RE: Favourite K mount normal lens poll
-Original Message- From: george de fockert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 4:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Favourite K mount normal lens poll A50 2.8 MACRO IS NOT A NORMAL LENS. IT WILL NOT PERFORM AT INFINITY AS WELL AS THE OTHERS LISTED WILL. IT'S COMPROMISED AT INFINITY FOR BETTER CLOSEUP PERFORMANCE. JCO Macro lenses are generally not compromised at infinity, just for having low field curvature, also when used for closeup. Conventional non IF lenses ( What I like to call TRUE MACRO) lenses ARE compromised at infinity. The article I just posted states they are optimized at 1:10, which means infinity IS compromised doesnt it??? And in the case of the A50 2.8, it has a floating element, probably to give good results over the whole distance range. They are definately designed to give best possible performance over a wide range of magnifications but as to whether they can match a true macro at the true macros optimum designed magnification is another matter. Sorta like the zoom vs. prime debate JCO
RE: photokina rumors
On the Kodak Web site they also have a full frame '11MP' chip: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/kai11000.pdf From DPReview: 35mm format, 10.8MP. It is designed for professional digital still camera applications, according to the sheet. Could this be the sensor in the next Kodak DCS camera? It would offer full-frame coverage and, because it's an interline-transfer sensor, fast shutter speeds. Apparently not an impressive frame rate, though; they talk of 1-3 fps. I did wonder if this was the sensor for the 1Ds, but that is apparently a CMOS, so this must be going elsewhere... (plse Pentax???) -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 September 2002 01:47 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: photokina rumors I would say that by 12MP any advantage that film has is mostly theoretical. One would have to have a top grade lens, tripod and fine grained film to get a resolution advantage. I'm not saying that the Dimage is great, but with effective optical ranges of 28-200mm most people would be quite satisfied (look at the number of 28-200 film lenses that have been sold). From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah I'm keen to see a sample image out of the new 12MP SLR, I think at this point the advantages of film WRT quality will become pretty marginal in normal light. The new Dimage is heading in the right direction however won't knock the E series Olys off their perch just yet as the images sensors are much smaller.
Re[2]: photokina rumors
Rob wrote: RB I did wonder if this was the sensor for the 1Ds, but that is apparently RB a CMOS, so this must be going elsewhere... (plse Pentax???) No, it's still interline CCD, the same old RGGB architecture, and this may explain the rather slow fps rate. BTW, lots of performance indicators are not published. I only noticed the 70 db dynamic range, which is good. Servus, Alin
Re: Second-hand helper WAS:Orgin Myths
On September 08, John Mustarde typed: But I'm Pentax worst customer. I've only bought a $500 PZ1p and a $950 A* 200/4 Macro as new items. All my other Pentax cameras and lenses and accessories have been bought second-hand, so Pentax has not really generated much direct revenue from me. It's true they have not gotten much of your money directly (though it's a LOT more than they've gotten from me!) but you HAVE helped them. By adding to the second hand market, those people who DO buy everything new feel more easy about buying Pentax equipment they are not quite sure of. They know they can always unload it, even at a discounted price, and won't be stuck with something they don't want. At lease that's how I rationalize it... Cory Waters Bought something in a brand new box once...I'm almost sure of it. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, , 2002 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths www.photolin.com
Re: SEPTEMBER PUG favorites.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my effort. I actually was uncertain on the focus for this shot, whether it should be all equally sharp or whether the forground fence or the distant sculpture should stand out a bit by being a bit sharper. Since the obelisk is a much more photographed and familiar object, I decided to put it is softer focus, but clear enough to be recognizable, while keeping attention on the faces in the fence. I'm still not sure that is the best, but I liked the result. Thanks for you helpful comments. Dan Bob Poe wrote: I got a chance to view this month's PUG and several pics stood out for me: Dan Matyola's #34;Vigeland Park#34;. The graphic qualities of the sculpture work very well in contrast to the soft depth of the masses of figures carved in the distance. -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://geocities.com/dmatyola/ Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
Re: Penatx flashes/changing platforms
http://www.photo.net/canon/lens-motors [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/10/02 06:39PM On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Christopher Lillja wrote: Read When a 'USM motor is not a 'USM' motor on Photo.net... Do you have a link? I couldn't find it. chris
RE: MZ-S durability
-Original Message- From: Andrea Rocca Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:32 AM Hallo everyone, As I am seriously considering buying an MZS mainly because of its low weight and magnesium shell - I was wondering if some current user could clarify a few points for me. The first is the built quality. Here the Z1P, lovely as it is, has failed me in terms of reliability to the point that I've decided it is not for me. (Obviously this is a completely subjective judgement). My main body took a small bump on a stone wall as I was running (this wasn't a major impact, just a clip) last year in India: the top LCD display's plastic cover flew off and the mirror locked up. How much better is the MZS built? Could it be compared to cameras like, say, the NIkon F100 or Contax G2? snip Andrea Rocca London, UK Andrea, I have had my MZ-S for just over a year. As others will attest, I believe my cameras to be tools not jewels. It is not that I go out of my way to abuse them, it is just that I will place them in a bag with other cameras and such with minimal padding if I have to. They are taken out and placed in the dirt, out in the rain and the like. This is why I favor the LX so much. I have had my MZ-S bump into objects many a time. I have had it dropped on a couple of occasions. It takes quite a bit to make a mark on the camera. The farthest drops have probably been about 5-6 feet. The camera has worked flawlessly. The only time it went back was for a frame overlap problem that was a known problem in certain early cameras and had inadvertently left the factory without correction. And that was within the first month... The camera has worked flawlessly for me. Any incorrect exposures I have taken have not been the fault of the camera. And I tend to shoot slide film. I must admit though, I am not sure whether it would be me or tv, but I think we put our equipment - at least the MZ-S through some durability testing. We are both happy with the camera. To sum it up, I would not be concerned with the durability of the MZ-S. There are a few of us who have proven it to be capable of taking a bit of a beating. Cesar Panama City, Florida
Re: Has the MZ-S already a new mount?
As far as aperature readout is concerned, wouldn't that be a function of camera software? I don't see how it would require a new mount to be able to correctly read an off-the-wall aperature setting. Nick Wright __ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
Re[2]: Candid portraits
Well, one gan get M f/3.5 for around $50 and K f/2.5 $100 (that's pretty much what I have paid recently for these), so, quite a bit more depends on how you calculate: on one hand, it's twice as much; otoh, its only $50 extra. However 3.5 and 2.5 are *very* different beasts: one is slow, small and light; the other is fast, big and heavy. I like the both though. best, Mishka. -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The 135 2.5 is quite a bit more expensive than either of the 3.5's in similar condition however, unless you're looking at the Takumar Bayonet which has a lousy reputation.
Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210
Hi Rob, You've brought up an interesting point. Well, to me anyhow! g By your statement ...I assume that the Takumar doesn't employ SMC coatings, you made me wonder why you would assume such a thing. So I checked all my M-42 Takumar lenses, and some do indeed include the SMC coating, so just because it's a Takumar is not necessarily associated with SMC coating or not. At least going by what's engraved on the front bezel: Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50 - looking at the front lens I see evidence of numerous (11 or 12?) colored reflections, so it is definitely coated, but no SMC on the lens bezel. This is my only 50mm lens with so many coating reflections! Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135 - only 4 reflections, but obviously coated. Not SMC. Will it be less contrasty and subject to flare? I love this lens for it's build and compactness. Shall I not use it because of it's diminished contrast? I think not... SMC Takumar 1:1.4/50 - 6 reflections. My Spotty F's always-attached normal lens. Compare with the topmost listed 1.4/50 - are these two different designs, or does the Super-Takumar have more coastings than the SMC version? Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:1.4/50 - 6 reflections, just like the one above. There are obviously build differences, if only in how the SMC is spelled out or abbreviated, and rubber vs. metal focus rings, etc. Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:2.5/135mm - Only 3 reflections on this lens, yet it's SMC. Different design than the f/3.5 version? How interesting... What's the difference between a plain Takumar (is there any such?), a Super-Takumar? Is the coating change all that takes place in a SMC Takumar the only thing that makes it different from a Super-Takumar? If all this is too boring or elementary for you folks [smile] maybe someone lead me to a site that describes the differences? Thanks to all, keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Sep 2002 at 23:54, Steve Pearson wrote: According to Boz's site, both these lenses are of the same build (most importantly with the ED designation). I would like to know if anyone out there has actually ever owned both lenses at the same time and can verify that the SMC F is better than the Takumar version? Past posts have commented that the SMC is better, but I wonder if that has ever been confirmed? Steve, I've no experience with either lens however I assume that the Takumar doesn't employ SMC coatings? If so you can expect it to exhibit reduced contrast and to be more prone to flare in any case. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: photokina rumors
Canon does (develops) their own sensors ; a company that size can. They may even do their own fab. Nikon doesn't buy off the shelf parts. Kodak will probably come out with a new DCS camera. I would be amazed if Pentax came out with anything more sophisticated than a DZLR. From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] I did wonder if this was the sensor for the 1Ds, but that is apparently a CMOS, so this must be going elsewhere... (plse Pentax???)
Favourite K mount normal lens poll - 2nd message
Hi everybody, I am happy, and I thank everybody who has so far joined this Favourite K mount normal lens poll. It seems to me that this poll is indeed some success. So far I have collected the votes of Glen O'Neal, Brendan, Mike Ignatiev, gfen, Jose R. Rodriguez, David Brooks, Fred, Andre, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Brogden, Keith Whaley, Albano Garcia, Steve Desjardins, Jostein, Wendy Beard, Peter from Camera Direct, Gianfranco Irlanda, Steve Larson, William Johnson, David A. Mann (who may still pick a 3rd choice) and Frantisek Vlcek. These are already 21 votes plus my own (K50/f1.4, K55/f1.8, F50/f1.4) plus the following 3, which are not yet entirely clear: JCO: Is your sentence I like the K50 1.4 myself... a vote for this lens? Do you want to make 2nd and 3rd choices? Collin Brendemuehl: I will not count votes for the FA31 Limited until I start a similar poll on 28-35mm lenses. I guess the A50/f1.4 and the FA50/f1.4 are your 1st and 2nd choices in the 40-55mm range. Do you wanrt to make a 3rd choice? Doug Franklin: Again I will at this time only count votes for lenses in the 40-55mm range. If you want to, you can pick 2nd and 3rd choices next to the FA50/f1.4 which you already have chosen. BTW: The FA*200 is indeed a great lens. All who have not yet voted, please make your choices until Friday 19:30 German time. I will then present the grand total. Please take a little time and imagine the following situation: 1.) All your normal lenses have been stolen, and you have no insurance. 2.) Your husband or wife wants to give you a new normal lens as a present 3.) He/she asks you to name your favourite 3 Pentax K-mount normal lenses (1st, 2nd and 3rd choice), so that it is not too difficult for him/her to find at least one of the 3. 4.) To make your spouse happy you will have to use your new normal lens often. And of course, you will never be allowed to sell the lens. Thus, your choices should only take into account optical and mechanical quality, features and joy of posession and of use. The price should not be considered, as your spouse just has won sufficient money for 100 normal lenses in a lottery. Please name your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choises: ( ) M40/f2.8 ( ) FA43/f1.9 Limited ( ) K50/f1.2 ( ) A50/f1.2 ( ) K50/f1.4 ( ) M50/f1.4 ( ) A50/f1.4 ( ) F50/f1.4 ( ) FA50/f1.4 ( ) M50/f1.7 ( ) A50/f1.7 ( ) F50/f1.7 ( ) FA50/f1.7 ( ) M50/f2 ( ) A50/f2 ( ) A50/f2.8 Macro ( ) F50/f2.8 Macro ( ) FA50/f2.8 Macro ( ) K50/f4 Macro ( ) M50/f4 Macro ( ) K55/f1.8 ( ) K55/f2 Have fun with this poll !!! Arnold www.arnoldstark.de
RE: How did you start photography
-Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 September 2002 17:38 To: Pentax List Subject: RE: How did you start photography fearing a Zenit would chew my film up, as inevitably they would. Anyone with experience of these alien devices masquerading as cameras will know what I mean g. I know what you mean (Zenit E)!! I started with a hanimex (I think) 110 camera. Lusted after one with a flash! Then when I joined a school photography club (about 1980) got a second hand Zenit E, 50mm and 200mm lenses. This sometimes chewed my film up and when the club folded because the teacher didnt have time to do it, my photography didnt really go anywhere much for many years. The 200mm lens broke about 1983ish in Canada. 6 months or so later I saw a Pentax p30t in Guildford Tecno second hand with a flash and 35-80 lens and just became overcome with lust. I didnt really believe in AF at the time and this seems ideal for me. I later added a vivitar 70-200 and Centon 500mm mirror. This served me well for travels and motorsport for many years, but I never got serious or did much except when obvious photography situations arose (eg holiday in the grand canyon, silverstone touring cars). 3 years or so ago, I decided I wanted to get more serious and enrolled on an evening GCSE in photography, but work travel meant it was impossible to keep up. 2 years ago I was 'reborn' when my first child was born. I was taking so many portraits - some of which I loved and some of which could be better. Then Outdoor photography was launched. Here was some real inspiration, and I found myself seriously drawn to the MZ-30 for some reason. Once I got into magazines and cameras etc I lusted after better lenses, then better camera (MZ-S) and have become fanatical about photography. Apart from kiddies portraiture, this has been difficult due to expanding family commitments and lack of time, but I have really started to enjoy my photography and spent far too much money on it of late. And now, I'm on the cusp of doing that thing that photographers have started to do - I'm 'going digital'. I absolutely *hate* that phrase with a vengeance. I must admit that the D1S will likely discount all arguments against 'going digital' apart from the fact it doesn't take my current glass and I just don't want the hassle of switching. I am seriously pondering a ZLR at the moment to keep me going until there is a Pentax D-SLR in about ten years time!!! Actually what I am doing is continuing with my photography as I have done from those early days, it's just that I'm switching media because it suits the way I shoot. Of course, I will still use film as well, but I fear that it will be for nostalgic reasons. We shall see. I think I will stick with film for some time for the family snaps because I can easily get them all printed to a uniform size, with a consistent look and file these hard copies in albums. For landscapes etc I love velvia etc and as such digital will need to prove itself up to the challenge of the best slide films around. For sports/planes etc digital would be fine. Maybe in a couple of years I will be able to sideline film the way you are - until then, I will follow your progress with interest... Rob
RE: Favourite K mount normal lens poll - 2nd message
FA 43/1.9 A 50/1.2 FA 50/1.4 tv -Original Message- From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:43 PM To: PDML Subject: Favourite K mount normal lens poll - 2nd message Hi everybody, I am happy, and I thank everybody who has so far joined this Favourite K mount normal lens poll. It seems to me that this poll is indeed some success. So far I have collected the votes of Glen O'Neal, Brendan, Mike Ignatiev, gfen, Jose R. Rodriguez, David Brooks, Fred, Andre, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Brogden, Keith Whaley, Albano Garcia, Steve Desjardins, Jostein, Wendy Beard, Peter from Camera Direct, Gianfranco Irlanda, Steve Larson, William Johnson, David A. Mann (who may still pick a 3rd choice) and Frantisek Vlcek. These are already 21 votes plus my own (K50/f1.4, K55/f1.8, F50/f1.4) plus the following 3, which are not yet entirely clear: JCO: Is your sentence I like the K50 1.4 myself... a vote for this lens? Do you want to make 2nd and 3rd choices? Collin Brendemuehl: I will not count votes for the FA31 Limited until I start a similar poll on 28-35mm lenses. I guess the A50/f1.4 and the FA50/f1.4 are your 1st and 2nd choices in the 40-55mm range. Do you wanrt to make a 3rd choice? Doug Franklin: Again I will at this time only count votes for lenses in the 40-55mm range. If you want to, you can pick 2nd and 3rd choices next to the FA50/f1.4 which you already have chosen. BTW: The FA*200 is indeed a great lens. All who have not yet voted, please make your choices until Friday 19:30 German time. I will then present the grand total. Please take a little time and imagine the following situation: 1.) All your normal lenses have been stolen, and you have no insurance. 2.) Your husband or wife wants to give you a new normal lens as a present 3.) He/she asks you to name your favourite 3 Pentax K-mount normal lenses (1st, 2nd and 3rd choice), so that it is not too difficult for him/her to find at least one of the 3. 4.) To make your spouse happy you will have to use your new normal lens often. And of course, you will never be allowed to sell the lens. Thus, your choices should only take into account optical and mechanical quality, features and joy of posession and of use. The price should not be considered, as your spouse just has won sufficient money for 100 normal lenses in a lottery. Please name your 1st, 2nd and 3rd choises: ( ) M40/f2.8 ( ) FA43/f1.9 Limited ( ) K50/f1.2 ( ) A50/f1.2 ( ) K50/f1.4 ( ) M50/f1.4 ( ) A50/f1.4 ( ) F50/f1.4 ( ) FA50/f1.4 ( ) M50/f1.7 ( ) A50/f1.7 ( ) F50/f1.7 ( ) FA50/f1.7 ( ) M50/f2 ( ) A50/f2 ( ) A50/f2.8 Macro ( ) F50/f2.8 Macro ( ) FA50/f2.8 Macro ( ) K50/f4 Macro ( ) M50/f4 Macro ( ) K55/f1.8 ( ) K55/f2 Have fun with this poll !!! Arnold www.arnoldstark.de
RE: Orgin Myths
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Orgin Myths -Original Message- From: Chris Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Heh, I'm only 21! snip - chris (youngest PDML'er so far? Cesar is only 16, I think. tv Thank you, I think. At least I will take it as a complement. Hey, does this explain why you had no problem with my sitting 'twixt you and assistant #7 during the group photo? :-P Cesar (A young 41 3/4)
RE: Favourite K mount normal lens poll - 2nd message
1. FA 43/1.9 2. A 50/1.2 Special (the metal one) 3. K 50/1.4 Lukasz
RE: Candid portraits
-Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So, I've got to play photog at an upcoming wedding reception (they already know they get what they pay for), and while I'm not willing to buy lots of new gear for something like this, it IS an opporunity to slip something past the lady who controls the purse strings... Good strategy my man, I employed it quite a bit myself when I was married. Of course, I'm divorced now. I was originally going to do the bulk of it via an A50/1.4 and the AF35-70/2.8 (the softer aspects that this lens is reputed to have was a nice plus), Huh? Is this the lens sold with the MEF? Soft is good for portraits (according to some), not candids Would one of the 135 in either 2.5 or 3.5 be acceptable? Sure. Faster is better. Oh, and as I said, I'm supposed to just do candids, and since I have no flash (and couldn't use one correctly if I did), I figured I'd stick to available light, and big fstops for small DOF. Unlikely. Receptions are usually dark, and if you're not using flash you'll be lucky to get decent exposure wide-open. Is this thing going to be outside during daylight? However, I'm starting to figure that perhaps 70mm might not be long enough... 70mm is long enough, you just need to brave enough to get up close to people. 135mm isn't really long enough to be all that sneaky, though it gives good compression if you want it. About 90% of my reception shots are done with a 28-70/2.8. I do sometimes sneak the 200mm out (the 135 disappeared), but generally it's just for a few headshots of close family and friends. Honestly, those shots are kind of boring - I much prefer to go wide and get close: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/28.jpg http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/283.jpg http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/285.jpg versus http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/2326.jpg http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/2328.jpg http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/3702.jpg Those were from my first reception using the 200. One thing to watch out for when using a flash on a bracketyou can get too close and black out the eye-sockets: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/images/282.jpg In this pic the flash is basically hanging over her head and I should have backed out to 35mm instead of 28. Anyway, the compositions should show you what I'm talking about. Also, if you have no flash, shorter lenses allow you to handhold at shorter shutter speeds. The longest lens I use for available light at receptions is the 85/1.4 (this is the lens you really want). I can't rememeber ever shooting the 135 at a reception without a flash. Certainly not the 200. Ceremonies yes, receptions no. If I were in your shoes I'd get a flash. tv
RE: Orgin Myths
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Orgin Myths -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Heh, I'm only 21! snip - chris (youngest PDML'er so far? Cesar is only 16, I think. tv Thank you, I think. At least I will take it as a complement. Hey, does this explain why you had no problem with my sitting 'twixt you and assistant #7 during the group photo? :-P Pretty much. That, and and the fact I have bigger lenses. tv Sure, you had to bring that up. Cesar
PZ1p
Hi, I have to ask a really stupid question: A lot of you folks have PZ1p's. are they still in production? Margo
Re: PZ1p
Margo, No, they have been out of production for some time. There might still be some new stock on shelves somewhere. You can always check the larger mail order places first. Bruce Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 12:08:37 PM, you wrote: MEG Hi, MEG I have to ask a really stupid question: A lot of you folks have PZ1p's. are MEG they still in production? MEG Margo
Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210
Rodelion wrote: Isn't a Takumar like, uh... not so very coated, a Super Takumer a bit coated and a SMC Takumar very coated...? Dunno! That's why I asked. Someone here will know, no doubt in my mind... keith whaley - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 18:01 Subject: Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210 Hi Rob, You've brought up an interesting point. Well, to me anyhow! g By your statement ...I assume that the Takumar doesn't employ SMC coatings, you made me wonder why you would assume such a thing. So I checked all my M-42 Takumar lenses, and some do indeed include the SMC coating, so just because it's a Takumar is not necessarily associated with SMC coating or not. At least going by what's engraved on the front bezel: . Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50 - looking at the front lens I see evidence of numerous (11 or 12?) colored reflections, so it is definitely coated, but no SMC on the lens bezel. This is my only 50mm lens with so many coating reflections! = etc., snipped =
Re: PZ1p
no - Original Message - From: Margo Ellen Gesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:08 PM Subject: PZ1p Hi, I have to ask a really stupid question: A lot of you folks have PZ1p's. are they still in production? Margo
Re: Vs: MZ-S durability
I'm not necessarily a MZ-S defender but they sound pretty predictable to me ;-) At 04:00 PM 9/11/2002 -0600, you wrote: I am still griping about the MZ-S. I bought two at my lab (not my $$) and took them to Mali last January. I complained that when you put them in a back pack, the camera can turn itself on. (Well, actually, the switch is designed so that unintentional pressure against it can turn the camera on.) Several PDMLers lambasted me for having them in a backpack. Okay, they've been sitting in a box in my office for a couple of months without being touched. They are both in Pentax holster-type bags. And guess what? I looked at both of them today, and found one of them turned on. Some pressure through the soft case had turned the on/off switch to on. I know there are a lot of MZ-S defenders on the list. But a camera that unpredictably turns itself on strikes me as having a pretty fundamental flaw. Blast away... Joe
Re: MZ-S durability
No blasting needed, but I've never experienced your problems with the MZ-S - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:00 PM Subject: Vs: MZ-S durability I am still griping about the MZ-S. I bought two at my lab (not my $$) and took them to Mali last January. I complained that when you put them in a back pack, the camera can turn itself on. (Well, actually, the switch is designed so that unintentional pressure against it can turn the camera on.) Several PDMLers lambasted me for having them in a backpack. Okay, they've been sitting in a box in my office for a couple of months without being touched. They are both in Pentax holster-type bags. And guess what? I looked at both of them today, and found one of them turned on. Some pressure through the soft case had turned the on/off switch to on. I know there are a lot of MZ-S defenders on the list. But a camera that unpredictably turns itself on strikes me as having a pretty fundamental flaw. Blast away... Joe
Re: Orgin Myths
I'm 30. Am I an old fart already? Cory Waters - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP By the way, I seem to be really young here :) Everyone is talking about Pentax cameras I never heard nor seen. I'm 27, anyone here around that age or am I hangin' with a bunch of old farts? :) Yours cheerfully, Brad Dobo
Re: Orgin Myths
If you're asking that question the answer is probably yes. Sorry... At 07:13 PM 9/11/2002 -0400, you wrote: I'm 30. Am I an old fart already? Cory Waters - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] SNIP By the way, I seem to be really young here :) Everyone is talking about Pentax cameras I never heard nor seen. I'm 27, anyone here around that age or am I hangin' with a bunch of old farts? :) Yours cheerfully, Brad Dobo
Re: Orgin Myths
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:13:29 -0400, CBWaters wrote: I'm 30. Am I an old fart already? It depends on you. I've been an old fart since about age 22. :-) Achieved curmudgeon status during adolescence (great curmudgeon genes in my family :-)! TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: MZ-S durability
Yes, the ZX-M (and the rest of the ZX/MZ line, I assume) behaves the same way. On 9/11/02 4:31 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:21:53 -0700, Timothy Sherburne wrote: Doesn't the display on the MZ-S turn itself off after a few seconds anyway? The viewfinder display does, and the backlight for the LCD on the outside does. But the outside LCD itself does not. In fact, it still displays the current frame number when the power is turned off completely. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Favourite K mount normal lens poll - 2nd message
Arnold, You ought to have the folks respond to you personally. I'm getting tired of hitting the delete key. g Regards, Bob S.
RE: Favourite K mount normal lens poll
On 11 Sep 2002 at 4:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I guess I am a no compromise guy when it comes to lens usuage. I dont want a compromised lens that can do it all. I'd rather have the true macro for closeup and a conventional design for infinity. That way each lens is optimized for the job at hand, but it's more expensive to own 2 lenses and time consuming to change between lenses. To each his own. JCO Hi Jon, Thanks for posting the extracts, I read the article with interest. You did indicate that it was published Oct '72 so I was compelled to bring to your attention that it contained the line Obviously, optimum focus is an area where lens designers certainly need to do some work. They are now starting to do it. Now considering that this article was prepared almost 30 years ago and that the Macro Lanthar lens (to which I've been referring) was designed post 2000 do you not think that there is the remote possibility that there have been advances in optical design and material technologies sufficient to relegate this particular article to no more than historical value? Again relating back to the Lanthar, initially I was concerned that it might perform poorly, it was new so there were no reviews available, could it be as good as my Pentax macro lenses? Thankfully after I experimented with it for a few months I decided than it would more than adequately replace both my SMCPA100f2.8 Macro and SMCP135f2.5 lenses, I was pleased. I don't like to compromise with my optics if it can be helped, this is one of several reasons that I dumped my P67 kit for the M7II kit however that meant that any macro work had to be relegated to my 35mm kit still I feel I've not compromised image quality. As you said each to his own Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: should i buy the smc k 135mm f2.8
I've got the 2.5 Takumar bayonet (not the SMC), and it's not a bad lens. Fairly sharp, but since it's not multi-coated, I expect it might flare; I've not had that problem yet, because so far I've only shot with the sun at my back (since I know it's not SMC). I think it's thought of as a dog because of the inevitable comparisons with the SMC 2.5 and SMC 3.5, which I understand to be very sharp lenses. But, given that it can be routinely gotten for under $50US, I think it's a relative bargain. FWIW, frank Doug Franklin wrote: For that price, I'd expect it to be the Takumar (Bayonet) f/2.5 135mm. If so, some people don't like it, but I think it does just fine as long as you're not using it to measure line pairs per millimeter. :-) The SMC f/2.5 135 mm is a sharper lens, but it goes for $100 or more compared to the $40 you've been quoted. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Vs: MZ-S durability
At 19:40 11-9-2002 -0400, you wrote: I am still griping about the MZ-S. I bought two at my lab (not my $$) and took them to Mali last January. I complained that when you put them in a back pack, the camera can turn itself on. (Well, actually, the switch is designed so that unintentional pressure against it can turn the camera on.) Several PDMLers lambasted me for having them in a backpack. Okay, they've been sitting in a box in my office for a couple of months without being touched. They are both in Pentax holster-type bags. And guess what? I looked at both of them today, and found one of them turned on. Some pressure through the soft case had turned the on/off switch to on. I know there are a lot of MZ-S defenders on the list. But a camera that unpredictably turns itself on strikes me as having a pretty fundamental flaw. Blast away... Joe It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of the case/bag which turns them on. On my recent trip where I carried the MZ-S around in a backpack with its ever ready case on I found sometimes the switch had set itself to self-timer. Oddly, I didn't notice it trunng itself on. Still a nuisance though. Wendy --- Wendy Beard Ottawa, Canada mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] home page http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Vs: MZ-S durability
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:20:56 -0400, wendy beard wrote: It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of the case/bag which turns them on. For some reason, the way I pick up and put down the camera is such that I sometimes flip the switch accidentally. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Vs: MZ-S durability
On 11 Sep 2002 at 21:33, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:20:56 -0400, wendy beard wrote: It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of the case/bag which turns them on. For some reason, the way I pick up and put down the camera is such that I sometimes flip the switch accidentally. I don't mind it, I've never had it accidentally switch on however I have my gear packed pretty solid whilst I'm on the move. I did however manage to flatten a set of batteries by leaving it on and packing it away since I had an old cap on it that forced the lens mount indicator LED to remain illuminated. In any case the switch being placed around the shutter release is sort of reminiscent of the lock on my other bodies, I'd probably forget to turn it off most of the time otherwise. As an aside my M7II body has a similar power switch around it's release however it's so recessed and stiff that it's nearly a two hand job to switch it on, I'd prefer it more like the MZ-S. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210
Except for the Medium format lenses which were branded Takumar for a much longer time. ...and which have always stood for quality in the Pentax medium format lens lineup. Fred
Re: Vs: MZ-S durability
As I think I said earlier, I've never had the camera accidentally turn off or on. However, since I've had the MZ-S I frequently FORGET to turn it off, and it stays on for long periods of time. I have the battery grip, and normal Duracell batteries in it. I've got lithiums now to replace it, but so far the MZ-S is like the Energizer bunnyit keep going and going. So it obviously doesn't use much power. Makes me wonder why I got the lithiums. :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:45 PM Subject: Re: Vs: MZ-S durability On 11 Sep 2002 at 21:33, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:20:56 -0400, wendy beard wrote: It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of the case/bag which turns them on. For some reason, the way I pick up and put down the camera is such that I sometimes flip the switch accidentally. I don't mind it, I've never had it accidentally switch on however I have my gear packed pretty solid whilst I'm on the move. I did however manage to flatten a set of batteries by leaving it on and packing it away since I had an old cap on it that forced the lens mount indicator LED to remain illuminated. In any case the switch being placed around the shutter release is sort of reminiscent of the lock on my other bodies, I'd probably forget to turn it off most of the time otherwise. As an aside my M7II body has a similar power switch around it's release however it's so recessed and stiff that it's nearly a two hand job to switch it on, I'd prefer it more like the MZ-S. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the MZ-S or its accessories. The MZ-5n was fun, but limited as I learned more and more, and I'd have used it until the camera we speculate on comes out. I am also not saying there is anything wrong with the MZ-S, but for me personally, I like to have the biggest and the best. I don't collect any sort of equipment, and only get what I need (or just plain want). I sell my old lens for better ones (and lose money on it definitely). I know a lot of people here are just the opposite, that's fine, but can you see it from my point of view? I also only dress with brand name clothes tooheh, flame me on that! :) I cannot speak for the LX or anything more than a few years old. And although I do not have the financial means (without asking my parents who are rich but don't help me out :)) to switch to a different system or brand, if Pentax does come out with a higher spec model (so soon, mind you, I am not stupid and know that the MZ-S will not be the top forever), I will be more likely to jump ship with no problem to get the latest thing when I did have the financial meansit's not like I have Pentax tattooed on me. Hell, I could still stick with better new Pentax stuff. Call me vain, a wannabe, rich brat or whatever, because in some cases, I definitely am and proud! Anyhow, why are we spending so much time on this anyhow, we should be using our cameras? :) And yes Rob, I see what you are saying, I simply don't like it (if anything happens anyhow) Highest of high regards, :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Oh, and Rob, really, I just get going on some passionate subjects, I know I'm not a good photographer, I just like it. And when I said I understood you and didn't like it, I was referring to what Pentax may do (just like you said) Anyhow, peace out, Brad - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:27 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the MZ-S or its accessories. The MZ-5n was fun, but limited as I learned more and more, and I'd have used it until the camera we speculate on comes out. I am also not saying there is anything wrong with the MZ-S, but for me personally, I like to have the biggest and the best. I don't collect any sort of equipment, and only get what I need (or just plain want). I sell my old lens for better ones (and lose money on it definitely). I know a lot of people here are just the opposite, that's fine, but can you see it from my point of view? I also only dress with brand name clothes tooheh, flame me on that! :) I cannot speak for the LX or anything more than a few years old. And although I do not have the financial means (without asking my parents who are rich but don't help me out :)) to switch to a different system or brand, if Pentax does come out with a higher spec model (so soon, mind you, I am not stupid and know that the MZ-S will not be the top forever), I will be more likely to jump ship with no problem to get the latest thing when I did have the financial meansit's not like I have Pentax tattooed on me. Hell, I could still stick with better new Pentax stuff. Call me vain, a wannabe, rich brat or whatever, because in some cases, I definitely am and proud! Anyhow, why are we spending so much time on this anyhow, we should be using our cameras? :) And yes Rob, I see what you are saying, I simply don't like it (if anything happens anyhow) Highest of high regards, :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Brad, I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure that a few years *after* the new flagship comes out, there will be a newer, even better one. And so on, and on, and on... Well, the truth is, realization of this simple fact was enough to keep me from buying a PC until I absolutely *had to* -- for work. Before that I was happy hacking on my DEC Alpha station at university, without worrying much about its planned obsolescence (sheesh, it was only $60K when it was new :) Best, Mishka - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:27 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the MZ-S or its accessories.
RE: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Rob mentioned a price for a new LX of $US1500. Leaving exchange rates etc aside for a moment, I remember being quoted $3900 Australian dollars for a new LX in 1993. Admittedly it was at a camera store located in a 50,000 population regional center, so there is no doubt that I could have done better in the capital cities. Even so, these things were hideously expensive, but people bought em. As far as top-specced 35mm SLR's go, Pentax have been reasonable since the LX when compared to other marquees. I still believe the Z-1/Z-1p cameras were bloody cheap for what they were. I used an F90x for a while there in the early 1990's, and I can assure you that apart from the battery grip, and a slightly higher frame rate on the N***n (if you want it), the Z-1 was a far better camera. It wouldn't surprise however, to see Pentax release absolutely nothing in the 35mm department at Photokina. All this talk about patents and IS/USM crap is all well and good, BUT where is the evidence of any of this being related to the photographic arm of AOC? For all we know, they might be turning out an image-stabilized endoscope for shaky quaks? Roll on Photokina and put us all out of our bloody misery Shaun Canning PhD Student Department of Archaeology School of European and Historical Studies La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, 3086. Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 1:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the MZ-S or its accessories. The MZ-5n was fun, but limited as I learned more and more, and I'd have used it until the camera we speculate on comes out. I am also not saying there is anything wrong with the MZ-S, but for me personally, I like to have the biggest and the best. I don't collect any sort of equipment, and only get what I need (or just plain want). I sell my old lens for better ones (and lose money on it definitely). I know a lot of people here are just the opposite, that's fine, but can you see it from my point of view? I also only dress with brand name clothes tooheh, flame me on that! :) I cannot speak for the LX or anything more than a few years old. And although I do not have the financial means (without asking my parents who are rich but don't help me out :)) to switch to a different system or brand, if Pentax does come out with a higher spec model (so soon, mind you, I am not stupid and know that the MZ-S will not be the top forever), I will be more likely to jump ship with no problem to get the latest thing when I did have the financial meansit's not like I have Pentax tattooed on me. Hell, I could still stick with better new Pentax stuff. Call me vain, a wannabe, rich brat or whatever, because in some cases, I definitely am and proud! Anyhow, why are we spending so much time on this anyhow, we should be using our cameras? :) And yes Rob, I see what you are saying, I simply don't like it (if anything happens anyhow) Highest of high regards, :) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Hey Mishka, Of course I understand that, we'd all be in the dark ages if things didn't keep improving. :) All I ask (to the camera gods) is that I want to enjoy having the top Pentax, for a couple years anyhow. Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) Brad, I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure that a few years *after* the new flagship comes out, there will be a newer, even better one. And so on, and on, and on...
WARNING: Fake PayPal Message
Okay, it's off-topic, but I figure there are probably a bunch of PayPal users here besides myself: I just got this rather clever message claiming to be from PayPal. From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 11 22:57:03 2002 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:58:02 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: URGENT: PayPal Account Update From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The body is in HTML, but it comes out as: [bunch of PayPal images and formatting] Dear PayPal User,brbrToday we had some trouble with one of our computer systems. While the trouble appears to be minor, we are not taking any chances. We decided to take the troubled system offline and replace it with a new system. Unfortunately this caused us to lose some member data. Please follow the link below and log into your account to make sure your information is not affected. iAccount balances have not been affected./ibrbrBecause of the inconvenience this causes we are giving all users that repair their missing data their next two incoming transfers for free! You will pay no fees for your next two incoming transfers*. [more PayPal graphics] a href=http://www.paypalsys.com/cgibin/webscr/?cmd=_login-run; https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr/?cmd=_login-run/a [...] iPROTECT YOUR PASSWORD/ibrNEVER give your password to anyone and ONLY log in at PayPal's website. If anyone asks for your password, please follow the Security Tips instructions on the PayPal website.brbrPlease do not reply to this e-mail. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. For assistance, log in to your PayPal account and choose the Help link in the footer of any page.br br I thought it sounded a little funny, but I saw a reasonable-looking From:, so I scrolled down to the URL to click on, where I noticed it said paypalsys.com instead of paypal.com _and_ didn't match the text that would have been displayed if I were using an HTML-aware mail client. That's when I went back and noticed that From and From: don't match. The stock caution to only enter your PayPal password at PayPal's site is a nice, ironic touch. I'm pretty damned sure this message isn't legitimate. In case any other folks got it and didn't have their bogon alarms go off, take note. -- Glenn PS: As someone on another mailing list pointed out in response to this note, paypalsys.com was registered yesterday with bogus info to make it look like the same company as PayPal, but the IP address block winds up hosted in a different place.
Re[2]: Vs: MZ-S durability
Brad, I just put my first set of lithiums in my BG-10 after several sets of alkalines. The biggest reason for me is weight not battery life. Bruce Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 7:52:22 PM, you wrote: BD As I think I said earlier, I've never had the camera accidentally turn off BD or on. However, since I've had the MZ-S I frequently FORGET to turn it off, BD and it stays on for long periods of time. I have the battery grip, and BD normal Duracell batteries in it. I've got lithiums now to replace it, but BD so far the MZ-S is like the Energizer bunnyit keep going and going. So BD it obviously doesn't use much power. Makes me wonder why I got the BD lithiums. :) BD Brad Dobo BD - Original Message - BD From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:45 PM BD Subject: Re: Vs: MZ-S durability On 11 Sep 2002 at 21:33, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:20:56 -0400, wendy beard wrote: It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of BD the case/bag which turns them on. For some reason, the way I pick up and put down the camera is such that I sometimes flip the switch accidentally. I don't mind it, I've never had it accidentally switch on however I have BD my gear packed pretty solid whilst I'm on the move. I did however manage to flatten a set of batteries by leaving it on and packing it away since I BD had an old cap on it that forced the lens mount indicator LED to remain BD illuminated. In any case the switch being placed around the shutter release is sort of reminiscent of the lock on my other bodies, I'd probably forget to turn it BD off most of the time otherwise. As an aside my M7II body has a similar power BD switch around it's release however it's so recessed and stiff that it's nearly a BD two hand job to switch it on, I'd prefer it more like the MZ-S. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
- Original Message - From: Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:02 AM Subject: RE: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) Roll on Photokina and put us all out of our bloody misery Can I get a big 'Amen'? :) Btw, once that is over, maybe I can stop talking about theoretical and read some posts and learn some stuff :) Brad Dobo
Re[2]: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Brad, You gotta try the 67II or 645nII. When you deal with that big viewfinder and big negative, suddenly the bells and whistles on the 35's suddenly doesn't seem quite so important. Talk about feeling like you got the top of the line... Brother Bruce :) Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 8:27:06 PM, you wrote: BD As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the BD latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ BD itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still BD waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there BD would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the BD MZ-S or its accessories. The MZ-5n was fun, but limited as I learned more BD and more, and I'd have used it until the camera we speculate on comes out. BD I am also not saying there is anything wrong with the MZ-S, but for me BD personally, I like to have the biggest and the best. I don't collect any BD sort of equipment, and only get what I need (or just plain want). I sell my BD old lens for better ones (and lose money on it definitely). I know a lot of BD people here are just the opposite, that's fine, but can you see it from my BD point of view? I also only dress with brand name clothes tooheh, flame BD me on that! :) BD I cannot speak for the LX or anything more than a few years old. BD And although I do not have the financial means (without asking my parents BD who are rich but don't help me out :)) to switch to a different system or BD brand, if Pentax does come out with a higher spec model (so soon, mind you, BD I am not stupid and know that the MZ-S will not be the top forever), I will BD be more likely to jump ship with no problem to get the latest thing when I BD did have the financial meansit's not like I have Pentax tattooed on me. BD Hell, I could still stick with better new Pentax stuff. Call me vain, a BD wannabe, rich brat or whatever, because in some cases, I definitely am and BD proud! BD Anyhow, why are we spending so much time on this anyhow, we should be using BD our cameras? :) BD And yes Rob, I see what you are saying, I simply don't like it (if anything BD happens anyhow) BD Highest of high regards, :) BD Brad Dobo BD - Original Message - BD From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 PM BD Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here BD have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned BD customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a BD lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price BD points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers BD of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase BD an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Re[2]: Vs: MZ-S durability
Yep Bruce, that's true, and nice for the cold winters we get here as well. - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: Re[2]: Vs: MZ-S durability Brad, I just put my first set of lithiums in my BG-10 after several sets of alkalines. The biggest reason for me is weight not battery life. Bruce Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 7:52:22 PM, you wrote: BD As I think I said earlier, I've never had the camera accidentally turn off BD or on. However, since I've had the MZ-S I frequently FORGET to turn it off, BD and it stays on for long periods of time. I have the battery grip, and BD normal Duracell batteries in it. I've got lithiums now to replace it, but BD so far the MZ-S is like the Energizer bunnyit keep going and going. So BD it obviously doesn't use much power. Makes me wonder why I got the BD lithiums. :) BD Brad Dobo BD - Original Message - BD From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:45 PM BD Subject: Re: Vs: MZ-S durability On 11 Sep 2002 at 21:33, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:20:56 -0400, wendy beard wrote: It could just be the action of putting them in or pulling them out of BD the case/bag which turns them on. For some reason, the way I pick up and put down the camera is such that I sometimes flip the switch accidentally. I don't mind it, I've never had it accidentally switch on however I have BD my gear packed pretty solid whilst I'm on the move. I did however manage to flatten a set of batteries by leaving it on and packing it away since I BD had an old cap on it that forced the lens mount indicator LED to remain BD illuminated. In any case the switch being placed around the shutter release is sort of reminiscent of the lock on my other bodies, I'd probably forget to turn it BD off most of the time otherwise. As an aside my M7II body has a similar power BD switch around it's release however it's so recessed and stiff that it's nearly a BD two hand job to switch it on, I'd prefer it more like the MZ-S. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Re[2]: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Hehe...ya, I bet. I've looked them over in stores. But even I have my limits. I shall wait until I am at least a decent photographer before moving to MF. - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 12:10 AM Subject: Re[2]: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) Brad, You gotta try the 67II or 645nII. When you deal with that big viewfinder and big negative, suddenly the bells and whistles on the 35's suddenly doesn't seem quite so important. Talk about feeling like you got the top of the line... Brother Bruce :) Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 8:27:06 PM, you wrote: BD As one Pentax customer, I would care. I bought the MZ-S because it was the BD latest and greatest sort of thing, it's only a camera and I didn't _need_ BD itI also bought the AF360FGZ for it, release cable, release timer (still BD waiting on it). Had I known (if our speculations are correct :)) that there BD would be a higher model coming out shortly, I would never have bought the BD MZ-S or its accessories. The MZ-5n was fun, but limited as I learned more BD and more, and I'd have used it until the camera we speculate on comes out. BD I am also not saying there is anything wrong with the MZ-S, but for me BD personally, I like to have the biggest and the best. I don't collect any BD sort of equipment, and only get what I need (or just plain want). I sell my BD old lens for better ones (and lose money on it definitely). I know a lot of BD people here are just the opposite, that's fine, but can you see it from my BD point of view? I also only dress with brand name clothes tooheh, flame BD me on that! :) BD I cannot speak for the LX or anything more than a few years old. BD And although I do not have the financial means (without asking my parents BD who are rich but don't help me out :)) to switch to a different system or BD brand, if Pentax does come out with a higher spec model (so soon, mind you, BD I am not stupid and know that the MZ-S will not be the top forever), I will BD be more likely to jump ship with no problem to get the latest thing when I BD did have the financial meansit's not like I have Pentax tattooed on me. BD Hell, I could still stick with better new Pentax stuff. Call me vain, a BD wannabe, rich brat or whatever, because in some cases, I definitely am and BD proud! BD Anyhow, why are we spending so much time on this anyhow, we should be using BD our cameras? :) BD And yes Rob, I see what you are saying, I simply don't like it (if anything BD happens anyhow) BD Highest of high regards, :) BD Brad Dobo BD - Original Message - BD From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 PM BD Subject: Re: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :) On 11 Sep 2002 at 20:25, Brad Dobo wrote: I can't speak on the technical parts, as I really don't understand them, and haven't been using Pentax for as long as most here BD have. But it seems to me that Pentax would piss off their hard-earned BD customers by coming out with another camera and leaving those with MZ-S cameras in a BD lurge. Hi Brad, They might P off a few Pentax users however have a think about price BD points, the last new LX buyers were paying over US$1500 for the privilege, buyers BD of Nikon and Canon top end bodies also pay far more than it costs to purchase BD an MZ-S. So I'd not find it unacceptable if Pentax brought out a newer higher spec'd body at a higher price than the MZ-S? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: WARNING: Fake PayPal Message
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:03:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a href=http://www.paypalsys.com/ ... That's a common scam. One must be ever vigilant. It's been pulled with PayPal accounts, AOL accounts, and others. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
