > seemed like a resonable compromise. > > The best part: I was able to buy both lenses for what it would have cost > me to buy the Pentax Macro 50mm f/2.8 alone. > > Thanks again to everyone that took time from their week-end to respond. > > Ed Dombek > > _ > > - > 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 . > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.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: Sticky foam
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:31:43 -0400, Lon Williamson wrote: > Superglue carefully the right size strip in front > of your focus screen. Be _very_ careful with "super" glue (cyanoacrylate glue) in this sort of application. That stuff will emit vapors (outgas) for several days after you apply it, while it's completely curing. The fumes can have a bad effect on some plastics, like "frosting" Lexan (R) or ABS plastic so it looks translucent, like a shower door. I'm no expert on the stuff, but I've ruined quite a bit of both Lexan and ABS with it. TTYL, DougF - 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: AF Macro Lens Question
> -Original Message- > From: Jon Hope [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 8:19 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AF Macro Lens Question > I found that for flowers and non moving objects the 50mm is fine. For > things that move, or things that tend to fly/run/crawl away > when you get > too close, 105mm can be a tad on the short side. 50mm is > usually way too > close. The problem with the next step, 180mm or 200mm is the > flash sync > required. > > Cheers > > > Jon Jon, Could you expand on the flash sync problem? I don't do a lot of macro work but you have caught my interest, I being a heavy flash user, it's unusual when I don't have flash mounted on the camera. I may not turn it on, but it's usually there. Either my AF500FTZ or the 45CT4 w/Quantum battery. 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: 28-105 FA 3.2-4.5
Francis Tang schrieb: > Does anyone know anything more than what is on Boz's site about the 28-105 FA >3.2-4.5? I've been looking around to try and find a price, but no place seems to >stock it! "Pentax Flash", a consumer magazine from Pentax Germany, introduces the SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) next to the 24-90mm. The price of the 28-105 at www.technikdirekt.de is 629 DM (about 275 US$). > I was just wondering if the new 28-105/3.2-4.5 plus the 20-35/4 would make a better >combo than the supposedly very expensive 24-90. I think I'd prefer the two lens >setup, at the expense of "build quality" (or whatever the 24-90 is supposed to offer >to justify its price tag), if the combined price is comparable. Looking at the pictures in Pentax Flash it is hard to see much of a difference of build/design of the 24-90 and the new 28-105, except that the 24-90 is black and the 28-105 is silver. Both resemble the 28-70/f4 or maybe the 20-35. From looking at the weight (24-90: 355 g, 28-105:255g) one might think that the 24-90 was better build, however, the ratio of weights is almost the same as the ratio of volumes (24-90: length=74.5mm , diameter=72mm; 28-105: length=65.5mm, diameter=66mm), so the only real justification for the higher price of the 24-90 seems to be its wide end focal length... 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: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???
>From what I've gathered, the project has not stopped - just gone into shock at the realization of what the actual retail price might be. Ever since Photokina the figure $7,000 has been tossed around. As far as I can tell, Pentax has NEVER officially announced this price - it seems that it was pure specualtion on the part of the Chasseur d'Image journalists. The Mega-Vision S3 Pro digital back seems to use the same CCD chip set and retails for $14,900 out of B&H. Rumours out of Germany for the Contax digital SLR (same CCD as the Pentax) place the retail price in the DM18,000 to 22,000 range. If Pentax can put this on the market for less than that, then I'd say that they've really accomplished something. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???
Hello it seems to be true, as far as the Phillips CCD is very slow to refresh itself, expensive regard to small size 6Meg. Well I hope MZ Digital will existe as soon as possible even with a smaller CCD, because it will mean that Pentax has to devellop a 17-35mm f/:2.8 zoom See you [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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 .
