Re: Monopod advice

[Brad Dobo]

Ray, that's a fantastic question.  I was naive when I bought my Manfrotto
silver monopod.  It just wasn't tall enough and I was bent over trying to
use it.  I'm 6' 2".  With all this monopod support, and it's relative
cheapness, I think I'll look for one that suits my height, can be used as a
weapon , and is black (but not for reflections, as everyone knows I pick
black for vanity reasons :)).  I don't care about the weight, so I'll get a
rugged one.

Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Monopod advice


>
> Dan:
>
> From what I’ve read so far no one has asked you this question:
>
> How tall are you?
>
> I have a Bogen 3218 monopod, weighs about 2 pounds, a heavy-duty unit.
But I didn’t pick it for its durability; I picked it because I’m 6 feet 1
inch tall.  I didn’t want to put up with the problem of stooping to take a
shot when I’m standing, thus losing some of the stability provided by the
monopod.
>
> There’s a lighter Bogen monopod, the 3216, that weighs around a pound.
Compared to my Bogen tripod, the 3218 isn’t that heavy, but after lugging it
around for a while I wonder if I could’ve sacrificed the height for a pound
less weight with the 3216.  I could’ve made the shorter pod just tall enough
with my choice of a head.  So keep that in mind when you’re calculating the
total height.
>
> I would recommend a black monopod because it’ll be one less reflection to
deal with.  One time I had a aluminum tripod and it was causing a
distracting reflection in a white tombstone.  So now I own a tripod and a
monopod, both in black.
>
> Best,
>
> Ray
>
>
>

Re: Flash suggestions for Zx-5n

[Brad Dobo]

- Original Message -
From: "Nick Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: Flash suggestions for Zx-5n


> My second TTL flash is the AF330FTZ. Also a great flash. Prolly the
smallest
> of the Pentax "BIG" flashes (ie-greater than GN30/m), someone correct me
if
> I'm wrong. No bounce or swivel but it does have a zoom head. Doesn't eat
> batteries like the 500. I shot football with it all last season got great
> pix at 1600iso.

You are not wrong, I used to have the AF330FTZ, and found it quite useful on
my MZ-5n.


> The AF360FGZ will be my fourth TTL flash. Even though it does not have a
> swivel head (it does have bounce), I am still going to get it. Two main
> reasons. 1, I intend to get an MZ-S sometime and will want to be able to
use
> the advanced flash functions available with that body. And 2, I like to
use
> the older bodies as well (ie- K1000) and this flash will be able to be
used
> effortlessly on them because it also has an "AUTO" mode.

I must say I *love* the AF360FGZ, especially since I own the MZ-S.  Some
complain about this more advanced flash not having the power of the 500, but
I've found for my uses anyway, the gn of 36 is fine.  Of course we all dream
of a 150gn in metres or does Nikon already have one? :)

> As far as stealth is concerned the 330ftz would prolly be the best bet, as
> far as flashes are concerned. But I tend to agree with Debra if it's
> imparative that you be unnoticed spend your money on fast glass and go
> available light.

I don't understand the stealth part?  Is it invisible on radar?  Perhaps
Bruce can use it with his military spec. DSLR :)  (Sorry Bruce, just a
little ribbing, couldn't help it when I saw stealth :)

Brad Dobo

Re: C41 B & W film

[Michael Yehle]

- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:44 PM
Subject: C41 B & W film


> Has anyone hand coloured B & W prints and which is the better papers to
have
> it printed on. I dont have any oils as yet and will be using the Derwent
> pencils from my art school days, would this work. I will seal it after I'm
> done.

I did when we lived in the states - went to a halfway decent shop (Mike's
Camera in boulder) and told them I wanted my stuff printed on a matte paper
suitible for handcoloring.  I've requested matte paper here a couple times
but it will not take coloring - oils or colored pencils.  The paper used
successfully is "Kodak Professional"  no other info - no brand name on the
other...


hth

Mike Y

Re: Monopod advice

[RayXr]

Dan:

>From what I’ve read so far no one has asked you this question: 

How tall are you?

I have a Bogen 3218 monopod, weighs about 2 pounds, a heavy-duty unit.  But I didn’t 
pick it for its durability; I picked it because I’m 6 feet 1 inch tall.  I didn’t 
want to put up with the problem of stooping to take a shot when I’m standing, thus 
losing some of the stability provided by the monopod.

There’s a lighter Bogen monopod, the 3216, that weighs around a pound.  Compared to 
my Bogen tripod, the 3218 isn’t that heavy, but after lugging it around for a while 
I wonder if I could’ve sacrificed the height for a pound less weight with the 3216.  
I could’ve made the shorter pod just tall enough with my choice of a head.  So keep 
that in mind when you’re calculating the total height. 

I would recommend a black monopod because it’ll be one less reflection to deal with. 
 One time I had a aluminum tripod and it was causing a distracting reflection in a 
white tombstone.  So now I own a tripod and a monopod, both in black.

Best,

Ray

 

Re: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!

[Jim Apilado]

Hope this option will work with the original 645 and not just the later
models.  But I will wait for the smaller insert when and if it materializes.
Jim A.

> From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: AudioBias Systems Engineering
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:53:06 +1000
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 20:54:26 -0400
> 
> On 29 Sep 2002 at 22:16, Rob Brigham wrote:
> 
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/photokina2002.shtml
> 
> I'm glad to see that this option is in the pipeline, it's pretty sad to see
> that a third part manufacturer beat Pentax to the punch though.
> 
> 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: Negative/Slide scanner

[Andrew Robinson]

Besides this list, there is a mailing list devoted to film scanners. Those
folks will be happy to fill in any details you don't get here :-). You can
find info on the listserv at


Andrew Robinson

Luke Johnson wrote:

> I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it
> to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a
> negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!
>
> Luke Johnson
>
> __
> D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
>  http://www.doteasy.com

Re: Flash suggestions for Zx-5n

[Nick Wright]

Here are my two cents...

My first TTL flash was the AF280T. Great flash. Love the swivel and bounce
head. Worked great on the pz1p.

My second TTL flash is the AF330FTZ. Also a great flash. Prolly the smallest
of the Pentax "BIG" flashes (ie-greater than GN30/m), someone correct me if
I'm wrong. No bounce or swivel but it does have a zoom head. Doesn't eat
batteries like the 500. I shot football with it all last season got great
pix at 1600iso.

My third TTL flash is the AF500FTZ. It's a monster. It'll turn my pz1p
upside down (while hanging from my neck), even with the grip strap and a
heavier lens (ie- F35-135/3.5-4.5). Mucho power. At 800iso and f2.8 you can
get good exposures past 99 feet. Two nice features of this flash are the
power input socket, whereby you can plug in a Quantum Turbo or the Pentax
PowerPack TR2. And also a socket for the Pentax Off-Camera TTL cord. The TTL
cord socket saves you about $25-50us if you decide you like off-camera flash
which is very nice, because you don't have to purchase the adapter that fits
onto the foot of the flash to take the cord.

The AF360FGZ will be my fourth TTL flash. Even though it does not have a
swivel head (it does have bounce), I am still going to get it. Two main
reasons. 1, I intend to get an MZ-S sometime and will want to be able to use
the advanced flash functions available with that body. And 2, I like to use
the older bodies as well (ie- K1000) and this flash will be able to be used
effortlessly on them because it also has an "AUTO" mode.

One huge advantage to the newer Pentax flashes and cameras is that when you
switch to manual flash mode the camera tells the flash the aperature and iso
you have set, and the flash will tell you the distance to proper exposure
taking into accound head zoom position and discharge level. I personally
love this feature. I shoot lots of wrecks and fires at night, and the
reflective tape on the firefighter's uniforms really screws up TTL. One
night I switched the flash to manual (I almost always shoot the camera on
manual), and noticed that it kindly showed me on it's screen the above
mentioned information. I now have no problems with night emergency shoots.

As far as stealth is concerned the 330ftz would prolly be the best bet, as
far as flashes are concerned. But I tend to agree with Debra if it's
imparative that you be unnoticed spend your money on fast glass and go
available light.

Well I'll quit rambling...

--
Nick Wright
http://www.wrightfoto.com/

Re: Monopod advice

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 06:06  PM, Goofy wrote:

>
> On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 05:06  PM, wendy beard wrote:
>
>> I have the manfrotto 479-4 (silver).
>>
>> Wendy
>
> Which Manfroto do you have?
>
> Dan Scott
>

Doh!

Dan Scott

Re: Monopod advice

[gfen]

> > I'm open to suggestion, but I need something to steady my hands when I
> > can't take the tripod. I shot at my son's kinder class last week and had
> > to toss half the shots due to shake on my part and, what's really sad, I
> > was sitting in a chair with both feet on the floor.

I bought the cheapest four section Bogen (3229?), and I put my.. uhm.. I
don't know part numbers, but my regular Bogen ball head on top and I'm
quite happy.. It is a useful thing to have around, even though I've only
taken it out and used it a handful of times.

At about $50, I feel it was worth it.

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org
 "The destructive character is cheerful."  - Walter Benjamin

Re: Monopod advice

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 05:06  PM, wendy beard wrote:

> I have the manfrotto 479-4 (silver). I don't have a head to use with it.
> It has been invaluable for use with my Tokina 80-200/2.8 ATX-Pro, both 
> standing (agility) and seated (conformation). I was shooting with that 
> lens all day solidly for three days back in May and I wouldn't have 
> been able to handhold the lens for that length of time without the 
> monopod.
> The manfrotto is a nicely made monopod and it wasn't expensive at all 
> about $70CDN (I think)
>
> Wendy

Thanks Wendy. With the good feedback I've had, I'm getting a good idea 
what to get. Which Manfroto do you have? How well does going headless 
suit you? Are you mostly shooting straight out?

The head I've been thinking about is the quick release monopod head from 
Manfrotto/Bogen. (and if I ever need to use 'pod for self-defense, I'd 
like to think whatever I was defending myself from would need awhile to 
get up and get going again ).

Dan Scott

BTW, I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but at yet another 
kid's party, today, I realized I actually had a monopod if I just 
extended one leg of my tripod, Doh! Slightly unwieldy, but very 
effective all the same.

RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!

[Rob Brigham]

Thought you would like it!  Maybe I will have to get a 645 after all? 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 29 September 2002 23:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!
> 
> 
> We live in interesting times...
> Jostein
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:16 PM
> Subject: RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!
> 
> 
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/photokina2002.shtml
> > 
> > "Good news for Pentax 645 owners (me included). A reader 
> has reported 
> > that he visited Photokina yesterday and saw the first 
> digital back for 
> > the Pentax 645. It is made by NPC in cooperation with 
> Mosaic Imaging. 
> > The first generation model has the electronics off to the side, 
> > looking similar to a Polaroid back for the 645. They are apparently 
> > working on getting the electronics into the film insert 
> cavity, so the 
> > second generation will be a lot more compact. Also, he will use a 
> > larger 645 chip as they become available."
> > 
> > 
> > You may want to keep that pie after all?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 29 September 2002 15:34
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Pentax + Photokina = Zero
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Photokina doesn't matter to Pentax's target market.
> > > Nikon didn't have anything of interest at this show, but did
> > > introduce the D100 in Feb. at the PMA show and (I think) the 
> > > 24-85 AF-S lens. Whenever a DSLR comes out with a Nikon lens 
> > > mount it's good for Nikon: they may actually make money 
> > > selling lenses.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > 
> > > If it's any comfort - Nikon was just as absent at Photokina
> > > as Pentax looks like Kodak and Canon stole a march on 
> > > Nikon for sure.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > John Mustarde
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!

[Jostein]

We live in interesting times...
Jostein
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!


> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/photokina2002.shtml
> 
> "Good news for Pentax 645 owners (me included). A reader has reported
> that he visited Photokina yesterday and saw the first digital back for
> the Pentax 645. It is made by NPC in cooperation with Mosaic Imaging.
> The first generation model has the electronics off to the side, looking
> similar to a Polaroid back for the 645. They are apparently working on
> getting the electronics into the film insert cavity, so the second
> generation will be a lot more compact. Also, he will use a larger 645
> chip as they become available."
> 
> 
> You may want to keep that pie after all?
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: 29 September 2002 15:34
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Pentax + Photokina = Zero
> > 
> > 
> > Photokina doesn't matter to Pentax's target market.
> > Nikon didn't have anything of interest at this show, but did 
> > introduce the D100 in Feb. at the PMA show and (I think) the 
> > 24-85 AF-S lens. Whenever a DSLR comes out with a Nikon lens 
> > mount it's good for Nikon: they may actually make money 
> > selling lenses.
> > 
> > 
> > From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > If it's any comfort - Nikon was just as absent at Photokina 
> > as Pentax looks like Kodak and Canon stole a march on 
> > Nikon for sure.
> > 
> > --
> > John Mustarde
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: how long will it last?

[Frits J. Wüthrich]

I sincerely believe this is a misconception. Along the lines of why it 
would be in the interest of car radio manufacturers to get those stolen 
out of cars and expensive bicycles stolen in the Netherlands. The truth 
is, that this is hurting their business, because you are not going to 
buy another expensive type again. In the case of an un-reliable 
product, you switch to the competition, not to their next product.
When you are satisfied with your 6MP camera, you might consider an 
upgrade when the 15MP comes out, or buy new glass. If it breaks down 
real soon however, I don't think you will replace it so easily with a 
new model from the same manufacturer.
I don't believe in pre planned obsoleteness by deliberately construct 
something to break after a while. I do believe they might or might not 
take the effort to make it more robust in the design phase. If the 
reliability doesn't meet the expectations of the customers, they will 
hurt in the long term, not to mention the legislation like the UK and 
the Netherlands giving the consumer rights beyond the warranty period.

On Sunday 29 September 2002 22:39, Feroze Kistan wrote:
> Why would any manufacturer build DSLR that lasts really long. There
> is no film, so that sector loses out. Only the battery guys do really
> well. If you bought a certain make its probally because you already
> have accessories that work with it. I havn't seen any that you can
> upgrade firmware or stuff. If the thing last forever why would you
> buy another one??? All consumer electronics must have some
> pre-planned obseleteness And if it breaks reall fast (24hrs after
> warranty, when all of my stuff dies) isn't it in their best intrests.
>
> feroze

-- 
Frits J. Wüthrich
(Sent with Kmail)

RE: C41 B & W film

[Rob Brigham]

I have read that the Kodak is more neutral in terms of colouration which
generally helps when printing on colour paper.  I have had just as many
problems with this as with the Olford though, and I prefer the Ilford
for portraits, which is what I tend to use B&W for.  The Kodak seems to
have a higher contrast and more dramatic effect, whereas the Ilford is
more 'creamy'.  I absolutely love the Ilford.

You should bear in mind though, that many processors will automatically
assume you want it printed sepia - hey why else would you use black and
whitre, eh?  Ideally you want it printed on true B&W paper, but failing
that I would recommend giving the printer an example of the sort of
colouration you want - and stress NOT SEPIA!!!

> -Original Message-
> From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 29 September 2002 22:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: C41 B & W film
> 
> 
> Has anyone used the Illford or Kodak B & W film that can be 
> processed by C41. I want to try B & W photography but am 
> clueless as to the in & outs of the processing part. Don't 
> have any darkroom equipment either.
> 
> Has anyone hand coloured B & W prints and which is the better 
> papers to have it printed on. I dont have any oils as yet and 
> will be using the Derwent pencils from my art school days, 
> would this work. I will seal it after I'm done.
> 
> 

Re: Re[6]: So?

[Brad Dobo]

- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: So?


> See, this is one of the things that strikes me as being the worst about
> d-slr. With film, you can change your film any time you want, and you
> are going to have a new look with each film. With digital, it's like you
> are stuck with the brand of film that was in the camera when you bought
> it. The argument against this, of course, is you can change it anyway
> you want in Photoshop or the equivalent. But that also applies to film,
> so digital, to me, comes out the loser in that comparison. Add the not
> being able to use the film you want to not being able to use the lenses
> you want, and digital loses two out of the big three, winning only in
> speed of gratification.
>
> If I'm going to switch, I want better, not just quicker. And I've got
> more reservations than those, but I think I've used up all my brain time
> today.
>
> Dan Scott

Some good points IMHO.  Pretend you aren't already a photographer for some
of these.  What if you aren't really 'into' computers?  What if I don't want
to pay for Photoshop ($$$) or learn how to use it as it is so complicated?
What if I will always prefer slides and prints from a good photofinisher?
What if I don't want to or can't afford to upgrade my existing computer
system?  What if I don't want a huge and expensive monitor, let alone pay
for one.  What if I cannot afford to get bigger and bigger hard drives than
the rate at which I do now?  Now, these aren't *my* concerns, I love
computers, build them from the ground up.  Always the best, 21" monitor a
few hundred GB in hd space, a gb of DDR RAM, P4 1.7ghz (obsolete :)) and not
to mention I'm a software pirate and have and can use Photoshop 7 or
whatever program I want for free.  Not everyone is like me.  I have raised
some questions, and they are pretty valid, seems that if someone got a DSLR
or even a good digicam they have a lot of other extra expenses I've
mentioned.  They may not like that.  I wouldn't.  But luckily I'm set up for
that already.  That's a awful lot of money to get 'digital' pictures.
Something tells me DSLRs will be pretty well limited to either, the
well-off, or a professional who simply submits his shots and the company or
newspaper has the money for the equipment to deal with them?  Does anyone
understand what I'm saying or am I just typing gibberish?  So, got crazy
with a digital if you like.  Hey, they are out there.  To me, my digital P&S
is a toy, to take to bars and partys  and take fun pictures and email them
around.  I have never even considered printing them or saving them.  If I
drop it, it gets stolen, or I spill my beer on it when drunk (a very real
situation for myself :)), I won't be happy, but I won't be crying, it only
cost $400Cdn.

Ok PDMLers, gave ya some ammo, use it! :)

Brad Dobo

Re: Monopod advice

[wendy beard]

I have the manfrotto 479-4 (silver). I don't have a head to use with it.
It has been invaluable for use with my Tokina 80-200/2.8 ATX-Pro, both 
standing (agility) and seated (conformation). I was shooting with that lens 
all day solidly for three days back in May and I wouldn't have been able to 
handhold the lens for that length of time without the monopod.
The manfrotto is a nicely made monopod and it wasn't expensive at all about 
$70CDN (I think)

Wendy

---
Wendy Beard
Ottawa, Canada
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home page http://www.beard-redfern.com

RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 5:16 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!
>
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/photokina2002.shtml
>
> "Good news for Pentax 645 owners (me included). A reader
> has reported
> that he visited Photokina yesterday and saw the first
> digital back for
> the Pentax 645. It is made by NPC in cooperation with
> Mosaic Imaging.
> The first generation model has the electronics off to the
> side, looking
> similar to a Polaroid back for the 645. They are apparently
> working on
> getting the electronics into the film insert cavity, so the second
> generation will be a lot more compact. Also, he will use a
> larger 645
> chip as they become available."
>
>
> You may want to keep that pie after all?

That would be cool.

Does anyone know anything about NPC digital backs? Resolution, sensor
size etc

tv

Re: Negative/Slide scanner

[Alan Chan]

> I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it
> to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a
> negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!

If you are happy with 8.5x12" prints, get a 2700-2800dpi film scanner like
used Nikon LS-2000, Minolta Scan Elite FS-2900, new Nikon IV ED or Minolta
Scan Elite II. If you want bigger prints, opt for 4000dpi model like Nikon
4000 ED.

regards,
Alan Chan

Re: crack in bottom plate PZ-1

[Alan Chan]

The bottom plate of the Z-1/Z-1p can be easily removed. Just remove "all"
the screws on the bottom of the camera 1st, open the battery compartment
cover, then  pull the bottom plate out (but don't pull the battery cover).
There will be some resistance due to the strong double-side tape used
inside.

However, do use the correct size screwdriver, and "remember" the positions
of the screws which aren't identical. After that, you can try to do whatever
you want with the bottom plate. If you screwed up, just ordered one from
Pentax and replaced it yourself (mind you they might not have stock and
might need to order from Japan).

If the plastic was bented, I doubt you would be able to glue it back. If you
could, use epoxy glue which is much stronger and long lasting.

regards,
Alan Chan

- Original Message -
From: "Frits J. Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: crack in bottom plate PZ-1


> When I took my PZ-1 out of the bag this afternoon, I noticed the
> bottomplate, next to the battery door, where it is only 2 mm wide, was
> cracked, and one piece was bend outwards.
> Now what can I do?
> - Ignore the problem, or perhaps even remove the bended part.
> - Glue with super glue the piece back? This bottom plate might not be
> easy removed anymore after this, in case that would be needed for a
> repair.
> - Replace the bottom plate with a new one. Is that do-able for a person
> like me? I am not into camera repairs, although I might do this if it
> is really easy. Or should I get this job done for me? How much would it
> cost here in the UK?
>
> BTW: While trying to bend it back, I notice how strong this stuff is. It
> is certainly not cheap plastic.
> --
> Frits J. Wüthrich
> (Sent with Kmail)
>

Re: x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 09:40  AM, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:

> Yes, it was a really old email.  Brad has changed greatly since the 
> tumultuous days of his youth...a little less than a week ago.  He's no 
> longer on the quaaludes, the bell-bottoms are in the trash (wait, 
> they've come back in style again), and he sold the motorcycle.  He's 
> now working on Wall Street, has a family and even a minivan - he's 
> quite the man now, you'd hardly recognize him.  Never thought I'd see 
> him in a suit.  He's really done well for himself.
>
> Things move at a fast pace in the digital age.
>
> RSW

'ludes? You are really dating yourself, dude. :-)

Dan Scott

C41 B & W film

[Feroze Kistan]

Has anyone used the Illford or Kodak B & W film that can be processed by
C41. I want to try B & W photography but am clueless as to the in & outs of
the processing part. Don't have any darkroom equipment either.

Has anyone hand coloured B & W prints and which is the better papers to have
it printed on. I dont have any oils as yet and will be using the Derwent
pencils from my art school days, would this work. I will seal it after I'm
done.

how long will it last?

[Feroze Kistan]

Why would any manufacturer build DSLR that lasts really long. There is no
film, so that sector loses out. Only the battery guys do really well. If you
bought a certain make its probally because you already have accessories that
work with it. I havn't seen any that you can upgrade firmware or stuff. If
the thing last forever why would you buy another one??? All consumer
electronics must have some pre-planned obseleteness And if it breaks
reall fast (24hrs after warranty, when all of my stuff dies) isn't it in
their best intrests.

feroze

Re: crack in bottom plate PZ-1

[Bob Rapp]

Hi Fritz,
I think Pentax still replaces these free of charge. It is a problem with
PZ-1s and early PZ-1ps.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Frits J. Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: crack in bottom plate PZ-1


When I took my PZ-1 out of the bag this afternoon, I noticed the
bottomplate, next to the battery door, where it is only 2 mm wide, was
cracked, and one piece was bend outwards.
Now what can I do?
- Ignore the problem, or perhaps even remove the bended part.
- Glue with super glue the piece back? This bottom plate might not be
easy removed anymore after this, in case that would be needed for a
repair.
- Replace the bottom plate with a new one. Is that do-able for a person
like me? I am not into camera repairs, although I might do this if it
is really easy. Or should I get this job done for me? How much would it
cost here in the UK?

BTW: While trying to bend it back, I notice how strong this stuff is. It
is certainly not cheap plastic.
--
Frits J. Wüthrich
(Sent with Kmail)

Re: Re[6]: So?

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 01:41  AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:

> Rob,
>
> A funny thought just crossed my mind.  In the past we have been very
> accustomed to thinking that the camera body doesn't matter that much
> as long as the shutter speeds are accurate.  The optics are after all,
> what really makes the picture quality.  But with DSLR's, that changes
> to some degree.  Optics are important, but the body is far more
> important than in the past.  With the electronics and software built
> into the body, a camera body can have as much or more impact on
> picture quality than the lens.  It would be entirely possible for
> Pentax to create a DSLR with poor software that would negate the
> quality gained from the optics.  Not a comforting thought for me.  I
> have always thought that as long as my glass was good, any body would
> work in a pinch.

> I, too, like Pentax glass the best.  But I could stand to use Nikon
> glass and bodies if necessary.
>

> Bruce

See, this is one of the things that strikes me as being the worst about 
d-slr. With film, you can change your film any time you want, and you 
are going to have a new look with each film. With digital, it's like you 
are stuck with the brand of film that was in the camera when you bought 
it. The argument against this, of course, is you can change it anyway 
you want in Photoshop or the equivalent. But that also applies to film, 
so digital, to me, comes out the loser in that comparison. Add the not 
being able to use the film you want to not being able to use the lenses 
you want, and digital loses two out of the big three, winning only in 
speed of gratification.

If I'm going to switch, I want better, not just quicker. And I've got 
more reservations than those, but I think I've used up all my brain time 
today.

Dan Scott

RE: SMC Pentax K-Mount Medium Telephoto Prime Lens Poll

[tom]

A 135/1.8
FA 135/2.8
FA 200/2.8

> -Original Message-
> From: andre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 5:07 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Medium Telephoto Prime Lens Poll
> 
> 
> A*135/f1.8
> A*200/f4 Macro ED
> K200/f2.5
> 
> 
> 
> -- 

crack in bottom plate PZ-1

[Frits J. Wüthrich]

When I took my PZ-1 out of the bag this afternoon, I noticed the 
bottomplate, next to the battery door, where it is only 2 mm wide, was 
cracked, and one piece was bend outwards.
Now what can I do?
- Ignore the problem, or perhaps even remove the bended part.
- Glue with super glue the piece back? This bottom plate might not be 
easy removed anymore after this, in case that would be needed for a 
repair.
- Replace the bottom plate with a new one. Is that do-able for a person 
like me? I am not into camera repairs, although I might do this if it 
is really easy. Or should I get this job done for me? How much would it 
cost here in the UK?

BTW: While trying to bend it back, I notice how strong this stuff is. It 
is certainly not cheap plastic.
-- 
Frits J. Wüthrich
(Sent with Kmail)

RE: Pentax + Photokina = 645D - NOW HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS!!!

[Rob Brigham]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/photokina2002.shtml

"Good news for Pentax 645 owners (me included). A reader has reported
that he visited Photokina yesterday and saw the first digital back for
the Pentax 645. It is made by NPC in cooperation with Mosaic Imaging.
The first generation model has the electronics off to the side, looking
similar to a Polaroid back for the 645. They are apparently working on
getting the electronics into the film insert cavity, so the second
generation will be a lot more compact. Also, he will use a larger 645
chip as they become available."


You may want to keep that pie after all?



> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 29 September 2002 15:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax + Photokina = Zero
> 
> 
> Photokina doesn't matter to Pentax's target market.
> Nikon didn't have anything of interest at this show, but did 
> introduce the D100 in Feb. at the PMA show and (I think) the 
> 24-85 AF-S lens. Whenever a DSLR comes out with a Nikon lens 
> mount it's good for Nikon: they may actually make money 
> selling lenses.
> 
> 
> From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> If it's any comfort - Nikon was just as absent at Photokina 
> as Pentax looks like Kodak and Canon stole a march on 
> Nikon for sure.
> 
> --
> John Mustarde
> 
> 
> 

Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Medium Telephoto Prime Lens Poll

[andre]

A*135/f1.8
A*200/f4 Macro ED
K200/f2.5



-- 

For PDMLers from Brad :)

[Brad Dobo]

Hey ladies and gents,

I must say, I have great respect for the more vocal member of our group as
their knowledge *far* exceeds mine.  Moreover, I have even further respect
from those members who really like to pounce on some emails.  You didn't and
I think even more highly of this group than ever before!  I was definitely
in a silly mood last night, and no doubt it will happen again.  At least
you'll get some laughs out of them.

Regards,

Brad Dobo

Re: Negative/Slide scanner

[Robert Woerner]

Hah!

Neither is Photokina!

:) Robert

>I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it 

>Luke Johnson
>
>
>
>__
>D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
> http://www.doteasy.com
>


___
GO.com Mail
Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com

Re: Re:x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600

[Brad Dobo]

Hmmm...I've just woke up and only had a few hours sleep due to the massive
email attack on the PDML :)  I waited up for replies, and even now didn't
get any!  I'm so disappointed (it's true).  I haven't had my coffee, so I
really don't understand your email Rob  It seems as incoherent as my own!
Rob, even if it was an insult to me, send me an email off-board
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and tell me what it really means. Ok?  I promise not to
hunt you down if it's bad. :)  I'm just really curious about it.

Whether it is a fun email or nasty, looking forward to your reply!

Brad Dobo

- Original Message -
From: "Robert Soames Wetmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Re:x Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600


> Yes, it was a really old email.  Brad has changed greatly since the
> tumultuous days of his youth...a little less than a week ago.  He's no
> longer on the quaaludes, the bell-bottoms are in the trash (wait, they've
> come back in style again), and he sold the motorcycle.  He's now working
on
> Wall Street, has a family and even a minivan - he's quite the man now,
you'd
> hardly recognize him.  Never thought I'd see him in a suit.  He's really
> done well for himself.
>
> Things move at a fast pace in the digital age.
>
> RSW
>
>
> >On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 23:46:21 -0400 Brad Dobo wrote:
> >Hey Paul,
> >
> >Wow, you are replying to an *old* email.  I barely remember writing it
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >On Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:00 PM Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >[...]
> >Brad Dobo wrote:
> > > >[...]
> > > > On September 24, 2002 10:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
> > > > >[...]
> > > > > On 24 Sep 2002 at 3:21, Keith Whaley wrote:
> > > > >[...]
>
>
> _
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>

Re: Monopod advice

[Brad Dobo]

- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Monopod advice


> Hola Brad,
>
> You seem fairly sane to me but, my measuring stick hasn't been
> calibrated for the lngest time now. YMMV

Give me time Dan, and I'll prove to you that I'm totally insane! :)  Ya, my
name is a problem, it is actually Japanese for 'Pentax', I get all sorts of
yelled insults from Nikon and Canon users when I mention my name.  Once I
got hit with a monopod...heh...guess they are good for something! :)  On the
*serious* side, my comments on monopods are taken from one of the many
photography-how-to books.  I owned a cheap Manfrotto, and like I said, never
had use for it, but for a walking stick.  In the end someone made fun of my
Pentax gear and I beat them with my *own* monopod.  It wasn't very good,
bent and broken. :)

Brad Dobo

> :-)
>
> Dan Scott
>
> BTW, my spellchecker keeps flagging your name—are you sure you're
> spelling it right? 
>
>
>

Re: Monopod advice

[Brad Dobo]

I do my best, but some still think I'm sane :)

Brad Dobo
- Original Message - 
From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: Monopod advice


> <<  Of course, everyone here
> thinks I'm crazy! :) >>
> 
> Shouldn't it read *knows" insted of *thinks*, Brad? :))
> 
> Lukasz
> 

Re: Digital Robustness

[Jeffrey Schneider]

Most newspapers now use digital cameras (often N*k*n).  They get regular
service from the same people who used to service their film cameras.  Usually
the service that's required is mechanical in nature (e.g., mirror alignment). 
Of course, a few years down the road we may see more failures of the
electronics.

My personal experience with electronic devices is that they are EXTEMELY
robust (failures tend to occur immediately or never).  I have a transistor
radio from 1974 that still works great.  I have a calculator from 1985 that I
still use (and the LCD hasn't faded).  Having fewer mechanical components, I
would expect most digital cameras to be more reliable than film cameras.

The main considerations in digital camera longevity are, IMO, the availability
of electronic spares, and software support.  And these issues will only become
important many years from now, when the current digital cameras will be
obsolescent anyway.

For those of us who collect and use old cameras, digital cameras are
problematic.  A mechanical SLR can be kept going more or less forever, since
many spares can be fabricated.  That's not generally true for electronic
devices.  Some electronic film cameras made 25 years ago are unrepairable. 
But for professional photographers, or really anyone else who doesn't plan to
keep a camera for a lifetime, I can't see digital camera robustness being a
problem.

Jeff

OT: More...

[Collin Brendemuehl]

Pentax-A 35/2.8
Excellent glass, just a little rough around the paint edges.
$60 

Re: Rollei was the biggest news at Photokina!

[Mishka]

6008i kits are selling for circa $2500 (US) in honk kong online stores as
well as ebay. at present, i am trying really hard to reason myself away from
one of these...

mishka

> 2.  The 6008 is a nice system already - and - considering its competition
> (blad) - it's actually cheaper.  Now add the Auto focus into the mix and
> Rollei has jumped ahead of Hasselblad.  As long as the AF is solid and the
> rest of the camera isn't affected by the addition of the AF system then it
> should be a great boon to MF.  Now, that being said, the cost of either
> system brand spanking new is not cheap (Blad 501c/m kit - $5,200 CDN
Rollei
> 6008 kit - $4,700 CDN   Rollei AF body/back/finder - $5,800 CDN) - I just
> hope that some of those Rollei 6008i's go into the used market.

RE: Negative/slide scanner

[Chris Brogden]

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Luke Johnson wrote:

> More info is always helpful! sorry bout that was just getting up and not
> totally awake. I am looking at getting a used scannner hopefully in the
> 100-200 price range. the platform will be a PC and my main objective with
> this is to be able to post photos to the web ie PUG or a personal website.
> so i am not really looking for anything too fancy, just something that gets
> the job done with fairly good results! thanks!

Have you had a look at Pacific Image's PrimeFilm scanners?

chris

Re: Negative/Slide scanner

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 10:02  AM, Luke Johnson wrote:

> I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use 
> it to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting 
> a negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. 
> Thanks!
>
> Luke Johnson
>

Hi Luke,

I have experience with one, the Minolta Scan Dual II.

Pro:

good—(epecially when used with the excellent Vuescan driver). The 
difference between what I've gotten from my negs and slides is 
astounding when compared to what minilabs give me.

cheap—($300 US)


Cons:

lack of speed—may be par for the course, I don't know

dust—with as much dust as this thing hoovers in, you'd think the rest of 
the house would be spotless

cheap—mine died before a year was out, the film holders always made a 
horrible clattering noise when being sucked into the machine

hth,

Dan Scott

RE: Negative/slide scanner

[Luke Johnson]

More info is always helpful! sorry bout that was just getting up and not 
totally awake. I am looking at getting a used scannner hopefully in the 
100-200 price range. the platform will be a PC and my main objective with 
this is to be able to post photos to the web ie PUG or a personal website. 
so i am not really looking for anything too fancy, just something that gets 
the job done with fairly good results! thanks!

Luke Johnson



__
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
 http://www.doteasy.com

Re: Digital robustness

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 04:02  AM, Cotty wrote:

> This entirely depends on where you live. Here in the UK, we have laws
> that say that if trouble arises after the purchase of an item, then the
> buyer (and warranty holder) has an issue with the seller, not the
> manufacturer.
>
> In practice, this means if I buy a TV from a retailer and it breaks
> (which I did, and it did), then I take it back to the retailer and say
> 'My good man, this television device that you sold me is broken, now 
> what
> are you going to do about it?'
>
> They are then under a legal obligation to repair or replace the item.
>
> It is entirely possible for this to be enforced *even after* the 
> warranty
> has expired.
>

> This obviously differs from what our US brethren, and indeed lots of
> others worldwide, have to contend with, and may not be much use for that
> reason.
>
> HTH
>
> Cotty

Cotty,

It is a little bit different here. Generally we operate on the standard 
warranty system—if it breaks in half, you get to keep *both* of the 
pieces (unless it's software, of course, in which case all of the pieces 
still belong to the people who originally sold it).

Dan, in the land of stack it deep and sell it cheap

Re: Monopod advice

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 09:42  AM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:

> First off, a monopod is good for about two stops of shutter speed, so 
> it is
> not a replacement for a tripod. I use a rather light weight Silk EZ-pod 
> Jr.
> Works fine with a 70-300 zoom. Unless you have long, very heavy lenses 
> there
> is not real need, or advantage to a heavy duty monopod.
>

Thanks Bruce, I'll put it on my candidates list. I'm not shooting with 
any monster lens or anything, I'm just looking to limit the number of 
directions I can wobble in.

Dan Scott

Re: Monopod advice

[Dan Scott]

On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 02:11  AM, Brad Dobo wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Well, you can buy a cheapie to try it out, if you find it useful, get a
> better one.  That's what I would probably do.  Of course, everyone here
> thinks I'm crazy! :) (Am I?)
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad Dobo
>

Hola Brad,

Since the difference between nice and cheapie appears to be about $20 
(excluding carbon fiber), I may go whole hog, if I can figure out which 
of the variables is best suited for me.

You seem fairly sane to me but, my measuring stick hasn't been 
calibrated for the lngest time now. YMMV

:-)

Dan Scott

BTW, my spellchecker keeps flagging your name—are you sure you're 
spelling it right? 

RE: Negative/Slide scanner

[David Chang-Sang]

Luke,

I personally love the Minolta DiMage Scan Elite II.
It came out late last year and is perfect for my 35mm needs.
I can only print 8x10 (via Epson 870) so the 2820 DPI is fine.
I may at some point upgrade my printer to allow for 11x14 and I may still be
able to squeeze the DPI for those as well.
Comes with Digital ICE and GEM and ROC.  It can batch scan negs and
slides(mounted). It is supported by VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com) and
it's own software is fairly decent depending on the film you're scanning.

The toss up for me was weather to get the Minolta or the Nikon Coolscan IV
ED - Nikon can't batch scan slides so everything else went by the wayside
and I went with the Minolta instead.

Cheers,
Dave

-Original Message-
From: Luke Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Negative/Slide scanner


I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it
to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a
negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!

Luke Johnson



__
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
 http://www.doteasy.com

Re: Monopod advice

[Pentxuser]

I agree. A monopod is great for carrying around and it certainly buys a 
couple of stops or even better helps to sharpen shots that might not 
otherwise be sharp. It's especially good for grabbing shots that would be 
difficult or too slow if you are using a tripod. I use a tripod 90 per cent 
of the time. A monopod 8 per cent of the time and handhold the other 2 per 
cent.
Vic 

In a message dated 9/29/02 10:10:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< And, in terms of Brad's comments on the usefulness of a monopod for all 
but pro
sports photogs, I respectfully disagree.  They're great in places where a
tripod would take up too much space, or would be a pain to carry.  I may only
use mine a couple of times per year, but it's nice to have when I need it.
Used it at the airshow last month (pics should be ready next week).  Also 
great
for relatively low light telephoto shots.  For instance, this one was taken at
about 1/30th, with a 200mm lens: >>

RE: Rollei was the biggest news at Photokina!

[David Chang-Sang]

1.  I'm not a huge TLR fan, but if it's reasonably priced (-it's a Rollei
though so chances are it won't be-) :-)
I'd consider that for wide angle MF

2.  The 6008 is a nice system already - and - considering its competition
(blad) - it's actually cheaper.  Now add the Auto focus into the mix and
Rollei has jumped ahead of Hasselblad.  As long as the AF is solid and the
rest of the camera isn't affected by the addition of the AF system then it
should be a great boon to MF.  Now, that being said, the cost of either
system brand spanking new is not cheap (Blad 501c/m kit - $5,200 CDN  Rollei
6008 kit - $4,700 CDN   Rollei AF body/back/finder - $5,800 CDN) - I just
hope that some of those Rollei 6008i's go into the used market.

3.  The Rollei RF (as you said, a dressed up Voigtlander Bessa R2) is
something I'd pass on - BUT - the Zeiss glass in M mount would be INCREDIBLE
to see.  Put that glass on any M-mount rangefinder and it should be magic.
Even more so if the glass is mounted on an M6 or M7.  Sure, Leica glass is
nice and very expensive, but direct comparison of existing Zeiss rangefinder
glass (for the Contax G2) and a Leica 50mm Summicron, didn't yield any
particular advantage for either glass.  So, that being said, if the Zeiss
glass is a wee bit cheaper than the Leica glass, it would be a good deal
because the image quality is basically equal (Leica Purists can now flame me
as they see fit) :-)

Cheers,
Dave

-Original Message-
From: Robert Soames Wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 10:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: Rollei was the biggest news at Photokina!


1. A wide-angle "50mm Rolleiflex TLR"!  Simply awesome news.  I finally have
a good reason to upgrade from my Yashica TLR.  I'm drooling like a fool
right now.

2. A 6008 series autofocus body - the "6008AF" - the first autofocus 6x6.
The 6008 system was already in my opinion the greatest 6x6 system, and
possibly the best medium format system in the world (depending of course on
one's needs and preferences) - and the AF system may be the iceing on the
cake.  When someday soon I finally go MF, it's looking more and more like
Rollei is the way to go.

3. The Bessa R2-based rangefinder "Rollie 35RF" with three very desirable
Leica-mount Zeiss lenses.  I'm not a rangefinder guy (and if I was, I'd go
the Hexanon route), but this is potentially big news for rangefinder fans.
After so much stagnancy, so much has been happening with RFs lately: Konica,
Voigtlander, Bronica MF, and even Leica finally getting autoexposure (the
M7)...now Rollei and Zeiss enter the game.


Robert Soames Wetmore
_

Re: Negative/Slide scanner

[Rob Studdert]

On 29 Sep 2002 at 10:02, Luke Johnson wrote:

> I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it to
> scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a negative
> scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!

Hi Luke,

Although it's not the correct forum as such (although over the last few weeks 
it's debatable) there are plenty of PDMLers here who could offer very sound 
advice. 

However you may need to supply a little more information such as; your price 
range, used/new, expected use of the output files, connection type, platform 
and anything else that you can think of.

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: Negative/Slide scanner

[Pentxuser]

In a message dated 9/29/02 10:04:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it 
to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a 
negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!

Luke Johnson >>

I have Canon's FS2710 and find it excellent for all my purposes. I also have 
a umax 600S for a flatbed. Both used on a Mac but capable of use on PCs
Vic 

Re: OT: Stuff FS

[Pentxuser]

Colin where abouts are you located...
Vic 

Negative/Slide scanner

[Luke Johnson]

I know this technically isnt pentax related, although i am going to use it 
to scan negs/slides taken with my pz1p/zx5n. I am looking at getting a 
negative scanner and wondering what your recommendations might be. Thanks!

Luke Johnson



__
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
 http://www.doteasy.com

RE: Digital robustness

[Malcolm Smith]

John Mustarde wrote:

Hi John,

> PDML threads often find reasons why digital may fail to please, or
> speculate on why it must be an inadequate medium, or find a dozen
> other faults with it - but the simple fact is there are many thousands
> of satisfied digital camera users.

I have found the threads in the last week have made me feel more confident
about the resilience and durability of DSLRs.
>
> And there is no army of users out there complaining their digicams are
> failing right and left due to cheap and shoddy electronics.

Possibly not - but I know so many people who bought a digicam who loved it
for the first month and have left it to hibernate in a cupboard ever since.
>
> The newest tank - Canon 1Ds -  has like 78 gaskets and very rugged
> construction - giving it a good chance for durability under harsh
> usage. The Canon 1D and  D30, plus the various Nikon/Kodak/Fuji
> iterations have proven to be reliable in their short history, if my
> avid reading of all things digicam has been accurate.

I find that all the more reassuring to DSLR buyers.
>
> I would actually welcome the time when DSLRs become "consumer
> electronics. " They will get to a mature point of their market cycle
> wherein the manufacturing and electronic bugs have been through at
> least one improvement cycle. At that time, the cost of manufacturing
> will come down and be reflected in a lower selling price (or more
> features for the same price point.) This is exactly what is has been
> happening for a couple of years in the digicam market, and starting to
> happen now in the DSLR market.

Two points from this:

We are all here because we enjoy our Pentax equipment. As the bulk of market
sales are P & S digital and disposable cameras, we represent a very small
part of the market. Any camera is a luxury item - you don't need to own one,
and people here really take care of their camera equipment.

One rather poor example coming up, but think of the concept, not the example
(although it would be funny in real life). How long would a washing machine
last if we lavished the care and attention on it we do our cameras? Not
washing as well as it did, so had a person, dedicated to that machine to
give the machine the equivalent of a camera CLA regularly, and replace parts
before total failure. Bizarre. I think a lot of what we expect out of
machinery is proportionate to the amount of care and attention we bestow
upon it. In this example, very few get excited by that machine, and it works
hard until it fails.

I know I wouldn't treat my camera like my washing machinedo you see my
point though?
>
> However, much to my annoyance, Pentax is absent from the DSLR market.
> They need to get a first DSLR out, so they can start working on the
> improved model. I'm still waiting.

Maybe next year?

Malcolm

Re: Monopod advice

[Pentxuser]

In a message dated 9/29/02 12:01:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

A monopod may not be the answer. Flash in this case would solve your problem. 
If they are just snapshots, try a higher speed film that will help to 
eliminate camera shake. Finally, I have a monopod (I think it's a Gitzo), 
which I just picked up used recently, that has a built in shoulder pod that 
helps to further stabilize the camera and lens. It's a little awkward at 
first but once you get it into the right position on your shoulder it works 
well...
Vic 

I'm open to suggestion, but I need something to steady my hands when I 
can't take the tripod. I shot at my son's kinder class last week and had 
to toss half the shots due to shake on my part and, what's really sad, I 
was sitting in a chair with both feet on the floor.

Dan Scott >>

Re: OT Digicam DRange (was OT: D1s review)

[Bruce Rubenstein]

For me, the biggest give away that something was shot with a direct to
digital camera is that the image looks a little "flat". I'm not used to
seeing so much detail in the highlights and shadows. To make things look
more like film I apply a bit of a "S" curve with Curves in PS. Having the
option to control the look is very nice.

From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

And just to confirm even my semi-pro E-10 has at least a 7 stop range, see:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/contrast/

Cheers,

Rob Studdert

Re: Monopod advice

[Bruce Rubenstein]

First off, a monopod is good for about two stops of shutter speed, so it is
not a replacement for a tripod. I use a rather light weight Silk EZ-pod Jr.
Works fine with a 70-300 zoom. Unless you have long, very heavy lenses there
is not real need, or advantage to a heavy duty monopod.

From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I'm looking for advice on monopods and heads for the same.  I'm thinking
3 lbs. would the max weight for any camera/lens I'd put on it.

I plan carrying it for snaps, mostly-i.e., all the places I currently
take my camera but don't want to haul the tripod.

Are there any out there that are compact, simple to operate, and able to
be deployed and de-deployed? So far I'm looking at Bogen/Manfroto
monopods, and Adorama's Podmatic (anyone have experience with the
Podmatic?).

Re: Digital robustness

[Anthony Farr]

This time I'm with Bruce.

A digicam has few moving parts, those it has are mostly a legacy of sharing
its platform with a film camera, if it does have a film counterpart at all.
The electronics can be as robust as the manufacturer chooses.  The board can
be heavier to withstand shock, or pliable and resilient to roll with the
blows.  Nasty cheap gear can have thin, brittle boards that snap if you
sneeze while holding it.

It's a matter of how much you want to spend and how much the manufacturer
wants to retain you as a customer for a second, third or further purchase.

Regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> > Drawing conclusions about the inherent physical robustness of electronic
> > systems, based on consumer electronic products, lacks all reason, logic,
> > knowledge and experience. Some military equipment has shock and
vibration
> > requirements that are high enough to withstand explosions (like a ship's
> > fire control system): they are electronic. You just can't draw
reasonable
> > conclusions about inherent properties without knowing design intent.
>
> Now you are being silly - comparing military equipment with massive field
> demands, against equipment derived for the public, is not on.
>
> This is the PDML! Or is there a link to tank purchase?
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
>

Re: Digital robustness

[Keith Whaley]

Cotty wrote:
> 
> >*Sigh* I think some still miss the point.  Electronic consumer goods (which
> >I originally brought up anyhow) are very suseptable to a variety of things.
> >Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning.  One can then
> >assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way,
> >because it's a consumer electronic good.  The other point was that many of
> >these consumer goods are cheaper to replace than fix, and what would happen
> >to a DSLR after warranty is up.  I posed the question, didn't give an
> >answer.
> 
> This entirely depends on where you live. Here in the UK, we have laws
> that say that if trouble arises after the purchase of an item, then the
> buyer (and warranty holder) has an issue with the seller, not the
> manufacturer.
> 
> In practice, this means if I buy a TV from a retailer and it breaks
> (which I did, and it did), then I take it back to the retailer and say
> 'My good man, this television device that you sold me is broken, now what
> are you going to do about it?'
> 
> They are then under a legal obligation to repair or replace the item.

= snipped =

In many ways this is superior to U.S. laws. For one thing, it seems to
me retailers would pay a lot more attention to consumer groups or
reports of shoddy merchandise, and not offer the stuff that won't last.
Yes, it would cut out the new manufacturers, and that's not good, but
the way it is now, it's the rare store in the U.S. that goes out on a
limb and stands up for the customer's rights.
Once the warrantee runs out, you're strictly on your own.

> As for DSLR longevity, I would assume that it would be similar to other
> items of a similar nature. I'm typing this on a computer originally sold
> in 1999 and it is still going strong. My SO uses one from 1998, and my
> son one from 1995. 

I've been buying computers, monitors and peripherals since 1986.
More often than not, by far, it's that those items become obsolete by
reason of their not support new technology. I had a very capable black
and white scanner that suited me just fine at the time, but my new
operating system would not support "old" equipment. Which really
means, the supplier of the "old" scanner chose to not upgrade it's
driver software to have the old scanner work with the new system!
I had to store the scanner (I couldn't bear to throw working equipment
away!) and buy a new one. If I wanted to scan anything I needed a new
machine. I wasn't ready for and didn't need color capability, and in
fact, rarely do today, but my old scanner was obsolete in reality,
thru no fault of it's own!

Software has it's own obsolescence problems. Before too long, most
software (yes, with exceptions ~ there are always exceptions...)
becomes unable to keep up with all the other constantly changing
aspects of manipulating a computer, and needs to be replaced. It isn't
always because the operator clamors for new, new, new...

> I know computers are *not" DSLRs, but I have no reason
> to doubt that a DSLR should expire any quicker...? I guess only time will
> tell.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Cotty

My 2¢

keith whaley

Re: Re[4]: So?

[Artur Ledóchowski]

- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[4]: So?


> Although I didn't come right out and say it, I hinted at the idea that
> one should probably look at what is available (including announced and
> about ready to ship) and go that direction.  Pentax has over many
> years shown that it's high end equipment is Medium Format, not 35mm.
> Look how long it took to get the MZ-S after the PZ-1p.  Their track
> record for higher end 35mm is pretty poor.  I wouldn't expect a change
> overnight.

First I'd suggest we don't take any Asahi patents too seriously. Especially
one shouldn't base on them any conclusions of possible (near) breakthrough
and appearing of some miraculous devices like KAF3 and IS converters for
example. The wishful thinking campaign that took place before the Photokina
IMHO made our expectations (or better "lust") rise to the point of absurd.
That's why the introductionof the Optio 330GS looks ridiculous.

> Pentax is very satisfying for people who enjoy the older, manual focus
> bodies (LX, MX, SuperProgram, etc) or film based Medium Format.  If
> you are looking for RoboCameras and/or new innovations fairly often,
> then Pentax is probably not the right brand.  So by switching to Canon
> or Nikon, you will end up addressing your needs better even if Pentax
> actually released a DSLR.  After they did, then Canon and Nikon would
> release 2 or 3 generations of bodies and everyone would have the same
> basic complaint - if Pentax doesn't release another updated DSLR then
> I'm going to switch.  Just do the deed and get on with it.  Build out
> your kit as you see fit and slowly change over from the film based
> stuff.

I think many people stick to Pentax because of its fabulous backward
compatibility and the relatively great quality (optical and coating) of all
Pentax lenses, which, to sum it up, allows users to complete a large 35mm
kit for relatively low price (especially if we consider that Pentax cameras
work easily and well with m42 lenses). An average Canon or Minolta user is
usually forced to work with only two lenses - a standard zoom and a telezoom
(mostly of not the highest quality) and doesn't even dream of having extreme
WA's or fast primes unless of course has A LOT of money. Such is also the
case with most of the average Nikon users.
The above is IMHO as important as the joy of using the manual focus bodies.
The decision of switching brands is thus not so easy. This is all the matter
of choice and many Pentax users sacrify innovations to the accessibility of
the (good) lenses.
Actually no brand gives us everything and nothing comes for free. As stated
above, Pentax users sacrify one thing to get another, but also Canon, Nikon
and Minolta users must sacrify something. Yes, they have for example IS and
USM lenses but, first, either are unable to use older ones or this ability
comes for a huge price, second, the m42 lenses are dificult to use unless
they spend money on separate bodies - older ones that are of course
incompatible with modern lenses etc etc, third, any other-than-typical
lenses (tele's or extreme WA's - both primes and zooms) are so expensive
that those users can't afford them anyway.
However, Pentax users are often frustrated when they compare their AF to
USM, for example. Why is that? IMHO it's because of the Pentax marketing
strategy, or lack of it. Pentax is the source of all the inferiority
complexes of its users. Each and every strenght and advantage of the Pentax
system (at least recently - in the AF era) IMHO has been discovered and
articulated by the users themselves, not by any official ads, promotions
etc. We, as the users, are left alone - let's face it.
The decision of switching the brands is thus, I repeat, a critical one,
unless of course it is to be made due to the occupation reasons.
Regards
Artur

Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Medium Telephoto Prime Lens Poll

[David A. Mann]

The lens I want most right now (in this format, anyway) is the FA*200mm 
f/2.8.  This is the only focal length in this range that really interests 
me so its my #1 pick.

Second the A*135mm f/1.8 for its speed.  I like fast glass.

Third, K135mm f/2.5.  I have one and its built very solid, with good 
optics.  I really should use it more.

Cheers,


- Dave

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)

OT Digicam DRange (was OT: D1s review)

[Rob Studdert]

On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:

Change of subject just in case the post got lost in the noise:

> There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
> forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
> and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the
> highlights. It's easy to check the histogram in the camera to make sure.
> Shadow detail is there, it just may need some PS help. Overall, the dynamic
> range is similar to print film, i.e. grater than slide film.

And just to confirm even my semi-pro E-10 has at least a 7 stop range, see:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/contrast/

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]: So?

[Cotty]

>we have a psyhic within our group?  If so, please speak up so
>we can figure out our future needs! :)

That'll be me 

;-)


Oh swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Re: Digital robustness

[Cotty]

>*Sigh* I think some still miss the point.  Electronic consumer goods (which
>I originally brought up anyhow) are very suseptable to a variety of things.
>Moisture damage, breaking when dropped, and malfunctioning.  One can then
>assume that a consumer digital camera or DSLR would also be that way,
>because it's a consumer electronic good.  The other point was that many of
>these consumer goods are cheaper to replace than fix, and what would happen
>to a DSLR after warranty is up.  I posed the question, didn't give an
>answer.

This entirely depends on where you live. Here in the UK, we have laws 
that say that if trouble arises after the purchase of an item, then the 
buyer (and warranty holder) has an issue with the seller, not the 
manufacturer.

In practice, this means if I buy a TV from a retailer and it breaks 
(which I did, and it did), then I take it back to the retailer and say 
'My good man, this television device that you sold me is broken, now what 
are you going to do about it?'

They are then under a legal obligation to repair or replace the item.

It is entirely possible for this to be enforced *even after* the warranty 
has expired.

There's a very good letter in this week's AP that puts the case very well:

...'What people forget [in the UK], to the benefit of the suppliers, is 
that any warranty in in *addition* to your statutory rights. The main 
point of a 12 month warranty is usually to try to fool the buyer into 
believing there is no point in expecting service after that time.

'However, the Consumer Protection Act gives all purchasers [in the UK] 
three basic rights:

* The goods should be fit for the described purpose.

* They must be of merchandisable quality.

* They must last a 'reasonable amount of time'.

'Take a recent example from our local small claims court (names have been 
changed but the facts stand). Mr Smith bought a washing machine from a 
well-known high street chain store.

'He declined the, ahem, generous offer of an 'extended' warranty but was 
disappointed when the machine broke down after only 15 months, outside 
the 12 month guarantee period. He called out the store's repair service 
and was told that he needed a new water pump, and would have to pay for 
it. After much arguing with the shop staff, he eventually did pay for the 
repairs but then pursued the store through the small claims court.

'The court agreed that 15 months was not a 'reasonable amount of time' 
for a washing machine to last and ordered the store to refund the cost of 
repairs. It also insisted that the staff were appraised of the finer 
points of the Consumer Protection Act.

'One point to notice here is that it is the *seller* of the goods that is 
liable, not the manufacturer. The selling company would have its own 
protection, under the same Act, from the manufacturer or distributor, and 
so on, up the line.'

'Kenny Miller, email (Copyright AP)'

***

This obviously differs from what our US brethren, and indeed lots of 
others worldwide, have to contend with, and may not be much use for that 
reason.

As for the original thought from Brad about the robustness of DSLRs 
versus other items of a similar nature, I would only say that if I 
dropped an MZ-S, or a PDA, or even a wristwatch, I would not expect much 
from any warranty. If it was my fault, I would claim on my insurance, or 
I would cry, or both.

As for DSLR longevity, I would assume that it would be similar to other 
items of a similar nature. I'm typing this on a computer originally sold 
in 1999 and it is still going strong. My SO uses one from 1998, and my 
son one from 1995. I know computers are *not" DSLRs, but I have no reason 
to doubt that a DSLR should expire any quicker...? I guess only time will 
tell.

HTH

Cotty


Oh swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Re: MF scanner for sale in AP

[Cotty]

>>[...I don't know if the Scan Multi can
>>handle switchable voltages]
>>
>>Cotty
>
>Cotty,
>One word - transformer!
>
>Wendy
>(who has a house full of the things cos she's too stingy to buy new stuff)

Point well made madam. I stand addended ;-)


Oh swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/