Re: smc 18/3.5
In a message dated 13/02/02 12:08:28 GMT Standard Time, Antti writes: Played with my new toy again :-) This lens seems to be extremely flare resistant.. compared to the smc 15mm (which ain't bad either). Nice one, Cyril. Another stealth wide angle. Natch, we will have a couple of 20mm A for stock on the next delivery. Kind regards Peter - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: A macro lighting question
Hi Flavio, Moreover I can't imagine a way to mount it on a homemade bracket so as to point it directly on the subject. Well, the AF280T can be tilted _down_ 15 degrees, and that might do the trick. Plus it has minimum TTL range of only 25 cm. Hope this helps, Boz - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Am I Really a Dinosaur?
That's just what keeps me from buying another digital. New digi-cameras are orders of magnitude better than the one I bought 2 years ago, yet still not as efficient at their purpose than my 25 year old film camera. At 12:37 PM 2/13/2002 -0500, Graywolf wrote: The only improvements left to make on cameras are the gimmicks. Once a product is fully developed that is all that they can do to get consumers to upgrade. Consider, what real picture taking improvement is there in a Leica M6 over an M3? None whatsoever in my opinion. So why trade your M3 for an M6? On the other hand what improvement is there between last years digital and this years (any brand), an order of magnitude? That sells new digitals to consumers even if they already have one that is only a couple of years old. Ciao, Graywolf - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Am I Really a Dinosaur? Hi Bill ... While I agree that film will probably be around, my biggest concern is that choices will be reduced further, and that camera gear will continue sliding into a plastic morass filled with gimmicks and cheap zoom lenses, and that strong, repairable, dependable cameras may slowly be disappearing. If, as the article says, manufacturers like stop producing film cameras, that slippery slope into the abyss will then be greased. William Robb wrote: Personally, I think film will be around for a long time yet. Like the pundits of previous eras proclaiming the death of theater when motion pictures were introduced, or the end of radio when television became commonplace, the doomsayers of film are also mistaken. Of course, like all zealots, they will not see the error of their thoughts, but will continue to bang their little gongs, always saying that the end near. And, like zealots from times previous, they will continue to trot out their silly little arguements and rationalizations, while the rest of the world quietly goes on shooting film and enjoying the creative process of producing true photographic images. -- 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 . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, 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[4]: Am I Really a Dinosaur?
It's not just the cost to the consumer, it is the cost to do business. When most of the labs/minilabs give up on film, then we might see a landslide changeover - which in turn will cause the manufacturers (films, equipment, chemistry, etc) to re-evaluate the cost of doing business on their part and so on... Bruce Dayton Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 9:45:47 AM, you wrote: TR Aw, why would you think that? (Here in Charlotte it costs $5 a sheet to get TR 4x5 BW film processed) TR Ciao, TR Graywolf TR TR - Original Message - TR From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] TR To: Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] TR Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:23 PM TR Subject: Re[2]: Am I Really a Dinosaur? I am truly hoping that film doesn't die out quickly. My biggest fear is that inexpensive processing (color) will go away first, which will hasten the move to digital. It is interesting to note that I have been contemplating purchasing a PS for my daughter to take on summer camp and I obviously looked at digitals. Because of funny things like battery consumption (lack of recharge locations and time), kids wanting to play with the digital and storage card issues, I have come to the conclusion that a simple 35mm PS is far more economical and far more useful for her. This coming from me with a Coolpix 990 and 2500 shots on it. If the rest of the consumers really take a good, hard look, perhaps they too, will come to the same conclusion that I have. Long live film! Bruce Dayton Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 8:35:12 AM, you wrote: SM Mark Roberts wrote: I think you're right. I *hope* you're right. Still I can't help but think of those who predicted the death of TR super-8 film when video was introduced... SM Still, I can't help thinking about the transition from SM vinyl LPs to CDs. Sure seemed like a whole bunch of SM consumer electronics manufacturers got together and SM said, Let's put this thing out there with an inferior SM sampling rate, and make everybody repurchase their entire SM music collections. SM Of course, vinyl (and the equipment to play it) still can be SM purchsed -- dearly -- from small, specialty, purist manufacturers. SM Flame-suited, ducking and running... SM Stephen - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . TR - TR This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, TR go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to TR 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 .
Pentax 50mm f/1.4
Is $350/Canadian a good price for the AF 50/1.4 new? What about $230 for a used version? I want a fast prime lens, the 35-80 that came with my mz-50 seems a little lacking in low light :) Thanks -- Chris Murray /\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN http://apeman.org/ XAGAINST HTML MAIL Cell: 604.861.8307 / \/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Z-1p focusing screens on other bodies?
Hi Minihane, it is relatively easy. No qualified technician is needed at all! AFAIK Pz1p screen should fit into all older pentaxes (but not all vice versa, LX and MX screens are bigger than the newer ones so won't fit into AF bodies). For MZ5n, MZ-M, Super-A,... , the screen is the same, the holding frame is the same, it IIRC drops down in same way, only is not hold by spring tab but by few screws, which you unscrew. There are few people here who did it to Mz-5n, ask them. Also, this should work for Super-A, which would be really improved by MZ-M's screen. 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: Am I Really a Dinosaur?
William Robb wrote: If digital becomes both an economiclly viable alternative, and more importantly, a more convenient way to get prints, then it would have a good chance to supplant consumer film use. It's becomming more economically viable every day. Remember when compact disc players cost $1000.00 (in 1983 dollars)? It's already becoming as convenient or more convenient than film for getting prints. Most places than do film prints around here will also do prints from digital memory cards. And I'm in Rochester, NY, home of Kodak. Most of the Kodak employees I know have switched to digital cameras (the fools!) EPA regulations, now that scares me. That's part of the economically viable alternative part of the equation. The first part is (of course) digital getting cheaper. The second part is film getting more expensive and EPA regs will be one driving factor here. Another is the price of minilabs: Printing from memory cards is a lot less expensive than developing negatives or slides as well as making prints. This is a big savings for a photofinisher buying equipment. I expect a lot fewer film minilabs to be sold from now on; old ones will be repaired and kept in service and new purchases will go largely to digital machines. As far as the general public is concerned, digital is *already*: Faster Cooler More fun More versatile Cheaper once you've paid for the camera (*over*paid, in my personal view, but that's me) Here's what I think is bizarre, though: As film photography becomes more of a niche of photography as a whole, those who use film rather than (or in addition to) digital will generally be more the specialist/enthusiast type. Yet as this transition is taking place, the film manufacturers are phasing out their specialty films like Kodak Gold 25 and concentrating on the mass market stuff like Kodak Max 400. Short term thinking at its finest: the films being phased out are the ones with the greatest appeal to those who'll be the only ones using film in the long run. I'm a film lover. I don't *own* a digital camera. But I can read the writing on the wall. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax 50mm f/1.4
Chris I bought a FA 50 f1.4 in mint condition US$100 recently. I do not know the current rate of CAN$ to US$ but I do not believe it is 2 to 1. I think that the new price is about $189.00 It is a great lens, sharp and fast Good luck Philippe From: Chris Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:00:23 -0800 (PST) Is $350/Canadian a good price for the AF 50/1.4 new? What about $230 for a used version? I want a fast prime lens, the 35-80 that came with my mz-50 seems a little lacking in low light :) Thanks -- Chris Murray /\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN http://apeman.org/ XAGAINST HTML MAIL Cell: 604.861.8307 / \/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Pentax 50mm f/1.4
At last check,$100.00 US d = $160.00 Can d approx. Dave Begin Original Message From: Philip Courtay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:28:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Chris I bought a FA 50 f1.4 in mint condition US$100 recently. I do not know the current rate of CAN$ to US$ but I do not believe it is 2 to 1. I think that the new price is about $189.00 It is a great lens, sharp and fast Good luck Philippe From: Chris Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax 50mm f/1.4 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:00:23 -0800 (PST) Is $350/Canadian a good price for the AF 50/1.4 new? What about $230 for a used version? I want a fast prime lens, the 35-80 that came with my mz-50 seems a little lacking in low light :) Thanks -- Chris Murray /\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN http://apeman.org/ X AGAINST HTML MAIL Cell: 604.861.8307 / \/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Variable Contrast Filters for Beseler
On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 12:21 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Would I need one set of filters for Ilford VC paper, another for Agfa, a third for Kodak, etc.? Shel, I've found that the Kodak and Agfa sets are very similar. The Ilford set is different above 2 1/2. I've never had any trouble using an Ilford set with Agfa papers, but my Agfa filters and Ilford Multicontrast Warmtone fibre were a bad mix: everything seemed quite flat at 2 and below, but 3 and up gave me very contrasty results, with no middle ground to be found. Personally, I like the thickness and packaging of the Agfa set better (a book with pages that are individual pockets for the filters), but if you regularly work with Ilford papers, Ilford's filters are probably the best choice. Also, I believe Ilford's filters are the least expensive, which never hurts. -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 .
OT: Fujichrome Trebi?
Hi Folks, I have discovered a new Fujichrome slide film in Japan called Trebi. Does anyone know what it is intended for? It is a daylight film and the RMS rating indicated that the grain is not as fine as Provia 100F. Please reply directly if possible as I can't stay online long enough to read all the digest messages. Thanks! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.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 .
