Re: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s)
I picked up my MZ-S in Edmonton at McBain Camera ($100 less than in Toronto, and no provincial sales tax in Alberta!), and am happy to report that I'm thrilled with it. The shop had 6 MZ-Ss in stock, and the salesman felt that any one you'd buy now would have the updated firmware. Last week I picked up the battery grip BG-10, and it really completes the camera. It locks on in the most positive way I've ever seen, and makes a really good camera feel even better. I was able to put the camera on a lighting stand, send it up near the ceiling and get a bird's eye view of the room using the infrared Remote Control E (only $25!). Cool! Also, the Metz 40MZ-3 flash (with SCA 3701 module) seems to work just fine with it. Something that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere is that it smells like a new camera, at least for the first few days. Seems to be that rubber-like covering material. Adds to the new-owner experience, in my opinion. I haven't had time to check every single function so far, but the camera seems to work flawlessly, and feels and sounds very high-quality. The data-imprinting feature is interesting and helpful. I also enjoy the bright viewfinder, and like that the viewing area is unobstructed, unlike the MZ-5n, in which the exposure data protrudes on the right side, which is occasionally annoying. I could go on (rave on?), but I think you get the idea. It's a great camera! As for Pentax Canada (in Mississauga), my experiences with them have been very positive. They're friendly and knowledgeable, and their turnaround time is very good. Hope this answers your questions. Pat White - 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: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:41:47 -0500, Peifer, William [OCDUS] wrote: Maybe someone that knows more about chip fab can comment on this. Anyway, although each individual pixel may very well be looking through an optic with small numerical aperture, it's only looking a very short distance (microns? tenths of microns?) to the illuminated spot on the focal plane directly in front of it. Hmm... I probably need to dig into the real construction of CCD's, but this description of how the 'pixels' read light intensity from a real 'focal plane' in front of them contradicts my own interpretation! You could compare the above description to the focusscreen we all are used to in our SLR viewfinder, but then with a CCD-sensor looking at the matte instead of our eye ... I really don't think it works that way, I think the CCD 'pixels' are very small area's on the CCD surface that build up electric potential when fotons (light) hits them. The fotons could come from any direction, but AFAIK the pixels are 'shielded' from each other in a grid pattern, wich also limits the angle of the incoming light to reach the actual sensor surface ... I tend to think of them as small buckets where the 'sensor' is at the bottom of the bucket. (could be a too simplistic view :-) The sensor surface itself would need to be in the focal plane of the lens being used, I don't see a real image-forming screen here ... Anyone know for sure ? Regards, JvW - Jan van Wijk; www.fsys.demon.nl - 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: so many questions
Of course what Tom says is true. I bought my first SLR 1985 for an interrail journey in Europe. It was a Minolta SRT 101 together with a 50/1.7. It was sufficient for the time, but eventually I needed to complement the kit with some more lenses. I think his advice is good: use what you have for a while and you'll soon find out what you need. My guess is that it will be very soon, and then some of the other advice might be useful. Of course, most photographers have a basic kit where the lenses I mentioned (or their equivalents) are included. But, he's right. It's better if you find it yourself that you need/want them instead of just buying them because everybody else have them. Who knows, maybe one day you will be world famous for winning the Hasselblad Prize after 30 years of photography with only a K2 and a 55 mm lens? Actually, the most important thing, if you are serious about this new hobby, is to always bring your camera and use it. At work, among friends, going to the Bierstube... Your friends will think that you're crazy, but that's a bonus! /Erik -Original Message- From: Tom Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: den 30 oktober 2001 04:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so many questions Why do you need a couple of lenses? What have you tried to photograph that the lens you have didn't work for? How often have you run into that problem? Go out and shoot pictures. Read a couple of books. We on this list can help you decide which lens is best for your purpose, but we can not decide what your purpose is for you. You have to find that out for yourself. You need some experience to do that. And, realize that millions of great pictures have been made with cameras like the old Rolleiflex that had only the built in lens available. --graywolf - Original Message - From: Sandmann, Silke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 11:11 AM Subject: AW: so many questions I read that already. And I agree with you. But to start I need at least a certain amount of lenses, don't I? At least 2? One for the close and one for the distance. And exactly that is what I am trying to find out. But I certainly don't want to spend money just to get an equipment I am not able to use (yet). -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Tom Rittenhouse [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet am: Montag, 29. Oktober 2001 16:34 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: so many questions The strange thing about selecting lenses is that it tends to sort itself out with experience. After awhile you find that for many of your shots you can't seem to get close enought so you get a longer lens. Or you don't have room to back up far enough so you get a wide angle. Or you find yourself shooting a lot of small things close up so you get a macro. There is a point to the proceeding paragraph. The point is you have to know what you want to do before you can decide what you need to do it with. You find that out by shooting photos of everything in sight until you find yourself specializing in a few things. Then it is time to add to your equipment list. Until then it is best to invest in film and processing. Don't even think of adding to your outfit until you have shot 20-40 rolls of film. By then, what your needs will be pretty obvious. Of course, if your interest is spending money and bragging about your outfit ignor the forgoing and just buy as many of the most expensive accessories as you can find. But if that is your purpose you will get better results with a new Hasselblad than a 25 year old Pentax. --graywolf - Original Message - From: Sandmann, Silke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:43 AM Subject: so many questions Hiya there, let me expose it the following way. I am complete unexperienced regarding Pentax but I am willing to learn as much a possible. For a certain time someone has lent me the K 2. Wonderful camera. I have got a relationship with it already and the first pictures came out great, too - 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 . - 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: I need a new printer
Aaron Reynolds writes: Last time I checked, we were consuming around $400 a month in ink at the store. And how much do you use for your customers prints :) Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets? -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s)
That's amazing. I live near a major metropolitan area in the US and there's not an MZ-S in any store within 50 miles. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Pat White Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s) snip The shop had 6 MZ-Ss in stock, snip - 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 Lens Hood confusion
According to Boz's site, at least a couple of the older 50mm K-mounts are compatible with the same lens hoods. Specifically, the SMC-M f/1.4 and the SMC-M f/2 can use the PH-R49, PH-S49, and the RH-R49 lens hoods. PH is plastic hood. PH-R means round plastic hood while PH-S means square plastic hood. RH is rubber hood. 49 means 49mm. Are any of the newer hoods available at say BH compatible with these particular lenses? The current rubber hood by Pentax looks reasonable? Anyone use this combination or any newer hood with their older lens? I know Pentax still makes rubber hoods and square hoods, but you might not be able to find any square hoods outside Japan. The square hoods are chip-on type and much deeper than round hoods. There are also 49mm square hoods for 28/35mm and still in production. Perhaps one should consider to purchase a few square hoods the next trip to Japan? regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
- Original Message - From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (snip) I'm curious where this whole idea of CCD sensors requiring (or preferring) perpendicular rays originated. I'm pretty convinced that it must have originated because somewhere along the line, something got taken out of context, and a fundamentally incorrect idea grew from there. When the MZ-D got canned it was reported (and commented on in PDML) that the full format imaging chip was experiencing problems with its off-axis image capture, caused by the physical construction of the pixels overlayed by the colour matrix. I also commented on this in the thread OT: DOF and format size. From the standpoint of the underlying physics, Tom is absolutely right -- the purpose of a lens is to bring an image to critical focus at the focal plane, and the nature of the sensor (film, CCD, CMOS, or other) isn't particularly relevant. After all, if all the light rays strike the sensor perpendicularly, then they are necessarily parallel and thus cannot form an image at the focal plane! No one suggested that the image forming rays must only be parallel in a CCD equipped digicam. Rob Studdert's observation was that a symmetrical design of WA lens might create problems because its image forming rays would be very (very, very very!) far from perpendicular at the corners of a full format chip. If the back focus of the lens is long, ie by using retrofocus designs for the WA lenses, then the difference between the angle of the image forming rays and perpendicular will be smaller. If the exit pupil of the lens is large comparative to the format size then that difference will be reduced too. I suspect that this perpendicular-ray story -- dare I say legend? -- may have originated from a misinterpretation of the characteristic behavior of CCD sensors. We all know that in single-chip color CCD sensors, some of the pixels are sensitive to red, others to green, and still others to blue. For the case of color cameras with single CCD sensors, color sensitivity is imparted to a particular pixel by incorporating a microscopic optic -- a lenslet and filter -- in front of that pixel, which I believe is accomplished as part of the manufacturing process for the sensor chip. I can imagine that the numerical aperture of this microscopic optic may not be terribly large, and it might very well constrain the field of view of its corresponding pixel. Maybe someone that knows more about chip fab can comment on this. (snip) It's about geometry. For the sake of illustration I'll assume the individual pixels are circular (they may in fact be any shape their maker prefers). A perpendicular light ray as would be found on the optical axis of a lens will be able to expose the entire circle. A light ray travelling to the corner of the chip will find a pixel that appears to be oval-shaped because of its angle of incidence, and that oval shape will expose less area to the light rays and gather less photons as a consequence. The amount by which a CCD is inferior to film in this regard might be small, but because some lenses already give marginal illumination to the format corners the inferiority could be enough to make a lens useless. The Philips chip was reported to have its pixels slightly recessed behind the colour matrix as a result of which the light rays were significantly obstructed from exposing the off-axis pixels. The spiel that came with my scanner (Plustek) remarked that CCDs in scanner duty give great DOF and are well suited to 3D objects unlike CMOS arrays that only record sharply what is directly in contact with the platen. As scanner arrays are not masked by a color matrix this is a pretty good indication that CCD pixels do indeed have an narrow field of view and hence a long DOF. Whether or not CCDs have long DOF in camera duty is another question, but don't expect an informed answer from me :) Regards, Anthony Farr - 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: insect macro photo technique
Thanks Richard. I too keep the lens close-focused (a Vivitar series 1 105mm f2.5 macro 1:1) and use my body as the focusing rail. I get a real kick out of stalking the bugs. Countless times I've been so intent on the bug that I've stepped in puddles, ponds and lakes! Thank god for gore-tex! I've calibrated the position of my flash on the home-made bracket so that the little unit is aimed directly at the subject and the aperture is pre-set. Every now and then I use an old crappy 60-300mm macro zoom with a Nikon 5T and or 6T closeup lens. My next trick will be reversing a 50mm on the 105 to get 2x. Life-size is great but some things are just too small. My film of choice is always slow slide film. I absolutely love Velveta. The colors are amazing! Christian Skofteland -Original Message- From: Richard Seaman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Christian, I do my macro photos using an MZ-5, SMC Pentax FA 100mm f2.8 macro lens, AF500FTZ flash and ASA400 film, either Kodak Supra, Fuji Superia or anything else that looks good and cheap at BH! The lens goes up to 1:1 magnification. I always use this lens in manual focus mode. As most macro photographers learn, depth of field is often so narrow that it's usually easier to move yourself backwards and forwards to achieve focus than to move the focusing ring. I assume you've already figured out that trick! As with birds or other animals, it's almost always vital to focus on the critter's eye(s). When a person looks at a photograph of another person or an animal, if the eye(s) are focused then the photo looks fine, even if other things aren't focused, and if the eye(s) aren't focused then the shot is destined for the trash can! As far as flash is concerned, I'm very unsophisticated - I just set it to 24mm manual zoom and blast the hapless wee beastie with it. It's surprising how few insects are put off by the bright burst of light, maybe they're dazed and blinded by it! Butterflies often flinch, but don't fly away, it's usually my movements that make that happen. I often do insect photography using my Tokina ATX 150-500mm f5.6 lens. It's not a macro lens by any stretch of the imagination, but it focuses down to 8 feet and it allows me to keep enough distance to get photos of insects which I simply wouldn't get with the macro lens. If I succeed in getting the distant shots then I'll often move in for the kill with the macro lens. I used to use extension tubes together with a Tokina 100-300 f4, but I usually got hot spots in the photo, even using the lens mounted on a tripod with no flash, so I gave up on it. I still haven't figured out why those hot spots happened. There, you asked for my technique, so I've given you all you could want and probably more! Richard. - 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: insect macro photos
Richard, Apologies for the mis-ID. I was sneaking in some list reading and was rushing a bit. Your patience and persistence certainly paid off, and your inching must be very smooth! I've never managed to get that close even without a camera. If Tiger beetles were the size of dogs ... I'd probably be able to perfect my inching technique (though I'd be moving in an entirely different direction). My setup is very much the same as yours, but w/available light (zx-5n, fa 100/2.8). Serendipity was a huge factor in my shot as I was still in a crouch after having snapped this, http://pug.komkon.org/01feb/blue.html , and turned my head to discover the Monarch working the clump of blue mealy sage directly behind me! Very rewarding morning. Happy shooting, Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dan, Actually, the more traditional spelling of my name is Richard, but you can call me Patrick if you prefer! It was real easy to get the tiger beetle photos. I just spent 15 minutes lying on my stomach on the path in my local nature reserve, slowly inching towards them until I could get close enough for the shots (say, 3 or 4 inches distance). The only difficulty was all the people periodically walking past on the same path, scaring off the beetles and wondering who this strange person was! Tiger beetles have excellent eyesight, and they're the fastest running of all insects, but they still have the attention span of an average elementary school child, so after a while they just ignore you. Still, you've got to move very, very slowly to get near them. I'm thinking of trying some of those tips we've been hearing about recently, like putting my hand out for them to sniff, extending my nose, or blinking several times then looking away. I'll try it next summer and let the list know how well these strategies work with beetles! I love your Monarch butterfly and bee shot, very serendipitous! What lens were you using? Richard. home page: www.richard-seaman.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: Hoods, mon
In a message dated 30/10/01 12:06:45 GMT Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know Pentax still makes rubber hoods and square hoods, but you might not be able to find any square hoods outside Japan. The square hoods are chip-on type and much deeper than round hoods. There are also 49mm square hoods for 28/35mm and still in production. Perhaps one should consider to purchase a few square hoods the next trip to Japan? Hello Alan We have the rectangular hoods for the std wide lenses from stock. Most of the other hoods can be ordered. The stock models are plastic, not metal. Kind regards from sunny Brighton Peter - 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: how much ?
Thanks Frank. I'll probably take it to Sun Camera at Steeles and Keele as its easier to get to than downtown,however i'll call Kominek for a quote aswell Let you know Dave Begin Original Message From: Frank Theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:25:00 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: how much ? Hi, Dave, I have no idea how much it would be, but once you find out from other list-members what to expect, you can contact Kominek's here in Toronto - their e-mail address in at the site: http://www.kominek.com/ They answer their e-mails quickly, and they seem to be pretty friendly and forthcoming. regards, frank David Brooks wrote: I'm going to send my SF-1 in to have it looked at to see if indeed it has a light leak or it is in the lab. Is there a standard fee latitude for this service ie: replace some foam and inspection.Just want to get a rough idea and make sure i'm being quoted something realistic. Thanks in advance Dave PS working in Can. funds here. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 . -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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 . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 .
FS: PZ-1p
Good shape. Comes with a grip strap. $300 + shipping gets it. help me fund my jump to medium format. Doug -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.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 .
50 1.2 and ZX-M
Hi, gang. I bought (it was almost a gift, and I still have to pay it) a ZX-M from Bruce Dayton. (Thanks again Bruce!) Reading the user's manual, there's something I don't understand, and it appears twice: It makes a special warning regarding the use of SMC 50 1.2. It says something like when used in another position than A (hence they're talking about the A version of the lens?), the camera will switch to centerweighted (no problem, even better), and since an overexposure of 1 stop will occur, you must compensate. I can't understand this thing about overexposure. Why just with the 50 1.2? The body has a limit with max aperture in order to give proper metering? I have the K version, so I'm scary about this possible 1 stop overexposure. I'm way confused. AG - 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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
Brian.No definet word but my lab owner said he canot get any stock and is now selling the select BW which seems to be almost the same thing .IMHO. Dave Begin Original Message From: Brian Campbell (PM) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:54:09 -0800 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so... Hey guys, I just checked out the Kodak website to try to confirm the rumors that T400cn is discontinued, but nothing's there... Where did you get this info? Sure the Portra 400 film is listed as well, but this is listed as for printing on professional color negative papers while T400CN is listed as for printing either on black-and-white papers or color negative papers. I can see that T400CN is disappearing off the normal consumer and retail outlets, but there's still a very large stock of it in the professional labs and pro-houses in Vancouver. I just bought 40 rolls in 120 and 20 rolls in 35mm two weeks ago at my local lab, and they still have a good stock. Anyone have any definative words on this being discontinued? Cheers, Brian - 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 . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: Spotmatic viewfinder coverage?
ppro wrote: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:34:27 -0500 From: Paul M. Provencher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Spotmatic viewfinder coverage? 93% Thank you Paul-- --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Photographers in Columbus
Gerald, Email me directly. I'll give it some consideration. By when do you need to know. 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 .
so many questions - AND YOUR ANSWERS
Hi all, Thanks very much for your response. I am astonished and grateful for it. Reading your discussions will take me further step by step as well. And in case I should get that far as you guys already are I will be glad to be there for a beginner just like me now. @ Erik + @ graywolf (Tom Rittenhouse) [Erik] I agree with the post by Tom Rittenhouse. I know that you get eager to spend some money just because it's fun.. [Tom] ..Go out and shoot pictures. Read a couple of books. We on this list can help you decide which lens is best for your purpose, but we can not decide what your purpose is for you. You have to find that out for yourself. You need some experience to do that. [Erik] ...Who knows, maybe one day you will be world famous for winning the Hasselblad Prize after 30 years of photography with only a K2 and a 55 mm lens? Thank you again for your advice. And you are completely right. There is no reason to get so much equipment at once. I am going to do it step by step. It is probably the enthusiasm thing to get it all together (but the prices are very interesting anyway). But I don't think that I am going to keep that way for 30 years. I am much to much amazed of the insect pictures:)) Great photographer and great photos. But I have got 15 years time, haven't I ?!:) @ Kristian-H. Schuessler (English German) . have and use more than six bodies PENTAX K-2 and K-2 DMD, but if one of them is now out of order, their is no more official possibility to get them repaired by PENTAX/Hamburg. Thank you for your information. I didn't know that it would be a problem to get it repaired in case the camera should break somehow. There is another option to get a MZ 5 N. Probably a better idea in this case. But you don't tell us, which sort of photography you like to do? People, portrait, reportage, landscapes, art, reprography, ... That is very important in order to answer any of your qestions ! ??? I am mainly interested in animals and landscapes and I did already a couple of nice pictures with my pocket camera. But the person who introduced me to the K 2 and the MZ 5 N has shown me how nice also pictures of people can be. Right now I am most interested in learning how to take those pictures. But I am open for everything at any time. @ Frank Theriault .. The type of pictures you want to take will dictate what you need. Exactly. Time will show. But Thanks very much for your kind help. regards Silke - 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 .
MX manual and/or brochure
Hey everyone; Does anyone have a PDF (or otherwise scanned images) of the MX user's manual and or the brochure? I have an original LX brochure that I will make available to my fellow listers as soon as I scan it into a PDF. Thanks! Christian Skofteland - 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 .
AW: so many questions
Silke wrote: But to start I need at least a certain amount of lenses, don't I? At least 2? One for the close and one for the distance. And exactly that is what I am trying to find out. But I certainly don't want to spend money just to get an equipment I am not able to use (yet). If one lens, 50mm; If two lenses, a 35mm and an 85mm; If three lenses, a 28mm, 50mm, and 100/105mm; If four lenses, a 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, and 200mm. Those are the most common combinations used by photographers who use primes. My advice would be to carry (even to own) as few lenses as you can get away with. Pick one set and use it for five years, then rethink. --Mike J. P.S. One of the biggest impediments of amateurs learning photography is that they typically own and use too many different lenses. - 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 Lens Roll Call Results UPDATE 35
These are the conditions: 1 - You must answer off-list exclusively. On-list votes will not be included. 2 - You must choose Your Favorite Pentax Lens. ONLY ONE. Yes, ONLY ONE. 3 - It must be original, no third-party allowed. 4 - Primes and zooms. 5 - You must specifiy: Tak, Super Tak, SMC Tak, K, M, A, F, FA, etc. 6 - You must have personal experience with it, no matter if you have it, had it, lost it, sold it, borrowed it, but you must have used it. If not it would be a wish list. First Place (10 votes): FA* 24 2 Members: 133 K 15 3.5 (2) A 15 3.5 (1) A 20 2.8 (1) K 24 2.8 (3) A 24 2.8 (2) FA* 24 2 (10) K 28 3.5 (1) K 28 3.5 Shift (1) M 28 2.8 (1) A 28 2 (1) A 28 2.8 (1) K 35 3.5 (1) FA 35 2 (2) M 40 2.8 (4) FA 43 1.9 Limited (1) SuperTak 50 1.4 (1) SMC Tak 50 1.4 (3) SMC Tak 55 1.8 (2) K 50 1.2 (2) K 50 1.4 (1) M 50 1.4 (4) M 50 1.7 (2) M 50 4 Macro (1) A 50 1.4 (5) A 50 1.7 (1) F 50 1.4 (1) F 50 1.7 (1) FA 50 1.4 (2) FA 50 1.7 (1) K 55 1.8 (1) FA 77 1.8 Limited (3) SMC Tak 85 1.8 (2) SMC Tak 85 1.9 (1) K 85 1.8 (2) M 85 2 (1) A* 85 1.4 (2) FA* 85 1.4 (2) M 100 2.8 (1) M 100 4 Dental Macro (1) A 100 2.8 (1) A 100 2.8 Macro (3) F 100 2.8 (1) F 100 2.8 Macro (2) FA 100 2.8 Macro (5) K 105 2.8 (2) K 135 2.5 (1) A 135 2.8 (1) Tak 200 3.5 Preset (1) K 200 4 (1) A* 200 2.8 (1) A* 200 4 Macro (4) A* 300 2.8 (2) F* 300 4.5 (2) FA* 400 5.6 (1) FA 20-35 4 (3) M 24-50 4 (1) FA 24-90 3.5-4.5 (3) FA 28-70 4 AL (1) F 35-70 3.5-4.5 Macro (2) FA 28-105 4-5.6 powerzoom (1) A 35-105 3.5 (7) K 45-125 4 (1) M 75-150 4 (3) A 70-210 4 (2) A 80-200 4.7-5.6 (1) FA* 80-200 2.8 (1) 6x7 SMC 45 4 (1) 6x7 SMC Tak 55 3.5 (1) 6x7 SMC 55 4 (1) 67 165 4 LS (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 .
Favorite Film Roll Call Results UPDATE 30
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 9 votes. Members: 87 COLOR Slide: Kodak Kodachrome 25 (2) Fuji Velvia (8) Agfa RSX II 50 (1) Kodak Kodachrome 64 (3) Kodak Elitechrome Extra Color 100 (3) Kodak Ektachrome 100 VS (3) Kodak Ektachrome 100 SW (2) Kodak Ektachrome 100 (1) Fuji Sensia II 100 (3) Fuji Provia 100F (7) Kodak Kodachrome 200 (1) Kodak Ektachrome E200 (2) Fuji Provia 400F (1) COLOR Print: Konica Impressa 50 (1) Kodak Supra 100 (1) Kodak Royal 100 (1) Fuji Reala 100 (2) Agfa XRG 100 (1) Kodak Portra 160 NC (1) Fuji Superia 200 (1) Agfa HDC Plus 200 (1) Kodak Max 400 (1) Kodak Ektapress PJ 400 (1) Kodak Supra 400 (4) Fuji Press 400 (1) Fuji NPH 400 (1) Kodak Portra 800 (1) Fuji Press 800 (2) Kodak PJC 1600 (1) BLACK AND WHITE: Agfa APX 25 (1) Agfapan 100 (1) Ilford Pan F (2) Ilford Delta 100 (3) Kodak Plus-X (2) Ilford FP4 Plus (3) Agfa Scala 200x (1) Kodak Tri-X (9) Kodak T400CN (1) Fuji Neopan 400 (1) Agfa APX 400 (1) Ilford HP5 (1) Ilford XP2 (1) Konica VX 400 (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: ZX-M multizone (couplezone) metering
Albano, Here you have a review with info regarding metterig pattern: http://members.tripod.com/ZXM/zxm_test.html I have one, and in some comparisions with MZ-5n (metering the same thing using the same lens) I found that the MZ-M produced readings sometimes like centerweighted and sometimes like multisegment (6 segments) in the MZ-5n (quite logical though). It is not easy to predict. However, I have no complait about it, it is a great camera and a powerful learning tool. Optional switch to center-weighted for A/AF lenses and it would be perfect. (I though even in covering the lens electronic contacts with tape in order to convert an A lense in a K one...) I hope this helps, Jaume (no clues about your previous question) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. Another doubt. How works the 2 zone metering in ZX-M? How is the metering pattern? It's like a centerweighted but with unpredictable autocompensation? Thanks to god, almost all my lenses are K and M, so the body will use the centerweighted I know how to use perfectly, but I want to know how this 2 zone works. I have an FA (and a friend have several), so I want to know how this metering will react (I don't want to overcompensate the exposure, etc) Thanks in advance. AG - 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 . Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.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 .
Bodies Roll Call Results UPDATE 130
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: 432 members MANUAL FOCUS: Screw Mount: - Asahiflex IIa5 - Asahiflex IIb6 - Asahi Pentax (AP)5 - K4 - SL...8 - SV..11 - S1...3 - S1a.11 - S2...2 - S3...4 - SP500...13 - SP1000..12 - Spotmatic...35 - Spotmatic II15 - Spotmatic IIa2 - Spotmatic SP32 - Spotmatic SP II.15 - Spotmatic F.39 - Spotmatic F MD...2 - Spotmatic MD.3 - ES..18 - ES II...23 - ElectroSpotmatic.4 - H1...2 - H1a..5 - H2...5 - H3...7 - H3v..5 Bayonette: - KM..17 - KX..45 - KX MD1 - K2..37 - K2 DMD..10 - K1000...84 - K1000 SE.9 - MX.126 - ME..43 - MF-1.1 - ME SE2 - ME Super...136 - ME Super SE..4 - MV...7 - MV1..1 - MG..12 - LX.150 - Super Program...73 - Super A.44 - Program Plus18 - Program A...10 - A30003 - A3...2 - A3(date).1 - P3...8 - P3n..8 - P30..8 - P30n.1 - P30t13 - P5...8 - P50..3 - ZX M25 - MZ M14 AUTOFOCUS: - ME F11 - SF 1.5 - SFX..3 - SF 1n8 - SFXn13 - SF 7.2 - SF 107 - PZ 118 - PZ 1 SE..2 - Z1..24 - PZ 1p...69 - Z1p.41 - Z5...2 - Z5p..1 - PZ 105 - Z 10.4 - PZ 20...12 - Z 20.4 - Z 50p2 - PZ 706 - Z 70.1 - MZ S22 - MZ 321 - ZX 511 - MZ 514 - ZX 5n...55 - MZ 5n...39 - ZX 7.9 - MZ 7.8 - ZX 109 - MZ 10...14 - ZX 308 - MZ 301 - ZX 508 - MZ 509 MEDIUM FORMAT: - 645.17 - 645n.4 - 6x7.16 - 67...9 - 67 II7 - 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: MX manual and/or brochure
I have the user's manual in pdf and I can mail it to you offlist if you want to. It's about 1,8 MB big. /Erik -Original Message- From: Skofteland, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: den 30 oktober 2001 14:21 To: Pentax-Discuss@Pdml. Net (E-mail) Subject: MX manual and/or brochure Hey everyone; Does anyone have a PDF (or otherwise scanned images) of the MX user's manual and or the brochure? I have an original LX brochure that I will make available to my fellow listers as soon as I scan it into a PDF. Thanks! Christian Skofteland - 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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
T400CN has been changed to BW Select available at any wal mart. - Original Message - From: Brian Campbell (PM) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:54 AM Subject: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so... Hey guys, I just checked out the Kodak website to try to confirm the rumors that T400cn is discontinued, but nothing's there... Where did you get this info? Sure the Portra 400 film is listed as well, but this is listed as for printing on professional color negative papers while T400CN is listed as for printing either on black-and-white papers or color negative papers. I can see that T400CN is disappearing off the normal consumer and retail outlets, but there's still a very large stock of it in the professional labs and pro-houses in Vancouver. I just bought 40 rolls in 120 and 20 rolls in 35mm two weeks ago at my local lab, and they still have a good stock. Anyone have any definative words on this being discontinued? Cheers, Brian - 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: ZX-M multizone (couplezone) metering
The 2 segment meter will compensate for backlighting and other not so easy to figure out lighting situations where just centerweight can not. It's not all that unpredictable, the split image range finder is the central sensor and everything else is the outter, if you get the flash warning when the whole area seems well lit it's cause of the meter seeing a possible back lit scene. you can also see the effects in the metering when using centerweight then switching to a FA lens. The MZ-M still does expose well and as long as you watch what the camera is telling you you should be fine. --- Jaume Lahuerta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Albano, Here you have a review with info regarding metterig pattern: http://members.tripod.com/ZXM/zxm_test.html I have one, and in some comparisions with MZ-5n (metering the same thing using the same lens) I found that the MZ-M produced readings sometimes like centerweighted and sometimes like multisegment (6 segments) in the MZ-5n (quite logical though). It is not easy to predict. However, I have no complait about it, it is a great camera and a powerful learning tool. Optional switch to center-weighted for A/AF lenses and it would be perfect. (I though even in covering the lens electronic contacts with tape in order to convert an A lense in a K one...) I hope this helps, Jaume (no clues about your previous question) --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. Another doubt. How works the 2 zone metering in ZX-M? How is the metering pattern? It's like a centerweighted but with unpredictable autocompensation? Thanks to god, almost all my lenses are K and M, so the body will use the centerweighted I know how to use perfectly, but I want to know how this 2 zone works. I have an FA (and a friend have several), so I want to know how this metering will react (I don't want to overcompensate the exposure, etc) Thanks in advance. AG . Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca - 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: AW: so many questions
Bob S. wrote: If four lenses, add a 28mm at f2.0 (I never have learned to use wide angles.) Bob, We're similar but opposite. I never have learned how to use telephotos. 100mm lenses seem almost impossibly long to me. I once bought a 180mm and couldn't figure out anything to shoot with it! Even the MOON wasn't far enough away for me to take pictures of it with that lens! For many years I had just a 35mm and an 85mm. Now the big dilemma for me is between shooting with those two or shooting with only a 50mm. Generally I have leaned towards the 50mm for the past three or four years. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Takumar 200 f.35 pre-set
I have one also...and I love it! For some, it's a step back...no SMCno auto function. But for me, it improves my photographers mind...it forces me to be conscious of the source of lighting (to avoid flare)it gives me the DOF (when I have to manually stop down the lens, prior to shooting)it slows me downand makes me think..How can I make this photo better, through composition, lighting, etc? I find the optical quality very good...just like all the other AOC stuff! Regards, Mike Steele --- Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't mind the manual preset aperture it's a good lens. I have one in my screwmount collection. Plus it has something like an 18 blade diaphragm so the bokeh is as good as it can possibly get. This is very common however in preset lenses that have the aperture blades near the front instead of the rear. Has a perfectly round aperture at every setting of the lens. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Jesser Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Takumar 200 f.35 pre-set Can anyone give me an opinion on the Takumar 200 f3.5 pre-set? How good is it wide open? How does it compare with the SMC M 200 f4? What would be a fair price for the Tak 200 f3.5 and the SMC M200 4? The Takumar is quite a big lens, and has a tripod mount attached. The extra half stop aperature could be useful as I do some of my photography in low light conditions. Any advice based on experience with these lenses would be appreciated. Peter Jesser Brisbane, Australia _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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 . Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.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: I need a new printer
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 04:48 AM, David A. Mann wrote: Aaron Reynolds writes: Last time I checked, we were consuming around $400 a month in ink at the store. And how much do you use for your customers prints :) HAR! I'd say that less than 10% of our printing is for me. That's still $40 a month! -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: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
Jan van Wijk wrote: I probably need to dig into the real construction of CCD's, but this description of how the 'pixels' read light intensity from a real 'focal plane' in front of them contradicts my own interpretation! I really don't think it works that way, I think the CCD 'pixels' are very small area's on the CCD surface that build up electric potential when fotons (light) hits them. The fotons could come from any direction, but AFAIK the pixels are 'shielded' from each other in a grid pattern, wich also limits the angle of the incoming light to reach the actual sensor surface ... I tend to think of them as small buckets where the 'sensor' is at the bottom of the bucket. (could be a too simplistic view :-) Hi Jan, I think we're really talking about the same thing here, and I think my conceptual view is essentially identical to the one you describe above. I may not have done a very good job of explaining it. Your analogy of the electron bucket is a very good one, and it's the analogy typically used to explain in simple terms how a CCD works -- maybe a bucket full of tranparent doped silicon is even better for the current discussion. The buckets are formed as layers of semiconductor material are sequentially deposited onto the silicon substrate. Now, how tall are these buckets; that is, how thick are the coatings that are deposited? And where does one place the focal plane with respect to these coatings? In other words, is the ideal location for the focal plane the top of the bucket, the bottom of the bucket, somewhere in between, or somewhere else? I'm not sure -- would be nice to hear some technical details, as Rob Studdert suggests. Also, I'm not sure if the pixel-to-pixel shielding is optical shielding or simply electrical shielding. At least for monochrome CCDs, the shielding may only be electrical, but for color CCDs, the shielding may very well be optical as well -- I'm just not sure. I've got a book at home on CCD imaging and CCD camera and electronics construction, written primarily from an astroimaging point of view -- maybe I'll have to dig that out and see if it sheds any light on the matter. Rob mentioned the potential problem of light spill or cross-talk between pixels. I've seen this commonly referred to as blooming, and there are chip fab techniques which mitigate the potential for this problem. Chips fabricated in this manner are marketed as anti-blooming. As I understand, blooming is not caused by incoming photons with trajectories far off of perpendicular. Rather, blooming is caused when a pixel's bucket is overfilled with electrons. The overflowing bucket spills electrons into adjacent pixels -- in the same column, IIRC. Blooming can be a problem, e.g., when one images very bright stars and very dim stars in the same field during astro-imaging. Anthony Farr's comments on the Philips chip were interesting -- especially his recollection about the apparent distance between the color mask and the actual sensor array. Sounds like the problem is not so much a fundamental problem of using large-area CCD arrays with 35mm lenses, but rather an issue with the construction of this particular Philips chip -- perhaps vignetting issues? Again, it will be interesting to see the technical references. Ralf, have you found anything yet? 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 .
Re: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
Aaron Reynolds wrote: T400CN is still readily available to us, and we have not been informed of any discontinuations (is that a word?) from Kodak this year aside from Tri-X 4x5 in 25 and 100 sheet packs. Our last order, just two weeks ago, came in fine. Tri-X is no longer availible in 100 sheet packs either?! What kind of quantities are they expecting us to buy? Isaac -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 . - 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 .
Going Ballistic, Domke Style
Any comments on how the ballistic nylon might compare with the regular canvas Domke bag? Is it substantially more durable? Can it be washed? Does it get softer and more pliable with age? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: AW: so many questions
Mike, I can't get lenses long enough! I have my eye on a 600mm f4. I just need to win the lottery Christian Skofteland I never have learned how to use telephotos. 100mm lenses seem almost impossibly long to me. I once bought a 180mm and couldn't figure out anything to shoot with it! Even the MOON wasn't far enough away for me to take pictures of it with that lens! For many years I had just a 35mm and an 85mm. Now the big dilemma for me is between shooting with those two or shooting with only a 50mm. Generally I have leaned towards the 50mm for the past three or four years. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: 'analogical' lenses coating an d CCD, not fully compatible?
Bill Peifer wrote: it will be interesting to see the technical references. Here's everything I've found relating to the Philips ftf3020c CCD Web page for CCD: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/pip/ftf3020c Datasheets for CCD (PDF file): http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/datasheets/FTF3020C.pdf Application Notes for CCD (PDF file): http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/acrobat/applicationnotes/an01-r2.pdf General digital camera information: http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/cms/imaging/dig_still_camera/ Press release about Pentax camera (interesting that there was never such a release regarding the Contax digital): http://www.semiconductors.philips.com/publications/content/file_735.html Also: I did finally get to talk to a Philips rep. about the CCD. Price is $1000.00 each if you buy in quantities of 5000 units. If you just want one it'll cost you about $5000.00! -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 10:06 AM, RH wrote: It is the same concept, a BW film processed with C41 chemicals. My local Dodd and Cord camera both said 400CN has been replaced by BW Select. The film bases are quite different. They were both available at the same time for ages. BW Select is no more a replacement for T400CN than Supra a replacement for Portra. -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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 11:38 AM, Isaac Crawford wrote: Tri-X is no longer availible in 100 sheet packs either?! What kind of quantities are they expecting us to buy? They've replaced the 25s and 100s with 50s. Of course, they made them quite scarce for September (the back-to-photography-school, big sellin' Tri-X 4x5 month) by cutting them out of the lineup in July and not releasing the 50s until October. My bet says Kodak will use their low sales in September as a reason to discontinue the film in sheets alltogether next year. Sneaky. -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 .
Last - moment October PUG Comments: Arthur, Osojnik, Poe... and others
Where There's Smoke by Glenn Arthur Jr, USA: The firefighters seem strangely calm and static. The active subject here is the fire. I like the backlighting and silhouettes, also the crop. The lines are distracting, but I think you can`t choose much in a moment like this. The Sea by Matjaz Osojnik, Slovenia: Here I like the texture of the water. Though it follows the rule of thirds, perhaps I'd crop some from the right side, to emphasize the ripples - maybe I see the sea as the subject, not the boat. From the way the sun shines on the boat, I can see what you mean about the scanning. I use to have the same problem. BTW, to me the moments just before and after a storm give some of the best lighting ... River Range by Robert Poe, USA: This shot works as an abstract to me. As such, I like the texture and tonal range. But I can't figure out the scale or what is that rounded thing at top. Compositionally, I'd placed it a little more to the left, if possible. Other shots I like: Life on Earth by Gianfranco Irlanda, Italy: Great composition with a minimum of elements. Why use the neg border as a frame? To remind us that this is a photo and as such a representation, not reality itself? I think this is accomplished already in BW. Coming... by Edward Kreis, Latvia: Great composition and lighting, the light zone at the URC is balanced by the lampposts at the LLC, the 'fingers' above the horizon are ominous, contrast between the man-made straight lines in front and the chaotic and more powerful nature in the back - but, as I said before, I like stormy skies... Sidibé by Joseph Tainter, USA: excellent NGS-style photo (for me, that's a big compliment). Only small nit: I'd like to see his eyes more clearly - perhaps they are more visible in the original print. Presque Isle Kettles by Ken Waller, USA: I always like Ken's nature photos and this is no exception. The 'slow-shutter-speed-blurred-water' technique has been used a lot before, but there is much more than that in this shot- BTW, it must be difficult to shoot from that bridge. The diagonal 'twisting' composition is powerful and conveys the dynamic quality of the water. The 'burst' at he front is great. Exposure is dead-on. The leaves add color. Very nice! Fall Kayak by Mick Maguire, USA: Serene, symmetrical composition, nice contrast between verticals horizontals. Spiddal Sky by Frits Wüthrich, United Kingdom: Spectacular sky! There are a lot more I like, such as Ann Sanfedele's, Kevin Thornsberrry's, Thomas Cakalic's et al., but I have to go now... See you at November PUG Luis Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.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: Please recommend a very good film scanner with around 2700dpi
if you are sure of that dpi, i would strongly recommend HP S20. it also scans photos upto 5*7, i think. you can refer to http://www.markcassino.com/ for results and http://www.normankoren.com/ for results and scan tips for this particular scanner. i am using this one for some time, have not yet mastered the scannint technique, however, feel it has lot to offer in this dpi range good luck. anand From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please recommend a very good film scanner with around 2700dpi Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:08:50 +0800 (CST) Hi I am considering buying a film scanner with around 2700dpi. Please tell me your recommendation. I would be grateful if you could show me some scanned examples. Thanks! Frankie -- Åwªï¨Ï¥ÎHongKong.com¶l¥ó¨t²Î Thank you for using hongkong.com Email system - 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 . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 .
AF360FGZ
Just heard from Pentax that release is mid November in UK. - 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: New 75mm for 67
I'm feeling enabled...any price info? Norm Rob Brigham wrote: PENTAX REVEALS 75mm FOR 67 FORMAT Pentax has unveiled a new 75mm f/2.8 lens for its Pentax 67 medium-format camera. The SMC Pentax 67 75mm f/2.8 AL optic is designed to be so compact that in most situations it can be 'easily used in handheld photography'. The 75mm focal length of the lens (equivalent to 35mm in 35mm format) aims to give a natural perspective, while its minimum focusing distance of 0.41m and maximum magnification of 0.36x are claimed to produce 'dramatic close-up images'. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
SMC-A 400mm f/5.6...
Guys (and gals)... What's a SMC-A 400mm f/5.6 worth in 9+ condition? How about the matching 1.4X-L converter? Thanks! -- John - 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 .
Plus new zoom for 67 (Was RE: New 75mm for 67)
The Swedish website also mentions a 90-180 f/5.6 zoom for the Pentax 67. The lenses can be seen at http://www.pentax.se, look to the right at Nya objektiv till 67 systemet. The 75 is wrongly labelled as 75/1.4 on the front page, should be /2.8. Neither prices nor release dates are mentioned. /Erik -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: den 30 oktober 2001 18:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New 75mm for 67 PENTAX REVEALS 75mm FOR 67 FORMAT Pentax has unveiled a new 75mm f/2.8 lens for its Pentax 67 medium-format camera. The SMC Pentax 67 75mm f/2.8 AL optic is designed to be so compact that in most situations it can be 'easily used in handheld photography'. The 75mm focal length of the lens (equivalent to 35mm in 35mm format) aims to give a natural perspective, while its minimum focusing distance of 0.41m and maximum magnification of 0.36x are claimed to produce 'dramatic close-up images'. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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 .
Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens would allow, especially if I did not have a tripod. So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. 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: New 75mm for 67
BH lists it for $749 US! I AM TOTALLY BUYING THIS LENS. Sorry, 45mm f4 and 300mm f4, you're both gonna have to wait. WOOHOO! -Aaron who loves his 35mm f2.0 in 35mm - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens would allow, especially if I did not have a tripod. So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. 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 .
Anybody use Fuji NPS 160?
FYI, B H has some short dated (01/02) NPS 135-36 Fujicolor Professional Color Print Film for $2.49 a roll. I've never used it but for that price I'd figured I'd try it out. Locally it sells for $7.69 a roll! I'd be interested what anyone's opinion of this film is. Delano - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
aimcompute wrote: So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. sniff Tom, you've renewed my faith in my fellow man. tv - 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: Real DOF
John Coyle wrote: Which is exactly why, a couple of years ago, we had a thread on the utility of DOF and I said then I thought it a waste of time on 35mm cameras. If you think you can judge depth of field accurately when you're stopped way down, as one usually is shooting macro, I believe, sir, you kid yourself! Other uses of DOF: 1) Check vignetting with a filter, reversed lens, hood, or anything else you screw onto the front of your lens (depends on finder coverage, but if you can see vignetting on, say, a 92% coverage finder, vignetting is definately going to show up on your film. Use your smallest aperature for this, and point the camera at something bright. Look at the corners. 2) Evaluate light fall-off (which I consider to be distinct from vignetting) with wide angle lenses. Here again, stopping down often reduces light fall-off 3) Check flare. Often stopping down will reduce flare. 4) Check bokeh as mentioned previously by others in this thread. And sometimes that check will show a telephone pole growing right out of your subject's head; one that you can't see with that fast prime without stopping down. 5) It is quite useful, IMHO, as a depth of field check at about 1/3 lifesize and higher when shooting closeups. 6) Prepare you mentally for some of those screwmount lenses you might be tempted buy that you have to use stop down metering for. Grin. John Shaw's books are my favorite for nature photography technique. He swears by both DOF and mirror lock, more so in his earlier books than his later ones. Apparently, John will even cover his head and camera when using DOF preview, and s-l-o-w-l-y stop down the lens, permitting his eyes to adjust. I don't go that far, yet, but I do use a wide-brim hat, block light with a free hand, and let my eyes adjust - and DOF then becomes more useful. - 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: Anybody use Fuji NPS 160?
Delano, A friend and I just shot some fall leaves and people using NPC and NPS (rated @125). All rolls were printed with a Fuji Frontier on Crystal Archive Type D paper. NPS produced much truer to life colors with nice color detail in open sunlight and just before sunset conditions. For, people shots the skin tones were nice as well. Reddish faces looked very red, however (there was a football game in town that day and many were sunburned). NPC produced *vibrant* fake looking greens and intense yellows and oranges (open sunlight and just before sunset too). In some prints, I liked the effect, and the pictures were nice to look at. People shots were not as good as with NPS (i.e., skin tones were not as good). Overall, I think NPS is a very nice film. But, for people shots that require less color saturation I'd rather use something faster (NPH). BTW, all rolls were exposed under roughly the same conditions (especially the fall leaves), with the same lens (my friend has two C***N bodies with 28, 50, and 100mm focal lengths). -dean - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I don't use zooms much - very rarely in fact, because they're bigger, heavier, and slower to work with. They also get in the way of my shooting around a subject. It's too easy to crop with a zoom while standing in the same place, and often good shots made from a slightly different perspective are missed. Zooming to get closer doesn't provide the same results or perspective as walking to get closer and using a wider lens. While a zoom lens may offer a degree of practicality in numerous situations, it can also contribute to laziness and poor photographic vision. For about the same size and weight as a good, fast zoom (and what zooms are available in the f/1.4- f/2.0 fixed aperture range?), I can carry two bodies and three prime lenses, which provide similar flexibility and, perhaps arguably, more creative opportunities. Bruce Dayton wrote: Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.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 .
R: MX manual and/or brochure
I could scan my MX user's manual... but it's the Italian edition. I'm afraid it could be useful just to three or four PDMLers... Let me know. Fabio - Original Message - From: Skofteland, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss@Pdml. Net (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:21 PM Subject: MX manual and/or brochure Hey everyone; Does anyone have a PDF (or otherwise scanned images) of the MX user's manual and or the brochure? I have an original LX brochure that I will make available to my fellow listers as soon as I scan it into a PDF. Thanks! Christian Skofteland - 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: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
I too think that was a red herring. I suspect that Phillips wants more for the 6MP CCD than Pemtax is willing to pay. When you can buy a 5MP camera for less that $2KUS, you aren't going to sell many 6MP cameras for $7KUS. If Phillips drops the price on the 6MP CCD, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the MZ-D (perhaps with a label) is on the schedule again. I'd pay $2KUS for a nice 5MP Pentax digital body. I think there's a market for one. Len --- -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible? When the MZ-D got canned it was reported (and commented on in PDML) that the full format imaging chip was experiencing problems with its off-axis image capture, caused by the physical construction of the pixels overlayed by the colour matrix. I also commented on this in the thread OT: DOF and format size. I think the word should be speculated rather than reported or commented. There have been no official reports of this problem and I for one believe it's a complete red herring. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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: Going Ballistic, Domke Style
Hi, I've never owned one in ballistic nylon, but I've seen a few. I suspect it's more about looks than function (for people who don't consider a beaten-up canvas Domke one of the most beautiful things on the planet). I don't think you gain anything of practical value. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, October 30, 2001, 3:56:36 PM, you wrote: Any comments on how the ballistic nylon might compare with the regular canvas Domke bag? Is it substantially more durable? Can it be washed? Does it get softer and more pliable with age? - 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: MX manual and/or brochure
Thanks but I've already got an English one. Christian Skofteland System Administrator ServerVault Inc. Securing the Internet (703)652-5971 (Direct) (703)333-5900 (Main) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: talampaya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: R: MX manual and/or brochure I could scan my MX user's manual... but it's the Italian edition. I'm afraid it could be useful just to three or four PDMLers... Let me know. Fabio - Original Message - From: Skofteland, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss@Pdml. Net (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:21 PM Subject: MX manual and/or brochure Hey everyone; Does anyone have a PDF (or otherwise scanned images) of the MX user's manual and or the brochure? I have an original LX brochure that I will make available to my fellow listers as soon as I scan it into a PDF. Thanks! Christian Skofteland - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens would allow, especially if I did not have a tripod. So... I've decided to take my zooms out of the camera bag for an indefinite period of time, at least a month, maybe forever unless it's a family vacation. I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. Tom C. - This message is from
RE: 'analogical' lenses coating an d CCD, not fully compatible?
Leonard Paris wrote: I suspect that Phillips wants more for the 6MP CCD than Pemtax is willing to pay. Well, the price is ~$1000.00 (U.S.) each in lots of 5000 pieces. And that's just for the CCD. When you can buy a 5MP camera for less that $2KUS, you aren't going to sell many 6MP cameras for $7KUS. If Phillips drops the price on the 6MP CCD, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the MZ-D (perhaps with a label) is on the schedule again. I'd pay $2KUS for a nice 5MP Pentax digital body. I think there's a market for one. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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 .
Film Scratches Again - Hopefully Solved
I have still been getting intermittent scratches on film run through my PZ-1p. Usually it has been whole rolls either scratched/not scratched, although occasionally it had been just frames near the beginning or end of the roll. I had been hoping against hope that it wasn't the camera. Yesterday I got enough guts to do something about it. I decided to run some outdated film through it and see if I could match the scratch to something in the camera body Roll 1: Find the old Ritz-brand film, take 24 exposures and of course the Pentax functions are set to Auto-rewind, do not leave leader out. Roll 2: (after resetting function to leave leader out) This was old Kodak Gold 200 stuff by the way, I take the film out and see a continuous scratch about a quarter of the way up from the bottom. Remembering what written about 7 months ago by George Baumgardner and John Francis, I am able to see that the scratch corresponds to the bottom corner edge of the springy film presser plate, inside the door. So I ever so gently and slightly bent the film presser so that the metal edge might not be quite as close to the film. Roll 3: More Kodak Gold 200 (it's good for something, he he he). Remove the film and no more scratches!!! It's also interesting to note that the film rewind was much quieter and smoother this time, as if previously there was some binding going on. Hopefully this solves the problem and it does not recur. I'm wondering whether the scratches occur as the film is being advanced, rewound, or both. The continuous scratch makes me think its at rewind time. I'm wondering if it makes any sense to hold the camera lens down when rewinding, in the case that gravity may pull the film downward away from the presser plate slightly. Hopefully the problem is fixed and that won't be needed. Also hopefully the film is still being held flat. Thought I'd share. Tom - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't do it with a zoom, but more that I enjoy more the prime and I feel that *I* - not the lens - takes a better picture. With all of that, as I mentioned, there are many good cases for a zoom. I mentioned a few. Probably more of a style kind of thing. I have the same Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and find the optics and build good, but quite flare prone. It balances very nicely on the MZ-S with battery grip. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield - 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: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s)
Ed, I will back through the beginning of December. I guess I can lug the MZ-S with me ;-) This time with my all my usual backups. Cesar Panama City, Florida P.S. I left the MZ-S behind this weekend when I went out to shoot. I grab ol' trusty LX #1 and the SV. It made for a heavier tote carrying both K and screwmount lenses, but I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. -Original Message- From: Ed [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s) No, that's not it. No store in Baltimore has ever had even one. When I wanted to see one, I had to call the rep and meet him at a store. I'd like to try one again since they've upgrade the firmware, and there is not one to be found anywhere. Nobody's ever had one or even seen one, and I don't like the thought of having to call the rep again just because nobody's got one. It's pathetic. If only Caesar's batteries hadn't been dead. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bill Owens Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attention CANADIANS (MZ-s) AFAIK, I got the only one in Charlotte when I got mine in August. Could it be that sales have exceeded expectations? Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's amazing. I live near a major metropolitan area in the US and there's not an MZ-S in any store within 50 miles. Thanks, Ed http://lightandsilver.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 . - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I think your quality assessment of zoom lenses is more than just a bit subjective. I don't believe the image quality of the lenses you listed easily matches even the best primes as you stated. Even the best primes includes the most stupendous prime lenses available. Zooms haven't progressed to that point yet. I own a few Pentax Primes that I don't think your zooms can 'easily match. The FA 35mm f/2, the FA* 85mm f/1.4, the FA 100mm f/2.8, the F 50mm f/1.7, the FA 135mm f/2.8. I have owned the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 before and it's a good lens but it's not better than the above mentioned primes. Len --- -Original Message- From: David Hatfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. Zooms are a great tool. They allow me to compose, shoot and recompose at a moments notice without having to waste time finding just the right spot to shoot from (assuming, of course, that my next shot will be from the same angle). The creative process still resides with me. It's only the equipment that is different. I still have to determine the best angle, framing, exposure, etc. for each shot whether I use a zoom or a prime. If I use a good quality zoom then the quality of the shot will come directly back to my capacity as a photographer, not to the nature of the lens. I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! Dave Hatfield -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater
Re: so many questions
Sandmann, Silke wrote: Is it right, that the 28:70 is adviseable? What about the telephoto lens? I am grateful for any advises of you experienced Pentax user. I mean, everybody has started .. Any coments are appreciated. I suggest, if you're going with prime (not zoom) lenses, to get optics in rough doubles. If you're starting with a 50-55mm, add a 100 or 28 (a lot cheaper than the 24s). Then tack on a 200. A fair amount of folks I know stick with: 28 mm 50-55 mm 100-105 mm 200 mm Anything past 200 gets expensive, as does anything below 28. -Lon - 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: Please recommend a very good film scanner with around 2700dpi
Frankie wrote: I am considering buying a film scanner with around 2700dpi. Please tell me your recommendation. I would be grateful if you could show me some scanned examples. Thanks! I can recommend the 2900dpi Nikon Coolscan IV ED, also known as the LS-40. Produces really nice scans from both negs and slides (although some neg scans seem to require a little colour correction in Photoshop) and the Nikonscan software is pretty good. Digital ICE3 is a godsend. Before the Nikon, I had a 2700dpi Acer ScanWit 2720. This was also a nice scanner, very sharp, but the software was awful compared to the Nikon and I had problems getting consistent results across a roll of film. Even though the Nikon is twice the price of the Acer, I consider it to be worth the extra. Hope that helps, Graham -- [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: Film Scratches Again - Hopefully Solved
Roll 1: Find the old Ritz-brand film, take 24 exposures and of course the Pentax functions are set to Auto-rewind, do not leave leader out. You didn't say, but I guess roll 1 was scratched too, right. 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: Fine Grained 400 b/w
Hi Guys, I went and grabbed some NPH400, but actualy ended up shooting only TriX. I'll post some pics when i develop them. Regards, Paul Jones - Original Message - From: Nicholas Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:28 PM Subject: Re: Fine Grained 400 b/w Ilford's HP5+ is an awesome film. It is 400 ISO but has extremely fine grain. I use it for everything from feature stories to sports action, pushes very nicely too. I develop it in Kodak T-Max Pro. Nick -- From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fine Grained 400 b/w Date: Mon, Oct 29, 2001, 6:54 PM Hi, I'm going to be shooting some portraits tonight under studio lighting and am planning on shooting b/w film. I have been shooting mostly TriX over the past few weeks, but would like something a bit finer grained for this. Any suggestions? I will be scanning them and maybe making a wet print or two wet prints. If i descide to shoot 100iso then i will use Acros, but i seem to like 400 more for this sort of work. I may shoot a role or two of colour, but have never shot colour with Tungsten lighting before. I have a correction filter for tungsten lighting at home (its an 80a or 80b, cant remember which). Any tips for shooting colour? The developers i mainly use are Xtol, Rodinal and ID-11. Thanks, Paul Jones - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. Thanks, Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. I'm extremely pleased with the results I get. If you're not familiar with it you might want to go to http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx; you'll find 10 other user reviews listed for this lens. Don't be fooled by the 3.9 out of 5 rating it receives, though. Read the reviews and you'll find that, except for a couple of disgruntled individuals who submarine the lens, those who have it and use it are very pleased with its performance. You'll also find good reviews of the Pentax SMCP-FA 20-35 f4.0 which is, I assume, the lens you're comparing this with. Frankly, my decision to go with the Tokina came down to two factors the larger f2.8 aperture and the consistent 77mm filter size that allows me to purchase one set of filters to use on all three of my Tokina lenses. Hope this helps a little. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Since you have one of the lenses I was looking at, I would be curious how you feel about the ATX 20-35 f2.8. How is the close focusing, distortion and flare. My ATX 28-70 Pro II does *not* focus close and I really have to watch the flare. I was trying to compare the Tokina to the Pentax. Thanks for your input. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I think it's great that in this, like in most things in life, people can say the same thing while approaching it from totally different angles (kind of like photography, huh?). If you learn the basics - learn to see; learn to think; learn to plan; be ready for the unexpected; etc. - then equipment generally becomes inconsequential apart from what you're comfortable with. I've used zooms all my photographic life (25+ years) even when they were terrible! I've grown accustomed to their feel and style. Who knows, some day I might pick up that LX I was talking about a few days back, get a good prime and start learning all over! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't do it with a zoom, but more that I enjoy more the prime and I feel that *I* - not the lens - takes a better picture. With all of that, as I mentioned, there are many good cases for a zoom. I mentioned a few. Probably more of a style kind of thing. I have the same Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and find the optics and build good, but quite flare prone. It balances very nicely on the MZ-S with battery grip. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what I see in the viewfinder and snap the picture. I feel likes it's turning me into a point and shooter. I haven't been using the wide-angle capability to it's full advantage, for instance, I could be using the short-focussing distance and greater DOF to my advantage composition-wise. I should be looking for those shots, and I DID when I purposely put a 28mm prime on, BEFORE I had a zoom. Same with longer lenses. With the zoom, I'm just using it to get closer, instead of thinking about how a long lens compresses things and then using it as a composition tool. And with the relatively small maximum apertures of the zooms, I think I've been missing shots a faster lens
Re: Takumar 200 f.35 pre-set
In terms of flare, it has been mentioned earlier (I forget by whom - was it you Paul S.?) that flare might be a problem, since it's not multi-coated. I, and a couple of other users have mentioned that it hasn't been a huge problem. I was just checking my Asahi Pentax Guide, and the 3.5 200mm has only 4 elements. The 4.0 200mm SMC has 5. Might it be that the fewer number of elements keeps flare down to something manageable? Just wondering... regards, frank Mike Steele wrote: I have one also...and I love it! For some, it's a step back...no SMCno auto function. But for me, it improves my photographers mind...it forces me to be conscious of the source of lighting (to avoid flare)it gives me the DOF (when I have to manually stop down the lens, prior to shooting)it slows me downand makes me think..How can I make this photo better, through composition, lighting, etc? I find the optical quality very good...just like all the other AOC stuff! Regards, Mike Steele --- Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't mind the manual preset aperture it's a good lens. I have one in my screwmount collection. Plus it has something like an 18 blade diaphragm so the bokeh is as good as it can possibly get. This is very common however in preset lenses that have the aperture blades near the front instead of the rear. Has a perfectly round aperture at every setting of the lens. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Jesser Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Takumar 200 f.35 pre-set Can anyone give me an opinion on the Takumar 200 f3.5 pre-set? How good is it wide open? How does it compare with the SMC M 200 f4? What would be a fair price for the Tak 200 f3.5 and the SMC M200 4? The Takumar is quite a big lens, and has a tripod mount attached. The extra half stop aperature could be useful as I do some of my photography in low light conditions. Any advice based on experience with these lenses would be appreciated. Peter Jesser Brisbane, Australia _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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 . Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.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 . -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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: 50 1.2 and ZX-M
The problem is only with the A 50mm F1.2. The problem is with the contacts for this lens. The A contacts are simple, on the lens side they are either metal (1) or plastic (0). The 5 contacts make up a code that tells the camera the minimum/maximum aperture. The problem is that the code for the A 50mm F1.2 is all 1's, or all metal. So the camera gets fooled, as it thinks all metal means that an older K/M lens has been mounted. Don't worry, the K 50mm F1.2 doesn't have this problem. Todd At 09:42 AM 10/30/01 -0300, you wrote: Hi, gang. I bought (it was almost a gift, and I still have to pay it) a ZX-M from Bruce Dayton. (Thanks again Bruce!) Reading the user's manual, there's something I don't understand, and it appears twice: It makes a special warning regarding the use of SMC 50 1.2. It says something like when used in another position than A (hence they're talking about the A version of the lens?), the camera will switch to centerweighted (no problem, even better), and since an overexposure of 1 stop will occur, you must compensate. I can't understand this thing about overexposure. Why just with the 50 1.2? The body has a limit with max aperture in order to give proper metering? I have the K version, so I'm scary about this possible 1 stop overexposure. I'm way confused. AG - - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Dave, I have to say this as a joke, no rub intended. Rumor has it you should not be using 3rd party lenses, they supposedly scream amateur, you should be using Canon lenses, at least that's what I've heard. :-) Tom C. Dave writes: I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. snip - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
As in most cases, Shel, I agree with your analysis. However, I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning as to why a prime should be deemed better for street shooting than a zoom other than perhaps its size and weight could give it some advantage over a larger zoom. On my MZ-S the AF zooms I use are extremely easy to use and, in my opinion, add to street shooting since they allow me to approach some subjects even closer than I could with a prime without getting into their personal space. I will admit, however, that that big, 77mm eye pointed at someone can be somewhat intimidating and hard to disguise. I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. As to enlargement size, I regularly go to 11x14 and frequently 16x20 and am very pleased with what I get in return. Poster size or larger? That's when I start thinking view camera and then, of course, primes are the only way to go (unless I've missed the fact that Rodenstock now makes a great zoom with a Copal shutter). Photo manipulation? Don't do it, never have, never will. (Oops! Never say never. I'm real interested in that new Canon FS4000US scanner BH is selling for $874 right now). As to the varifocal issue, with today's AF capabilities even on the most basic cameras, the time it takes to compose, focus, zoom, re-focus with a zoom lens generally should always be far faster than compose, focus, CHANGE LENS, re-compose, re-focus with a prime. However, since speed isn't the real issue here, you are correct in your definition of a true zoom lens and the accompanying issue of having to re-focus at varying focal lengths. I can't speak for others but with my various Tokina's this hasn't been a problem since they respond extremely fast, especially on the MZ-S. WELL, since it appears that I'm the only one on this end of the pool, I guess it's time for me and my zooms to slink off into the corner and play another game of FreeCell. Dave BTW, Shel - I don't care what anybody says, I don't think you look anything like Hannibal Lecter. I was thinking more along the lines of Abby Hoffman, but, of course, that's just my opinion! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Well, all this prime v zoom stuff is useless without consideration of the type of photography that's involved. For fast street shooting, a prime wins. For static subjects it can be argued that either is fine. For portraits a zoom can be a wonderful tool. And then we have to consider how the final photo ends up. Will it be a smallish family snap sitting in a 5x7 frame on someone's desk, or will the photo be used in an exhibition at a size large enough to make any small error or quality difference quite noticeable, or will the photographer manipulate the hell out of the negative with photo editing software. Unlike David, I do not believe that a zoom will match a prime in quality except, perhaps, at certain focal lengths or apertures, but certainly not over the entire range. And then, let's define what a zoom lens is. My understanding is that when focused one can use the full range of focal lengths without having to refocus. That's a true zoom. Most zoom lenses on the market these days are variable focal length lenses, and are extremely slow to use because when moving from one focal length to another, the lens must be refocused in order to maintain critical sharpness. Maintaining sharpness and critical focus with a heavy, slow lens is, for most people, a difficult task - certainly not as easy as with a smaller, lighter, faster, prime lens. So, whether one is better than the other really depends on many variables. David Hatfield wrote: You may be right on the BW issue. I don't shoot that much 35mm BW though I do shoot some and haven't noticed any particularly glaring problems with the various 400 speed BW films I shoot with my zooms. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.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 . - 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: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6...
What's a SMC-A 400mm f/5.6 worth in 9+ condition? How about the matching 1.4X-L converter? John, $450 would be a good buy. $650+ might be more typical. The matching converter is the A 1.4X-S or A 2.0X-S. They are for the shorter lenses. The L converters are for big, expensive glass like the 400mm F2.8. Regards, Bob 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Good luck on your choice Bruce. Whichever lens you choose I will say that I use the 20-35 far less than the 28-70. Whichever lens you go with you're looking at $500-600. That's no small change to invest in a lens that might just set in your bag the majority of the time. I'm going to Italy in a couple of weeks and will be taking the 20-35 and the 28-70 with me. When I get back, if you haven't made up your mind by then, I'll drop you a line and let you know how much use I got out of both lenses. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. Thanks, Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I've been very pleased with the lens so far. I've only had it about 4 months so I haven't had a great deal of time to utilize it under extreme situations. Close focusing will get you down to about 1.5 feet, though, at the focal range this lens provides that's more than adequate in the situations I've encountered. Yes, flare can be an issue, just like it is with the 28-70, but I don't see it as overly exaggerated on this or any of my Tokina lenses. Conscientious use of the provided lens hoods will eliminate the flare in all but the most extreme cases. I'm extremely pleased with the results I get. If you're not familiar with it you might want to go to http://www.photographyreview.com/defaultcrx.aspx; you'll find 10 other user reviews listed for this lens. Don't be fooled by the 3.9 out of 5 rating it receives, though. Read the reviews and you'll find that, except for a couple of disgruntled individuals who submarine the lens, those who have it and use it are very pleased with its performance. You'll also find good reviews of the Pentax SMCP-FA 20-35 f4.0 which is, I assume, the lens you're comparing this with. Frankly, my decision to go with the Tokina came down to two factors the larger f2.8 aperture and the consistent 77mm filter size that allows me to purchase one set of filters to use on all three of my Tokina lenses. Hope this helps a little. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Since you have one of the lenses I was looking at, I would be curious how you feel about the ATX 20-35 f2.8. How is the close focusing, distortion and flare. My ATX 28-70 Pro II does *not* focus close and I really have to watch the flare. I was trying to compare the Tokina to the Pentax. Thanks for your input. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: David Hatfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Bruce, I think it's great that in this, like in most things in life, people can say the same thing while approaching it from totally different angles (kind of like photography, huh?). If you learn the basics - learn to see; learn to think; learn to plan; be ready for the unexpected; etc. - then equipment generally becomes inconsequential apart from what you're comfortable with. I've used zooms all my photographic life (25+ years) even when they were terrible! I've grown accustomed to their feel and style. Who knows, some day I might pick up that LX I was talking about a few days back, get a good prime and start learning all over! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, I'm not arguing your points at all. I am not concerned about the optical quality specifically. It has more to do with me. Years ago, I moved from a Practica screw mount match needle body to a Canon A-1 (quite a jump). While the body was quite capable, I found that it wasn't my style. I almost quit taking pictures. I finally sold it and got an Olympus OM-1 with 50mm lens. I think the point has more to do with usage and style rather than the ability of a zoom or prime to produce a great image. I'm with Shel where I find that I personally work better with a prime than a zoom. Not that I couldn't
Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I will only use a M 28mm, FA 43mm, FA 100mm macro, and M 200mm. I hope to see a difference in the results, both in quality and composition. Tom, You will see and feel the difference. Regards, Bob 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 .
RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I've learned something new, today, Bob - I HATE prune juice! I'm envious of your 4x5 capabilities. I tried medium format for a while but didn't find that it offered that much over 35 for the type shooting I do. I would like to try some 4x5 stuff but have been reluctant to invest the $$$ needed to get started. I like your compromise of the Horseman and may give that some consideration as time goes by, but, at my age, of course, there may not be much time :)! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the 28-200 does wide angle, when was the last time I consciously thought about using it that way. Or composed with it purposely at 28mm? I can't remember. What's happening is when I see a scene I consider shooting, I adjust the focal length [FL] :-) until I'm happy with what
RE: OT Stinking MSN
Yeap, you gotta love Microsoft and their we are taking over the planet and we don't care what you think attitude. I think the most interesting home page is the option in Netscape that opens the last page viewed, which has led to some interesting pages coming up when I fire up the browser at times, usually when other people are around. (uhhh, I don't know what that is. *click*) Todd At 01:35 PM 10/29/01 -0500, you wrote: I think it's stupid also. Too cluttered and I can no longer see how many email messages are on the server waiting for me right on the page. Wonder if there is a way to switch to a custom view like the old setup. Think I'll check tonight. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:00 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: OT: Stinking MSN Sorry this is off-topic. For several years now I have used msn.com as my home page/portal when logging onto the net. Like many it allows you to customize the content. This is convenient. With the new version of their page, you cannot get to the customized content without first clicking on a tab. I.E., you ALWAYS have to look at the garbage MSN want's to show you first, instead of seeing what you want to see first. 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: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6...
KEH - (www.keh.com) lists several SMCA 400mm f5.6 lenses from $465 to $599 (EX to EX+) and 1.4XL convertors from $179 to $265.(Bargan to LN-) Ken Waller - Original Message - From: John A. Hufnagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6... Guys (and gals)... What's a SMC-A 400mm f/5.6 worth in 9+ condition? How about the matching 1.4X-L converter? Thanks! -- John - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Thanks for your input and comments on this lens. There aren't that many choices in this type of lens for the Pentax shooter. I suspect I have two quandries, the Pentax vs. Tokina (speed and flare issues) and zoom vs. prime. I have some thinking and evaluation to do to see if I would actually use the zoom if I got it. The Pentax FA 20-35 is my most used lens. Then again, I'm a wide guy. tv - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
Hey, Dave! I'm 58 and lugging it keeps me fit. Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 10:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise I've learned something new, today, Bob - I HATE prune juice! I'm envious of your 4x5 capabilities. I tried medium format for a while but didn't find that it offered that much over 35 for the type shooting I do. I would like to try some 4x5 stuff but have been reluctant to invest the $$$ needed to get started. I like your compromise of the Horseman and may give that some consideration as time goes by, but, at my age, of course, there may not be much time :)! Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Dave, Know that you have had your prune juice, I should mention that I have always tried to accomplish with 35mm what I would expect in medium format. Likewise, in medium format what I would expect in large format. I once had all and, speaking of intoxicating, nothing matches a fine-grained 4X5 negative. I have since cooled down and have a Horseman VHR that I use for medium format. It offers the flexibility of a view and ease as a range-finder. Sorry, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Hatfield Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Only using my prime lenses - I promise From David Hatfield I don't know, Bruce (et. al.). Seems to me that zooms are finding their own spot in today's photographic world. Years ago the argument for using primes centered on the fact that they were generally a higher quality lens that what you could find in even the highest priced zooms. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. Today's technology and production have brought zoom quality to a point that, if placed side by side, few if any could pick out shots made with primes as opposed to those made with zooms even at the highest magnification. There is some truth to the above. Film for 35mm point and shoot cameras dominate the consumer film market. As a result, the emulsions that were prominent prior the New Era are gone. The above would not apply in the case of Kodachrome 25 and Pamatomic X. Older members of the list will recall the day that Kodachrome 25 was the prominent film found at all grocery store checkouts and the only colour film was Kodacolor 100 for 126. The difference between a zoom and prime are noticeable when using BW. The eye is easily intoxicated by the colour where it is the sharpness in a BW Image. Bob -Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Certainly an interesting observation. I have been somewhat resistant to using zooms much for fear of the same thing happening to me. I really only have one zoom that I take now (Tokina 28-70 f:2.8) and find that I don't want it to be the default lens. But for how things fit in the bag, it is easiest to leave on the body. There are a few cases where the zoom is handy - basically when the subject keeps running around (kids, soccer, birthday party). Other than that I have tried to stick with the primes. I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. Bruce Dayton Sacramento, CA - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:05 AM Subject: Only using my prime lenses - I promise Hi everybody, Wanta start a discussion about zooms vs. primes? :-) I was out meandering around yesterday looking for autumn fall color shots and the thought occurred to me that my prime lenses have seen too little use lately. I usually have a zoom attached as the default lens... why? Convenience maybe, or maybe I'm afraid I'll miss a shot because I had a 28mm lens on-body when I needed a 200mm. When I do use a prime lens, I immediately take it off and put the zoom back on, in part, because the zoom is FAT and is harder to get in/out the lens pocket of the camera bag. I was blinded by a flash of insight and did some self-examination. Yes, I AM A PITIFUL EXAMPLE OF THE SPECIES, A ROTTEN HUSBAND AND BAD FATHER! Those things aside, I started thinking about how I have been shooting with a zoom and realized how hindering to creativity it seems to be for me. Even though the
Re: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6...
Not so, my FA *200 f:2.8 and A 400 f:5.6 both work just fine with the 1.4X-L and I use it regularly. Bruce Dayton - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: Re: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6... What's a SMC-A 400mm f/5.6 worth in 9+ condition? How about the matching 1.4X-L converter? John, $450 would be a good buy. $650+ might be more typical. The matching converter is the A 1.4X-S or A 2.0X-S. They are for the shorter lenses. The L converters are for big, expensive glass like the 400mm F2.8. Regards, Bob 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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 05:49 PM, Isaac Crawford wrote: God I hope not... I would think they would give us some warning by getting rid of less popular films first. I'd be amazed if Tri-x wasn't the most popular sheet film of all time... It is certainly our top selling bw sheet film. But remember, the fewer products that Kodak keeps in production, the more money they make on each unit. -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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 07:19 PM, tom wrote: David Hatfield wrote: I still say, though, that what you're doing with five lenses I can do with two. Since I don't own any of the lenses you mention I can't speak from first hand experience, but I still contend that with proper photographic technique in place we can take comparable shots, enlarge to 11x14 or 16x20 and there won't be any discernible difference in quality, contrast or sharpness even to the most critical eye from a normal viewing distance. Have you ever actually done this? When I was at Sterling, we ran a 200mm shootout. The contestants were mostly in Pentax mount, since the person who wanted to know which lens was best at 200mm was looking for a tele for their MZ-10. The lenses were: Sigma 70-210 AF (the cheap one) Pentax 80-200 AF (not the 2.8...forget what the aperture is) Pentax 80-320 AF Sigma 70-300 AF (the Super one, as I recall) Pentax A* 200mm f2.8 (mine) Tokina 80-200(ish) f2.8 (the boss') Those last two were in there for a bit of friendly rivalry. So, the camera (an MZ-5, I believe, except for the Tokina, which was in Nikon mount on an F90) was on a tripod, shutter tripped via self timer to avoid shake. We shot each lens wide open, f8 and f22. The resulting images were printed 4x6, marked on the back as to which lens they were from, separated into aperture groupings (i.e. all the wide opens together) and then those piles were shuffled. Then we asked customers all week long which looked to be the sharpest pictures. Well, the Tokina and the A* were hard to tell apart, but were the clear winners. The Sigmas were in the middle of the pack, with the Pentax 80-200 above them and the 80-320 below. None stank at 4x6, though the Sigma 70-210 showed a decided lack of contrast. But the only zoom that wasn't easily identifiable as definitely less sharp on a 4x6 print than the A* prime was the expensive Tokina. -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: Last - moment October PUG Comments: Arthur, Osojnik, Poe... and others
Thanks Luis for the kind comment. I don't think as well that the current crop is the perfect for this one. I wanted more see on the bottom to emphasize the vast of endless sea but went for this one because of the poor scan which was really bad on the bottom of the photograph. My main problem was not the quality of the scan but the fact that at the shop they've started to charge a lot for the BMP scans (5$ for one). So it was a JPG and when resized and resaved, the JPG artefacts start to ruin it immensely. However, just today I found a new service which sholud be able to do the job for alittle more than a dollar. I look forward to see how it will turn out. Matjaz The Sea by Matjaz Osojnik, Slovenia: Here I like the texture of the water. Though it follows the rule of thirds, perhaps I'd crop some from the right side, to emphasize the ripples - maybe I see the sea as the subject, not the boat. From the way the sun shines on the boat, I can see what you mean about the scanning. I use to have the same problem. BTW, to me the moments just before and after a storm give some of the best lighting ... - 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: Spotmatic viewfinder coverage?
Claimed to be the area visible in a mounted slide. ppro -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Spotmatic viewfinder coverage? ppro wrote: Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:34:27 -0500 From: Paul M. Provencher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Spotmatic viewfinder coverage? 93% Thank you Paul-- --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 'analogical' lenses coating and CCD, not fully compatible?
Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if Kyocera is still going to use this CCD for their Contax digital? Has anyone ever confirmed that this *is* the CCD Contax was planning on using? Everyone seems to be taking it for granted and I must admit I don't know what other CCD they might use, but as far as I can tell Contax never announced that they were using the Philips part. Philips had a press release announcing the selection of this CCD for the Pentax camera... but nothing about the presumably more prestigious Contax. Of course, the lateness in arrival of the Contax digital (I believe it was announced even before the Pentax digital) tilts the odds toward the Philips CCD. If so we'll probably be hearing an announcement about a delay or postponement of the Contax soon. - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On 30 Oct 2001, at 15:00, David Hatfield wrote: That's great, Len. I still say, though, that what you're doing with five lenses I can do with two. Since I don't own any of the lenses you mention I can't speak from first hand experience, but I still contend that with proper photographic technique in place we can take comparable shots, enlarge to 11x14 or 16x20 and there won't be any discernible difference in quality, contrast or sharpness even to the most critical eye from a normal viewing distance. Pull out a 10x loupe and maybe so, I don't know, but it's just not enough to make me retire my zooms. Like I said earlier, it's what I'm used to, I'm more than pleased with my results, so it's back to whatever rings your bell at this point. Hi Dave, I understand your perspective but I must agree with the other listers. I believe that zooms not only affect compositional perspectives (WRT the way most zoom owners use their zoom lenses) but even the best new zooms don't match the quality of the best prime lenses available. I agree that sharpness at certain apertures may be on par however more subtle image elements such as absolute contrast, micro-contrast, flare control, aperture ghost images, open aperture performance, fast apertures and geometric distortion remain as discernible differences. Also since I use limited DOF as a feature in my compositions zooms aren't suitable to me. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Fw: Agfa APX 25 available for a limited time.
- Original Message - From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: Agfa APX 25 available for a limited time. Dear William My name is Paul Drouillard, President of Skylab Professional Photofinishing Inc in Windsor Ontario Canada. We are a major Agfa supplier and high quality commercial / professional photo finishing lab. Your name was recently forwarded to me by the good folks at Agfa Canada in regards to your inquiry about AGFA APX 25 BW film. Perhaps I can help. I still have inventory of 135-36 film. When the story broke about the film being discontinued, I purchased a large quantity for myself and my customers who love and use the film. As it turns out I have sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of more than just the local users. Conversations with Peter Kruka of Agfa Canada revealed that he had a number of people interested in purchasing more film. Your name and email address was forwarded to me. I hope you don't mind being contacted this way. Current inventory has a long expiry date of Jan to June 2005. Slow speed films have very good keeping properties and if frozen should easily last 10 years or so. Minimum quantity would be in 10 roll packs. Larger orders are welcome. This will likely be the last time a film of this type will be available. Asking price is $7.00 CDN per roll in 10 packs or $6.00 CDN per roll if purchased in 100 roll lots, plus a nominal shipping charge. Applicable taxes are over and above. We also have a large supply of most any Agfa Professional products available in Canada. Our lab services are of the highest standards in the industry. Most noteworthy is our E-6 line, both Kodak Q-Lab and Fuji Pro-Lab certified to the highest standards. We also offer a full time BW department, custom colour printing and enlarging and a full line of digital services with printing on real photo paper. I can be contacted any week day after 11:00 AM by phone @ 519-256-6166 or by email I hope I can be of assistance to you. Paul Drouillard (President) Skylab Professional Photofinishing Inc. 1175 Crawford Avenue Windsor, Ontario Canada N9A 5E2 519-256-6166 phone / fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.skylabproimaging.com http://www.skylabproimaging.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: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...
- Original Message - From: RH Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:06 AM Subject: Re: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so... It is the same concept, a BW film processed with C41 chemicals. My local Dodd and Cord camera both said 400CN has been replaced by BW Select. Hmmm, Agfa Ultra and Agfa Portrait 160 are the same concept. But really, can one replace the other? T400CN was optimised for printing on BW paper, and printed well on colour paper. Select and Portra are optimised for printing on colour and RA type chromogenic papers. They do not print well on conventional black and white materials. At least, this has been my experience with them. 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: Agfa APX 25 available for a limited time.
APX25 is still available in a number of shops in Melbourne Australia, i can think of 4 off the top of my head. Has it already dissapeared from the US and canada? - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:18 PM Subject: Fw: Agfa APX 25 available for a limited time. - Original Message - From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: Agfa APX 25 available for a limited time. Dear William My name is Paul Drouillard, President of Skylab Professional Photofinishing Inc in Windsor Ontario Canada. We are a major Agfa supplier and high quality commercial / professional photo finishing lab. Your name was recently forwarded to me by the good folks at Agfa Canada in regards to your inquiry about AGFA APX 25 BW film. Perhaps I can help. I still have inventory of 135-36 film. When the story broke about the film being discontinued, I purchased a large quantity for myself and my customers who love and use the film. As it turns out I have sufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of more than just the local users. Conversations with Peter Kruka of Agfa Canada revealed that he had a number of people interested in purchasing more film. Your name and email address was forwarded to me. I hope you don't mind being contacted this way. Current inventory has a long expiry date of Jan to June 2005. Slow speed films have very good keeping properties and if frozen should easily last 10 years or so. Minimum quantity would be in 10 roll packs. Larger orders are welcome. This will likely be the last time a film of this type will be available. Asking price is $7.00 CDN per roll in 10 packs or $6.00 CDN per roll if purchased in 100 roll lots, plus a nominal shipping charge. Applicable taxes are over and above. We also have a large supply of most any Agfa Professional products available in Canada. Our lab services are of the highest standards in the industry. Most noteworthy is our E-6 line, both Kodak Q-Lab and Fuji Pro-Lab certified to the highest standards. We also offer a full time BW department, custom colour printing and enlarging and a full line of digital services with printing on real photo paper. I can be contacted any week day after 11:00 AM by phone @ 519-256-6166 or by email I hope I can be of assistance to you. Paul Drouillard (President) Skylab Professional Photofinishing Inc. 1175 Crawford Avenue Windsor, Ontario Canada N9A 5E2 519-256-6166 phone / fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.skylabproimaging.com http://www.skylabproimaging.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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I was having the same problem too. I have found myself enjoy the process of photography much more when using primes. Prime lenses make me slow down and do some serious thinking about composition, dof and angle of view. Not to mention prime lenses deliver better performance in general. The only zoom I have now is the SMC-A 70-210/4 which is very useful, but hardly the best optically. Perhaps it's time to release a FA* 70-210/4 ED [IF] (the f2.8 is just too expensive, big and heavy for me)? regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
You don't know what you are missing because none of your lenses are Pentax. :) regards, Alan Chan I currently carry four lenses in my bag the Tokina ATX-pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 (my normal lens), a Tokina ATX-pro 20-35 f2.8, a Tokina ATX-pro 80-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 105 EX f2.8 macro (my only non-zoom) used primarily for macro shots since it produces 1:1 without attachments. The quality of these lenses easily matches even the best primes and none of them releases me from having to think about how I'm composing my shot. They simply allow me the ease of altering that composition without having to dig in my bag so often. Zooms? I love 'em!! _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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: New 75mm for 67
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Aaron Reynolds wrote: BH lists it for $749 US! I AM TOTALLY BUYING THIS LENS AND SENDING IT TO CHRIS FOR EVALUATION. Sorry, 45mm f4 and 300mm f4, you're both gonna have to wait. WOOHOO! Wow, thanks! I'll let you know when it arrives. ;) 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
David, David, David sigh (Comments interspersed) As in most cases, Shel, I agree with your analysis. This is a very wise approach, for rarely am I wrong, although I often go against the crowd g. However, I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning as to why a prime should be deemed better for street shooting than a zoom other than perhaps its size and weight could give it some advantage over a larger zoom. Well, size and weight are often critical components in the overall package when one is out shooting on the street. Smaller size plays another factor besides speed - it allows the camera and the photographer to be less intrusive and yet work closer to people. Smaller lenses and cameras aren't as intimidating as larger lenses and cameras. Faster primes allow for faster focusing (with MF gear) and allow greater control of DOF, which allows for a more varied look to the photographs. On my MZ-S the AF zooms I use are extremely easy to use and, in my opinion, add to street shooting since they allow me to approach some subjects even closer than I could with a prime without getting into their personal space. That goes to personal style, as I implied earlier. A zoom doesn't allow ~you~ to get closer, rather, it allows you to stay further away from the subject while allowing you to use the tele end of the lens. The result is that your perspective is limited to the longer focal length if that's how you shoot. Of course, with that noisy MZ-S with auto winder, getting close may cause the people you're photographing to turn and run when the film advances to the next frame. I say this only half in jest- there is a smiley in there somewhere. I will admit, however, that that big, 77mm eye pointed at someone can be somewhat intimidating and hard to disguise. Smaller lenses don't have as much need to be disguised ;-)) I'm heading to Italy in two weeks and plan on taking nothing by my 28-70 and 20-35. I'll see what happens. How big are those lenses? What's their aperture? As to enlargement size, I regularly go to 11x14 and frequently 16x20 and am very pleased with what I get in return. We can discuss this point all day, but without seeing your results and knowing what satisfies you, there's no way to know the quality of your prints. Describing the quality of a photograph, or anything, with just words leaves much to be desired. As to the varifocal issue, with today's AF capabilities even on the most basic cameras, the time it takes to compose, focus, zoom, re-focus with a zoom lens generally should always be far faster than compose, focus, CHANGE LENS, re-compose, re-focus with a prime. This assumes that one wants to change the focal length. Most street shooters that I've encountered go out with one to three cameras, and shoot with a particular focal length. Juan and I went shooting on Sunday, and based on where we were and the subjects we were focusing on, we agreed it was a wide to normal kind of day. I was using two bodies, one with a 35mm and the other with a 50mm. Juan was using two bodies, one with a 24mm and the other with a 50mm. We both had longer lenses but they weren't appropriate. The difference, I think, is that we knew what we wanted, and weren't just hunting for subjects. What we wanted to photograph required lenses in the range we chose. Speaking only for myself, I don't try to capture every Kodak Moment, but rather, work by focusing on the subject matter that I went out originally to photograph. Believe me, lots of good photos get passed by, but the quality of what I do get may be improved because the shooting day is specifically directed. BTW, Shel - I don't care what anybody says, I don't think you look anything like Hannibal Lecter. Which Hannibal Lecter am I supposed to look like? I was thinking more along the lines of Abby Hoffman, but, of course, that's just my opinion! If you're basing your opinion on a 30+ year old photo, I'd suggest that your opinion is wrong g. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
I have owned the Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 before and it's a good lens but it's not better than the above mentioned primes. Not to mention the mighty Pentax SMC. regards, Alan Chan _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp - 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 Scratches Again - Hopefully Solved
Cheap film extrator: Get a roll of Dymo label tape. take a few inches of the tape and peel off the backing. Rotate tie film as if manually rewinding it until it clicks. Insert the dymo tape glue side down into the film cartridge as far as is easy. Wind the film backwards until the tape starts to be sucked into the magazine. Pull the tape, and the film leader out. 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: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6...
I do have a 400 5.6 for sale (manual diaphragm). Excellent condition, with tripod collar, both caps and filter. You can look at it at: www.martintrucco.com.ar/400A.jpg www.martintrucco.com.ar/400B.jpg www.martintrucco.com.ar/400C.jpg Martin www.martintrucco.com.ar/english.htm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Martes, 30 de Octubre de 2001 08:43 p.m. Subject: Re: SMC-A 400mm f/5.6... What's a SMC-A 400mm f/5.6 worth in 9+ condition? How about the matching 1.4X-L converter? John, $450 would be a good buy. $650+ might be more typical. The matching converter is the A 1.4X-S or A 2.0X-S. They are for the shorter lenses. The L converters are for big, expensive glass like the 400mm F2.8. Regards, Bob 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 .
Kudos to Pentax Colorado
I recently had a very nice experience with Pentax Colorado. The story starts about a year ago when I did serious damage to my LX Motor Drive . I don't think I ever related this incident to the list because it was, well, quite embarrassing. I was going to try to shoot some birds in the marsh near my house, and I fitted my LX with the motor drive, nicad pack, and an SMC Pentax 400/5.6. Big, heavy glass. I figured I'd use my monopod, but I absent mindedly screwed it into the nicad power pack instead of the lens' tripod mount. I think I held the camera by the lens and monopod as I walked toward the marsh, but then I used the monopod as a walking stick of sorts while I climbed the fence near the marsh. Ouch! The weight of the lens ripped the bottom plate of the motor drive free of the rest of the unit, twisting the tripod mount in the process. I sent the drive and the nicad pack to Pentax Colorado, told them what I had done and asked them to repair the pieces as necessary. They replaced the bottom plate on the motor drive and made other repairs as necessary. The bill was only $50. When I got the drive back, I shot a roll with it, but the drive indicated that the roll was finished after only 24 frames. I unloaded the roll, looked at it, saw it was a 36 and figured it had been mislabeled by Kodak. I think I subsequently noticed that there were, in fact, a dozen unexposed frames after the film was processed, but I didn't give it much thought. I didn't use the drive again for quite awhile, but when I did, it indicated rewind after about 6 frames. I wondered if I had misloaded the film, and tried the drive without film. Again, it indicated reload after just a half dozen frames or so, particularly when used in continuous mode. By this time, the warranty had almost expired. But I had other things on my mind, so I didn't send it back to Pentax. Finally, after about 11 months, I returned it to Pentax Colorado and told my story. I said I realized the warranty had expired and that I would pay for a repair if necessary. Well, a couple of weeks passed, and I didn't hear from them. I was just about to get a bit annoyed when the drive showed up in the mail. Repaired and working perfectly. No charge. I thought that was pretty darn good. - 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: Only using my prime lenses - I promise
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote: I have been toying with getting a wide zoom, but your post gives me something to think about. For now, I have the K24/3.5 and the M24-35/3.5 and they're two very different lenses as far as handling goes. The zoom shows more at 24mm than the prime does, but the prime is easier to focus, and subjects seem to jump in and out of focus more distinctly with the prime than the zoom. I find there's a huge difference between 24 and 35mm, but almost nothing between 28mm and 24mm. If I had to use primes I'd cover the wides with a 24 and a 35mm, but the zoom allows for a bit more flexibility, which is nice when I'm trying to travel light. Though I prefer primes for a variety of reasons, I'm not sure I agree 100% with the zooms=laziness argument. I'd say that there are two factors involved: the angle of view of the photo (what to include within the two dimensions of the frame) and the perspective of the photo (the apparent depth of the photo based on one's distance from the subject). Using zooms allows us to fine-tune the angle of view, which is exercising a certain creativity, but it encourages us to be lazy when it comes to perspective. That is, if we want to make an object seem larger, it's easier to zoom in than it is to walk closer, and so all the shots we'll take will have the same perspective, even if the angle of view is different. This is because cropping and enlarging part of a photo shot at, say, 28mm from a particular location will give the same perspective as if you had shot with a 200mm lens from that same point. With me so far? Primes are great for playing with perspective. Because we can't stand in one spot and zoom, we have to move around to get different shots, and thus the perspective and/or depth of each photo will be different, since we'll be at different distances from the subject. In other words, taking two shots of a subject from the same location with a zoom (say, at 28mm and 200mm) will result in two shots with different angles of view but the same perspective, which you can see by cropping and enlarging the part of the 28mm shot that corresponds with the framing of the 200mm one. On the other hand, taking two shots with the prime will force us to change position (since we can't zoom), thus allowing two different perspectives to result. However, I think primes can make us lazy when it comes to angle of view. Zooms allow us to cycle quickly through a variety of focal lengths to determine which one best suits the scene, while primes lock us into one focal length, unless we're willing to take the time and energy to change lenses repeatedly until we find the best focal length for each particular shot. In other words, taking two shots at 28mm (one close, one far away) of a subject will result in two different perspectives, but you're still working with one basic focal length, which discourages you from trying other focal lengths; that's where the laziness comes into play. I'm not arguing that it's wrong to restrict yourself in some way, because it's often by limiting your options that you learn to make the most of what you have. But why come down so hard on zooms for encouraging laziness in changing perspective when primes encourage laziness in changing focal lengths and the angle of view? Surely it's no less valuable to restrict oneself to a certain perspective and play with framing than it is to restrict oneself to a certain focal length and play with perspective. N.B. When I talk about restricting oneself, I hope it's clear that this is addressing the general nature of primes and zooms that started this discussion. Obviously one can walk with a zoom and change perspective, and can change primes to take advantage of different focal lengths. I'm talking more about the way in which these lenses seem to encourage certain types of behaviour. 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: so many questions
The last time I traveled to Mexico City I decided that I ought not to take more than 3 lenses. I chose a 35, a 100 and a 200. This seemed to provide adequate coverage for most picture taking situations. Paul Lon Williamson wrote: Sandmann, Silke wrote: Is it right, that the 28:70 is adviseable? What about the telephoto lens? I am grateful for any advises of you experienced Pentax user. I mean, everybody has started .. Any coments are appreciated. I suggest, if you're going with prime (not zoom) lenses, to get optics in rough doubles. If you're starting with a 50-55mm, add a 100 or 28 (a lot cheaper than the 24s). Then tack on a 200. A fair amount of folks I know stick with: 28 mm 50-55 mm 100-105 mm 200 mm Anything past 200 gets expensive, as does anything below 28. -Lon - 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: Scanners Again
Hi RH, I have never used a flat-bed scanner to scan film. The last I had heard, film scans from flat-beds were FAR inferior to a dedicated film scanner. At $114, I would tend to think that would definitely be the case. I had, and several others do on the list, a Pacific Image Primefilm 1800u. At $199, it is a film scanner and will give respectable results, probably far better than a flat-bed with a film adapter (which is an after thought). For that amount of money, I suspect it would be the better option for film. See some of my PUG shots that I used it for. It did, in my opinion, a nice job for the price. http://pug.komkon.org/00octo/Highlands.html http://pug.komkon.org/01feb/fishheds.html http://pug.komkon.org/01jan/RedSkyatDawn.html http://pug.komkon.org/01mar/earthrec.html To sum it up, I think there is likely a BIG difference between film scanners and flat-bed adapters. Tom C. - Original Message - From: RH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:49 PM Subject: Scanners Again Howdy All, You were talkign about scanners a few days back and I was wondering if anyone had any experience with the Scantek 4800. It is a 1200x2400 scanner that comes with a light lid adapter to scan negatives and slides with. I guess it provides backlighting for the negatives so they scan better. At $114 I don't expect the quality of an Agfa Professional but should it work decently for home and school use of scanning negs? - 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 .
