LX enablement...
Hi guys & gals,...
For the past few weeks I've had the pleasure of using a borrowed LX, with the
possibility of purchasing it in the near future as its owner is getting a digital
camera around xmas time and wants to sell one of his LXes to help finance it.
I haven't really used it much because I've been really busy lately. In fact, I'd
only run two rolls of film through it, one print and one slide. The pictures I took
on the print film mostly sucked (my fault), and I haven't really looked at the
slides yet.
I'm returning the camera tomorrow so I took it out for a last session today. I
made a point of only taking four of my favourite manual focus lenses: SMCP
35/3.5, SMCP 50/1.2, SMC-A* 85/1.4 and the SMCP 135/2.5. I also made a
point of using all the lenses at least once.
The day was overcast which was just perfect for grabbing a few outdoor
portraits of my girlfriend (with the usual level of cooperation:), and quite a few
scenic pictures of the river mouth and estuary where we were walking. She
even managed to get a pic of me, as much as I hate having my photo taken
(yeah I know its hypocritical of me).
I want you all to know that I thoroughly enjoyed using the kit, despite wishing
I'd brought the 300/4 a couple of times. The 85/1.4 can do some pretty good
closeups and the 35/3.5 is the perfect companion to the LX due to its small
size and light weight (and versatile focal length).
Then after I got home I found out just how good the LX is for macro. It is the
_perfect_ macro camera. I wanted to take an extreme closeup of an LCD
module I've been playing with. So I put the FA100/2.8 macro onto my entire
set of extension tubes (total 68mm extension), then all that went on my 2x
teleconverter. I think it ends up around 4x magnification. I put some text on
the display ("Pentax" on one line and "LX" below it), turned the backlight on,
then set the rig up to take the photo.
Having trouble focussing, I popped the viewfinder off and used my 10x loupe
to focus. I then set the lens to f/8, set the LX to "auto", screwed in a cable
release, checked the focus one last time, and released the shutter. Exactly
three minutes later I had my photo :)
I finished the roll by grabbing the flash and walking through the house doing
handheld macros (without the highly unstable rig described above).
That camera is really nice I'll have the films back within a week, depending
when I drop them off.
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: astrophotograghy and MX screens
I should think focussing the sun or moon would be easy since they are at infinity. Exposure for the moon is usually about the same as bright daylight, that after all is what is illuminating it, f11 @ 1/film-speed should give good exposure with negative film. Solar photography is a rather specialized field, would depend on what kind of neutral density filter you are using, I guess. Plain matte (ground glass) screens should be fine for most shots above. For more specialized astro stuff a clear screen (plain glass) is the way to go. Clear screens usually have a small crosshair in the center for aiming and focusing the telescope, or a microscope. Clear screens give the brightest possible viewfinder image. Ciao, graywolf - Original Message - From: Joseph E Ringer III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I don't use the meter on the moon or sun, I've got my trusty tables. > :-) When focusing I find the split ring/microprism collar distracting > and useless. I'd much prefer a plain matte screen as I read that it's > easier to focus something like the sun or moon on a fine matte than a > clear screen??? BTW, I don't do deep sky which is why I'm not looking > for a brighter screen just an unobstructed one. I hate when I frame a > sunspot group the way I want but can't focus because the group is > under or obscured by the ring/collar. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: The Challenge
You are right, Maris, I did say that. Now I am having second thoughts on the matter, and want to see what the list members think of it. This is not some kind of national contest, judged by flunkies where the rules are absolute. I am more interested in being fair than being right. The question is: would the list feel the printer ratings would be more useful to them if they came only from photos by their peers, or would any print from that printer be just as useful? I have no problem with it either way, and will provide my rating of their printer to everyone who send in a print for their information regardless of the decision based on feedback to that question. It would only affect the published ratings. --graywolf - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 8:27 PM Subject: Re: The Challenge > Mike, you are correct. What follows is my exchange with Tom when I asked him whether he wants an image I took or something like a Photodisc target: > > "There is no requirements other than they show off the photo printing > capabilities of the printer. > > The whole thing started when I commented that I had never seen a print from > a consumer inkjet that was comparable to a photograph. Someone said I hadn't > seen his. My reply was, "Show me". He didn't but Aaron Reynolds said > everybody should send me a print. Thinking about that made me realize that a > photo printer rating would be a useful thing, so I upgraded the idea to what > it is now. > > The Master Digital Printer idea was added to provide some kind of deadline > That deadline just became very real because the local Pentax rep has offered > to donate a prize for the best print of all. > > You are the first to hear about the grand prize as I haven't gotten a chance > to post it to the list yet. (Major computer crash). > - Original Message - > From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-digest V1 #1646 > > > Are you looking for prints of something like the Photodisc target, or prints > of photos taken? > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 2:16 AM > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-digest V1 #1646 > > > | Whatever you think shows of your printer best. Glossy is the easiest to > | compare with photo prints, but do your own thing. > | I am attaching the challenge post FYI. It has all the info in it. > | > | --graywolf > | - > | The optimist's cup is half full, > | The pessimist's is half empty, > | The wise man enjoys his drink. > | > | > | - Original Message - > | From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 1:07 AM > | Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-digest V1 #1646 > | > | > | > I missed the beginning of this thread. > | > > | > I have the Epson C80. If you want any prints from that, tell me what > | papers to use (the only Epson glossy it works well with is Epson > | Professional Glossy) and I will send them. > | > > | > Maris > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 6:32 PM > Subject: The Challenge > > > | Tom R. wrote: > | > | > I have received prints from a couple of list members that were not their > | > pictures. They in my opinion were about what you would get if you pressed the > | > button on that printer down at the computer store. Really nice, but could you > | > or I get that, not having a $100/hr PhotoShop expert to tweak our scans for > | > us? > | > | > | Wait a minute, now, the original challenge had nothing to do with what WE as > | PDMLers could do in digital, it had to do with how good digital prints can > | look--and whether or not they could be called "photo quality." It was never > | specified that it had to be a picture shot with our own equipment or even > | printer on our own printers. > | > | Or am I wrong about this? That's what I remember. > | > | I sent prints made with the Pentax Optio 330 in order to be "On Topic" on > | the list, and the Canon EOS D30 in order to show what a good digital SLR can > | do. The Optio print came from Pentax Japan's web site and the Canon print > | from an original picture posted at dpreview. I don't mind not being eligible > | for prizes, but fair's fair--the prints are digital prints through and > | through and fairly show what digital prints can look like. > | > | If you're considering traditional photographic print quality, you wouldn't > | fault me for using a good lens or a good film, would you? Or for picking a > | shot that looked good? C'mon now. > | > | --Mike > | - > | This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
Re: New Pentax digital SLR
Mark wrote: >So you are right - it does not make sense to devote a lot of effort to >building a high end digital that will soon be obsolete. However, given the >inevitability of digital, some articulation of a plan to adapt to the new >technology from Pentax would be wise. Given that this company has been a >late adapter in other arenas, that it has been hurt by it's lack of >nimbleness, and that it just scrapped a major project that was designed to >demonstrate its commitment to digital (the digital Mz-S) - some signal that >Pentax has a plan and intends to survive would be appreciated. I think a >white paper or vision statement on its website could do it - without >compromising trade secrets or anything. But isn't this exactly what Pentax have done? They have said that theres no point in releasing the MZ-D prototype as showed at Photokina because its essentially obsolete already. Hence, they will make a more competitive digital camera based on the same platform instead. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Using Jobo Processor for E6
Hi folks, Is anyone using a Jobo processor for E6? I've seen a couple of the low end units (CPE6?) advertised recently for around the $200 mark and thought that this might make it possible for me to afford to shoot 4x5 in colour. I only know of one place in town that will process sheet film and by the time I pay for film and processing it works out at around $5 per sheet, plus the hassle of getting the film to and fro for processing. The price of scanners has dropped enough that I can seriously consider getting a 4000 dpi 35mm unit and a 2400dpi flat bed with medium/large format transparency adapter. So I could pretty much shoot in whatever format I like, develop the film and scan the result. the questions are: 1. How easy are they to load? 2. What are the running cost like? i.e. how many 35 or 120 rolls do you get per batch of chemicals? 3. What are the results like? Do they give the same result time after time? Is it as good as at a pro lab? 4. Any troubles withs scratches or contamination? 5. Anything to be wary of in second hand units - pieces that are easily lost, expensive parts that need servicing/replacing thanks, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Processing 20+ year old film
Hi folks, I recently had a look at my mother's old box brownie, and discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak Verichrome Pan, in 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - 25 years old. For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well have a go at developing it. Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or hotter than normal? I'll be using ID 11. BTW, I was browing through the book of Pulitzer prize winning photographs (images? - at least one was digital) and discovered that Box Brownies had been used to take just as many prize winning photos as Pentax cameras, which is to say one each. Most were taken with Speed Graphics, Leicas and Nikons. Very few Canons or Hasselblads, a couple with Minoltas and I think maybe an Olympus. The Pentax was a Spotmatic of course. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
More about portfolios & photo essays
Hi,
during the discussion about portfolios it seems clear to me that 2
things are very important, namely variety and cohesion. I've mentioned
before that I think planning and building a portfolio is similar in
many ways to planning and building a photo essay, so I thought it
might be worthwhile to pass on what 'Life' magazine used to expect of
its photographers when they were shooting an essay. This information
is from Ken Kobre's book "Photojournalism: the Professionals'
Approach".
To try and ensure that the photographers returned with sufficient
variety for the editors and layout people to be able to design an
essay with pace, rhythm and variety, 'Life' recommended that the
photographers try to get photos under 8 different categories, and this
is what I believe is meany by variety. The categories are:
1. Introductory/overall - to establish the scene
2. Medium - focusing on one activity or group
3. Close-up - zoom in on one element, eg hands or detail of a building
4. Portrait - headshot or person in setting
5. Interaction - people conversing or in action
6. Signature - summarise with key elements in one photo ('decisive
moment')
7. Sequence - how-to, before & after, or series: gives a sense of
action
8. Clincher - to close the story
David Hurn, in 'On being a photographer', recommends a similar
approach, although his list is shorter (but included in the 'Life'
list). He recommends that as you shoot the essay (and as you edit a
portfolio) you classify your photos under these headings. When you have
shot everything you had originally planned (ie all the subjects that are
important to the essay), and you have a choice of pictures under most of
the categories above, then you know you have sufficient material to build
a coherent, balanced, rhythmic and varied set of photos, whether it's an
exhibition, essay or portfolio.
It's a useful exercise to analyse published photo essays and see how
they fit into this general scheme. It could be the classics by WES, or
current work in National Geographic, or web-sites such as www.reportage.org.
This kind of analysis will probably improve the way you approach a subject
and how you go about shooting it, and it should also help to edit work
that's already finished.
---
Cheers,
Bob
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: Processing 20+ year old film
I would extend development time by about 50% at standard temperature. I attempted a similar project about a year ago. A friend at work found a roll of 120 in an old Agfa rangefinder. In this case, the film was at least 40 years old. I developed it, but it appeared that the camera had been opened, as the roll was hopelessly fogged. However, the emulsion did turn an uneven black, as one would expect when a camera has been opened before the film was rewound. Paul Paul Ewins wrote: > Hi folks, > I recently had a look at my mother's old box brownie, and > discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak Verichrome Pan, in > 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - 25 years old. > For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well have a go at > developing it. > Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or hotter than > normal? I'll be using ID 11. > > BTW, I was browing through the book of Pulitzer prize winning photographs > (images? - at least one was digital) and discovered that Box Brownies had > been used to take just as many prize winning photos as Pentax cameras, which > is to say one each. Most were taken with Speed Graphics, Leicas and Nikons. > Very few Canons or Hasselblads, a couple with Minoltas and I think maybe an > Olympus. The Pentax was a Spotmatic of course. > > Paul Ewins > Melbourne, Australia > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > 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: More about portfolios & photo essays
In a message dated 12/9/01 7:14:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > "To try and ensure that the photographers returned with sufficient variety > for the editors and layout people to be able to design an essay with pace, > rhythm and variety, 'Life' recommended that the photographers try to get > photos under 8 different categories, and this is what I believe is meany by > variety." And they literally shoot hundreds-thousands of slides to make up one 4 to 12 photo layout. **I made nearly seven-hundred shots on my first Haiti layout. They printed 1 photo, of kids drinking water out of a spigot at the new well the contributors had donated. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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: New Pentax digital SLR
> Mark wrote: > > > > >So you are right - it does not make sense to devote a lot of effort to > >building a high end digital that will soon be obsolete. However, given > the > >inevitability of digital, some articulation of a plan to adapt to the new > >technology from Pentax would be wise. Given that this company has been a > >late adapter in other arenas, that it has been hurt by it's lack of > >nimbleness, and that it just scrapped a major project that was designed > to > >demonstrate its commitment to digital (the digital Mz-S) - some signal > that > >Pentax has a plan and intends to survive would be appreciated. I think a > >white paper or vision statement on its website could do it - without > >compromising trade secrets or anything. > Pål answered: > But isn't this exactly what Pentax have done? They have said that theres > no > point in releasing the MZ-D prototype as showed at Photokina because its > essentially obsolete already. Hence, they will make a more competitive > digital camera based on the same platform instead. > > > Pål > > I don't see how the MZ-D is already obsolete. I thought it was a question of pricing themselves into a market they did not want to be. There seems to be no reason why they would not address a full '35mm-format' size CCD in a camera. A comparable CCD size as is currently available in a Pentax would put them into a competitive price market and then they could possibly go high-end. These are just my thoughts. Something I cannot understand is how a digital camera becomes 'obsolete.' The fact that I have a 3.1 megapixel digital camera still makes it a digital camera that produces good images (still meeting my original useage criteria) six years from now. The fact that there may be 6, 7, or 10 megapixel cameras out there does not make my digital obsolete - just not top of the line in terms of size. I can understand obsolete in terms of parts or service support, but not in the sense I keep seeing the term being used. César Matamoros II Panama City, Florida in New York City - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Photo Greeting Cards
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Malcolm Smith wrote: > I would like to have Christmas cards made from some slides I took a few > years back in the forest, lots of snow a festive appeal. I approached a few > companies who would print the cards, but the minimum order would see me to > 2020 with them! > > Would I be better off investing in a good printer and software package? I did something like this last year - I took a picture someone else had shot of me, the wife and the little girl (about five months old then) and just stuck in it a card with no caption. Sure, it's not the greatest quality in the world, but it's nice when your little family is halfway around the world from your relatives - they open the card and there's a little picture of us waving at them. Alternatively, you could print on A5 card and just fold it over. Any reasonable printer would do, really. If you can double side it, very good, but you can just write something on the inside, does the job too. dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Processing 20+ year old film
Please let us know how it develops (pun unintended). Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Ewins Sent: 09 December 2001 11:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Processing 20+ year old film Hi folks, I recently had a look at my mother's old box brownie, and discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak Verichrome Pan, in 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - 25 years old. For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well have a go at developing it. Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or hotter than normal? I'll be using ID 11. BTW, I was browing through the book of Pulitzer prize winning photographs (images? - at least one was digital) and discovered that Box Brownies had been used to take just as many prize winning photos as Pentax cameras, which is to say one each. Most were taken with Speed Graphics, Leicas and Nikons. Very few Canons or Hasselblads, a couple with Minoltas and I think maybe an Olympus. The Pentax was a Spotmatic of course. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Photo Greeting Cards
Thanks Dave, That's not a bad idea at all, sticking a photo on. The one thing that I have learnt here is to try different methods so I expect I'll try a bit of each and see what works for me. About time the printer did something creative. I too have family scattered about, hence the desire for something more personal and no doubt my children will get in on the act (three under 7)! Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of dave o'brien Sent: 10 December 2001 06:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Photo Greeting Cards On Sat, 8 Dec 2001, Malcolm Smith wrote: > I would like to have Christmas cards made from some slides I took a few > years back in the forest, lots of snow a festive appeal. I approached a few > companies who would print the cards, but the minimum order would see me to > 2020 with them! > > Would I be better off investing in a good printer and software package? I did something like this last year - I took a picture someone else had shot of me, the wife and the little girl (about five months old then) and just stuck in it a card with no caption. Sure, it's not the greatest quality in the world, but it's nice when your little family is halfway around the world from your relatives - they open the card and there's a little picture of us waving at them. Alternatively, you could print on A5 card and just fold it over. Any reasonable printer would do, really. If you can double side it, very good, but you can just write something on the inside, does the job too. dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: 135mm 1.8 or faster
Kevin wrote: >I am looking for 135mm lense, can be manual or AF >I need one about f1.8, does such a creature exist? Yes, there is a Pentax-A* 135/1.8. I recently sold mine for 1400USD to a PDML member in Japan. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX enablement...
Dave;
I think I speak for all the LXers when I say you'd be a fool not to buy it!
;-) (notice the wink!)
I use my LX for Macro photography and absolutely love it. I never even held
one before buying mine on eBay. I just KNEW it was the perfect camera for
me. (Mind you I did a lot of research beforehand...)
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:36 AM
Subject: LX enablement...
> Hi guys & gals,...
>
> For the past few weeks I've had the pleasure of using a borrowed LX, with
the
> possibility of purchasing it in the near future as its owner is getting a
digital
> camera around xmas time and wants to sell one of his LXes to help finance
it.
> I haven't really used it much because I've been really busy lately. In
fact, I'd
> only run two rolls of film through it, one print and one slide. The
pictures I took
> on the print film mostly sucked (my fault), and I haven't really looked at
the
> slides yet.
>
> I'm returning the camera tomorrow so I took it out for a last session
today. I
> made a point of only taking four of my favourite manual focus lenses: SMCP
> 35/3.5, SMCP 50/1.2, SMC-A* 85/1.4 and the SMCP 135/2.5. I also made a
> point of using all the lenses at least once.
>
> The day was overcast which was just perfect for grabbing a few outdoor
> portraits of my girlfriend (with the usual level of cooperation:), and
quite a few
> scenic pictures of the river mouth and estuary where we were walking. She
> even managed to get a pic of me, as much as I hate having my photo taken
> (yeah I know its hypocritical of me).
>
> I want you all to know that I thoroughly enjoyed using the kit, despite
wishing
> I'd brought the 300/4 a couple of times. The 85/1.4 can do some pretty
good
> closeups and the 35/3.5 is the perfect companion to the LX due to its
small
> size and light weight (and versatile focal length).
>
> Then after I got home I found out just how good the LX is for macro. It
is the
> _perfect_ macro camera. I wanted to take an extreme closeup of an LCD
> module I've been playing with. So I put the FA100/2.8 macro onto my
entire
> set of extension tubes (total 68mm extension), then all that went on my 2x
> teleconverter. I think it ends up around 4x magnification. I put some
text on
> the display ("Pentax" on one line and "LX" below it), turned the backlight
on,
> then set the rig up to take the photo.
>
> Having trouble focussing, I popped the viewfinder off and used my 10x
loupe
> to focus. I then set the lens to f/8, set the LX to "auto", screwed in a
cable
> release, checked the focus one last time, and released the shutter.
Exactly
> three minutes later I had my photo :)
>
> I finished the roll by grabbing the flash and walking through the house
doing
> handheld macros (without the highly unstable rig described above).
>
> That camera is really nice I'll have the films back within a week,
depending
> when I drop them off.
>
> 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 .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
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: Variable aperture zoom question
Sac> I'm standing by to be corrected. Sac> Mafud Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sac> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mafud, the correction is simple ;) do you have a variable aperture zoom? try it yourself. Point a variable aperture zoom toward a evenly lit wall, set ~YOURSELF~ an aperture (e.g. f/8), and see the corresponding shutter speed change as you zoom in and out. JUST DO IT Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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 hunt for an LX has begun
Well, I went out this morning and chose a camera magazine, not on its articles, but on its number of adverts. As I haven't been looking for a camera for over 17 years, I found: 1. I didn't recognise many cameras at all 2. I now need to look in many dealers vintage/classic website sections! Prices about what I had expected, but I can only afford a body, so it will share the MX lenses. I noticed that MX prices have gone up since I looked for a valuation price in 1998. I never looked at anything else because the MX has always done everything I've needed to date, but the pull of an LX is now too much... Malcolm - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Processing 20+ year old film
- Original Message - From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:44 AM Subject: Processing 20+ year old film > Hi folks, > I recently had a look at my mother's old box brownie, and > discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak Verichrome Pan, in > 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - 25 years old. > For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well have a go at > developing it. > Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or hotter than > normal? I'll be using ID 11. The problem you are going to run into is increased base fog. You will probably want to add an anti fog agent, benzotriazole is the classic anti-fog agent. Phenidone is also an anti fogging agent, so any developer with it in the formulae will have anti-fogging characteristics. ID-11 is a classic metol/hydroquinone formulation, but does not use phenidone in the formula. The only developer I know for sure that does is Bromophen, which is nominally a paper developer. I can be used as a film developer, but it isn't easy. If you don't want to goof around with a bunch of chemistry, soup it in cool ID-11, with a 1:1 dilution at 18º for 9 minutes. Have fun 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: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE?
AC> I believe all Pentax 35mm bodies since the P series use plastic. This part AC> is quite easy to replace. AC> regards, AC> Alan Chan Thanks, Alan. I am sure it will be a quick repair (IF I can do it myself - I am pretty sure my local authorised Pentax repair would overcharge me - I have had bad dealings with them in the past. Hopefully I can get the part elsewhere). I was just hoping that a more reliable body part could be inserted there instead of the plastic one. This one failed me during a paid assigment where I fortunately used a spotmeter as my exposure meter (not metering TTL at all) so no ruined pictures, fortunately. Frantisek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX enablement...
Hi David ... I like your idea for critical focusing. While their are several magnifiers (magnifier M, refconverters M & A, and magnifying viewfinders) that work with the LX, the idea of using a loupe sounds very interesting. Is yours a small loupe that you can place on the screen? Can you elaborate a little more on the technique? Thanks. "David A. Mann" wrote: > Having trouble focussing, I popped the viewfinder off and used my 10x loupe > to focus. I then set the lens to f/8, set the LX to "auto", screwed in a cable > release, checked the focus one last time, and released the shutter. Exactly > three minutes later I had my photo :) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: PDML Challenge (opinions wanted)
On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 06:25 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > The digital shots were scanned from 8x10 originals and printed on an > Epson 1 > (is that a consumer grade printer ?). The Epson 1 is the 44 inch wide, faster printing version of the 7500 that I have (which is only 24 inches wide), and the 7500 is the 24 inch wide version of the 2000P, which is at the top end of consumer printers. -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: An ME Super? Could you spare it?
On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 05:43 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Cheapskate Aaron wrote: > >> I bought Vanessa an ME Super, so she's a Pentax girl. You might try to >> work it that way, Chris. > > > Not even a ZX-5N? What's her engagement ring made of, kid, glass? > > --Mike > > Just kidding, Aaron. But I figured you'd spend more money where it > really > counts. Hey, what's wrong with the ME Super? I loved my ME Super for the decade it served me. I'd flame you if I didn't know you were a smartass already. I think that I personally would rather have an ME Super than an MZ-5N, BUT I'd take an MZ-5N built like the MZ-S over an ME Super. And the engagement ring cost exactly what the used M* 300mm f4 for Pentax 6x7 cost (used) at Henry's during their fall sale. Exactly the same, to the dollar. Oh, the irony. -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: No more Nikon girls
On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 05:36 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Aaron wrote: > >> Not that it matters anymore, since I'm getting married, but Aaron's two >> rules were No More Nikon Girls and No More 'Actresses'. > > > > My rules are no more married women, no more women in the middle of a > divorce, no more models, no more (much) younger women, and no more > lawyers. > > At my age that doesn't leave much. Did you hear that, PDML? MIKE SAYS THAT HE'D DATE A NIKON GIRL. Mike, you know I love you, but I fear you must be shunned over this. -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: Processing 20+ year old film
Is there really hope with processing very old film? It's great to hear there may be . I wish I had seen a post like this a couple of months back, as a friend binned a film which had been in a camera for about 14 years. I suggested he had done the best thing - I would like to be proven wrong. How do the professional processors here think about it? Has anyone any stories about people coming in with old film to be developed? A final thought - does anyone have any undeveloped film that should be processed soon! I hope, as I have said before that Paul Ewins film comes out OK. Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: 09 December 2001 16:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Processing 20+ year old film - Original Message - From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:44 AM Subject: Processing 20+ year old film > Hi folks, > I recently had a look at my mother's old box brownie, and > discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak Verichrome Pan, in > 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - 25 years old. > For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well have a go at > developing it. > Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or hotter than > normal? I'll be using ID 11. The problem you are going to run into is increased base fog. You will probably want to add an anti fog agent, benzotriazole is the classic anti-fog agent. Phenidone is also an anti fogging agent, so any developer with it in the formulae will have anti-fogging characteristics. ID-11 is a classic metol/hydroquinone formulation, but does not use phenidone in the formula. The only developer I know for sure that does is Bromophen, which is nominally a paper developer. I can be used as a film developer, but it isn't easy. If you don't want to goof around with a bunch of chemistry, soup it in cool ID-11, with a 1:1 dilution at 18º for 9 minutes. Have fun 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 . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: The Challenge
On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 07:32 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > If you're considering traditional photographic print quality, you > wouldn't > fault me for using a good lens or a good film, would you? Or for > picking a > shot that looked good? C'mon now. Hell, I'm wandering through my giant negative pile looking for the ideal "wow" pic for my printer. That's part of what's taking me so long, too...finding the time to prep one of my own images to the same degree that I prep customer work for optimal printing. I have this rule about staying late at work: I don't. -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: The Challenge
Paul S. wrote: > I met the Epson rep today at Comp USA. He would be glad to provide some of > their > display prints they use to promote the 1280 and the 2000, but I don't think > that's > what we set out to do. I thought this was all about what PDML members were > able to > accomplish in the digital darkroom. If not, it should have been called the > Printer > Manufacturer Challenge, not the PDML Challenge. Paul, I made the prints I sent. I just didn't take the pictures. (And neither did the printer manufacturer.) I don't mind not being considered for prizes (although if the rules had been clear I would have done differently), but I went to some trouble to find the examples, print them, and mail them, and I wouldn't be happy to have my contribution disregarded entirely. --Mike P.S. Actually one of the nice things about digital is that if you can find full files on the web to download, you can print an "original" picture from any given camera on your own equipment. It matters not to the final result whether you downloaded somebody else's picture from the web or from your own camera after having taken it yourself. As somebody who has spent a lot of time over the years procuring cameras to try them and see what they can do, this is a nice advantage--I now have "original" E-20 prints made on my equipment despite the fact that I have never taken any pictures with the E-20. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: PDML Challenge (opinions wanted)
I had an interesting conversation with an Epson rep yesterday at Comp USA. I told him I wasn't sure whether I'd go for the 1280 or the 2000P when it came time to replace my 1200 (which is still capable of "F" prints, but won't last forever). He said that while the 2000P prints will last longer than those from the 1280, the 1280 actually is capable of producing a wider range of color. The 2000P prints, he said, are subtler and are generally prefered by portrait photographers. He showed me sample prints of the same scan from each. The 1280 print was extremely brilliant and contrasty, the 2000P print was very attractive but decidedly more subdued. I suspect one could make up most of the difference in the way the scan is handled in PhotoShop, but it's an interesting distinction. Paul Aaron Reynolds wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 06:25 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > > > The digital shots were scanned from 8x10 originals and printed on an > > Epson 1 > > (is that a consumer grade printer ?). > > The Epson 1 is the 44 inch wide, faster printing version of the 7500 > that I have (which is only 24 inches wide), and the 7500 is the 24 inch > wide version of the 2000P, which is at the top end of consumer printers. > > -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 .
RE: No more Nikon girls
EEK! Does that mean a Polaroid option is open? Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: 09 December 2001 15:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: No more Nikon girls On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 05:36 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Aaron wrote: > >> Not that it matters anymore, since I'm getting married, but Aaron's two >> rules were No More Nikon Girls and No More 'Actresses'. > > > > My rules are no more married women, no more women in the middle of a > divorce, no more models, no more (much) younger women, and no more > lawyers. > > At my age that doesn't leave much. Did you hear that, PDML? MIKE SAYS THAT HE'D DATE A NIKON GIRL. Mike, you know I love you, but I fear you must be shunned over this. -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 .
Re: The Challenge
I wouldn't want your efforts to be disregarded. I guess my initial response to Tom's query is a function of the way I perceive the process. To me, printing is an extension of my personal photography. I have never extended my services to others, except on rare occasions where I was doing a favor for a friend. I know that you, on the other hand, have printed for any number of clients, including some very excellent ones. Thus, you probably see darkrrom work and printing as something separate and apart from your own photography. In any event, it doesn't really matter, there's little at stake here: we're just having making pictures. Happy printing, Paul Mike Johnston wrote: > > > I don't mind not being considered for prizes (although if the rules had been > clear I would have done differently), but I went to some trouble to find the > examples, print them, and mail them, and I wouldn't be happy to have my > contribution disregarded entirely. > > --Mike > > P.S. Actually one of the nice things about digital is that if you can find > full files on the web to download, you can print an "original" picture from > any given camera on your own equipment. It matters not to the final result > whether you downloaded somebody else's picture from the web or from your own > camera after having taken it yourself. As somebody who has spent a lot of > time over the years procuring cameras to try them and see what they can do, > this is a nice advantage--I now have "original" E-20 prints made on my > equipment despite the fact that I have never taken any pictures with the > E-20. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > 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: No more Nikon girls
In local.pentax, you wrote: >EEK! > >Does that mean a Polaroid option is open? There is one on http://elsa.photo.net . -- http://members.chello.nl/~j.schoone\\|// Registered Linux user #78364 - The Linux Counter - http://counter.li.org Assume nothing, expect anything. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: No more Nikon girls
Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > > Did you hear that, PDML? MIKE SAYS THAT HE'D DATE A NIKON GIRL. > > Mike, you know I love you, but I fear you must be shunned over this. > Hi, Aaron, I would say something to Mike about this, but I'm too busy shunning him! ;-) regards, frank -- "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: An ME Super? Could you spare it?
So potentially you could have parcel taped an M* 300mm f4 lens to her ring finger? Then again , life might appeal to you. Isn't great she wants to use your camera? One of my friends has a L..L..Leica (we don't use the 'l' word here) and she hates photography. Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: 09 December 2001 15:22 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An ME Super? Could you spare it? On Saturday, December 8, 2001, at 05:43 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Cheapskate Aaron wrote: > >> I bought Vanessa an ME Super, so she's a Pentax girl. You might try to >> work it that way, Chris. > > > Not even a ZX-5N? What's her engagement ring made of, kid, glass? > > --Mike > > Just kidding, Aaron. But I figured you'd spend more money where it > really > counts. Hey, what's wrong with the ME Super? I loved my ME Super for the decade it served me. I'd flame you if I didn't know you were a smartass already. I think that I personally would rather have an ME Super than an MZ-5N, BUT I'd take an MZ-5N built like the MZ-S over an ME Super. And the engagement ring cost exactly what the used M* 300mm f4 for Pentax 6x7 cost (used) at Henry's during their fall sale. Exactly the same, to the dollar. Oh, the irony. -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 .
RE: No more Nikon girls
I'm not exactly sure how to reply to this, but I'm sure Nikon girls don't reflect this (or Pentax etc..) Must be something about instant exposure and development? Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johan Schoone Sent: 09 December 2001 17:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: No more Nikon girls In local.pentax, you wrote: >EEK! > >Does that mean a Polaroid option is open? There is one on http://elsa.photo.net . -- http://members.chello.nl/~j.schoone\\|// Registered Linux user #78364 - The Linux Counter - http://counter.li.org Assume nothing, expect anything. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: PDML Challenge (opinions wanted)
On Sunday, December 9, 2001, at 12:21 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > He said that while the 2000P prints will last longer > than those from the 1280, the 1280 actually is capable of producing a > wider > range of color. The 2000P prints, he said, are subtler and are generally > prefered by portrait photographers. He showed me sample prints of the > same > scan from each. The 1280 print was extremely brilliant and contrasty, > the > 2000P print was very attractive but decidedly more subdued. I suspect > one > could make up most of the difference in the way the scan is handled in > PhotoShop, but it's an interesting distinction. It is. It's also the difference between the Epson 7000 and 7500 and the 9000 and 9500 (the 500s are the 2000P inkset, the '00s are the 1280 set). Much of the difference can be covered in Photoshop, but there are some specific neon colours that the 7500 cannot handle that my 1200 could. Now, here's what made the decision easy for me (and probably also explains the portrait guys' preference for the 2000P): the colours that the 2000P/7500/1 can't handle are also colours that traditional chemical printing cannot handle. So, while I could print some pretty loony colours with a 7000, I probably wouldn't, if I were trying to match a photographic print. -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: pentax-discuss-digest V1 #1713
Amish Pentaxians? :) CRB At 04:16 PM 12/9/01 -0500, you wrote: >Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 10:16:46 -0500 >From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Did you hear that, PDML? MIKE SAYS THAT HE'D DATE A NIKON GIRL. > >Mike, you know I love you, but I fear you must be shunned over this. > >- -Aaron * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Edith Keiler must die." -- Spock, 1930 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Converted to digital photography !
Hello the list Fist of all, forgive me for this long post. But I wanted to shere these thoughts with you. I just bought for my Club (an old-timer Car club) a new compact digital camera. Not a reflex, no. Just a standard 4 megapixel camera. A Casio QV4000. To tell you the truth, Im totally surprised. Astonished. Converted ! First of all, I like and practice photography since the late 70s. My first SLR was a PRAKTIKA MTL3 with a 50mm and a 135mm. Then my first PENTAX was a Me SUPER, bought new in 1981. I stayed with PENTAX since then (do not ask me why, its just like this ) and I used several Program A and SUPER A (I still have a SUPER A now), one Z-1 (that I still have), several Zoom 70 R and X (I have a 70-X) On the lens side, my jewel collection is made of a 17mm f/4, an A 24mm f/2,8, two A 50mm f/1,4 and f/1,7, one A zoom 35-105 f/3,5 and one A 70-210 f/4 Like everyone of us I think, I started with black and white, easily developed in a quickly transformed bathroom. Then I tasted slide photography (with a number of bad photos far more important !). Now 90% of my pictures are colour prints. Since 1996, I scan the best of my prints, to use them for web or to duplicate 10x15cm prints on colour printer. The scanning operation being quite long (with my HP 6300C scanner) I often ask my lab to give me my photos on CD. The offered resolution of 1500 x 1000 pixel is (for my own use) sufficient. Well, for some years now, I practice digital photography, but with classic equipment. And then came the day when I used an all digital camera and then for me, everything changed ! But what is so different from a 35mm SLR to an all digital camera ? One big only answer : instantaneity ! By viewing the pictures just after taking them, one feel about the same magic as with a Polaroid, but with even faster response, and above that, without the feeling of wasting a print if the shot is not good. What a pleasure to have the possibility to judge a shot immediately The focus is not good ? One erase the picture and do it again. This part of the picture is too dark ? One re do several shots while overexposing until the right exposure is found. The subject moved or did not keep the pose ? One just has to ask a new second of attention and shoot again All the tricky photographical situations can be approached without any fear; the photographer is reinsured and never comes back home without a couple of good photos ! Now that I am CERTAIN that digital photography will totally overpass chemical photography in a very short period of time, what an attitude to adopt ? At the date of today, my choice is very basic : either I buy for my personal use, one of these digital cameras, with a more or less futurist look, not often cute (the Casio QV 4000 is ugly!) and I try to resell all my old equipment, either I wait But to wait for what ? To wait for a solution allowing me to reuse all, or part of my existing equipment. To wait for the successor of the e-film in 24x36mm size for instance, to be able to reuse my SUPER A and my Z-1 and theur accessories To wait for PENTAX to manufacture 24x36mm digital backs for my SUPER A and my Z-1 Or to wait for PENTAX to make a true 24x36mm digital SLR to be able to reuse all my lenses Today, to wait corresponds better to my photographers aspirations. I think Im not alone in my case ! And in front of such a situation, what do the camera manufacturers think ? Why a so genius idea like the e-film has not given birth to a sellable product ? Have they received pressures from camera manufacturers ? Why the big manufacturers offer expensive equipment without any real interest for the amateurs ? Do they think they will push us to throw away all our ancient equipment, and buy one of their non finished digital mutants ? When will they offer us the digital equipment we are all waiting for ? A solution which should allow to "digitalise" all the existing park of SLR (like the e-film) would give to its promoters a significant amount of profits for years. An intermediate solution consisting of supplying 24x36mm digital backs, would be very widely acceptable. While the solution consisting of providing 24x36mm digital SLR cameras, where our existing lenses could be used would be acceptable as well. So what do they wait for ? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Using a Yellow Filter
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Using a Yellow Filter > I understand that, but let's get back to one of the original questions. > If there is less blue in the light, which is what, in essence, a yellow > filter prevents from reaching the film, would the filter factor change? It would seem logical that it would, but I am not so sure. If the ambient light is already -blue, then the exposure factor would change based on that colour deficiency (the combination of meter error and film speed shift necessitating the adjustment), but the filter factor should stay the same. I think the exposure adjustment in the situation you describe would be filter factor + exposure factor = exposure adjustment. Am I making any sense here? 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: The hunt for an LX has begun
Assume that almost any LX you can buy, short of one that's virtually new, will need a CLA and replacement of the mirror box pads. But once that's done, you'll be golden for quite a few years. In any case, consider that you're going to spend around $150 more than the purchase price. But it's still in your interest to hunt for as new and as perfect a camera as you can find. Be selective. There are a lot of them out there. You don't have to settle for the first one. Paul Christian Skofteland wrote: > Good hunting! ;-) > > eBay may be a good choice. KEH and other used equipment dealers are good > too if a bit more expensive. > > Christian Skofteland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:52 AM > Subject: The hunt for an LX has begun > > > Well, I went out this morning and chose a camera magazine, not on its > > articles, but on its number of adverts. > > > > As I haven't been looking for a camera for over 17 years, I found: > > > > 1. I didn't recognise many cameras at all > > > > 2. I now need to look in many dealers vintage/classic website sections! > > > > Prices about what I had expected, but I can only afford a body, so it will > > share the MX lenses. > > > > I noticed that MX prices have gone up since I looked for a valuation price > > in 1998. I never looked at anything else because the MX has always done > > everything I've needed to date, but the pull of an LX is now too > much... > > > > Malcolm > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > 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 .
K1000 and focusing screens
Dear All, I took a recently acquired K1000 out to play today. The clarity of the viewfinder nearly blew my socks off! I was using a 50mm f1.4, which probably helped, but I noticed that the focusing screen was clear. Is this a standard screen in K1000s? I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast to it. Anyone else noticed any differences like this? Wendy --- Wendy & Paul Beard Ottawa, Canada 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: $ of LX finder (standard)
I've seen a few on ebay, I don't track the actual values like some of the other PDML'ers. But I think the FA-1 goes for about $75 and up depending on condition, box, etc. Also try an ebay search on completed items, always a good way to see what has sold recently, although they get dropped fairly quickly. Geoff Date sent: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:24:48 +0100 From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:$ of LX finder (standard) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi, >what is the used price (I WTB) a normal LX finder? I have an >opportunity to buy an LX body without a finder for a reasonable >price, but I know the finders are harder to get locally. Anybody >selling one? (preferably in or near Europe) > >Thanks > > Good light, > Frantisek Vlcek > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > 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 .
Items on eBay
FYI - I was just browsing eBay, haven't been there in awhile, curious to see how prices are. Items spotted: A* 200mm f/2.8 with BIN of $695, closing soon. 135mm f/4.0 Macro for P67, current high bid (under reserve) is $75.00 Not my lenses, though I would make that 200/2.8 one of mine if I had any room left on the cards . . . stan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: K1000 and focusing screens
Sounds like your LX needs a new screen. Try one of the 60 series screens. Paul wendy beard wrote: > Dear All, > I took a recently acquired K1000 out to play today. The clarity of the > viewfinder nearly blew my socks off! > I was using a 50mm f1.4, which probably helped, but I noticed that the > focusing screen was clear. Is this a standard screen in K1000s? > I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same > lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the > view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast > to it. > Anyone else noticed any differences like this? > > Wendy > > --- > Wendy & Paul Beard > Ottawa, Canada > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K1000 and focusing screens
- Original Message - From: "wendy beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 4:45 PM Subject: K1000 and focusing screens > Dear All, > I took a recently acquired K1000 out to play today. The clarity of the > viewfinder nearly blew my socks off! > I was using a 50mm f1.4, which probably helped, but I noticed that the > focusing screen was clear. Is this a standard screen in K1000s? > I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same > lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the > view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast > to it. > Anyone else noticed any differences like this? > > Wendy Yup. The K1000 actually has a pretty bright screen in it. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be a terribly accurate viewfinder. I have owned two of them, and in both, the finder image was several millimeters off the film image. 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: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE?
Perhaps you can order the part (just a plastic ring with a tiny piece of metal on it) yourself from Pentax and then designed what to do next. It's a few buck only as I remember. regards, Alan Chan >I am sure it will be a quick repair (IF I can do it myself - I am >pretty sure my local authorised Pentax repair would overcharge me - I >have had bad dealings with them in the past. Hopefully I can get the >part elsewhere). > >I was just hoping that a more reliable body part could be inserted >there instead of the plastic one. This one failed me during a paid >assigment where I fortunately used a spotmeter as my exposure meter >(not metering TTL at all) so no ruined pictures, fortunately. > >Frantisek _ 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: K1000 and focusing screens
Hi Wendy, There are at least two different screens used in th K-1000 over the years (not taking into account the split-image screen of the K-1000 SE): the older version had a matte-field screen with circle and microprisms, not very bright but easy to focus; the later version had a plain matte-field screen with brighter microprisms, almost invisible when a fast lens is used. With the latter version the focusing is not so easy, because you can hardly see the microprisms, but the finder appear pleasantly bright. I wouldn't say that the LX finder has yellow cast... I'd rather say that the K-1000 finder has a blueish cast... If you compare the two side by side you'll probably agree with me. If you look through the finder and then open the other eye you should be able to compare the scene you are pointing at and what you are looking in the finder. It'a matter of taste, too, though. Gianfranco (who, in spite of what stated above, likes the K-1000 finder and the K-1000 itself very much...) wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > I took a recently acquired K1000 out to play today. The clarity of the > viewfinder nearly blew my socks off! > I was using a 50mm f1.4, which probably helped, but I noticed that the > focusing screen was clear. Is this a standard screen in K1000s? > I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same > lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the > view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast > to it. > Anyone else noticed any differences like this? > > Wendy > > --- > Wendy & Paul Beard > Ottawa, Canada > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > - = Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.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: K1000 and focusing screens
Hi Wendy, Your comment on the LX viewfinder is quite surprising. Having used four or five LXs (I now have three), several different viewfinders, and many different focusing screens, in all honesty I can say that I've never experienced your complaint. A while back I was shooting with another list member, and he used one of my LX. It was fitted with an A28/2.0 and an SA-23 screen, and he was just "blown away" (his words) by the brightness and clarity compared to his PZ-1p and Tokina lenses. Admittedly things get a little dark when using slower lenses (4.0 and the like), but switching to the correct LX screen seems to help. OTOH, with a 1.4 lens there should certainly be adequate light and ample contrast. I often wear my dark sunglasses when photographing with the LX. wendy beard wrote: > I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same > lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the > view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast > to it. > Anyone else noticed any differences like this? -- 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: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE?
>I was just hoping that a more reliable body part could be inserted >there instead of the plastic one. This one failed me during a paid >assigment where I fortunately used a spotmeter as my exposure meter >(not metering TTL at all) so no ruined pictures, fortunately. Perhaps you can consider the Z-1p/PZ-1p which you can alter the aperture throught the body (when the lens was set at 'A'). This way, you don't rely on the plastic aperture coupling ring at all. 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: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE?
Hi, few months ago I´ve changed my Z1p ring for the one of a Z10, it´s almost the same piece, It´s very easy to do. I think you can call your Importer and ask for the piece, or try to repair it yourself. Good Luck, -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] En nombre de Alan Chan Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2001 0:46 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE? Perhaps you can order the part (just a plastic ring with a tiny piece of metal on it) yourself from Pentax and then designed what to do next. It's a few buck only as I remember. regards, Alan Chan >I am sure it will be a quick repair (IF I can do it myself - I am >pretty sure my local authorised Pentax repair would overcharge me - I >have had bad dealings with them in the past. Hopefully I can get the >part elsewhere). > >I was just hoping that a more reliable body part could be inserted >there instead of the plastic one. This one failed me during a paid >assigment where I fortunately used a spotmeter as my exposure meter >(not metering TTL at all) so no ruined pictures, fortunately. > >Frantisek _ 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 message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE?
What about K & M lenses? -Mensaje original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] En nombre de Alan Chan Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2001 1:07 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: PLASTIC aperture pin BROKE (SFXn) ;( METAL ONE? >I was just hoping that a more reliable body part could be inserted >there instead of the plastic one. This one failed me during a paid >assigment where I fortunately used a spotmeter as my exposure meter >(not metering TTL at all) so no ruined pictures, fortunately. Perhaps you can consider the Z-1p/PZ-1p which you can alter the aperture throught the body (when the lens was set at 'A'). This way, you don't rely on the plastic aperture coupling ring at all. 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 . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Used MZ-S at Charlotte Camera
$699.00 www.charlottecamera.com Bill, KG4LOV [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 .
50 1.2
Hi all, That 1.2 aperture really helps for low light focusing, compared to 1.4, which is really only a 1/2 a stop, but still! The difference in overall glass being used between 1.4 and 1.2 is quite substantial. I was photographing boats in a parade last night with the LX, SMCK 50 1.2, AF400T and the 510V battery pack, focusing was dreamy! Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro
I had a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro for a month. I returned it because it would sometimes report f2.8 on a Super Program. I thought it might be a defective lens. Now I believe it was a problem with Sigma chips in general. Some of them do not report the aperture accurately with older Pentax bodies. I used it primarily in autofocus on a PZ1p, shooting baseball at night, wide open at f5.6 with Fuji 800 print film. It performed very well, actually much better than I expected. If my only criteria was optical quality and build quality, I would buy another Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro without hesitation. My only complaint other than the chip problem was the short focus throw, which made fine-tuning difficult when focusing manually. Although it is a large lens, the tripod collar makes it fairly easy to handle, even on a monopod. It has a decent built-in hood, which is a plus. -- John Mustarde - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
6x7 or 67?
I live in constant danger of becoming enabled in a medium format kind of way. I have a Mamiya TLR that I love dearly, but a 6x7 format with no parallax correction is hard to ignore. As I peruse the various offerings on ebay, I'm confused in regard to which is most prefered: the 67 or 6x7. (A 67 II is out of the question, due to financial considerations/) What are the differences? I know I'd like MLU and TTL metering, but it seems to be available on both the 67 and the 6x7/. What say you PDML folk? Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Processing 20+ year old film
William, Did you give standard process to these films. I ask because I have some 2 to 3 year old C-41 process films that I have neglected to process, and as more time passes I am becoming more reluctant to face the consequences of my sloth. They will be processed in my Jobo ATL-1000 so I can manipulate the times fairly comprehensively (+/- 2.5%, 5%, 10%, 20% as well as 1 or 2 stops push or pull). The opinion of a lab professional like yourself (or Aaron or any others out there) would be of great value. TIA. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have been working on a project for a customer for the past 6 > months, processing a stash of nearly 200 rolls of Kodacolour II, > Kodacolour 400 and the occassional roll of Fuji or Konica that > she found in a box. Some of the film is the long Leica leader > stuff that was discontinued in the late 1970's, some I have > definitely been able to place as shot in 1980/1981 by the date > stickers on car licence plates. The quality has been all over > the place, with some films giving virtually no image at all, > just a lot of base fog, but some of them have been giving very > good results indeed. If you have very old film, processing it is > a crap shoot, there is no way of predicting how an individual > roll of film has aged, as every emulsion batch will differ in > its aging characteristics. > 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: Processing 20+ year old film
Hi, I processed some 20 year old Plus X for a friend of mine a couple of years ago about 4 rolls. The images were all usable. (though nothing spectacular) For what it's worth, I used Ilfosol-S, which lists two of the ingredients as phenyl-somethings (I don't want to spell it all outick) and another as hydroquinone. Does this make it a phenidone developer? I don't remember the times, but it seems as if I leaned towards extending development and used a more dilute solution. Thanks, William in Utah. Malcolm Smith wrote: > > Is there really hope with processing very old film? It's great to hear there > may be . I wish I had seen a post like this a couple of months back, as a > friend binned a film which had been in a camera for about 14 years. I > suggested he had done the best thing - I would like to be proven wrong. > > How do the professional processors here think about it? Has anyone any > stories about people coming in with old film to be developed? > > A final thought - does anyone have any undeveloped film that should be > processed soon! > > I hope, as I have said before that Paul Ewins film comes out OK. > > Malcolm > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb > Sent: 09 December 2001 16:10 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Processing 20+ year old film > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 5:44 AM > Subject: Processing 20+ year old film > > > Hi folks, > > I recently had a look at my mother's old box > brownie, and > > discovered that it still had a film in it. It is Kodak > Verichrome Pan, in > > 620 format of course. I would think it would be between 20 - > 25 years old. > > For the cost of a bit of developer and fixer I may as well > have a go at > > developing it. > > Any ideas on how? Should I go longer or shorter? Colder or > hotter than > > normal? I'll be using ID 11. > > The problem you are going to run into is increased base fog. You > will probably want to add an anti fog agent, benzotriazole is > the classic anti-fog agent. Phenidone is also an anti fogging > agent, so any developer with it in the formulae will have > anti-fogging characteristics. > ID-11 is a classic metol/hydroquinone formulation, but does not > use phenidone in the formula. > > The only developer I know for sure that does is Bromophen, which > is nominally a paper developer. > I can be used as a film developer, but it isn't easy. > > If you don't want to goof around with a bunch of chemistry, soup > it in cool ID-11, with a 1:1 dilution at 18º for 9 minutes. > Have fun > 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 . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > 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 .
Omega Cold Light Enlargers
Most Omega enlargers are condenser types, but they also made some D2s with cold light heads. Does anyone have experience with these cold light D2s? Is the light source uniform? Is it of a color temperature that will allow printing on multigrade papers with a normal filter? I currently use an Omega B22 with a Zone VI cold light head, and it works very well. I can print a good neg with a #1 filter on Ilford Multigrde IV, leaving me three more filters on the bottom end if the #1 proves too contrasty. I want to be able to print 4x5, but I don't want to end up "out of the zone" in terms of head color temp and multigrade capability. Paul - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pentax Ads
Hey, I saw in today's newspaper an ad from a camera dealer selling optio 300's, they were pushing its small size, and they had a picture of a ant climbing up a tree with the camera in its mandibles! Kind of cute. The caption reads "Photo is a modest exaggeration." Anyone else seen anything similar to this? I think at least one camera store owner would agree with me in that Pentax noticed how well Elphs sold over the past few years and decided to get that market. The camera store, btw, is Dodd camera, local to the Cleveland area I believe. They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our adventures? Not sure hwo effective that is. Say, here is a potential dumb thread, how would you advertise your favorite pentax camera? It has got to be better than the croc hunter ad. Maybe we could award a prize for creativity. I have a few items floating around dave __ Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger http://messenger.excite.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: Pentax Ads
I saw the Steve Irwin (the "Crocodile Hunter") advertising Pentax in the latest Popular Photography. I was actually happy to see Pentax take out a several page long spread. It seems as if Pentax has the reputation of the "red-headed-stepchild" syndrome... Why is that? How would I advertise my favorite Pentax camera? Well maybe a full page ;-) for the LX! Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Dave Weiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:39 PM Subject: Pentax Ads > Hey, > > I saw in today's newspaper an ad from a camera dealer selling optio 300's, > they were pushing its small size, and they had a picture of a ant climbing > up a tree with the camera in its mandibles! Kind of cute. The caption > reads "Photo is a modest exaggeration." Anyone else seen anything similar > to this? I think at least one camera store owner would agree with me in > that Pentax noticed how well Elphs sold over the past few years and decided > to get that market. > > The camera store, btw, is Dodd camera, local to the Cleveland area I > believe. > > They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals > which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our > adventures? Not sure hwo effective that is. > > Say, here is a potential dumb thread, how would you advertise your favorite > pentax camera? It has got to be better than the croc hunter ad. Maybe we > could award a prize for creativity. I have a few items floating around > > > dave > > > > > > > > __ > Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger > http://messenger.excite.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: Tempted by the dark side--help!
Thanks William and Chris. Now I can safely stay with my Pentaxes. I'll still try an FG, if say, I find one with 50mm lens for $50 or so, which is not unlikely given the few bargains I've been finding lately. But you're right Chris, the Nikon FG-20 seems like a Program Plus more or less, and if the quality is as bad as Bill says, then I'm not surprised I've seen so few of them for sale. j = -- Juan J. Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.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 .
MZ-S and a confession
Hi all, This past weekend, I actually held a MZ-S. I agree with most that it needs the battery grip. The thing is so light to the point it almost feels fragile although sturdy. It was very comfortable in even my huge hands. I asked if they had any of the limited lenses and they didn't. later that weekend, I asked about the camera at a local camera store and why they didn't have anything except the MZ30 and 50s. They explained that they kept a high end N***n and C***n and few pros would want to reinvest in new lenses. This was at the time I was buying a 70-210 A f4 constant aperture lens in mint condition and in original box for 95.00 (50 US). This is also the same place I bought a new MX winder for 40.00 (22US). But my rationale is, a camera is a light-tite box with a finder and shutter. I fell for the gadgets of the later cameras when I bought a SF1n and later a PZ1p. The former was stolen and the latter sold to make way for the LX. Why the change in attitude? One weekend, I was having a "bad hair" day and was questioning the PZ1p and the 28-105 power-zoom lens. The purpose was to photograph some old stone churches (one of my favourite topics). I dug out my old Spotmatic with a 55 and 35mm lens. I proceeded to take the same pictures with both cameras. The results could be expected, the Spotmatics images were higher quality but the real surprise was the consistency of exposure on the negatives. The Spotmatic was actually more uniform. With the PZ1p, I always used aperture priority and turned the exposure over to the camera. With the Spotmatic, I would preset the aperture and shutter to f8 and 1/500 (ASA 100 sunny 16) and then make the evaluation through the finder with the meter. My habits from 20 years ago had kicked in and was nailing the exposures as I had done with Kodachrome 25! So, if you feel that a "new" camera (other than the sake of having one) will enhance your creativity, forget it unless you have some special requirements. The better way is to understand the equipment you have and then calibrate your methods to your choice(s) of materials and equipment. As a result, for me anyway, I feel just as comfortable with a Spotmatic, a MX or LX as my methods are applicable to any of the three. Unless you are cashed up, spend your money on glass. Regards, Bob Rapp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Processing 20+ year old film
- Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" Subject: Re: Processing 20+ year old film > William, > > Did you give standard process to these films. I ask because I have some > 2 to 3 year old C-41 process films that I have neglected to process, and > as more time passes I am becoming more reluctant to face the > consequences of my sloth. They will be processed in my Jobo ATL-1000 so > I can manipulate the times fairly comprehensively (+/- 2.5%, 5%, 10%, > 20% as well as 1 or 2 stops push or pull). The opinion of a lab > professional like yourself (or Aaron or any others out there) would be > of great value. TIA. We just gave em all standard C-41 processing. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Ads
I saw part of the Croc Hunter ad on TV a couple of weeks ago. What I saw was entertaining and I was surprised to see an actual Pentax commercial on the tube. Don't think I've ever seen Pentax advertise in anything other than print. Steve Irwin (Erwin?) will probably be as good a talking head forPentax as Paul Hogan has been for Subaru (assuming Pentax follows up with more commercials). Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dave Weiss wrote: >They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals >which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our >adventures? Not sure hwo effective that is. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Converted to digital photography !
A long time ago there were photographers who distained the new photography that George Eastman created when his "You push the button, we do the rest" camera came out. Some photographers thought it wasn't photography if a photographer didn't make the photographic materials or developed the film themselves. I was exposed to digital a few years ago. Indeed, it was cool to be able to see the results immediately after exposure. That, to me, was the only thing that was good about digital - the immediate gratification. A year ago, I purchased a Kodak Hybrid APS camera that allowed me to see what I just photographed. The image wasn't as sharp as a digital, but I could see what I just photographed, and I could decide if I wanted to print the image or not. I like this approach. I am 60 years old. I started photography in my twenties. I figure that conventional photography will be around for a while. Evidence for me is that I had a large class take my 35mm photography class recently. None expressed any desire for digital. Finally, perhaps a new Pentax list should be developed for those who want to talk digitally. I prefer the Pentax list only in the conventional photographic way. Jim A. > From: "Cyril MARION" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:06:18 +0100 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Converted to digital photography ! > > Hello the list > > Fist of all, forgive me for this long post. But I wanted to shere these > thoughts with you. I just bought for my Club (an old-timer Car club) a new > compact digital camera. Not a reflex, no. Just a standard 4 megapixel > camera. A Casio QV4000. > > To tell you the truth, Im totally surprised. Astonished. Converted ! > > First of all, I like and practice photography since the late 70s. My first > SLR was a PRAKTIKA MTL3 with a 50mm and a 135mm. Then my first PENTAX was a > Me SUPER, bought new in 1981. I stayed with PENTAX since then (do not ask me > why, its just like this ) and I used several Program A and SUPER A (I still > have a SUPER A now), one Z-1 (that I still have), several Zoom 70 R and X (I > have a 70-X) On the lens side, my jewel collection is made of a 17mm f/4, > an A 24mm f/2,8, two A 50mm f/1,4 and f/1,7, one A zoom 35-105 f/3,5 and one > A 70-210 f/4 > > Like everyone of us I think, I started with black and white, easily > developed in a quickly transformed bathroom. Then I tasted slide photography > (with a number of bad photos far more important !). Now 90% of my pictures > are colour prints. Since 1996, I scan the best of my prints, to use them for > web or to duplicate 10x15cm prints on colour printer. The scanning operation > being quite long (with my HP 6300C scanner) I often ask my lab to give me my > photos on CD. The offered resolution of 1500 x 1000 pixel is (for my own > use) sufficient. Well, for some years now, I practice digital photography, > but with classic equipment. > > And then came the day when I used an all digital camera and then for me, > everything changed ! > > But what is so different from a 35mm SLR to an all digital camera ? > > One big only answer : instantaneity ! By viewing the pictures just after > taking them, one feel about the same magic as with a Polaroid, but with even > faster response, and above that, without the feeling of wasting a print if > the shot is not good. What a pleasure to have the possibility to judge a > shot immediately The focus is not good ? One erase the picture and do it > again. This part of the picture is too dark ? One re do several shots while > overexposing until the right exposure is found. The subject moved or did not > keep the pose ? One just has to ask a new second of attention and shoot > again All the tricky photographical situations can be approached without > any fear; the photographer is reinsured and never comes back home without a > couple of good photos ! > > Now that I am CERTAIN that digital photography will totally overpass > chemical photography in a very short period of time, what an attitude to > adopt ? At the date of today, my choice is very basic : either I buy for my > personal use, one of these digital cameras, with a more or less futurist > look, not often cute (the Casio QV 4000 is ugly!) and I try to resell all my > old equipment, either I wait But to wait for what ? To wait for a solution > allowing me to reuse all, or part of my existing equipment. To wait for the > successor of the e-film in 24x36mm size for instance, to be able to reuse my > SUPER A and my Z-1 and theur accessories To wait for PENTAX to manufacture > 24x36mm digital backs for my SUPER A and my Z-1 Or to wait for PENTAX to > make a true 24x36mm digital SLR to be able to reuse all my lenses Today, to > wait corresponds better to my photographers aspirations. > > I think Im not alone in my case ! And in front of such a situation, what do > the camera manufacturers think ? Why a so genius idea like the e-film
Re: The Challenge
Judge it by the print. Lots of people (most of the people) on the list are better photographers than me, and I look at their photos to evaluate my gear or gear I'd like to call mine all the time. Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] >You are right, Maris, I did say that. Now I am having second thoughts on the >matter, and want to see what the list members think of it. This is not some >kind of national contest, judged by flunkies where the rules are absolute. I >am more interested in being fair than being right. > >The question is: would the list feel the printer ratings would be more >useful to them if they came only from photos by their peers, or would any >print from that printer be just as useful? > >I have no problem with it either way, and will provide my rating of their >printer to everyone who send in a print for their information regardless of >the decision based on feedback to that question. It would only affect the >published ratings. >--graywolf - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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 Pentax digital SLR
> But isn't this exactly what Pentax have done? They have said that theres no > point in releasing the MZ-D prototype as showed at Photokina because its > essentially obsolete already. Hence, they will make a more competitive > digital camera based on the same platform instead. > > > Pål > - I think this is wishful thinking but I hope that is what happens. I'm afraid that Pentax is going to stay with their high money makers. P&S & consumer digital cameras. I'd leap upon a 5MP digital SLR that I could use my Pentax glass on. 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: K1000 and focusing screens
Up until recently, I had been using the slower lenses zoom lenses with the LX (35-105 and 70-210). When I first got it and was surprised about the darkness of the viewfinder I bought a few new screens for it. The one currently in is a SA-21. I bought a couple of the new screens (SC-69 and SE-60) - imported all the way from Japan via Sunny Brighton. I'll give the plain one a try and see if it makes a difference. Wendy At 21:24 9-12-2001 -0500, shel wrote: >Hi Wendy, > >Your comment on the LX viewfinder is quite surprising. Having used four >or five LXs (I now have three), several different viewfinders, and many >different focusing screens, in all honesty I can say that I've never >experienced your complaint. A while back I was shooting with another >list member, and he used one of my LX. It was fitted with an A28/2.0 >and an SA-23 screen, and he was just "blown away" (his words) by the >brightness and clarity compared to his PZ-1p and Tokina lenses. > >Admittedly things get a little dark when using slower lenses (4.0 and >the like), but switching to the correct LX screen seems to help. OTOH, >with a 1.4 lens there should certainly be adequate light and ample >contrast. I often wear my dark sunglasses when photographing with the >LX. > >wendy beard wrote: > > > I've moaned about the muddy viewfinder of my LX before so I put the same > > lens on that and compared the two (LX has a split screen). Not only was the > > view through LX slightly dingier, but it also had a noticeable yellow cast > > to it. > > Anyone else noticed any differences like this? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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 Ads
- Original Message - From: Dave Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: pentax-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:39 PM Subject: Pentax Ads > > They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals > which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our > adventures? Not sure hwo effective that is. > > Say, here is a potential dumb thread, how would you advertise your favorite > pentax camera? It has got to be better than the croc hunter ad. Maybe we > could award a prize for creativity. I have a few items floating around Actually, there is a piece of Pentax promo lit. around that has Steve Irwin talking about his K1000 and his MZ-S. I think that they could push the nature and adventure angle pretty well with him if they wanted to. It would be pretty easy to shoot footage of him taking pictures of various nasties and then running for his life... "Whew, that was close, thank goodness the MZ-S is made of magnesium, if I had an F100, I'd be dead for sure..." The possibilites are enfless... Isaac - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Tempted by the dark side--help!
- Original Message - From: Juan J. Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Tempted by the dark side--help! > Thanks William and Chris. Now I can safely stay with my Pentaxes. > > I'll still try an FG, if say, I find one with 50mm lens for $50 or so, which > is not unlikely given the few bargains I've been finding lately. > > But you're right Chris, the Nikon FG-20 seems like a Program Plus more or > less, and if the quality is as bad as Bill says, then I'm not surprised I've > seen so few of them for sale. > > j The FG has to be the only camera from a major manufacturer that feels as though it is ready to come apart at any moment, and it's normal. They are also one of the worst sounding cameras of all time. If you must think of Nikon, at least make it a respectable camera, like one of their FM or FE models...:-) Isaac > > > = > -- > Juan J. Buhler > http://www.jbuhler.com > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings.yahoo.com > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S and a confession
- Original Message - From: Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:52 PM Subject: MZ-S and a confession > > But my rationale is, a camera is a light-tite box with a finder and shutter. > I fell for the gadgets of the later cameras when I bought a SF1n and later a > PZ1p. The former was stolen and the latter sold to make way for the LX. Why > the change in attitude? One weekend, I was having a "bad hair" day and was > questioning the PZ1p and the 28-105 power-zoom lens. The purpose was to > photograph some old stone churches (one of my favourite topics). I dug out > my old Spotmatic with a 55 and 35mm lens. I proceeded to take the same > pictures with both cameras. The results could be expected, the Spotmatics > images were higher quality but the real surprise was the consistency of > exposure on the negatives. The Spotmatic was actually more uniform. I had a similar experience when going from my LX to a M6. At first I was sort of bummed because I didn't have aperature priority, but then I noticed that my exposures were always dead on with the Leica. The difference was that I was involved in every decision instead of letting the camera do it for me. From then on I shot the LX in manual whenever I could... Isaac > Bob Rapp - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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: Converted to digital photography !
- Original Message - From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Converted to digital photography ! > Finally, perhaps a new Pentax list should be developed for those who want > to talk digitally. I prefer the Pentax list only in the conventional > photographic way. Sorry, digital isn't going away, and there are fewer and fewer clear cut boundries when it comes to conventional/digital processes. Most of my "good" images are printed digitally these days even though they were captured on film. If you are involved with photography in any way, digital will come up... Isaac > > Jim A. > > > > From: "Cyril MARION" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:06:18 +0100 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Converted to digital photography ! > > > > Hello the list. > > > > Fist of all, forgive me for this long post. But I wanted to shere these > > thoughts with you. I just bought for my Club (an old-timer Car club) a new > > compact digital camera. Not a reflex, no. Just a standard 4 megapixel > > camera. A Casio QV4000. > > > > To tell you the truth, I'm totally. surprised. Astonished. Converted ! > > > > First of all, I like and practice photography since the late 70's. My first > > SLR was a PRAKTIKA MTL3 with a 50mm and a 135mm. Then my first PENTAX was a > > Me SUPER, bought new in 1981. I stayed with PENTAX since then (do not ask me > > why, it's just like this.) and I used several Program A and SUPER A (I still > > have a SUPER A now), one Z-1 (that I still have), several Zoom 70 R and X (I > > have a 70-X). On the lens side, my jewel collection is made of a 17mm f/4, > > an A 24mm f/2,8, two A 50mm f/1,4 and f/1,7, one A zoom 35-105 f/3,5 and one > > A 70-210 f/4. > > > > Like everyone of us I think, I started with black and white, easily > > developed in a quickly transformed bathroom. Then I tasted slide photography > > (with a number of bad photos far more important !). Now 90% of my pictures > > are colour prints. Since 1996, I scan the best of my prints, to use them for > > web or to duplicate 10x15cm prints on colour printer. The scanning operation > > being quite long (with my HP 6300C scanner) I often ask my lab to give me my > > photos on CD. The offered resolution of 1500 x 1000 pixel is (for my own > > use) sufficient. Well, for some years now, I practice "digital" photography, > > but with "classic" equipment. > > > > And then came the day when I used an "all digital camera". and then for me, > > everything changed ! > > > > But what is so different from a 35mm SLR to an all digital camera ? > > > > One big only answer : instantaneity ! By viewing the pictures just after > > taking them, one feel about the same magic as with a Polaroid, but with even > > faster response, and above that, without the feeling of wasting a print if > > the shot is not good. What a pleasure to have the possibility to judge a > > shot immediately. The focus is not good ? One erase the picture and do it > > again. This part of the picture is too dark ? One re do several shots while > > overexposing until the right exposure is found. The subject moved or did not > > keep the pose ? One just has to ask a new second of attention and shoot > > again. All the tricky photographical situations can be approached without > > any fear; the photographer is reinsured and never comes back home without a > > couple of good photos ! > > > > Now that I am CERTAIN that digital photography will totally overpass > > chemical photography in a very short period of time, what an attitude to > > adopt ? At the date of today, my choice is very basic : either I buy for my > > personal use, one of these digital cameras, with a more or less futurist > > look, not often cute (the Casio QV 4000 is ugly!) and I try to resell all my > > old equipment, either I wait. But to wait for what ? To wait for a solution > > allowing me to reuse all, or part of my existing equipment. To wait for the > > successor of the e-film in 24x36mm size for instance, to be able to reuse my > > SUPER A and my Z-1 and theur accessories. To wait for PENTAX to manufacture > > 24x36mm digital backs for my SUPER A and my Z-1. Or to wait for PENTAX to > > make a true 24x36mm digital SLR to be able to reuse all my lenses. Today, to > > wait corresponds better to my photographer's aspirations. > > > > I think I'm not alone in my case ! And in front of such a situation, what do > > the camera manufacturers think ? Why a so genius idea like the e-film has > > not given birth to a sellable product ? Have they received pressures from > > camera manufacturers ? Why the big manufacturers offer expensive equipment > > without any real interest for the amateurs ? Do they think they will push us > > to throw away all our ancient equipment, and buy one of their non finished > > digital mutants ? When will they offer us the digital equipment we are all > > wa
Re: Pentax Ads
I really disliked Steve Irwin and i think to most Australians he is a bit of a joke. He's alot more popular in the US from what i see than here in Aus. Now however I think i like him more since he shoots with Pentax :) Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Pentax Ads > - Original Message - > From: Dave Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: pentax-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:39 PM > Subject: Pentax Ads > > > > > > > They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals > > which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our > > adventures? Not sure hwo effective that is. > > > > Say, here is a potential dumb thread, how would you advertise your > favorite > > pentax camera? It has got to be better than the croc hunter ad. Maybe we > > could award a prize for creativity. I have a few items floating > around > > Actually, there is a piece of Pentax promo lit. around that has Steve > Irwin talking about his K1000 and his MZ-S. I think that they could push the > nature and adventure angle pretty well with him if they wanted to. It would > be pretty easy to shoot footage of him taking pictures of various nasties > and then running for his life... "Whew, that was close, thank goodness the > MZ-S is made of magnesium, if I had an F100, I'd be dead for sure..." The > possibilites are enfless... > > Isaac > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > 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 .
