Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
I think it's a nice design. That angled top plate reminds me of the MZ-S. Really it looks like a very fat -S. Porky digicam! Dude, it's late! __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
--- Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sometimes feel like I'm arriving too late in the game. So many of you have been at it for so long, film is old, and you look forward to digital. Am I wasting my time in pursing 35mm SLR photography with such vigor? Whatever, dude! I just got my own SLR last year and am totally in love with film. No way would I go all digital. Too expensive. Besides, I take a certain pride in doing things as cheaply as possible. Like taking the time and effort to carefully research third party lenses. Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop. (Go ahead and flame me, digiphobes!) After you get tired of 35mm, there's always 6x4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, twin-lens-reflex, med-format rangefinders, monorail systems, Hassies, Pentax 645 (let's hear the Brotherhood war cry), and pin-hole cameras. Then you can get all creative at Kinko's Copies, hand-color a print (or print-out), make a big collage, play with crayons... Remember, it's never too late to learn stuff. G'night! Deb in TX __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Ok, Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
Thanks for the boost Deb!!! However, while I don't really scan my prints, when I do work, it's with Photoshop 7 :) Free of course...only the best ;-) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Debra Wilborn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:50 AM Subject: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training --- Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I sometimes feel like I'm arriving too late in the game. So many of you have been at it for so long, film is old, and you look forward to digital. Am I wasting my time in pursing 35mm SLR photography with such vigor? Whatever, dude! I just got my own SLR last year and am totally in love with film. No way would I go all digital. Too expensive. Besides, I take a certain pride in doing things as cheaply as possible. Like taking the time and effort to carefully research third party lenses. Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop. (Go ahead and flame me, digiphobes!) After you get tired of 35mm, there's always 6x4.5cm, 6x6, 6x7, twin-lens-reflex, med-format rangefinders, monorail systems, Hassies, Pentax 645 (let's hear the Brotherhood war cry), and pin-hole cameras. Then you can get all creative at Kinko's Copies, hand-color a print (or print-out), make a big collage, play with crayons... Remember, it's never too late to learn stuff. G'night! Deb in TX __ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
Debra, No flames from me. I use PaintShop Pro and Picture Window rather than Photoshop. I tried Elements and didn't really care for the interface. Since all I am doing is correcting scanning problems (Like Wheatfield, I prefer to fix things in the camera, rather than later), I find that some tools in PaintShop Pro work best and some tools in Picture Window work best. I am very happy with those particular editors. Bruce Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:50:54 PM, you wrote: DW Whatever, dude! snip DW Like running Paint Shop Pro instead of Photoshop. (Go DW ahead and flame me, digiphobes!) DW Deb in TX
unsubscribe
Ian Macdonald, IP CS Macdonald, Wolli, Somerton 2340. Phone: 02 67606229 Fax answering machine: 02 67606257
OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. Still thick as two planks. Argh! Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The way I read it was that the person was so stupid that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it, thanks a lot buddies Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Rob, You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a typing error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me at least) to 'throw them'. But I am also thick as two planks! Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: That is one of the funniest I have ever heard feroze - Original Message - Treena Harp wrote in part. And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, you could throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three weeks. I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Brad, Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor. The reason was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the camera's program setting. This generally meant that your flash pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear more natural and less like a flash picture. This is a good thing. You had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30. Hope this makes sense. Bruce Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:55:51 PM, you wrote: BD Ok, BD Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly BD matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment BD first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens BD example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras BD however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal BD indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the BD P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all BD cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a BD shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would BD have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. BD Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec BD shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the BD aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter BD to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. BD I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. BD Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the BD shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't BD understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. BD Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a BD fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD BD BD ** BD Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) BD Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD ICQ#: 1658
unsubscribe
Ian Macdonald, IP CS Macdonald, Wolli, Somerton 2340. Phone: 02 67606229 Fax answering machine: 02 67606257
Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Hi, perhaps they threw him into part of the creek where stuff accumulates. The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time. There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then. The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid', although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health people to test it sometime. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 7:09:32 AM, you wrote: So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. Still thick as two planks. Argh! Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The way I read it was that the person was so stupid that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it, thanks a lot buddies Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Rob, You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a typing error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me at least) to 'throw them'. But I am also thick as two planks! Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: That is one of the funniest I have ever heard feroze - Original Message - Treena Harp wrote in part. And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, you could throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three weeks. I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Thanks for the reply Bruce, Ok, let's see if I'm following so far. What I explained in my email about the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad for the info on the older cameras and TTL. I totally understand the flash results. Ok, now the harder part. Ok, wide aperture, more available light in. Got it. Is that acceptable? DOF would not be good if you had say, fast film, a powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture. So at that point is it normal to set the aperture you want? From all I've heard and read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be able to hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as flash does freeze some motion)? I just don't know, it seems everyone finds a higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100, considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like some that have 1/250 or 1/500. I guess you can see I'm a little uncomfortable shooting at a low speed. And am shy when it comes to flash. I generally go a bit overboard in any situation. Or am I still missing the point about the ambient light? Brad - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor. The reason was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the camera's program setting. This generally meant that your flash pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear more natural and less like a flash picture. This is a good thing. You had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30. Hope this makes sense. Bruce
Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Brad, The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length. So if you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable. You should practice a bit and check your results to make sure. You should always be congnizant of the DOF of the image you are taking. By being in control of your aperture, you can affect the focus area as you desire - many times for single people you want shallow DOF, but for larger groups you deep DOF - got to make sure nobody is too soft. The general issue for high speed flash synch is for daylight flash fill. The sun is quite bright and shooting at a slow flash synch may not be possible or would give such a deep DOF as to destroy the desired image. By having a higher synch, you have more opportunity to control your DOF. Bruce Sunday, October 27, 2002, 1:15:25 AM, you wrote: BD Thanks for the reply Bruce, BD Ok, let's see if I'm following so far. What I explained in my email about BD the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad for the BD info on the older cameras and TTL. I totally understand the flash results. BD Ok, now the harder part. Ok, wide aperture, more available light in. Got BD it. Is that acceptable? DOF would not be good if you had say, fast film, a BD powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture. So at that BD point is it normal to set the aperture you want? From all I've heard and BD read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be able to BD hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as flash BD does freeze some motion)? I just don't know, it seems everyone finds a BD higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100, BD considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like some BD that have 1/250 or 1/500. I guess you can see I'm a little uncomfortable BD shooting at a low speed. And am shy when it comes to flash. I generally go BD a bit overboard in any situation. Or am I still missing the point about the BD ambient light? BD Brad BD - Original Message - BD From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM BD Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know BD better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor. The reason was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the camera's program setting. This generally meant that your flash pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear more natural and less like a flash picture. This is a good thing. You had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30. Hope this makes sense. Bruce
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Hi Rob, I like split-image microprism screens for focal lengths up to about 100mm. This probbly partly because that was the supplied screen with the MX, and what I got used to. I like to have several options for checking the focus, but I use the ground glass a lot. From 100mm upwards I like plain matte because there's no centre-spot to black out and because the image seems to 'pop' into focus better. I keep one slr body with a plain matte screen in permanently, and use this for longer lenses. In the other 2 bodies I keep the split-image screens, and use those for normal and wides. I have some grid screens, and other fancy bits, but almost never use them. All 35mm, all manual focus. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:15:27 AM, you wrote: Hi Team, I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you?
Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:10 AM Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time. There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then. The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid', although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health people to test it sometime. Hey, I live by the Thames as well! It's nice and clean, what are you talking about? Oh darn, you're London, England, I'm in London, Ontario, Canada ;-) Brad
Re: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
- Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:25 AM Subject: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length. So if you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable. You should practice a bit and check your results to make sure. You should always be congnizant of the DOF of the image you are taking. By being in control of your aperture, you can affect the focus area as you desire - many times for single people you want shallow DOF, but for larger groups you deep DOF - got to make sure nobody is too soft. The general issue for high speed flash synch is for daylight flash fill. The sun is quite bright and shooting at a slow flash synch may not be possible or would give such a deep DOF as to destroy the desired image. By having a higher synch, you have more opportunity to control your DOF. Bruce Sunday, October 27, 2002, 1:15:25 AM, you wrote: BD Thanks for the reply Bruce, BD Ok, let's see if I'm following so far. What I explained in my email about BD the behaviour of the camera and flash is completely normal?I'm glad for the BD info on the older cameras and TTL. I totally understand the flash results. BD Ok, now the harder part. Ok, wide aperture, more available light in. Got BD it. Is that acceptable? DOF would not be good if you had say, fast film, a BD powerful enough flash, and a big area you wanted to capture. So at that BD point is it normal to set the aperture you want? From all I've heard and BD read, generally you don't want to hand-hold below 1/60s, should I be able to BD hand-hold, with confidence, a shutter speed of 1/30 with flash (as flash BD does freeze some motion)? I just don't know, it seems everyone finds a BD higher shutter-sync speed to be better, with the MZ-5n it was 1/100, BD considered sort of bad, and the MZ-S has 1/180, better, but not like some BD that have 1/250 or 1/500. I guess you can see I'm a little uncomfortable BD shooting at a low speed. And am shy when it comes to flash. I generally go BD a bit overboard in any situation. Or am I still missing the point about the BD ambient light? BD Brad BD - Original Message - BD From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM BD Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know BD better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor. The reason was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the camera's program setting. This generally meant that your flash pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear more natural and less like a flash picture. This is a good thing. You had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30. Hope this makes sense. Bruce
Oops again, this is the real oneRe: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Darn, I am really mucking things up. I guess 3 pots of coffee and it being 4:30am may account for some of that ;-) Bruce, that is the coolest thing. I've filed that into my memory banks now. Geez, after all the literature I read on photography, I never ran across that. Thanks! Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:25 AM Subject: Re[2]: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, The general rule of thumb for hand holding is 1/focal length. So if you are shooting a wide angle lens, slower than 1/60 should be doable.
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
I think it's a nice design. That angled top plate reminds me of the MZ-S. Really it looks like a very fat -S. Porky digicam! Dude, it's late! Late is not in my vocabulary. I've never messed with or held the existing DSLRs, but I've heard they are rather bulky by nature of the beast and heavy too. Any comments on this?
Re: Focus screen preferences?
This question is somewhat related to the messages. When I first started with the Pentax A3000, it had the split screen and I found it rather fun. I doubt any will work on the MZ-S, but is it possible to use that screen in an AF camera/lens? (switched to MF of course) Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 3:43 AM Subject: Re: Focus screen preferences? Hi Rob, I like split-image microprism screens for focal lengths up to about 100mm. This probbly partly because that was the supplied screen with the MX, and what I got used to. I like to have several options for checking the focus, but I use the ground glass a lot. From 100mm upwards I like plain matte because there's no centre-spot to black out and because the image seems to 'pop' into focus better. I keep one slr body with a plain matte screen in permanently, and use this for longer lenses. In the other 2 bodies I keep the split-image screens, and use those for normal and wides. I have some grid screens, and other fancy bits, but almost never use them. All 35mm, all manual focus. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:15:27 AM, you wrote: Hi Team, I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you?
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Hi Rob, The latest screen available for the 67II seems the most logical. It has a grid, but the screen is divided in thirds - both horizontal and vertical. This would be a great composition tool. Unfortunately, there are no similar screens for the LX. So, I would like a screen, similar to the above, with a split-image central focusing aid. Bob - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Focus screen preferences? Hi Team, I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you? 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: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Wow, that's advanced, huh. I have very little flash experience, because i'm shooting landscapes mostly. It is still true for older F-lens and older bodys like ZX-7 ? Gasha Bruce Dayton wrote: ... somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
A Gregory L. Hansen posted this on 26/10/2002 7:08pm and there have been a bunch of follow-ups. I don't know if anyone here posted to it, I'm sure some of you have seen it, but for the benefit of others I pasted it. May check it out? If I'm a total moron and everyone reads that newsgroup, just thump me one. ;-) Do we all think we are #4 or #3? I was at the local Ritz Camera today to pick up various pieces, like a UV filter for my new lens, hood, cleaning kit, film. I asked for a cap that goes on a Pentax camera without a lens, they didn't have one. I asked for a cap for the rear of a Pentax lens, they didn't have one, although they had some for Canon and Nikon. I asked about extension tubes, and the guy said there are none, nobody makes lenses for Pentax any more. And maybe he was just distracted or having a bad day, but he seemed to say it with the kind of sneer used by a PC fan talking to a Macintosh-using customer. Not a Sorry, we're out, but a Nobody makes anything for that any more with some implication that it's about time that company went away and why aren't you using decent equipment? I knew Pentax wasn't top dog, but I thought number 4 out of the big four wasn't so bad. Is Pentax on the way out, or is the sales guy just a yo-yo? ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hi Steve, on 26 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list: I do have a question, however. How difficult is it to use the MZ-S shape but recast it in polycarbonate? I realize that it would require new mfg lines that cast plastic instead of bend metal, screw fittings would be needed, etc., etc., but the final product would be much cheaper and I think a few hundred bucks cheaper would make a big difference.. Interesting question. I can't answer it but I was thinking in the same direction. For me the MZ-S was never a real MZ as it has a unique design. Pal has said, that the Pentax reps sometimes are quite misunderstandig. So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new products and now will be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine a new chassis line as follows: - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and more pro-features For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), especially as this would amortize Pentax's investments in rd. On the other hand there is missing a replacement for the cheap consumer bodies (MZ-60 etc.). So maybe these will still be produced in their present shape. And another argument against a new MZ-S-line: The LX was a similar product but it remained unique - there were no further developments into other bodies. Regards, Heiko
Re: Focus screen preferences?
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:15:27 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. Hmm, I started out with an MX that had the split-screen and was quite happy with that. I have also used microprism on some 35mm SLR's in the past. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? However on the current AF 35mm stuff I prefer the full matte screen (as bright as possible :-) I do have one of the MX's using a grid screen now, for landscape and architecture, The other one still has the split-screen. I tend to use the 67II more now, and that has the grid-screen too. Perfect for landscapes and architecture, and not too distracting ... The LX has a full matte (the new bright variant) and that is OK for the fast lenses that I tend to use on that. For much slower and wide-angle a split-screen might be handy sometimes though ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
SV: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Hi Brad I never use my SMC-A2.8/28mm Jens, Denmark -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dan Scott [mailto:daniel559;directvinternet.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 06:55 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll) On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 12:02 AM, Brad Dobo wrote: Here's my very pathetic list, I've owned more, but sold them, most were the cheap FA Zooms, one was a nice 28mm f/2.8 A? that I sold...wish I could take that one back. FA 50mm 1:1.4 FA 100mm 1:2.8 MACRO FA 28-105mm 1:4-5.6 [IF] What I want soon are 2, Either, the FA* 24mm 1:2.0 AL [IF] or the FA 20-35mm 1:4.0 AL and A used fixed telephoto 300mm ~ 500mm manual focus and such. Brad Dobo The FA 24/2 is very nice. I took it, the FA 35/2 and the FA 77/1.8 to my sister's wedding in Dallas the week before last. I ended up using the 24 on at least half the shots. Just have to keep remembering to take the hood off if I'm using the on camera flash. Easy to forget. Dan Scott
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hey there Heiko, Of course we all are speculating, but I can see 2 of your points makes sense to me, but the description of a new MZ flagship or whatever one may call it, seems to be looking like a Nikon or Canon clone. Correct me here if I am wrong, but that would be breaking a long-standing tradition? I can't see it because of that and the cost to make it happen, especially since the MZ-S was a sales flop. I love it though, it's professional enough for me, and really, Pentax isn't in the professional business concerning 35mm, right? Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Heiko Hamann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and more pro-features
Re: Re[2]: law and image
Hi Brad, On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote: I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. I DO use a Canon digital PS that is almost three years old now, and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ... However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and Pentax does not make any printer at all. I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by an 8000 ED to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner at all ... All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ... 95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma. I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in 1977, and because the lenses turn out to be among the best. For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and features. I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better. So I don't think the that those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax! Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
- Original Message - From: arkibladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:07 AM Subject: SV: What lenses do you have? (poll) Hi Brad I never use my SMC-A2.8/28mm Jens, Denmark Yo Jens, Why do you not use it? Also, I was really fresh when I picked it up, for use with the A3000. It cost $200 Cdn, but like I said, I was fresh, and it may not have been an 'A' lens.
Re: Re[2]: law and image
'Allo Jan, It was not a blanket statement, I always assume since you and others post here you must have and use Pentax gear. I was aware that Pentax does not make printers, scanners, (or, not because of your message, a DSLR) Perhaps I wrote poorly, it was really directed to those that use digital PS and DSLR and spend the cash on the darkroom stuff. I wondered how many of those, were actually using a Pentax digital camera. Hope that clears it up! Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: law and image Hi Brad, On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote: I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. I DO use a Canon digital PS that is almost three years old now, and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ... However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and Pentax does not make any printer at all. I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by an 8000 ED to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner at all ... All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ... 95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma. I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in 1977, and because the lenses turn out to be among the best. For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and features. I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better. So I don't think the that those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax! Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Re[2]: law and image
I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. I guess most people just go for the most obvious, and Pentax isn't that obvious to most people on Earth. regards, Alan Chan _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hi all This is a very long thread based on the fact, that one Taiwaneese magasine didn't have a picture of the future/new Pentax DSLR, that is going to replace the abandoned (MZ-S-like) one, and used a two year old picture. We seem to know, it's going to have a 16x24mm 5 megapix CCD (?), a KAF-mount and will cost appr. 1500 USD/Euro's (Body only). As I recall the D MZ-S was supposed to cost about 6000-8000 USD/Euros, which means the new one must be very much different - since it costs about 1/4. I'll probably buy one instead of the MZ-S I never got. Faktor 1.5 focal means a 29mm will be like a 43mm, the normal lens. Basicly this doesn't mean very much in every day photography, but probably that Pentax will make some new widelangles, rectiliniar and fish-eye's, in the near future - and some new standard zooms, like a 2.8/16-60mm (24-90mm). Or maybe a SMC FA 2.8/19mm-47mm (28-70mm). It might be great fun to use theese on a 35mm body? I'll certainly like the latter. -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Heiko Hamann [mailto:list.heiko;mycroft.de] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 10:49 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR Hi Steve, on 26 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list: I do have a question, however. How difficult is it to use the MZ-S shape but recast it in polycarbonate? I realize that it would require new mfg lines that cast plastic instead of bend metal, screw fittings would be needed, etc., etc., but the final product would be much cheaper and I think a few hundred bucks cheaper would make a big difference.. Interesting question. I can't answer it but I was thinking in the same direction. For me the MZ-S was never a real MZ as it has a unique design. Pal has said, that the Pentax reps sometimes are quite misunderstandig. So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new products and now will be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine a new chassis line as follows: - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and more pro-features For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), especially as this would amortize Pentax's investments in rd. On the other hand there is missing a replacement for the cheap consumer bodies (MZ-60 etc.). So maybe these will still be produced in their present shape. And another argument against a new MZ-S-line: The LX was a similar product but it remained unique - there were no further developments into other bodies. Regards, Heiko
Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Absolutely! In Richmond, near the bridge, I've seen some of that foam on my Sunday morning strolls. It certainly looks like stupid. Very unpalatable. D Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 10:10 AM Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Hi, perhaps they threw him into part of the creek where stuff accumulates. The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time. There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then. The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid', although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health people to test it sometime. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 7:09:32 AM, you wrote: So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. Still thick as two planks. Argh! Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The way I read it was that the person was so stupid that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it, thanks a lot buddies Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Rob, You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a typing error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me at least) to 'throw them'. But I am also thick as two planks! Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: That is one of the funniest I have ever heard feroze - Original Message - Treena Harp wrote in part. And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, you could throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three weeks. I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hi Brad, on 27 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Of course we all are speculating, but I can see 2 of your points makes sense to me, but the description of a new MZ flagship or whatever one may call it, seems to be looking like a Nikon or Canon clone. Correct me here if I am wrong, but that would be breaking a long-standing tradition? I can't see it because of that and the cost to make it happen, especially since the MZ-S was a sales flop. I love it though, it's professional enough for me, and really, Pentax isn't in the professional business concerning 35mm, right? You're right - why should Pentax build a pro body? I was assuming that they will build a pro body as flagship. If this assumtion was right, then an MZ-XXL would make sense IMO. If a Pentax pro body would make sense is another question. I agree, that it wouldn't make sense to compete wih Canon and Nikon in their pro segments. I don't think that Pentax would be successfull to earn sufficient market shares. OTO I am not sure if the MZ-S is really such a flop as generally assumed. In my eyes the MZ-S is a niche product for a small number of photo enthusiastst. And it is really unique in this niche - there is no competitive product. I don't know the actual figures, but I could imagine that this niche strategy is more successful as generally assumed. Compare it to Leica - they don't sell large numbers but are very successful in a small, expensive niche. AFAIR Pentax never tried to offer quite expensive and exclusive products, but maybe they try to identify or build new niche markets for a pro body. The MZ-S was the first ans - maybe successful - attempt for a new semi- pro niche. Would be interesting to know its profit contribution. BTW - I'm owning a MZ-5n and a 28-105 as you do. And I'm considering to buy a MZ-S (regardless of our DSLR/flagship speculations). Is it really a big step forward from the MZ-5n regarding AF speed and accuracy? Do you like the viewfinder? As I'm wearing glasses, the I don't like the viewfinder of my MZ-5n (as most other actual viewfinders)... Regards, Heiko
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Debra, No flames from me. I use PaintShop Pro and Picture Window rather than Photoshop. I tried Elements and didn't really care for the interface. Since all I am doing is correcting scanning problems (Like Wheatfield, I prefer to fix things in the camera, rather than later), I find that some tools in PaintShop Pro work best and some tools in Picture Window work best. I am very happy with those particular editors. Bruce once you start working with digital more, especially to produce larger prints or files you have to start sending to other people expressly for printing, you will need to move to Photoshop Elements, Photoshop, Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint. PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable results when sending files to other people for their printing. with Photoshop, i load my image, apply the precomputed color profile for my input device (scanner or digital camera) and print with no adjustments and get very good results. if i want the best results, i may tweak contrast, gamma, and saturation. these are the things that finish an image and require an accurately color-color calibrated monitor and printer to get consistent results. consistency means predictably good results every time i print and saves time and money. i can print once with confidence that i will get what i want, even when i send the file to a service bureau for large format or archival printing. the times when i have to retouch defects like dust that is too large for Digital ICE to handle or paint (graffiti) on a rock that i can't compose around, i use a pressure sensitive tablet. PaintShop Pro's support of pressure-sensitive tablet's isn't adequate to give the level of control of a good tablet. Photoshop's is much better and the stylus handles like a paintbrush with more control and an undo. for ultimate tablet feel and control, procreate Painter 7 is the best, but it is more difficult to learn. Herb
Re: A good argument for buying a film scanner
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Another supposedly dedicated photofinishing lab (fuji recommended) near to where I live blew it when they did me some 8x10s. One had pink snow and the other had a green dog. They couldn't see anything wrong. I don't ask much, really I don't. they ask less. can you recognize that it is a dog and there is snow in the picture. accurate color is another level of demand. i've seen written that a person in the street survey of what makes a good picture is that you can recognize the subject. you appear to have higher standards than that. Herb...
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Brad wrote: I can't see it because of that and the cost to make it happen, especially since the MZ-S was a sales flop. I've been told it has sold more than expected. I love it though, it's professional enough for me, and really, Pentax isn't in the professional business concerning 35mm, right? Pentax isn't in the business of professional anything. They sell to whoever buys it. There's a common misconception that MF is Pentax professional line. It isn't. Pål
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Bruce wrote: For low volume production items the cost is in the tooling and setting up production, and not the materials. Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes sense. I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up and later engineered into a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for both film and digital seem to make more sense. Pål
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Brad wrote: Ok, here is my preference. The screen that came on the MZ-S because of the focus spots. I know little about screens, but I looked at the other one for the MZ-S with grid, and would take it in a second, if it also had the AF points, and it doesn't. Not true. The MZ-S grid screen has AF points. Pål
Re: Pack Shot advice
First Prize - Most interesting combination of questions in one posting category With nothing useful to say, Steve
TEST DO NOT READ
TEST DO NOT READ J.C. O'Connell mailto:hifisapi;gate.net My Business references Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/
RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice US$1200)
I admit that I've decided to put other major purchases on hold and start squirreling away spare money for a bigger purchase. If this thing is really between 1200-1500 USD, then I might very well buy one. I currently enjoy using the E-10 I have access to; this idea of a having Pentax DSLR is starting to move from theoretical speculation to potential acquisition in my mind. Besides, the way these things go, I'll probably have a whole year to save up before they ar actually available. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10
Just a question. I use Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10, which I really like. Anoyone else use this product? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Prints from slides questions
I get prints from my slides in one of two ways: 1. Scan it myself on the old HP PhotoSmart at 2400dpi, tweak it for contrast, etc and then print it (max 8x10) on my epson 880. For this cheap equipment I get some pretty fantastic results. 2. Bring it to the custom lab that has a Nikon 8000 scanner and high-end epson printer. Amazing results at a price for prints up to 24x36. The problem with scanning slides is that most consumer labs probably just batch scan without paying attention to the results. When I bring in a slide that I want printed I talk to the lab guy and tell him how the final print should look with regards to color, contrast, etc. I'm totally hooked on digital printing. I wouldn't think of printing my slides any other way. sigh one day i'll have the Nikon 8000 and mega-epson in my office.. Christian - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: Prints from slides questions I've been shooting a lot of slides lately and took a few to a local digital print place for some quick enlargements. I didn't expect them to measure up to a custom print but I didn't expect them to be trash either. I thought I'd get something usable from a commercial lab but they were awful. No contrast, colors were off, highlights were washed out. Just terrible. Now to my questions: The slides had to be scanned somehow. Are scanners that bad at reading color slides? If what I got is the best a film scanner can do then I've lost all interest in buying one. What process do you recommend for printing from slides? Is the consensus that Ilfochrome is better or does the Kodak Ektachrome paper yield a better print? Any differences that I should be aware of? Thanks for any info you can provide.
pROBLEMS WITH LIST
I've gotten unsubscribed 3 time in the last month. What is going on? JCO
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Thats all well and good, spin doctors are really worth the money. But its been what 4 years since they started this project, if time is money in business than the 5 year girl on the corner selling lemonade seems to have more sense. How long does it possibly take to bring the DSLR on the market when they had an almost working sample about a year ago. The only other explanation is that the first non working demo's were just that, I don't think they had anything concrete at that time and just hobbled something together to keep their image and have since been working on the real thing. My 2 bits Feroze - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR No problems, Brad. We (or at least I) knew what you meant first time around g. I know I've mentioned this before, but I just help commenting again: Man, you've got the strangest sleep patterns! I wake up and check my e-mails before I got to work in the morning, and you're posting at, like 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning. And, here it is, 10:30 on a Saturday night, and your waking up, and looking for coffee? I wonder why you're awake in the wee hours? vbg But, on to the topic of this thread: I don't think Pentax is jerking us around; no more than any other corporation teases its market with leaks and such. They want us to think they're really working on something (and they probably are). They know there are those that really want a dslr from them, and they want to keep up interest. It may be nothing more than a marketing ploy, but I don't think it's unusual in the corporate world. I wouldn't feel too hard done by due to any of this. Now, if someone wants to be PO'ed by the fact that there is still no Pentax dslr on the market, that would be understandable... cheers, frank Brad Dobo wrote: Argh audible swearing Should read is it just me.blah Sound read is it just meI just woke up...need coffee Gang, is it just be or does it sound like Pentax is *beeping* us over? Ever get that used, dirty feeling? ;-) Brad Dobo -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Not if you kept skimming it off the top The creeks I know sort of meander like sludge, don't rivers flow And be careful water makes planks swell and then your cap wont fit you anymore Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:09 AM Subject: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. Still thick as two planks. Argh! Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The way I read it was that the person was so stupid that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it, thanks a lot buddies Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Rob, You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a typing error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me at least) to 'throw them'. But I am also thick as two planks! Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: That is one of the funniest I have ever heard feroze - Original Message - Treena Harp wrote in part. And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, you could throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three weeks. I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Prefer grid screens, and as soon as my MZS is here its the first thing I'll buy after the grip. I suppose it depends a lot on what you shooting, I think grid screens work well with landscape photographers for eg. Feroze - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:15 AM Subject: Focus screen preferences? Hi Team, I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you? 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: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint. PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable results when sending files to other people for their printing.
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training printing, you will need to move to Photoshop Elements, Photoshop, Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint. PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable results when sending files to other people for their printing.
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
Please tell me how you came to this conclusion, do you mean if you scan a pic in photopaint and and in the same one in photoshop and print it out on the same machine you get 2 diffirent results? Feroze - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint. PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable results when sending files to other people for their printing.
Re: Photographic Training
Well...sure. At 3:14 AM +100010/27/02, Rob Studdert wrote, or at least typed: After a quick whip-around to cover the air fare :-) Rob Studdert -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Of course it does. I've never had a single problem with Pentax service. DB At 9:22 PM -040010/26/02, Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote, or at least typed: They don't need any fancy bugs, since Pentax service doesn't exist in North America. BR -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
Re: Photographic Training
Don't tell anyone I was taking a break from working on the list. Some people think I'm not allowed. You can call volume portraiture a lot of things, but boring it ain't. You do learn a lot about lighting and posing, and you learn to make quick decisions. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know if you have the temperament for that kind of work. Hard to answer you on the other part of your message. Been a long time since I had a dud roll, but I'm a guy who edits as he shoots, so I don't have many frames I didn't intend to have. That said, you should really, at this point, wait until after you get the rolls back before deciding if they're duds. Even then, it's really difficult to read negatives, so you may want to investigate slides as a way to judge your progress. At 11:51 AM -040010/26/02, Brad Dobo wrote, or at least typed: Weighing in a little late Doug! g But good to see you posting, and not having to fiddle with the list (which to me has been working perfectly)! Interesting you brought up the 'volume portrait biz'. I was looking at looking into..heh...doing that. Personally, I would find it boring, but one would learn quite a lot about lighting and such, in the least eh? As well as positioning your subject too. I could use that help! Heck, I'd be willing to be an assistant for free. (Truth, people pictures scare me, I like just about everything else) One other thing that sort of applies to your message. I've shot a lot, and want to shoot much more. I've found that with certain rolls or trips or events, I think, 'They aren't going to be good' so I take the roll to someplace cheap. When I think I've got something good, I take it to a good photofinisher. Is anyone else like that? I'll admit that some of the shots on the 'bad' roll, actually are quite good. I've never had any problems with the cheap ones, except the Price Club (Costco), where I tried twice to get some Fuji HG 1600 film processed and they were more like test rolls, and both times, their dumb machine ripped my negatives to shreds. So I guess what I'm going after is, do any of you get the feeling you have a 'dud' roll and don't want to pay top dollar to have it processed? Or should I, despite the cost, always go to my trusted photofinisher? Regards, Brad Dobo At 11:51 AM -040010/26/02, Brad Dobo wrote, or at least typed: Weighing in a little late Doug! g But good to see you posting, and not having to fiddle with the list (which to me has been working perfectly)! Interesting you brought up the 'volume portrait biz'. I was looking at looking into..heh...doing that. Personally, I would find it boring, but one would learn quite a lot about lighting and such, in the least eh? As well as positioning your subject too. I could use that help! Heck, I'd be willing to be an assistant for free. (Truth, people pictures scare me, I like just about everything else) One other thing that sort of applies to your message. I've shot a lot, and want to shoot much more. I've found that with certain rolls or trips or events, I think, 'They aren't going to be good' so I take the roll to someplace cheap. When I think I've got something good, I take it to a good photofinisher. Is anyone else like that? I'll admit that some of the shots on the 'bad' roll, actually are quite good. I've never had any problems with the cheap ones, except the Price Club (Costco), where I tried twice to get some Fuji HG 1600 film processed and they were more like test rolls, and both times, their dumb machine ripped my negatives to shreds. So I guess what I'm going after is, do any of you get the feeling you have a 'dud' roll and don't want to pay top dollar to have it processed? Or should I, despite the cost, always go to my trusted photofinisher? Regards, Brad Dobo -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com
Re: Pack Shot advice
Oh wait I have another one, and this is for the grand prize, winner takes all - Can you have a proctoscope CLA'd and who would you recommeded? Feroze - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Pack Shot advice First Prize - Most interesting combination of questions in one posting category With nothing useful to say, Steve
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Rob Studdert wrote: snip- So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? - I like the KX microprism and KX split screen the best.
Strange Pentax posting
Hi list Did any of you get a mail like this (It's strange since I'm not subscibing to any yahoo list/group): You cannot reply to this message via email because you have chosen not to disclose your email address to the group. To reply: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentaxxstarforum/post?act=replymessageNum=887 Hi group, photography is an anytime changing, exciting thing that has found numerous places and discussion forums in the web. These are changing as photography in general is changing. This cannot be without consequences for forums like these. What can be observed in the last year was a fast growing website and forum community with unmatched competence in the digital photography area. Especially dpreview became a place, where informations and discussions became available much faster and reliable than in the classic brand related forums. Recently, e.g. the article and pictures on a new MZ-S Digital on photosharp.com.tw appeared there 2 days earlier than on the usually fast PDML. Since high end SLR photography in future will be digital photography, it is just consequent to shift a forum like this one over to a place like dpreview if time is ready for this. In my mind, it's ready now. So I invite all the 200+ friendly, humble, knowledgable and relaxed members I have seen here plus the numerous passive readers to switch over to http://www.dpreview.com/forums/ in order to strengthen the Pentax crowd there. In case you have no interest in digital, I have two things on offer. First the two big Pentax yahoo groups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spotmatic/ and the pdml offspring http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PentaxUsers/. Second, this group will not be deleted, but it will become a passive archive. So members will have access to the postings and image archive aytime at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentaxxstarforum/. However, this archive will be a so called hidden group without new messages. The change will happen at the end of October. See you, Ralf Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/hZCslB/TM -~- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:HerbChong;compuserve.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 12:33
What light baffle thickness for MX?
Dear group, The foam at the rear door and close to the focusing screen of my MX is getting sticky. I want to try to replace it. Searching the internet, I find different thicknesses are available. Any sugestions what thickness is needed? Next sunday I intend to visit the Fotografic fair in Houten (Holland) and I expect I will be able to buy the foam there. Any suggestions about the procedure to follow to get a good result without spending too much time? (I believe in the 80/20 rule) Regards, Jos from Holland
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice US$1200)
I agree. I may not buy a new Pentax auto focus film camera, but wait 6 months to a year to see what Pentax comes out with. I have plenty of film cameras already and would be more than happy to thin out that collection to help pay for a new DSLR. My wife and I currently own the EI-200 and have a lot of fun with it. A APS sized DSLR would be more than adequate for us. Jim - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR (Expected streetprice US$1200) I admit that I've decided to put other major purchases on hold and start squirreling away spare money for a bigger purchase. If this thing is really between 1200-1500 USD, then I might very well buy one. I currently enjoy using the E-10 I have access to; this idea of a having Pentax DSLR is starting to move from theoretical speculation to potential acquisition in my mind. Besides, the way these things go, I'll probably have a whole year to save up before they ar actually available. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: THE PENTAX SONG: PENTAX FOREVER!
Not a bad plug for Kodak, either. Of course Pentax has a sexier mention in Popsickle Toes - Why do you always load your Pentax when I'm in the nude? frank theriault wrote: Good one, Bill! vbg He shoots, he scores! -frank William Robb wrote: Kodachrome. As good a Nikon song as there ever was. William Robb -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Frank theriault wrote: I have no idea whether Pentax is # 4, 5 or 15. And quite frankly, I don't care. I don't buy Pentax stuff as a status symbol. I agree with that, I bought Pentax because I liked their cameras. I care more about quality of images, and whether what I own fits my needs and my budget. I wouldn't have bought more Pentax equipment if I was disappointed with the results, I would have bought into another brand. I like the cameras, lenses and if Pentax does not give much back up, PDML does. Malcolm
SV: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hi Henry Well, I guess the csots of developing the MZ-S body has allready been paid for by the MS-S sales. I's might probably be cheaper to reuse the MZ-S framework, rather than starting all over again. The MZ-S sell for appr. 700-800 USD, leaving a little economic space for implementing the electronics... Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Iren Henry Chu [mailto:irenhenry;hotmail.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 14:18 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR Hi all This is a very long thread based on the fact, that one Taiwaneese magasine didn't have a picture of the future/new Pentax DSLR, that is going to replace the abandoned (MZ-S-like) one, and used a two year old picture. We seem to know, it's going to have a 16x24mm 5 megapix CCD (?), a KAF-mount and will cost appr. 1500 USD/Euro's (Body only). As I recall the D MZ-S was supposed to cost about 6000-8000 USD/Euros, which means the new one must be very much different - since it costs about 1/4. I'll probably buy one instead of the MZ-S I never got. Although the photos are old, the message is that the new D-SLR will not be quite different to the old one. There is another important point from the Taiwanese report: Pentax aims at pricing the new D-SLR's to about half of the existing D-SLRs like D100 and D60 (list price = 330,000yen). It's planned price competitor is Sigma SD-9. The list price is the same at 200,000yen. Pentax Taiwan expected a street price of about USD1,200. Regards Henry Chu 27/10/2002 _ Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
SV: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10
Hi I use Picture publisher 7 and 8. I allways loved it. Even thoug I have Photoshop 5.1, I like PP much better. Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS;wlu.edu] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 16:00 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10 Just a question. I use Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10, which I really like. Anoyone else use this product? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training
Very different results. Sometimes so different that you wouldn't believe it. But its possible - by careful setting up and calibration - to get results that are similar. But even when using the same program and printer all the time its vital that all settings be standardised, the correct colour space chosen and many other things too. All you need do, to make an incredible mess, is check the wrong box, or leave a choice unmade. List members who are Epson Printer experts can tell us much more about this. These mistakes can become very expensive. The new Samsung 17 I have just acquired has a Program called Natural Color that sets up both monitor and printer. This may be useful, but since the printer no longer works I can't try that feature out. In any case I always set up the monitor with the Adobe routine, even when using PSP7. Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:06 PM Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training Please tell me how you came to this conclusion, do you mean if you scan a pic in photopaint and and in the same one in photoshop and print it out on the same machine you get 2 diffirent results? Feroze - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Just say No to burn-out Re: Photographic Training Micrografx (soon to be Corel) Picture Publisher or Corel PhotoPaint. PaintShop Pro 7 doesn't do adequate color managment to give reliable results when sending files to other people for their printing.
RE: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
In NA Pentax is 4th among the big 3. BR -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] I knew Pentax wasn't top dog, but I thought number 4 out of the big four wasn't so bad. Is Pentax on the way out, or is the sales guy just a yo-yo?
RE: Micrografx Picture Publisher Pro 10
Hi I use Picture publisher 7 and 8. I allways loved it. Even thoug I have Photoshop 5.1, I like PP much better. Jens Me too. Lukasz
RE: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
When it comes to a common chassis for film and digital, I there's less here than meets the eye. Some of the major camera structures are going to be very different between the two types of cameras. There's no film transport mechanism or film plane in a digital camera, but lots more electronics. There will be commonality of subsystems between the cameras, i.e., AF, AE, switches, knobs, lens mount, shutter, etc. BR -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes sense. I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up and later engineered into a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for both film and digital seem to make more sense. Pål
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
At 01:14 PM 27/10/2002 +0100, you wrote: Pentax isn't in the business of professional anything. They sell to whoever buys it. There's a common misconception that MF is Pentax professional line. It isn't. Pål Yes, and Fuji Canada back up Pål's statement. I finally found which of the three registration forms you had to fill in on the Fuji website that Cameron posted about to get free film. It was the Fuji Professional challenge. You had to state what make of equipment you used in your profession. Pentax wasn't in the list for either 35mm or MF. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
RE: (2): Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
Hi Dave Even though I use Super A, I'm not familiar with the AF280T. But an easy way to cheat the automatics could be NOT to use TTL-mode but Automatic mode and then cheat the ASA setting (only on the flash)? It can be done with my Metz flashes. By the way - I'd use fill flash, not to add contrast on a dull day, but quite the opposite - to reduce contrast (soften shadows) on a sunny day. Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: David Brooks [mailto:brooks_dee;canoemail.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 14:33 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: (2): Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) In a related quiry as Brads.I have the Super Program and 280T flash.I was experimenting with fill on my last BW roll with poor results.If i set the flash to TTL or any other mode other than manual,the camera automaticly sets up at 125 shutter(sync speed for camera)What would be the best way to add a bit of fill flash on a dull day.Set flash to manual,meter ambient light and close down 1, 1 1/2 stops to compansate for flash.I see no way to adjust flash output in manual mode, other that using the Cotty plastic bouncy thing(patent pending) Dave Begin Original Message From: Gatis Visnevskis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:43:56 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Wow, that's advanced, huh. I have very little flash experience, because i'm shooting landscapes mostly. It is still true for older F-lens and older bodys like ZX-7 ? Gasha Bruce Dayton wrote: ... somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
RE: Strange Pentax posting
Yes. Ralf Englemann was an active member of the group several years ago, and then started hiw own on Yahoo. There are a number of people here who are on both groups. He would seem to just be letting people here know what's going on there. BR -Original Message- From: arkibladt [mailto:arkibladt;get2net.dk] Hi list Did any of you get a mail like this (It's strange since I'm not subscibing to any yahoo list/group):
Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
My Minolta Dimage 7 does the same. It keeps the shutter speed (when zooming) just fast enough for handheld shots. Jeff. - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML (Pentax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:55 AM Subject: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Ok, Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
- Original Message - From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What lenses do you have? (poll) What lenses do you have? SMC FA 28-105mm f/4-5,6 Power Zoom SMC F 70-210mm f/4-5,6 SMC A 50mm f/1,7 SMC A 28mm f/2,8 20-M Mir 20mm f/3,5 Zenitar-K 16mm f/2,8 Fisheye and my wish list contains: SMC F or FA 50mm f/1,4 or 1,7 or even beter FA 43mm f/1,9 Ltd Arsat 35mm f/3,5 Shift Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6,3 RF SMC A 135mm f/2,8 some 50mm prime in the m42 mount for my recently bought bellows Regards Artur
Re: Prints from slides questions
At 08:20 AM 27/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: I've been shooting a lot of slides lately and took a few to a local digital print place for some quick enlargements. I didn't expect them to measure up to a custom print but I didn't expect them to be trash either. I thought I'd get something usable from a commercial lab but they were awful. No contrast, colors were off, highlights were washed out. Just terrible. My experience too. I took a 67 velvia slide in to Blacks to get an enlargement made. I'd tried scanning the slide on my HP flatbed without much success (unmounted, I couldn't keep it flat enough). Terrible print. I've now taken it somewhere else to see if the results are any better. (of course it could just be that my slide's rubbish!) Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED)
It does. Jeff. - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 2:13 AM Subject: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Brad, Just so you know, in the old days, TTL was kind of poor. The reason was that flash synch speed was always used automatically by the camera's program setting. This generally meant that your flash pictures ended up with the subject well lit but the background somewhat blacked out. In more recent years, Pentax, among others, has changed the program so that it will try to use the slowest hand holdable shutter speed it can based on the focal length of the lens attached. By doing this, you let in as much ambient light as possible and use as little flash as possible to get a properly exposed image. The net result is that the backgrounds are not blacked out, but appear more natural and less like a flash picture. This is a good thing. You had to kind of manually do that on the old SuperProgram body because it always wanted to set the camera to 1/125 even though you had a fairly wide angle lens on that could of been held at 1/30. Hope this makes sense. Bruce Saturday, October 26, 2002, 11:55:51 PM, you wrote: BD Ok, BD Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly BD matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment BD first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens BD example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras BD however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal BD indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the BD P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all BD cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a BD shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would BD have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. BD Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec BD shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the BD aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter BD to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. BD I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. BD Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the BD shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't BD understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. BD Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a BD fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD BD BD ** BD Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) BD Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD ICQ#: 1658
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Rob Studdert wrote: Hi Team, I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens were so popular. So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you? Cheers, Rob Studdert I have 3 35mm bodies have grid screens in all 3 bodies. I prefer grid screens more than any other screen type that I have seen. Grid screens are a good aid for composition and subject alignment. -- David S. Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com
OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
When I was crossing a stream once with my dog by hopping rock to rock, he jumped right into a stagnant area of coagulated foam, thinking it was solid earth. He was quite surprised (and angry) to find himself underwater. Now, THAT's stupid. (Even smart dogs like my Cardigan Welsh Corgi are pretty dumb.) Incidentally, I found the original metaphor about skimming stupid extremely easy to understand and somewhat funny - I don't know what the problem is. You guys seem pretty dumb. RSW Absolutely! In Richmond, near the bridge, I've seen some of that foam on my Sunday morning strolls. It certainly looks like stupid. Very unpalatable. D Dr E D F Williams _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
So what if the MZ-S was the developing basis for new products and now will be the basis for the new chassis? I could imagine a new chassis line as follows: - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and more pro-features For me this sounds sensible (altough it is pure speculation), Heiko Hamann This sounds utterly sensible to me, too (with the possible exception of the polycarbonate in the first one being maybe impossible as indicated in other threads). This would make a fine line of cameras with consistency and yet variety appealing to various users and yet sufficiently condensed to eliminate overlapping and too-similar models. I suppose they'd have to hang onto some sort of MZ-30 type thing for a while at the bottom end and maybe use that sort of chassis for the problematic scaled-back polycarbonate cheaper MZ-S you mention. Interesting speculation - thanks for the post. RSW _ Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
Re: A good argument for buying a film scanner
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 08:34 AM, William Robb wrote: We have the same problem with our 2102. Ineex prints are coming off a Crt printer, which is squishing the image gamma down to fit the photo paper, and is also setting the white point automatically. The prints get made with an optical printer. The two will never match, as the printing technology is too different. William Robb Ahh. Two machines that work differently. I had no idea. Our Walmart has a big machine in the center of the lab and I thought film went into one end and prints came out the other, all by the same magic. Thanks, Dan Scott
Re: Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Bruce wrote: For low volume production items the cost is in the tooling and setting up production, and not the materials. Thats why the story provided by Pentax UK, all new slr's from the same chassis, makes sense. I'm not convinced the MZ-S as building block for the whole Pentax slr line-up makes sense. The MZ-S was designed as a digital slr from ground up and later engineered into a film slr. This cannot be ideal. A new chassis that is engineered from ground up for both film and digital seem to make more sense. Pål Man, this is what I've been arguing all along. I mentioned long ago that the MZ-S was a derivative and therefore possibly compromised camera and most found that possibility silly. I'm not complaining about any MZ-S specifics but simply questioning whether certain of the choices would have been made if it hadn't been first designed as a digital. RSW _ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re: Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:31:36 -0500 Robert Soames Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting speculation - thanks for the post. How many 'frames' per second can a digital do? I would have thought with the ability to do small mpeg movies the frame rate could be up to 40 fps. Kind regards Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Byron Bay, Australia
Re: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 05:13 AM, arkibladt wrote: Faktor 1.5 focal means a 29mm will be like a 43mm, the normal lens. Basicly this doesn't mean very much in every day photography, but probably that Pentax will make some new widelangles, rectiliniar and fish-eye's, in the near future - and some new standard zooms, like a 2.8/16-60mm (24-90mm). Or maybe a SMC FA 2.8/19mm-47mm (28-70mm). It might be great fun to use theese on a 35mm body? I'll certainly like the latter. But only if designed for film as well. It seems like this 1.5 is a godsend to film lenses that are mushy in the corners but sharp in the center. Former dogs become star performers until you stick them on a film body and once again they become dogs. Dan Scott
Re: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Something tells me some of ya'll are putting waay too much thought into this ... :) It's merely a Deep-South expression about someone's intellect, which just might be pushing maximum density, put in a very coloful manner. - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 1:09 AM Subject: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. Still thick as two planks. Argh! Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) The way I read it was that the person was so stupid that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. Now all the funny is gone since you made me think about it, thanks a lot buddies Feroze - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Rob, You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a typing error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me at least) to 'throw them'. But I am also thick as two planks! Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: That is one of the funniest I have ever heard feroze - Original Message - Treena Harp wrote in part. And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, you could throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three weeks. I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Simple K1000 Lens Question
After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000. I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids. Best, John -- __ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Don't forget: folks are dumb (Was: Re: law and image)
Hi, Alan, What people buy and why they buy it is a pretty darned complex issue. [...] frank theriault And never discount stupidity. Folks are pretty dumb on average. When I was selling cameras and audio I watched a training film which shared some market research indicating that 75% of people made their choices of which speakers to buy based on the exterior appearance of the speakers. I'd hate to be responsible for the marketing success or failure of a product. If the MZ-D doesn't look just right - for instance, maybe if the LCD screen is the wrong color - it may sell terribly. RSW _ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Re: Re 2: Exclusive picture of new Pentax D-SLR
Hi Robert, on 27 Oct 02 you wrote in pentax.list: - a cheaper MZ-S made of polycarbonat replacing MZ-5/MZ-6 - the present MZ-S as semi-pro camera - the previous MZ-D with minor changes and the APS-sized chip - a MZ-flagship as big as the MZ-D with an integrated, fast winder and This sounds utterly sensible to me, too (with the possible exception of the polycarbonate in the first one being maybe impossible as indicated in other threads). Yes, I've read those threads, too. Maybe the MZ-S platform is oriented upwards only. This would make a fine line of cameras with consistency and yet variety appealing to various users and yet sufficiently condensed to eliminate overlapping and too-similar models. I suppose they'd have to hang onto some sort of MZ-30 type thing for a while at the bottom end and maybe use that sort of chassis for the problematic scaled-back polycarbonate cheaper MZ-S you mention. I can't judge the technical possibilities and hurdles to build an MZ-S made of plastics. On the other hand I wonder if this might not be necessary to build a competitive - i.e. cheap - MZ-D. Interesting speculation - thanks for the post. You're welcome. Nice to see, that some of my thoughts being translated form German to English seem to make sense...;-) Regards, Heiko
Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Thanks a lot, Bob. You just threw me into an existential quandary ... - Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert Soames Wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 12:07 PM Subject: Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) Hi, When I was crossing a stream once with my dog by hopping rock to rock, he jumped right into a stagnant area of coagulated foam, thinking it was solid earth. He was quite surprised (and angry) to find himself underwater. Now, THAT's stupid. (Even smart dogs like my Cardigan Welsh Corgi are pretty dumb.) Incidentally, I found the original metaphor about skimming stupid extremely easy to understand and somewhat funny - I don't know what the problem is. You guys seem pretty dumb. is that the same as stupid? Can you skim it? If smart dogs are dumb, are dumb dogs smart? All dogs are mammals. Nietzsche is a mammal. Therefore all mammals are smart. And dumb. Are dumb people smart? Are dumb bells smart? What about blonde belles? Are dumb belles blonde, or are dumb blondes belle? What about beau belles? or Belle's baubles? Is Belle the Beast, and if so is she a dumb beast? Is your corgi a dumb beast? Is it blonde? Nietzsche liked blondes. Did that make him dumb? Did the damned dog drop in the skim scum because it was dumb, or was it dumb luck? Chaso de Chaso's a philosopher - blond? dumb? dim? skim? scum? - whatever, he has pretentions to be a smart one, and philosphers (well known for their Sartre-orial elegance) wear cardigans remarkably like your dog (I hope he doesn't resemble that. Or he may be smarting over it). Perhaps he can help with these mysterical sophistries. Besides, your dumb corgi should know there's no such thing as solid earth - it's all in The Mind, but maybe he'd have still slid on the slippery solipsism and skimmed that scum. Dog gone. --- Bob
Re: Simple K1000 Lens Question
John, You're right the 135mm has more reach, but it is also a bit slower. The M-100mm f2.8 is a bit smaller and faster, so it's easier to focus and hold steady. There is a bigger K-100mm f2.8 but they are more rare. The M-135/3.5 is an old favorite and dirt cheap for the quality it provides. You won't go wrong with it! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000. I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids. Best, John
SV: Simple K1000 Lens Question
Well, the 135mm pulls in more - graeter magnification. But the 100mm is faster=brighter screen/vievfinder=easier focusing/better in low light - about half a stop. Which one you prefere really depends on what you are shooting. I find the 100mm better for indoor shooting and protraits - the 135mm often gets you too close. Outdoor I'd prefere the 135mm. Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Gill [mailto:johngill;email.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 18:45 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Simple K1000 Lens Question After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000. I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids. Best, John -- __ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
RE: Simple K1000 Lens Question
...and there's a rare 2.8/105mm - quite nice! Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Rfsindg;aol.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 19:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Simple K1000 Lens Question John, You're right the 135mm has more reach, but it is also a bit slower. The M-100mm f2.8 is a bit smaller and faster, so it's easier to focus and hold steady. There is a bigger K-100mm f2.8 but they are more rare. The M-135/3.5 is an old favorite and dirt cheap for the quality it provides. You won't go wrong with it! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000. I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids. Best, John
SV: Simple K1000 Lens Question
...and a 2.5/135mm (qiute rare) whoich is great! (unfortunately I let mine go...) Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Gill [mailto:johngill;email.com] Sendt: 27. oktober 2002 18:45 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Simple K1000 Lens Question After a 30 year absence from photography I'm back and re starting almost where I left off-fully manual.Only this time with Pentax,the K1000. I am having great fun with my two M series lenses,28/3.5 and 50/1.4, my 50/2 will be passed on, I think. My question is,how different is the M135/3.5 from the 100/2.8 for pulling in ,more distant subjects? I have no interest in doing portraits at this time-just more reach for candids. Best, John -- __ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Re: Prints from slides questions
I had the same experience with prints from slides, disappointing results, dull colors, no comparison to the slides. It was the same with every local lab I tried, digital or conventional process. Then I got this tip to try Overlake Photo in Bellevue. http://www.overlakephoto.com/main.html I had a few 5 x 7 test prints made from slides recently. The results were awesome. The high gloss prints are as vibrant as the slides themselves. Totally professional results. The prints were on Agfa paper, but don't know if they use the same Agfa D-lab that Bruce mentioned previously. One complaint that I have was the edges of the slides were cropped all the way around, which unfortunately affected the composition in a couple cases. Haven't dealt with that yet. Guess I'll have to contact them about that sometime to make sure it doesn't happen on a larger more costly enlargement. Or is that common that slides to prints process crop the edges? Harald
DSLR, and other things...
Is it OK to say that now? Sheesh! I hope the DSLR based on the MZ-S chassis is true; they would be the first company to bring out a companion DSLR at a reasonable price. Up to now the price disparity between digital and film has been rediculous; look at the difference in price between the Nikon D100 and the camera it is based on, the N80. The D100 felt very cheap and plasticky IMHO, and the embossed numerical stuff on the dials were obviously done as cheaply and as fast as possible. The whole camera felt quite fragile and cheap. As for the flagship rumour, it has been restated so often and with no result that I don't currently believe it; but if you do, feel free. The rumours or leaking of a new ultrawide zoom sound interesting; I wonder if it will have corner angles of incidence reduced to reduce the light falloff when the light hits the sensors at a sharp angle, (man, that was awkard to say), and if so, what effect will this have on the lens when mounted on a film camera? Also, what about a new flash? Nothing happening on that front. As for focussing screens, I have and use several in my PZ1-P; the standard one, with panorama lines, I don't use very often anymore. I also have the 'Golden Section' screen, with a large gridded X across the frame, which I love and use the most (very handy for offset subjects and scaling in thirds), and 'the grid', with evenly placed squares all over the screen, which is excellent for product shots or shots where you need very specific placement of subject (i.e. double exposures of tele-moon and WA landscapes). I hope they come out with some screens for the MZ-S/D, as well as interchangeable finders for the 'alleged' flagship. It would be nice to use a refconverter for macros, etc. Any rumours of an alleged companion DSLR to match the alleged flagship and an alleged high-end flash? Nice to have the list working again; had it only failed for me, or what? Cameron Hood Free! 5 rolls of 120 or 3 roll of 35mm Fuji NPH at http://www.fujifilm.ca/ProCommunity/default.asp?sectionID=32parentID=4
Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELPNEEDED)
Good question, I've been wondering about it to. From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML \(Pentax\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELP NEEDED) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:55:51 -0500 Ok, Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Now I feel like a complete idiot! From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT) On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote: What lenses do you have? [snip] I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the archive. Actually try just a week or two ago. Very recently. :) chris _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
I missed the second part, I could not find this thread in the archives. Can someone please point in the right direction. From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:25:38 -0800 Now I feel like a complete idiot! From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT) On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote: What lenses do you have? [snip] I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the archive. Actually try just a week or two ago. Very recently. :) chris _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp _ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Vs: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELPNEEDED)
IIRC only MZ-S does this and my MZ-5n did not. This takes into account as much available light as possible - IMO a Good Thing because it results in flash pictures with available light feeling. If you do not like it, select your favourite aperture/shutter speed manually.. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 27. lokakuuta 2002 20:08 Aihe: Re: Ok, the most stupid question from someone who should know better (ie HELPNEEDED) Ok, Time to spill my guts to you fine folks. I need some help. It's a silly matter that I've had since starting shooting. Ok, here's the equipment first, cameras MZ-5n, MZ-S, flash units, AF330FTZ and AF360FGZ, lens example, my 28-105mm zoom. Ok, mix and match the flashes to the cameras however you like. Generally now it's the MZ-S with the AF360FGZ. Normal indoor conditions, flash in hotshoe properly, all charged up, flash on the P-TTL or TTL, everything is normal. Camera is set on program. This all cool so far? Ok, at 28mm, I get a wide open aperture in this case f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/30sec. Does that make sense? Is that correct? I would have thought the aperture would be smaller, and the shutter speed higher. Ok, zoom out to the 105mm, aperture still wide open, now at f/5.6, 1/90sec shutter. What's going on? I always bypass this and sometimes set the aperture, most times, I don't. I do however, in the MZ-5n, set the shutter to 1/125 to get the 1/100 sync. With the MZ-S, I set it to 1/180. I'm quite embarrassed asking this question, but I now feel I need to know. Is what is happening correct? Am I doing the right thing by setting the shutter higher? Btw, the pictures turn out just fine. I just don't understand why the shutter speed is SO low and the aperture is wide open. Please, any assistance would be very appreciated, and while feeling like a fool for a while, at least I'll know what the heck is going on. BD ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658 _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
A Great Save
I shot a car this morning. It's a lot of work. Ten rolls of 120, two rolls of 35mm. (I used Provia F for a change. I want to see if all you Fuji lovers are right.) But the best part of the morning was that I saved a camera and lens. I was working out of the back of my PT Crusier, which is a lot like a minivan. The rear hatch was open. I had a bunch of equipment stacked inside. I was switching my flash over from the stroboframe to the compact Pentax bracket, because I was going to shoot from under the rear bumper. From the corner of my eye I saw something moving. I didn't have time to think about what it was, but I reacted and reached out with my left hand. Milliseconds later I watched the lens hood on my 55/4, which was mounted on my 6x7, just nick the ground. The camera strap was hanging from one finger. Apparently, my camera had slid off the case that it was resting on and was heading toward the ground. It never made it. I think I'm going to be more careful from now on. Paul Stenquist
RE: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Lenses . hm? 35mm A 50 f/1.4 F 50 f/2.8 Macro FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 FA 80-320 f/4-5.6 2.0x TC 645n --- 645 FA 45-85 f/4.5 645 FA 80-160 F/4.5 1.4x TC 2.0x TC Helicoid Extension Tube Wish List A 85 f/1.4 I would give anything for this lens if anyone has one for sale A 135 f/3.5 FA 80-200 f/2.8 Glen O'Neal
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Actually, I can't find them in the recent archives, either. Maybe I just imagined it. Anyway... 35mm K-mount: Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye M 20/4 M 24-35/3.5 A 50/1.4 K 85/1.8 M 100/4 macro FA 80-320/4-5.6 50mm ext. tube Rear Converter-A 2X-S (still looking to sell) chris On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote: Now I feel like a complete idiot! From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What lenses do you have? (poll) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:02:47 -0500 (CDT) On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote: What lenses do you have? [snip] I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the archive. Actually try just a week or two ago. Very recently. :) chris _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Re: What lenses do you have?
Many or all of those messages never made it to the archives - or, if they did make it, they didn't stay there. (The internet isn't exactly the repository of the definite.) Actually, I can't find them in the recent archives, either. Maybe I just imagined it. Chris Brogden _ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Rob Studdert wrote: My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses mounted. How about you? Cheers, Rob Studdert Matt. If lining up the edges of things is important, I can do it on the matt. The circular thing in the center is distracting. I wouldn't mind trying the grid or preferably a golden section, but they aren't available for my camera. Dan Scott
Re: What lenses do you have? (poll)
Sigma 28 f5.8 AF M 28 f2.8 M 28 f3.5 M 35 f3.5 A 50 F1.7 A 50 f2 A 135 f2.8 M 135 f3.5 FA28-105 f4-5.6 powerzoom F 100-300 f4-5.6 A 35-105 f3.5 (my favorite lens) A 70-210 f4 - Original Message - From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: What lenses do you have? (poll) What lenses do you have? I'll start.. 24mm FA* f2.0 35mm FA f2.0 50mm FA 1.4 Tamron 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 Tamron 80-210mm f4-5.6 the latter two will in time be replaced by 100mm macro F or FA f2.8 200mm FA* f2.8 and a good Pentax zoom I hope this hasn't been done recently, couldn't find anything in the archive. Paul _ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
