Re: Re[2]: how many bodies do you own

[Jeff]

I had hundreds of pinholes in my camera (GS645), until I changed the
bellows.

Jeff.

PS The dog woke me up. I sent him out for a leak.

- Original Message -
From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: how many bodies do you own


> Well, I could say I have the knowledge, materials and tools to make
hundreds
> of pin-hole cameras, I've got you all beat!
>
> :)
>
> Brad Dobo
>
>

Re: Thoughts on a film flagship

[Brad Dobo]

I know, it's odd, and it doesn't make much or any sense.  But
wellneither does Pentax either :)

Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship


> So ... let me get this straight :) -- you're worried about your current
> lenses not working with future DSLRs, so you're now considering getting
even
> older equipment ...  Yep, sounds like Pentax 'old-fart syndrome' to me.
Join
> us ... join us ...
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 11:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship
>
>
> >
> > It must be this group I think :)  Maybe I should have hunted around for
> the
> > LX and some used lenses.  I could be wrong, but which was developed
first?
> > The real MZ-S as a 35mm SLR or the 'MZ-D' that when abandoned, was
> converted
> > to film?  I'm also afraid of my existing lens not working with future
> DSLRS.
> > Oh the other hand however, I love the MZ-S, I'm proud of it and what I
can
> > do with it.  I think the PDML old-fart syndrome in getting to me :
> >
> > Brad Dobo
> >
> >
>

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Paul Stenquist]

Forgot one on each end of the spectrum: Pentax 110 and a Speed Graphic.
I guess that makes 11.
Paul

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> 1 H3v
> 3 Spotmatic F
> 1 Spotmatic Motor Drive
> 1 LX
> 2 MX
> 1 6x7
> Paul

Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED and OT now...

[CBWaters]

I think he's turning Japanese I think he's turning Japanese I really think
so.
Well, it IS Friday isn't it?

Cory Waters
4 bodies and only the non-Pentax one is several pounds over weight ;)

- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED


>
> On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 08:59  PM, Brad Dobo wrote:
>
> > Am I biased or ick(rascist) in wanting all my lenses to have 'Made in
> > Japan'
> > on them?  I see it as a signature for quality.  Any other like that or
> > want
> > to comment?
> >
>
> I think it means you are Japanese...
>
> Dan Scott
>
>

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Rfsindg]

£ukasz,
The Super A (Super Program) is 100% electrical.  
Check the contacts and clean them.
The shutter release is electrical as are all speeds - even manual.
You shouldn't be having these problems with it.
Get a new service man.
Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I was asking to make myself feel less miserable. I'm a bit paranoid about
 having a backup. That's why I bought a beat-up Super A (but working fine).
 BUT, when it returned from the CLA it was certainly looking better, but
 sometimes the shutter didn't fire. So I returned it to the technician who
 did the CLA. He said there was nothing wrong with the camera, but he cleaned
 it again anyway and said it should work fine. And what happened? Now the
 camera thinks the batteries are low (and they're new, I mean a couple of
 sets I've put in the camera to check) and it fires only at the mechanical
 speed (i guess, does the SUper A have a mechanical speed?).
 
 So now I'm left with only a MX (but still have a Contax G1, a Rolleiflex,
 and a small Yashica rangefinder, so it's not that bad :) 
 >>

Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED

[Dan Scott]

On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 08:59  PM, Brad Dobo wrote:


Am I biased or ick(rascist) in wanting all my lenses to have 'Made in 
Japan'
on them?  I see it as a signature for quality.  Any other like that or 
want
to comment?


I think it means you are Japanese...

Dan Scott

Re: Pentax UK CONFIRMS(!) digital SLR

[Brad Dobo]

> Yeah!
>
> Dan Scott
>
> (Brad, I'll give you $100 for that nearly worthless MZ-S you got
> suckered into—hurry, before the bottom drops out) ;-)

Sure, rub it in :)

Brad Dobo

Re: OT: FED-2 Take-up spool?

[James Adams]

But I need to find a FED-2 film take-up spool?  Does anyone know where I can
find one?

 James

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Brad Dobo]

Hehe...can you imagine people now going'hey ya, that's right' then
running around the house stashing a body here, another there, et c? :)

> 3 makes me feel ok, do you mean if it stops working or if one gets stolen?
>
> feroze

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Brad Dobo]

Three Lukasz, the ick..PZ-10, an MZ-5n, and the MZ-S.  I would feel
comfortable with one (unless the one is the PZ-10).  I'm not that serious
about shooting.

- Original Message -
From: "Łukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: how many bodies do you own


> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".
>
> I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but hey -
*I*
> want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)
>
> Regards,
> Łukasz
>

Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED

[Brad Dobo]

Am I biased or ick(rascist) in wanting all my lenses to have 'Made in Japan'
on them?  I see it as a signature for quality.  Any other like that or want
to comment?

- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom DISCONTINUED
>
>
> > and moved that production to some low cost country in Asia.
> > We will probably see another zoom in this range soon.
> >
> Its in vietnam, the latest 28-105 lens was the first to be produced
there..
>
> Feroze
>

Re: Wedding Photography

[Rfsindg]

Bob,
Exactly the kind of advice I was looking for!
I'm forwarding it to the Bride and Groom now.
Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I was recently married and, with my wife, had to choose a wedding 
 photographer.  Strangely, in my area, they are all divided into pretty much 
 "PJ" or "traditional."  Pretty silly.  We went with someone who used neither 
 term and was somewhere in-between in a certain sense.  Some of the "PJ" 
 types were trying so hard to be clever in their photos – the exact opposite 
 of the photographer becoming anonymous.  Action shots with slanted horizons 
 of blurred brides getting out of cars – as if they happened to be captured 
 by paparazzi for the cover of The Star.  It is just a fad and will look 
 dated in about five years.  Some of the "traditional" category had such 
 posed shots that we were bored to tears.
 
 We went only with personal recommendations and saw about 10 of the better 
 wedding photographers in our area.  They ranged from about $1700 to $5000.  
 Most were $2000 to $3000.  They would be more in or around a major city like 
 NYC, but we are 2 hours north.  About half (maybe less) gave the proofs to 
 the customer.  Packages usually included variations on something like: 24 
 page leather albums, 200-400 shots taken, 6-8 hours of shooting time on the 
 date (often including up to three locations), a couple of enlargements, in 
 some cases engagement photo sessions, or other things.  We paid a little 
 over 2 grand, got all our (~350) proofs, got a decent-sized album, two 
 framed enlargements, and a great photographer.
 
 Personality entered into our decision as much as - or more than, really - 
 technical ability.  I am not speaking of artistic personality but actual 
 people skills.
 
 Not to focus on equipment but this is an equipment list, so...  Everyone we 
 went to used Hasselblad except two – one who used Bronica (loud!) and one 
 who used 35mm Canon.  After seeing the results of my photographer (who used 
 Hassey), I wouldn’t consider 35mm.  Initially I would have, apart from being 
 somewhat suspicious that some 35mm users had 35 because they weren't 
 established enough to have MF.  The MF difference was clear even for smaller 
 prints.  No comparison in terms of tonality.  This is also why I’ve given 
 serious consideration to MF in my own shooting, though I don’t feel I am 
 currently good enough to deserve such equipment (apart from my beloved 
 Yashicaflex that my father gave me).
 
 I would go to a lot of photographers and look at a lot of books -  not "best 
 of" display books but complete albums of individual couples.
 
 RSW >>

RE: how many bodies do you own

[Alan Chan]

But seriously - maybe four wasn't enough? 


Damn! What was I thinking? I should buy one more before I concluded 4 was 
too many. Maybe 5 was the magic number. It is too late now.  :(

regards,
Alan Chan

_
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR

[Brad Dobo]

Feroze, here is another one of those quoted emails with nothing else new,
except for your name at the bottom, are you typing your stuff in front of
the >?

- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR
>
>
> >
> >
> > > The other biggie is quality of support from the distributor.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> > By that definition Pentax won't ever be a Pro player
>
> Feroze
>

Re: Reality Checks Part 3

[Brad Dobo]

Or a clever hacker in our midst.
- Original Message - 
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3


> I never sent this, must be a glitch somewhere
> 
> Feroze
> - Original Message -
> From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3
> 
> 
> > Often I get messages that are all "- Original Message -" and no
> new
> > content.  Anyone else?  What do they mean?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anthony Farr
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, 18 October 2002 6:23 AM
> > Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3
> >
> >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:05 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ya see, that's the 
> >
> > (etc.)
> >
> >
> 

Re: OT, apology and stuff

[Brad Dobo]

hehehesee what I mean?  I just wrote my reply to you and then starting
up through the posts again when I encountered the same subject, opened it,
and low and behold, it's the same message!  I dunno what's happening ;)
- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:39 PM
Subject: OT, apology and stuff


> I did not mean to cause offence, and if it comes off that way, I'm sorry.
I
> only made a comment on the timing-thats all. You may disregard it if thats
> the case
>
> Feroze
>
> (OT, why am I getting a whole lot of remailed mails on submissions you've
> made in the past week. Do you re-submit if you don't see the mail or is
this
> some boo boo somewhere, its both from PDML & your rogers add-you do scan
for
> viruses hey-bit weird-but not to serious, but its only from you though so
> thats strange. Am I in your contacts list?? Do you mass mail or respond
> individualy)
>
> Ferzoe
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Hello
>
>
> > I don't know what to make of this, so I won't comment, if you wish to
> > elaborate, that's ok.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Brad Dobo
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:27 PM
> > Subject: Hello
> >
> >
> > > Hi Brad,
> > >
> > > I think its really funny that only after you started screaming that
> pentax
> > > decided to announce a DSLR. If you could jack up a major international
> > > company I wonder what you could do if you put your mind to it.
> > >
> > > Later
> > > Feroze
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Lens envy -we all get it, now cure it???

[Dan Scott]

On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 07:00  PM, Leonard Paris wrote:


Why would you want a body free from a properly aligned focus screen?  
Is there some obscure benefit from having the focus screen mis-aligned?

Len
---

I'll give you that, but I'm not sure it really addresses my questionó
unless of course you mean that you must spend $1000 to obtain a body 
both free from severe vibration and a properly aligned focus screen?


Dan Scott



Len,

Unless my grammar is off (not an uncommon thing, by any means), "both" 
signals the reader that two distinct items are coming up for 
consideration ("this" and "that"). "Free" is a member of the phrase 
concluding "from severe vibration" and "properly" is a member of the 
phrase concluding "aligned focus screen".

That said, I freely own to having been formally educated in the Southern 
region of the Great State of Texas, with all the implicit limitations 
(and advantages, should they turn up) that entails. And I'm pretty good 
at hitting things with a stick, too. 

Dan Scott

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Paul Stenquist]

1 H3v
3 Spotmatic F
1 Spotmatic Motor Drive
1 LX
2 MX
1 6x7
Paul

Photography - Leica Gallery

[Cesar Matamoros II]

Yesterday I went walking about Manhattan.  I have passed by the Leica
Gallery on Broadway in the past, on too many occasions.  I actually had the
time to stop in.  A wonderful exhibit.  The majority were photographs by
Enzo Sellerio - a lot of street photography in Italy.  Fantastic display,
all b&w.

In the smaller room were Vincezo Pietropaolo's Making Home in Havana.  This
had a few color shots in it.  It had fewer photos and was brought back
memories of my trip to Cuba.

Definitely a nice time, not enough photos though :-(  And it was free!
Check it out.

On the way out I came across someone who was going up to the exhibit.  He
was carrying a Pentax 67II.  He looked at my two LX and asked about the
Limited lenses I had on them.  He had the equivalent of a 28 on his camera.
He asked about the exhibit and if it was worth the visit.  The elevator
showed up and we said our good-byes.  I forgot to ask if he was a PDMLer.

Just goes to show how we Pentax shooters appreciate good photography, no
matter the equipment used :-)

Still waiting to handle my first Leica, any offers???

César
Panama City, Florida
in NYC

RE: how many bodies do you own

[Cesar Matamoros II]

-Original Message-
From: Łukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:06 PM

Hi all,
I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".


Regards,
Łukasz

35mm bodies that I own --- ( I won't go into the other formats from 110 to
polaroid and things in between - I need to be back home to list them though)

Pentax: [19]
M42 -  (3) - SV, S1a, S1a, Spotmatic
K mount - (15) - K1000, MX, MV, ME Super, ME F, Super Program, (5) LX, P3
 - ZX-5, MZ-5, MZ-S

Nikon: [5]
F3 HP
UW - (4) - Nikonos, Nikonos II, Nikonos IV-A, Nikonos V

Olympus: [3]
Stylus (P&S)
XA-1 ( IIRC)
OM-10

Yashica: [1]
Electro 35 (I think that's the model)

Argus: [1]
C3

Of those the MZ-S and five LX are used the most, unless I am in the water
and then the Nikonos V gets the nod.  The S1a and SV then follow in the mix.
The Super Program got a workout lately - my original 35mm, but the
viewfinder pushes me back to the LX and MZ-S.  The ZX-5 is used when I do
finish line photos for triathlons and the MZ-5 is on loan to a friend.

I would be comfortable with 2 bodies, though one LX would do it for me.  It
is good to always have a backup.  I rarely carry only one.  Today I was
carrying four LXen.  Though with the penchant I have for using at least
different types of film I would think that 3 or 4 would do nicely.

César
Panama City, Florida
in NYC

RE: Super Tak 105mm f/2.8

[Cesar Matamoros II]

-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb@;accesscomm.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:36 PM

Attn: Screwheads;
I found one of these lenses during todays travels. It is in very
nice condition.
I don't want it, but I will enable interested parties.
The price is Can$50.00 + the dreaded GST + whatever it costs to
ship.
Figure on a total of less than Can$65.00 anywhere the post
office delivers to.
Respond privately to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

And have fun.

William Robb


I would jump on this, but I already have an S-M-C Takumar.  I can attest to
it being a lovely lens.

César
Panama City, Florida
in NYC

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Jim Apilado]

H3
Spotmatic MD 
ES
ESII
Electro-Spotmatic
K2 DMD
LX
645
PZ1-p
SF1-n
Hasselblad 1600F
Omega 120
Leica M4
Nikon SP
Canon T-90

My favorites are the ESII, PZ1-p, 645.

The T90 is the best manual focus camera ever made!

Jim A.

> From: ?ukasz Kacperczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 21:05:45 +0200
> To: "pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: how many bodies do you own
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:06:02 -0400
> 
> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".
> 
> I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but hey - *I*
> want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)
> 
> Regards,
> ?ukasz
> 
> 

Re: October Pug - three favorites

[Kenneth Waller]

Christian, thanks for taking the time to comment on the PUG. I appreciate
your comments.
May the light be with you.

Ken Waller

- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:19 PM
Subject: October Pug - three favorites
snip, snip, snip...

> "I See the Light" by Ken Waller - Wonderfully framed using all the
"elements
> of style" I try so hard (and fail) to use.
>
> Christian Skofteland
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>

RE: Wedding Photography

[Amita Guha]

> Any suggestions on approaches you like, you use?

I just got married too. Our guy shot a bunch of rolls of 35mm (as well
as some MF) and the proofs look fine to me. Two great things about our
photographer: he had some terrific ideas, and he knew a lot about
lighting. And he had an assistant (my maid of honor) who helped position
us and did a bunch of other things, and brought her own cameras and took
some great shots herself.

When we were looking for a photographer, I liked the idea of the PJ
style, but all the PJ-style websites I looked at looked the same. We got
the PJ effect (or more accurately some more spontaneous, candid shots)
just by collecting photos from friends who attended the wedding. We put
out those little disposable cameras on each table, too. Those and the
pix our friends took will turn out to be a nice supplement to the
official pictures. Our photographer was terrific but he couldn't be
everywhere at once. :)

We almost went with a guy who was going to charge $1800 for himself and
his wife (his wife was the B&W photog.) This would have just included
their services, the negatives and proofs and we would make the books and
prints ourselves. The one thing we were sure of all along was that we
wanted to own the negatives.

Hope this helps.

Re: Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter

[Rob Studdert]

On 18 Oct 2002 at 18:43, Doug Franklin wrote:

> Works with any K mount lens as far as I can tell.  AF shaft does not go
> through the teleconverter (only the lenses inside the t/c move during
> AF operations).

It will even work with screw mount lenses on a K-adaptor if you poke some 
aluminium foil in the gap between the back of the screw lens and the AF TC 
aperture contacts.

The TC is surprisingly high performance, in fact I'd say it may even be on par 
with the optical performance of the 2X-L when used on long fast lenses.

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: how many bodies do you own

[Arnold Stark]

> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.

2 LXs, one of which is out of order
2 K2 DMD
1 K2
1 KX
1 MX
1 ME
1 MZ5N
1 Olympus Mju 2

I am in the process of selling 1 ME F and 1 Contaflex Super B

> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

2, but most of the time I just take 1.

Arnold

Re: Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount

[Paul Stenquist]

This is an easy one for me. It's the original Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 macro.
Paul Stenquist

Re: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

[Paul Stenquist]

Bruce Dayton wrote:
> 
> gfen,
> 
> It's not the handholding that's the problem.  It's that there is too
> much light outdoors for shooting at 1/60 or 1/30.  
> That is why the leaf shutter is so important - 

Exactly, that's why the 165/4 leaf shutter lens has quickly become a
favorite of mine when working with the 6x7. It's the only lens I use for
outdoor portraits, but I've also found it's exactly right for a lot of
other things where you need a higher shutter speed and fill flash. I'm
sometimes required to shoot underhood engine shots of cars. Fill is
mandatory, and the 165 is exactly the right focal length.
Paul

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Pal Jensen]

- Original Message - 
From: "Łukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:05 PM
Subject: how many bodies do you own


> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".


Two. One LX makes me feel safe.

Pal

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Keith Whaley]

tom wrote:
> 
> Bring it on!
> 
> --
> Thomas Van Veen Photography
> www.bigdayphoto.com
> 301-758-3085
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:keith_w@;dslextreme.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:53 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: how many bodies do you own
> >
> >
> > I haven't listed MY crazy cameras yet!  
> >
> > keith whaley

"You asked for it!" 

* 35mm SLRs:

Pentax MG
Pentax Spotmatic F
Retina Reflex III, w/ ton of lenses!
Zeiss Ikon Contaflex II (862/24)

* 35mm Rangefinders: 

Arette BW
Kodak Retinette (type 017)
Kodak Retinette (type 042)
Kodak Retinette IA (type 044)
Leica C1
Olympus 35S II (Tower brand)

* 2.9 x 3.6" Instant Film rangefinder:

Polaroid Spectra II TTL, film pack

• 127 TLR:

Yashica-44, roll film

* 3.25 X 3.38 Instant Film rangefinder:

Polaroid Reporter Land Camera SE, film pack

* 6 x 9 cm Rangefinder:

Agfa Isolette III, roll film

That's about it for now... ;^)
Still working on an MX, very possibly another Contax IIa, and who
knows what others?

keith whaley ~ odd but wonderful camera amasser!

Re: how many bodies do you own

[James Adams]

Sorry should read:
2 Pentax ME Supers
James

- Original Message -
From: "James Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: how many bodies do you own


> Łukasz,
> Here is my 35mm camera list:
> 3 Pentax Spotmatic F
> 1 Pentax Spotmatic SP
> 1 Pentax Spotmatic 500
> 2 Pentax ME
> 1 Pentax ME Super
> 1 Program Plus
> 1 Pentax Espio 80
> 1 RicohFlex TLR
> 1 Ricoh KR-10 + Motor Drive
> 1 Ricoh XR-X 2000 (KR-10M)
> 1 Nikon F (Photomic FTn)
> 2 FED-2
> 2 Zorki-4
>
> MF:
> 1 RicohFlex
> 1 Solyut-S
>
> Best Regards,
> James
>
>
>

DSLR: A Response from Pentax, Inc.

[Cameron Hood]

We already know this from Paal's sources, but with a slightly new variation
of the same theme:

> Dear Mr. Hood,
> 
> Thank you for your email regarding Pentax and the availablity of the Digital
> SLR.  You have made very many valid points in your email.
> 
> We were all disappointed to learn that the MR-52 (or MZD as you refer to it)
> was cancelled. However, I am sure that the the engineers gained invaluable
> knowledge from this project and will use this knowledge when developing
> future models.
> 
> I am pleased that I can now tell you that a Pentax Digital SLR will be
> available soon. There will be an announcement coming in Spring 2003 on this
> new model.  I can also tell you that this new Digital SLR will have a mount
> that will allow the use of many current Pentax lenses with the body.
> Engineers are also working on a new wide-angle zoom lens for this new
> camera.
> 
> We have enjoyed much success with our Optio line of compact digital cameras.
> I am confident that the new Pentax Digital SLR will meet the expectations of
> photographers like yourself, who have been waiting for this camera for quite
> a while.
> 
> With regards to your comments regarding the MZ-S camera, I will pass this
> information on to our offices in Japan.
> 
> We thank you for your continued support of Pentax and our line of products.
> I hope that you will wait just a bit longer for our new Digital SLR.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> __
> Christine Otani
> Marketing Coordinator
> Pentax Canada Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Customer Service [mailto:custserv@;pentaxcanada.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:30 PM
> To: Christine Otani; Stratis Tsapoitis
> Subject: Fw: DSLR
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cameron Hood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 1:39 PM
> Subject: DSLR
> 
> 
>> I am a semi-professional photographer, and have over the years ammased a
>> beautiful assortment of FA* lenses (24mm f2, 28-70 f2.8, 85mm f1.4,
> 80-200mm
>> f2.8, 300mm f4.5) for use with my PZ1-P. 95% of my work now gets scanned
>> into a Powermac for digital imaging, and all of my prepress work is now in
>> digital only format.
>> 
>> I know of the unfortunate demise of the MZD full frame digital SLR a year
>> and a half ago, but there has been (seemingly) no word on a replacement.
>> This lack of a high end digital camera is now costing me thousands of
>> dollars annually, not to mention thousands of unneccessary hours being
> stuck
>> in an analog to digital workflow situation. An all digital workflow would
>> cut my costs by 95% and my time by 85%. When will Pentax be resolving this
>> situation? I am personally sick of waiting through the many photo shows
> like
>> PMA and Photokina with no announcements and no apparent movement on this.
> I
>> am now seriously considering selling all of my Pentax gear, and going with
> a
>> manufacturer who does support current technology.
>> 
>> Surely to goodness it could not be that hard to just stick another sensor
>> and the appropriate software in the wonderful camera you showed two years
>> ago? The MZD (MZ-S digital twin) was a great concept, with a twin film
>> camera available. Canon and Nikon have introduced how many cameras in the
>> time Pentax has said nothing? Two years is a long, long time in the
> digital
>> world.
>> 
>> I am also not at all happy with the film camera situation. I have not
> bought
>> the MZS for a number of reasons:
>> 1) Waiting for a digital SLR
>> 2) Metered manual mode is very awkward with large hands and the
> recessed
>> aperture ring on the large pro lenses (ie FA* 85mm f1.4, 80 - 200 F2.8,
>> etc.) Aperture or shutter priority is fine, but the lack of a separate
>> aperture wheel on this camera was a major gaffe.
>> 3) Slower true flash-sync speed
>> 4) Frames-per-second rate (I do a lot of pet action shots for a pet
> food
>> company; need the speed)
>> 5) Lack of a wrist strap (like the PZ1-P grip strap)
>> 6) The companion flash (360 FTZ) is not powerful enough for my needs.
> I
>> currently use a Metz MZ40-2 and a Pentax FTZ 500.
>> 
>> I have been hoping for a replacement film camera with specs to match or
>> exceed my PZ1. All that camera really needed was an up to date auto-focus
>> sensor system, better mirror damping, and a grip that took AA batteries.
> The
>> ergonomics and function set of that camera is superb; that is why I bought
>> it over the competitors products. I am still waiting for a replacement for
>> that; it is now extremely long-in-the-tooth.
>> 
>> As an avid subscriber and contributor to the Pentax Discussion Mailing
> List
>> on the Net for over 6 years now
>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/), I 

Re: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

[Paul Stenquist]

gfen wrote:
> 

> 
> I can handhold 1/60 @75mm with the 645 (at least, I believe I can),
> however, there's no way I could handhold 1/30 @105mm with the 67.

Of course you could. I shot this at 1/30 with the 165/4 on a Pentax 6x7,
and I'm over 50 with bad eyes and shaky hands
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1069827. The bulk of the
camera actually helps steady things when you're trying to handhold.
Paul

Super Tak 105mm f/2.8

[William Robb]

Attn: Screwheads;
I found one of these lenses during todays travels. It is in very
nice condition.
I don't want it, but I will enable interested parties.
The price is Can$50.00 + the dreaded GST + whatever it costs to
ship.
Figure on a total of less than Can$65.00 anywhere the post
office delivers to.
Respond privately to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

And have fun.

William Robb

Re: List Appreciation

[Kenneth Waller]

Count me in.
Ken Waller
- Original Message - 
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:27 AM
Subject: List Appreciation


> Gang,
> 
> Last call for those who would like to join in showing Doug our
> appreciation for all his work on maintaining the list including this
> last major round of crashes.  Please let me know if you would like to
> help show your appreciation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
>  Bruce
> 
> 

Re: OT, non-Pentax related, delete if offended, etc. etc.

[Kenneth Waller]

Congratulations! Enjoy him while he young.
Ken Waller
- Original Message -
From: Chris Niesmertelny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:01 PM
Subject: OT, non-Pentax related, delete if offended, etc. etc.


> Just too proud to keep it in, I'm the father of a wonderful baby boy.
>
> Mother is doing well, baby is as yet un-named (I convinced my wife to wait
> for the narcotics to wear off before naming him).
>
> Weight: 8 lbs 10 oz, 20 1/4 inches long.
>
> He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
>
> I've already shot a roll of Supra 800 through my LX (I guess this post
> actually is on-topic) so if I can get it developed quickly, I know where
my
> November PUG contribution is coming from.
>
> Dad needs some sleep!
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Nite nite.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

Re: how many bodies do you own

[James Adams]

Łukasz,
Here is my 35mm camera list:
3 Pentax Spotmatic F
1 Pentax Spotmatic SP
1 Pentax Spotmatic 500
2 Pentax ME
1 Pentax ME Super
1 Program Plus
1 Pentax Espio 80
1 RicohFlex TLR
1 Ricoh KR-10 + Motor Drive
1 Ricoh XR-X 2000 (KR-10M)
1 Nikon F (Photomic FTn)
2 FED-2
2 Zorki-4

MF:
1 RicohFlex
1 Solyut-S

Best Regards,
James

Re: Cross Processing

[Paul Stenquist]

Of course you can scan the cross-processed negative and print it on an
inkjet machine. Here's a scan of cross-processed Velvia. It prints
rather well on my Epson. The computer is a great tool when you're
working with unusual situations that you don't want to trust to a lab. 
http://pug.komkon.org/01oct/helleng.html

Albano Garcia wrote:
> 
> Yes, they print the same way, except the xprocessed
> slides, now "negs", doesn't have a color base, they
> are transparent instead of yellow-brown of C41
> negative, and also lacks bar code info, not allowing
> full auto printing, needing manual procedures.
> You'll not have problems with the kind of lab you are
> using (the same kind I'm using here)
> Regards
> 
> Albano
> 
> --- Feroze Kistan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's 3 labs I use one is pro only, and they will
> > do what ever you ask,
> > one serves both pro & consumer and one is consumer
> > only. All 3 are owned by
> > full time professional photographers and wont refuse
> > any request even if you
> > just want to see what would happen if you tried this
> >
> > Are slide trannies printed out the same way as negs?
> >
> > Feroze
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Albano Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Cross Processing
> >
> >
> > > high saturated colors, like Fuji Velvia or Kodak
> > > E100VS, or Kodak Elite chrome Extra Color. Simply
> > > meter as accurate as possible, or bracket. Then
> > throw
> > > it at the lab and ask for get it C41 processed.
> > > Sometimes they make you sign a form authorizing
> > it,
> > > because it could be considered destroying your
> > pics if
> > > you want regular processing.
> > > Also, have in mind that possibilities at printing
> > > stage are endless, so it´s possible to receive
> > very
> > > varying results when you print enlargements.
> > Sometimes
> > > they filter colour, sometimes not, sometimes they
> > make
> > > them clearer or darker. I suggest you to ask them
> > for
> > > NOt filtering and saturated dense colors.
> >
> > >
> >
> 
> =
> Albano Garcia
> "El Pibe Asahi"
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com

RE: Wedding Photography

[Amita Guha]

Nuts, I meant this to go to Robert offlist...

> -Original Message-
> From: Amita Guha [mailto:amita@;beyondthepath.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Wedding Photography
> 
> 
> > I was recently married and, with my wife, had to choose a wedding
> > photographer. 
> 
> Hi Robert, I just got married too, two weeks ago. We live in 
> Queens but got married on Long Island. Where are you exactly? 
> Congrats, by the way...
> 

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

Do you REALLY want to know, £ukasz?

Ok.

Pentax:
LX LX LX LX MX MX MX K1000 K1000 K1000 Spotmatic SuperA
(SuperA)* MZ5n MZ3 Z1p Z20 645 645 6x7 Espio Mini
Nikon:
F2 FM2n FE FE2 F70
Yashica:
T4 T5
Contax:
(IIa)*

(*The cameras in brackets are for sale in a shop.)

Then, around five Kiev rangefinder cameras, a couple of Feds, an
Iskra 6x6 folding, a Fuji screwmount SLR (605?), and... ???
(there are a couple more for sure, and I'm not including my
father's Z10 and FX-3).

I feel safe when I have at least a backup body, but this implies
a backup body for every camera model I need...
Two backups are better than just one, though.
:-)

Ciao,

Gianfranco

=


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Bob Rapp]

SP, 2-SPII, SP-F
K2, KX, K1000
MX, ME-S
Super A
P30, P50,
LX,
110,
6X7,
VHR Horseman,
Zeiss Contessa.

Too many!

Bob Rapp

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Angel Ramos]

Hi:
I do have  one each:
ME ( My first one bought on 1977 maybe)
Super A
Pz1p
MZ-s

Maybe not slr :
Yashica Electro rangefinder

And 2 medium format no Pentax Brand.

I do weddings so my minimum will be 2 each  of everything.

Angel Ramos
Arecibo, Puerto Rico


Łukasz Kacperczyk wrote:


Hi all,
I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but hey - *I*
want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)

Regards,
Łukasz


 

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Frits Wüthrich]

Don't let anyone stop you:-)

On Friday 18 October 2002 22:52, Keith Whaley wrote:
> I haven't listed MY crazy cameras yet!  
>
> keith whaley
>
> tom wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:frits@;wuthrich.cc]
> > >
> > > Not enough.
> > >
> > > PZ-1
> > > ME Super
> > > Zeiss Ikon Voigtländer - Icarex35S
> > > Mamiya C220
> > > Zorki 10
> > > Ensign Selfix 420
> > > Revue Panorama
> > > Regula King KG
> > > MZ-D in my fantasy
> >
> > If we were polling on the craziest list of cameras, I think you'd be
> > in the lead...
> >
> > tv

-- 
Frits Wüthrich

Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Feroze Kistan
Subject: Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR



> >
> > > The other biggie is quality of support from the
distributor.
> >
> >
> >
> > By that definition Pentax won't ever be a Pro player

Bingo!!!
Give the man a canoe.

William Robb

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Artur Ledóchowski]

- Original Message -
From: "Łukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: how many bodies do you own

> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

Currently I have 2 bodies: Z-1p and Program A and this is the number that
makes me comfortable. However there are bodies I'd like to have just to
experience different cameras. I plan to buy: SFXn, K2 and MX. I'd also like
to replace my Program A with the Super A or preferably with the LX.
I also have to buy the MZ-6 for my wife:))
Regards
Artur

FONG: LX Galore!

[Collin Brendemuehl]

http://johnsonadv.home.attbi.com/pentax.htm

For you who are longing ... :)

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Feroze Kistan]

You read that wrong its actually 18 in the house :)

- Original Message -
From: "Łukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:39 PM
Subject: RE: how many bodies do you own


> << I have 13 SLRs >>
>
> AAaaarrrgghh
>
> Um, sorry for that... :)
>
> Łukasz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Artur Ledóchowski]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now that's advertising. . .


> Gee.  I thought it was beer. . .

There is a japan beer called "Asahi":))
Regards
Artur

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Robert Soames Wetmore]

I also notice its in silver cans.  probably can't get the black cans in
the US.  Not that it bothers me . . .

Steven Desjardins



HA!  Paal knows a guy who will convert the can parts from silver to black 
for $180/can.  The beer tastes the same, though, so it seems kinda silly.  
Who needs to look like a pro beer drinker anyway?

Rob






_
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

RE: Wedding Photography

[Glen O'Neal]

I would also recommend that you ask to see the "complete" proof sets from
two of their most recent weddings.

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Leonard Paris]

Yeah, too small for real beer! ;-)

Len
---


> http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg

They just look like "film canisters" to me...

;-)

Fred



_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

Re: how many bodies do you own?

[Robert Soames Wetmore]

Re: how many bodies do you own?

The ones I technically own right now total 8:
PZ-1p (2), ZX-50, K1000SE, Konica T3n, Konica T2, Konica FT-1 motor, 
Yashicaflex TLR.

I'm rethinking it all, though - but that's another and much more tedious 
thread...

RSW





_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Bruce Dayton]

Łukasz,

I currently own 3.  The lowest number that makes me feel safe is 2.
One always working and a backup in case one goes into the shop.


Bruce



Friday, October 18, 2002, 12:05:45 PM, you wrote:

ŁK> Hi all,
ŁK> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
ŁK> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

ŁK> I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but hey - *I*
ŁK> want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)

ŁK> Regards,
ŁK> Łukasz

RE: Now that's advertising. . .

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

Nice :)

BTW - how come I got the reply to this post earlier than the original (which
hasn't arrived yet anyway)?

Lukasz

-Original Message-
From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Now that's advertising. . .


> http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg

They just look like "film canisters" to me...

;-)

Fred

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Keith Whaley]

Are you kidding!?

It's probably manufactured by Nikon!

keith

Christian Skofteland wrote:
> 
> On Friday 18 October 2002 15:05, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> > http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg
> >
> 
> Pentax Kool-Aid: Now available in convenient cans!
> 
> How many PDMLers have drunk the koolaid? ;-)
> 
> Christian

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Keith Whaley]

Well, they cans do say 250 ml. 
A standard beer can holds 355 ml.
If the printing is accurate, that's a large roll of film!

keith whaley

Fred wrote:
> 
> > http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg
> 
> They just look like "film canisters" to me...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Fred

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Steve Desjardins]

Gee.  I thought it was beer. . .
I also notice its in silver cans.  probably can't get the black cans in
the US.  Not that it bothers me . . . 


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/18/02 03:33PM >>>
On Friday 18 October 2002 15:05, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg 
>

Pentax Kool-Aid: Now available in convenient cans!

How many PDMLers have drunk the koolaid? ;-)

Christian

RE: how many bodies do you own

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

<< I have 13 SLRs >>

AAaaarrrgghh

Um, sorry for that... :)

Łukasz

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Steve Desjardins]

Question:  If you don't like 13, why not sell 1? 

That's a lot of cameras.  Do you use them professionally, i.e., do they
earn their keep?

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/18/02 03:17PM >>>

I have 13 SLRs (myself, there are anther 5 in the house not belonging
to
me) at the moment.
4 MX, 1LX, 1KX, 2 MZ-S, 1 Spotmatic, 1 OM1-n, 1 Super Program, 1 MG, 1
ME
Because I don't like the number 13, I am selling 4 of them.
I think for me, a safe number would be 3
The MX, LX and MZ-S
---
Wendy Beard
   

Re: how many bodies do you own

[andre]

Too many...

The other question would be: How many bodies do you use?

It could be split in 2 questions: on a regular basis, and on an 
irregular basis?

Andre
--

RE: how many bodies do you own

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

I was asking to make myself feel less miserable. I'm a bit paranoid about
having a backup. That's why I bought a beat-up Super A (but working fine).
BUT, when it returned from the CLA it was certainly looking better, but
sometimes the shutter didn't fire. So I returned it to the technician who
did the CLA. He said there was nothing wrong with the camera, but he cleaned
it again anyway and said it should work fine. And what happened? Now the
camera thinks the batteries are low (and they're new, I mean a couple of
sets I've put in the camera to check) and it fires only at the mechanical
speed (i guess, does the SUper A have a mechanical speed?).

So now I'm left with only a MX (but still have a Contax G1, a Rolleiflex,
and a small Yashica rangefinder, so it's not that bad :)

Regards,
Łukasz

-Original Message-
From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 9:12 PM
To: pentax
Subject: Re: how many bodies do you own


On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-2] Łukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

I only own one 35mm SLR, currently. I just sold my ZX-50 to a coworker.

I also own a P645, YashicaMat 124G TLR, and a Speed Graphic Pacemaker
which I suppose could've been considered a rangefinder before I took
everything off to make it a field camera.

At some point, I'm still compelled to add a KX to the collection.

RE: how many bodies do you own

[Malcolm Smith]

Łukasz Kacperczyk wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".
>
> I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but
> hey - *I*
> want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)
>
> Regards,
> Łukasz

2 x MX, 3 x LX, 1 x ME-SUPER.

I intend to sell one LX for a black MX.

I also intend to acquire another 67 body.

Malcolm

Re: how many bodies do you own

[frank theriault]

Hi,

35mm slr's:  3 Spotmatics, MX, MV (which is on it's way out the door - doesn't
work anyway)

Medium Format:  Yashica Mat LM, Yashica A

35mm Rangefinders.  Leica CL, Minolta HiMatic F (two of them), Yashica Electro
35,

35mm without Rangefinder:  Voigtlander Vito Automatic I

Subminiature:  Minolta 16II

So that's a total of 13 (soon to be 12), in various states of repair, and of
various quality...

regards,
frank

£ukasz Kacperczyk wrote:

> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".
>
> I'm not sure if it's really that interesting for anyone else, but hey - *I*
> want to know, so I figured I would ask anyway :)
>
> Regards,
> £ukasz

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Dan Scott]

On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 02:17  PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I have 13 SLRs (myself, there are anther 5 in the house not belonging to
me) at the moment.
4 MX, 1LX, 1KX, 2 MZ-S, 1 Spotmatic, 1 OM1-n, 1 Super Program, 1 MG, 1 
ME
Because I don't like the number 13, I am selling 4 of them.
I think for me, a safe number would be 3
The MX, LX and MZ-S
---
Wendy Beard
Mosaid Technologies Inc
11 Hines Rd, Kanata,
Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada
Tel: +1 613 599 9539 x1676
Fax +1 613 591 8148


Wendy,

I could quite easily be persuaded to provide a loving home for one of 
your MX. :-)

Dan Scott

RE: Wedding Photography

[Robert Soames Wetmore]

I was recently married and, with my wife, had to choose a wedding 
photographer.  Strangely, in my area, they are all divided into pretty much 
"PJ" or "traditional."  Pretty silly.  We went with someone who used neither 
term and was somewhere in-between in a certain sense.  Some of the "PJ" 
types were trying so hard to be clever in their photos – the exact opposite 
of the photographer becoming anonymous.  Action shots with slanted horizons 
of blurred brides getting out of cars – as if they happened to be captured 
by paparazzi for the cover of The Star.  It is just a fad and will look 
dated in about five years.  Some of the "traditional" category had such 
posed shots that we were bored to tears.

We went only with personal recommendations and saw about 10 of the better 
wedding photographers in our area.  They ranged from about $1700 to $5000.  
Most were $2000 to $3000.  They would be more in or around a major city like 
NYC, but we are 2 hours north.  About half (maybe less) gave the proofs to 
the customer.  Packages usually included variations on something like: 24 
page leather albums, 200-400 shots taken, 6-8 hours of shooting time on the 
date (often including up to three locations), a couple of enlargements, in 
some cases engagement photo sessions, or other things.  We paid a little 
over 2 grand, got all our (~350) proofs, got a decent-sized album, two 
framed enlargements, and a great photographer.

Personality entered into our decision as much as - or more than, really - 
technical ability.  I am not speaking of artistic personality but actual 
people skills.

Not to focus on equipment but this is an equipment list, so...  Everyone we 
went to used Hasselblad except two – one who used Bronica (loud!) and one 
who used 35mm Canon.  After seeing the results of my photographer (who used 
Hassey), I wouldn’t consider 35mm.  Initially I would have, apart from being 
somewhat suspicious that some 35mm users had 35 because they weren't 
established enough to have MF.  The MF difference was clear even for smaller 
prints.  No comparison in terms of tonality.  This is also why I’ve given 
serious consideration to MF in my own shooting, though I don’t feel I am 
currently good enough to deserve such equipment (apart from my beloved 
Yashicaflex that my father gave me).

I would go to a lot of photographers and look at a lot of books -  not "best 
of" display books but complete albums of individual couples.

RSW





_
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Christian Skofteland]

On Friday 18 October 2002 15:05, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg
>

Pentax Kool-Aid: Now available in convenient cans!

How many PDMLers have drunk the koolaid? ;-)

Christian

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Keith Whaley]

Wanna get rid of a good MX body?

keith whaley

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> I have 13 SLRs (myself, there are anther 5 in the house not belonging to
> me) at the moment.
> 4 MX, 1LX, 1KX, 2 MZ-S, 1 Spotmatic, 1 OM1-n, 1 Super Program, 1 MG, 1 ME
> Because I don't like the number 13, I am selling 4 of them.
> I think for me, a safe number would be 3
> The MX, LX and MZ-S
> ---
> Wendy Beard
> Mosaid Technologies Inc
> 11 Hines Rd, Kanata,
> Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada
> Tel: +1 613 599 9539 x1676
> Fax +1 613 591 8148

= snipped =

Re: Now that's advertising. . .

[Fred]

> http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pkin2002/cool_1.jpg 

They just look like "film canisters" to me...

;-)

Fred

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Christian Skofteland]

On Friday 18 October 2002 15:05, Łukasz Kacperczyk wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you own.
> And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".


I have 7

1 LX
3 MX
1 Super Program
1 P3
1 Auto 110 (oops! it's a non 35mm SLR)

Re: how many bodies do you own

[Dan Scott]

On Friday, October 18, 2002, at 02:11  PM, gfen wrote:


On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-2] £ukasz Kacperczyk wrote:

I'm just curious how many 35mm slr (or maybe not necessarily slr) you 
own.
And what is the lowest number that makes you feel "safe".

I only own one 35mm SLR, currently. I just sold my ZX-50 to a coworker.

I also own a P645, YashicaMat 124G TLR, and a Speed Graphic Pacemaker
which I suppose could've been considered a rangefinder before I took
everything off to make it a field camera.

At some point, I'm still compelled to add a KX to the collection.


ZX-5n, T4 Super, ME Super (DOA),  minolta-16 (working, but dead)

I plan on adding another Pentax body sometime this year, and possibly 
some sort of MF but probably not Pentax.

Dan Scott

RE: Wedding Photography

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS@;wlu.edu]
>
>
> Does she want traditional or PJ?
>
> I know that PJ is photojournalism, but what exactly are PJ style
> Wedding Photos?The bride being toted away by FBI agents, etc.?

Well, mostly it's marketing...the idea is to document the day rather
than set things up. Available light versus location lighting...not
worrying so much about how people look, rather concentrating on
timingetc.

The term and niche, I'm told, was invented by a guy named Dennis
Reggie. He's the guy that did the JFK Jr. gig.

tv

Re: Lens envy -we all get it, now cure it???

[frank theriault]

Hi, Vic,

You don't have to tell me about Dated Cameras.  My most recent body is my MX.  I
prefer not to call it "dated", but rather "a classic". 

BTW, I checked out your gallery, and let me add my voice to the chorus of
admirers.  Wonderful work!

Which "major Canadian daily newspaper" do you work for?  Just curious.  Hope it's
not the Sun, though - wait, that's only "Canadian" and "daily"...  

regards,
frank

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> No question. I agree fully with what you are saying. The information is
> certainly dated. But it's still interesting. And heck, a lot of us are using
> dated cameras.
> Vic
>
> PS. I remember the thread primes vs zooms. The damn thing made me go out and
> buy more primes. Does it ever end?
> Vic
>

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears
it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: Want to play?

[Feroze Kistan]

Sorry Anthony, I wasn't actually talking about you or william or anybody
else in particular. I was making a general statement about the constant
bickering that is always off topic and more often than not are greater in
number than e-mails on photography. I never directed it to you or william,
sorry for the misunderstanding.

BTW heard of projection, its when you take crappy pictures and then claim
its because Penatx euipment is not good enough and wish you had a F4 cause
all good photographs are taken with Nikon stuff

I'm about to get roasted

 Feroze

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:49 AM
Subject: Re: Want to play?


> Feroze,
>
> William invented that.  I wasn't going to share, but (ho, hum) the
challenge
> is now made.  I blamed Williams anger at me (over my Knut comment) on his
> ignorance of true history.  Ignorance is not a sign of low intelligence,
and
> I never, never claimed any intellectual superiority.  William took that
the
> wrong way as he takes so much the wrong way, and then puts upon me the
very
> faults that he has displayed (have you heard of the concept in psychology
> called "projection"?)
>
> Before you take Williams claims as gospel and the basis of criticism you
> should at least learn if he told the real story.
>
> Regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I havn't been around long enough on this list to know, but is this kind
of
> > hate mail campaign/talk loud and burp in the movies/drive on the
> > pavements/honk at old ladies crossing the streets/spit in the drinking
> > fountain behaviour common on PDML or is it just a passing phase. I don't
> see
> > the point, don't really care to know why people have to tell one another
> > that they are better anyway. Go www.mensa.com if you really want to know
> > who's smarter. But if your wife just left you or your mother through
your
> > entire playboy collection in the trash please find some other means to
get
> > over it.
> >
> > Feroze
> >
>
>

Re: OT, non-Pentax related, delete if offended, etc. etc.

[Feroze Kistan]

Congrate, all the best to him and proud parents

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Niesmertelny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:01 AM
Subject: OT, non-Pentax related, delete if offended, etc. etc.


> Just too proud to keep it in, I'm the father of a wonderful baby boy.
>
> Mother is doing well, baby is as yet un-named (I convinced my wife to wait
> for the narcotics to wear off before naming him).
>
> Weight: 8 lbs 10 oz, 20 1/4 inches long.
>
> He's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
>
> I've already shot a roll of Supra 800 through my LX (I guess this post
> actually is on-topic) so if I can get it developed quickly, I know where
my
> November PUG contribution is coming from.
>
> Dad needs some sleep!
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Nite nite.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

OT, apology and stuff

[Feroze Kistan]

I did not mean to cause offence, and if it comes off that way, I'm sorry. I
only made a comment on the timing-thats all. You may disregard it if thats
the case

Feroze

(OT, why am I getting a whole lot of remailed mails on submissions you've
made in the past week. Do you re-submit if you don't see the mail or is this
some boo boo somewhere, its both from PDML & your rogers add-you do scan for
viruses hey-bit weird-but not to serious, but its only from you though so
thats strange. Am I in your contacts list?? Do you mass mail or respond
individualy)

Ferzoe
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: Hello


> I don't know what to make of this, so I won't comment, if you wish to
> elaborate, that's ok.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brad Dobo
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:27 PM
> Subject: Hello
>
>
> > Hi Brad,
> >
> > I think its really funny that only after you started screaming that
pentax
> > decided to announce a DSLR. If you could jack up a major international
> > company I wonder what you could do if you put your mind to it.
> >
> > Later
> > Feroze
> >
>
>

Re: OT, non-Pentax related, delete if offended, etc. etc.

[Arathi-Sridhar]

Congrats!
definitely on topic :-)
best wishes for all the 'night duties' that follow :-D
-Sridhar

Re: Cross Processing

[Feroze Kistan]

Thats new to me, what I've read so far on cross processing indicates you can
swing both ways. From my limited understanding theres 6 stages for E6 and 4
for C41. My objective is more surreal anyway. If I want to see what freaky
colours I can get. I hat brown & orange though. Thanks for the heads up

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Flavio Minelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Cross Processing


> Albano, Feroze and anyone interested.
>
> Cross processing the other way (negs in E6) makes no sense.
> I did this (in error) and since the result is a positive on a negative
> base you have everything more or less orange coloured. Nothing to write
> home about, IMO.
>
> BTW, I don't think there's a way to get rid of the base this way.
>
> HTH, Flavio
>
>

RE: Shade for 31 limited?

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

After all - it's not mine, or is it? :)

Łukasz

-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Shade for 31 limited?


> -Original Message-
> From: Łukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > Does anyone know if the lens shade can be used on, let's
> > say the 30mm/2.8..
> > What's the filter size?
>
> << It's not removable. >>
>
> But what if you really tried? ;)

You'd be really irritated.

tv

Re: Cross Processing

[Feroze Kistan]

Thanks Albano, I'll will just have to go and try this and see how it looks,
all the advice is appreciated

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Albano Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Cross Processing


> Yes, they print the same way, except the xprocessed
> slides, now "negs", doesn't have a color base, they
> are transparent instead of yellow-brown of C41
> negative, and also lacks bar code info, not allowing
> full auto printing, needing manual procedures.
> You'll not have problems with the kind of lab you are
> using (the same kind I'm using here)
> Regards
>
> Albano
>
> --- Feroze Kistan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's 3 labs I use one is pro only, and they will
> > do what ever you ask,
> > one serves both pro & consumer and one is consumer
> > only. All 3 are owned by
> > full time professional photographers and wont refuse
> > any request even if you
> > just want to see what would happen if you tried this
> >
> > Are slide trannies printed out the same way as negs?
> >
> > Feroze
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Albano Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Cross Processing
> >
> >
> > > high saturated colors, like Fuji Velvia or Kodak
> > > E100VS, or Kodak Elite chrome Extra Color. Simply
> > > meter as accurate as possible, or bracket. Then
> > throw
> > > it at the lab and ask for get it C41 processed.
> > > Sometimes they make you sign a form authorizing
> > it,
> > > because it could be considered destroying your
> > pics if
> > > you want regular processing.
> > > Also, have in mind that possibilities at printing
> > > stage are endless, so it´s possible to receive
> > very
> > > varying results when you print enlargements.
> > Sometimes
> > > they filter colour, sometimes not, sometimes they
> > make
> > > them clearer or darker. I suggest you to ask them
> > for
> > > NOt filtering and saturated dense colors.
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =
> Albano Garcia
> "El Pibe Asahi"
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
>
>

Re: Cross Processing

[Feroze Kistan]

I want it to look like its not real, thats my whole point. So what to I tell
them to "aim" for then?

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: Cross Processing


> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Albano Garcia wrote:
>
> > Sometimes they filter colour, sometimes not, sometimes they make them
> > clearer or darker. I suggest you to ask them for NOt filtering and
> > saturated dense colors.
>
> The best help you could give the printers is to tell them what to correct
> for: skin tones, or everything else.  Some people want realistic-looking
> skin tones, which will make everything else look really funky, while
> others *want* that jaundice-yellow look to skin tones.  I can tell you
> from behind-the-counter experience that people who expect one style
> generally aren't too happy when the opposite happens.
>
> chris
>
>

Re: Reality Checks Part 3

[Feroze Kistan]

I never sent this, must be a glitch somewhere

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3


> Often I get messages that are all "- Original Message -" and no
new
> content.  Anyone else?  What do they mean?
>
> Regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, 18 October 2002 6:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3
>
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: Reality Checks Part 3
> >
> >
> > > Ya see, that's the 
>
> (etc.)
>
>

Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR

[Feroze Kistan]

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax annonces digital SLR


> 
> 
> > The other biggie is quality of support from the distributor.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> By that definition Pentax won't ever be a Pro player

Feroze

RE: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb@;accesscomm.ca]
> 
> 
> >
> > Bronica lenses are made by Nikon, are they not?
> 
> Good question. The older Bronica glass was Nikkor, I am pretty
> sure the lens I had for the ETRs (circa 1980) was a Zeiss.
> For all I know now, they may be Tamron.

Like some Nikkors. ;)

tv

Re: Thoughts on a film flagship

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship


> Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the
rumored new
> flagship?
>
>
> At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
>
>
> >Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing
my MZ-S?

I'll tell you what; the MZ-S is a pretty nice camera by modern
camera standards. It's not an overwrought piece of bloatware
like so many of it's competitors products are.
I don't really like the thing, but I dislike it less than the
stuff from Nikon, Canon or Minolta (espcially Minolta).

William Robb

Re: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: gfen
Subject: Re: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

> > The flash sync issue is pretty much a non starter for me
anyway.
> > There is only a stop difference between the 6x7 and 645
> > shutters. Neither body is especially good for outdoor fill
>
> I can handhold 1/60 @75mm with the 645 (at least, I believe I
can),
> however, there's no way I could handhold 1/30 @105mm with the
67.

Thats what tripods were invented for.
I have used the 6x7 handheld with flash (Metz 60 series) with
excellent results, so it can be done.
You may still be thinking in terms of 35mm, where everything has
to be just about perfect to get results that are aceptable. 35mm
is surprisingly difficult to get good results from, and pretty
much impossible to get excellent results from, presuming maximum
image sharpness, detail and lack of granularity are the results
you are after If you don't mind these shortcomings, then all
is well.
The small negative introduces too many constraints in other
areas to make it acceptable when ultimate technical quality is
desired.

Medium format has fewer constraints.

You have probably seen proof prints or slides from 35mm that
look good, but fall apart when blown up to 8x10.

A 4x5 proof is only a 2x magnification for 6x7, and about a 2.5x
magnification for 6x4.5.
Less magnification means more compromises can be made in other
areas and still get results that are acceptable on paper.

People also seem to think that because the camera is heavy, it
is more difficult to handhold, when, in fact, just the opposite
is true,
The heavier the camera, the more hand holdable it becomes.

>
> There are times I can forsee not having a waist level will be
mildly
> detrimential, but overall, I never wanted to use my YM124G
because it only
> had a WL.

Mostly, I use the eye level prism. There are times when the
waist level makes more sense. The 6x7 meter prism weight about a
pound and a quarter or some such. It's adds significantly to the
weight, so if I am using the 6x7, but trying to travel light, I
use the waist level and a Gossen.
>
> > if the Bronica glass is that inferior to the newer Pentax
glass.
>
> Bronica lenses are made by Nikon, are they not?

Good question. The older Bronica glass was Nikkor, I am pretty
sure the lens I had for the ETRs (circa 1980) was a Zeiss.
For all I know now, they may be Tamron.

William Robb

Re: Vastly OT-Favourite medieval kings

[frank theriault]

Hi, Flavio,

Well, I don't know how the thread started either .  A couple of people
were arguing about King Canute.  I just figured I'd rename the thread, and
throw in a couple of my favourite kings!

Interesting about "Pepino", though.  I ~think~ that one of the Pepins was
granted some land in what is now Italy as sort of a "consolation prize" - he
wasn't "good enough" to actually receive the Holy Roman Empire in it's
entirety, so they gave him Italy .  At least I think that happened...

So it would make sense that there's an Italian name for Pepin.  As for what
children call their, well, "parts", what can I say?  I'll have to take your
word on that one...

Okay, back to my new CD of Latin Song in Mediaeval Finland (really, such a
thing does exist, and I have it!  How much of a nerd am I?).

cheers,
frank

Flavio Minelli wrote:

> Frank,
>
> I can't remotely understand where this thread came from* but here in
> Italy "Pipino", the translation of your "Pepin", is too similar to the
> common nickname used by small male children for their, well, attribute,
> to be taken very seriously, much less thought as cool... ;-).
>
> Ciao, Flavio
>
> *: Well, maybe he used a K1000...

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

RE: Shade for 31 limited?

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Łukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> > Does anyone know if the lens shade can be used on, let's
> > say the 30mm/2.8..
> > What's the filter size?
>
> << It's not removable. >>
>
> But what if you really tried? ;)

You'd be really irritated.

tv

Re: Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount

[gfen]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:
> With so many wonderful Pentax lenses to choose from, why would anyone buy
> third-party?

Because we're budget concious, not name concious, elsewise we'd shoot
Nikon.

Re: Thoughts on a film flagship

[Doug Brewer]

Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the rumored new 
flagship?


At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:


Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?

Re: Pentax posters

[Keith Whaley]

Thanks, David...

keith

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Keith.
> The email address i have for Dario is:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Dave
> 
> > Dario, you still online?
> > Response please?
> >
> > keith whaley

Re: Thoughts on a film flagship

[Artur Ledóchowski]

- Original Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship


> Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and
need.
> I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
> multipoint auto-focus.

Yes, yes, yes:))) I feel the same...
The Z-1p with P-TTL, HSS, electronic DOFp and SAFOX VII would be great
indeed. Oh, and a battery grip would be nice too
Regards
Artur

RE: Shade for 31 limited?

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

> Does anyone know if the lens shade can be used on, let's 
> say the 30mm/2.8.. 
> What's the filter size?

<< It's not removable. >>

But what if you really tried? ;)

Lukasz

RE: Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount

[Rob Brigham]

> With so many wonderful Pentax lenses to choose from, why would anyone 
> buy third-party?

Sometimes Pentax doesn't do the lens I want (Sigma 17-35 vs FA
20-35/Sigma 100-300 F4)
Sometimes Pentax is too expensive (Sigma 28-70 F2.8 vs FA 28-70 F2.8
Powerzoom)
Sometimes Pentax is too bulky (Sigma 105 F2.8 Macro vs FA 100 F2.8
Macro/Sigma 70-200 F2.8 vs FA 80-200 F2.8)
Sometimes Pentax is NOT the best (Sigma 70-300APO vs FA 80-320)

Granted I would prefer all of these with Pentax glass, but it just aint
possible/sensible.

RE: Thoughts on a film flagship

[Rob Brigham]

You better re-read that sentence.  I know what you mean, but the English
doesn't make sense!

> -Original Message-
> From: Glen O'Neal [mailto:goneal@;kc.rr.com] 
> Sent: 18 October 2002 18:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
> 
> 
> Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I 
> want and need. I would love to see an upgraded version with a 
> faster more accurate multipoint auto-focus.

RE: RE (2): Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount

[Łukasz Kacperczyk]

I didn't say it's not worth my kidneys. What I meant was that sometimes when
I want to buy a new lens I'd actually like not to reduce the number of my
innner organs in order to able to afford it. I'm not complaining about the
price of * glass. Hell, I'm not complaining at all :) I'm just saying that
sometimes third party is the only way to go if your name is not Gates
(*that* Gates of course)

Regards,
Łukasz

PS. I'm not old, nor am I a heavy drinker, so I guess I actually could
afford that 135/1.8!  ;)


-Original Message-
From: Robert Soames Wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 6:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE (2): Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount


>Cause sometimes if you want to buy a certain lens, you really have no
>choice - you either sell your kidney and buy Pentax * glass or you get a
>third party lens (plus there's more of them on the market).
>
>Łukasz

The * glass is worth my kidneys, so maybe it's worth yours.  Or maybe more
if you are old or a heavy drinker.

Rob






_
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

RE: Thoughts on a film flagship

[Glen O'Neal]

Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and need.
I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
multipoint auto-focus.

-Original Message-
From: Robert Soames Wetmore [mailto:rswarchitect@;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thoughts on a film flagship


Realistically Pentax's immanent film flagship may be it's last high-end film
camera.  It seems it might go more in the high-tech direction (PZ-1p, Maxxum
7) or, alternatively, in the lower tech - an LX w/ AF sort of thing.  Or
could it, like the Maxxum 9 and to some extent the MZ-s, hit both points
simultaneously: traditional interface, appeal to traditionalists, but
high-tech and highly specified?  Maybe a bulkier MZ-S (including right hand
buldge) with limited finish, faster shutter and drive motor, AF spot beam
projector ... which would be like a somewhat scaled down Maxxum 9?  What do
you all think?  Do you think it will go in one direction or the other?
Which would you prefer?





_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

Re: Shade for 31 limited?

[Pentxuser]

Damn

Vic 

In a message dated 10/18/02 11:46:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I was just admiring Rob's 31mm ltd on the Pentax portrait page 
> http://www.nrg666.com/pdml/portraits/
> Does anyone know if the lens shade can be used on, let's 
> say the 30mm/2.8.. 
> What's the filter size?

It's not removable.

tv >>

Re: RE (3): Poll: 3rd party prime lenses for k-mount

[Tim S Kemp]

- Original Message -

My choice is any third party lens that will fit my recreational proctoscope.

RSW


You know where you can stick that







_
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

RE: Re[2]: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.

[Glen O'Neal]

I have no LS lenses (yet) so  Here is a mildly slick trick for this type
of situation if you have no LF lens. Put the subject in as much shade as is
possible (use reflectors or whatever) with a really bright background. Use
anything to block available light from the subject. Set you shutter on the
fastest sync speed possible. Expose for the subjects face (use handheld
meter if possible) and let the background blow out overexposed. You will
probably lose enough contrast in the background to lose some (hopefully
most) of those details. If you can get a little "hair light" from behind
that subject that will make it nice. Takes on the feel of a high key
portrait done in the studio if it comes out right.

My 2 cents

Glen O'Neal

-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton@;rcsis.com]
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:34 AM
To: gfen
Subject: Re[2]: Oh, 645! revisited: 645x67.


gfen,

It's not the handholding that's the problem.  It's that there is too
much light outdoors for shooting at 1/60 or 1/30.  Generally you might
be wanting to shoot at 1/125 to 1/500 and have some control of DOF.
Nothing looks worse than a nice outdoor portrait shot at F22 - all the
distracting background elements are nice and clear.

That is why the leaf shutter is so important - it lets you still
control the DOF that you desire.  It is amazing how bright it is
outside.  Many times you are trying to knock shadows out when the sun
is really strong.


Bruce



Friday, October 18, 2002, 7:08:07 AM, you wrote:

g> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, William Robb wrote:
>> The flash sync issue is pretty much a non starter for me anyway.
>> There is only a stop difference between the 6x7 and 645
>> shutters. Neither body is especially good for outdoor fill

g> I can handhold 1/60 @75mm with the 645 (at least, I believe I can),
g> however, there's no way I could handhold 1/30 @105mm with the 67.

>> For me, the camera issues are motorized advance (nice feature on
>> the 645), the viewfinder (nice feature on the 6x7), and how the
>> camera handles.

g> There are times I can forsee not having a waist level will be mildly
g> detrimential, but overall, I never wanted to use my YM124G because it
only
g> had a WL.

>> if the Bronica glass is that inferior to the newer Pentax glass.

g> Bronica lenses are made by Nikon, are they not?

RE: Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

It will work the same way: as a tele-extender with a limited AF distance range. (I 
don't think that the AF drive shaft passes through the adapter.

BR

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Cross [mailto:mcross@;ncen.org]
> 
> 
> Does it work with F/FA lenses or only with manual focus lenses?
> 
>