The List...
She's a no go again. Archive OK, mailings no Time to get a Mac, Doug. Cameron PS: Let's all kick in and buy him a computer that works.
RE: MZ-S vs Z-1p
Hi John, I wasn't commenting on the MZ-S battery consumption, as I don't own one. I was however, commenting on the rate at which the Z-1 chews up 2cr5 batteries. My old Z-1 would last for about 15 rolls of 36 before it was unusable with AF glass. All I ever wanted for it was a vertical grip that would take AA's. I tend to get off the beaten track a bit and have been caught without enough spare batteries a few times. Luckily though, I have been able to haul out the LX and just keep going. There's an engineering fellow in the USA who has been threatening to release vertical grips for the Z-1 for ages, but he doesn't seem to be getting any closer to a release date. They look good in prototype though. For now, I might sit things out and rely on my LX. When the dust settles a bit and we all know what Pentax are doing then I may decide to purchase a new camera. It will be either the z-1p or the new film flagship (I will be purchasing a DSLR regardless, unless it is really crappy). The only way I will purchase the film flagship over a z-1p is if it makes me feel comfortable enough to let go of my LX (relax only joking folks). cheers Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:jcoyle@;powerup.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 10:55 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: MZ-S vs Z-1p Hi Shaun: Would you believe I am still on my first set of batteries for the MZ-S, after nearly a year? I can't recall how many films I have put through, but it's a fair few. I have played extensively with the flash and tested the autofocus assist, and it gets to go out with me every day, when I have it switched on 'just in case'. Along with a couple of others who have complained that it chews batteries, maybe you should have it checked for battery drain when switched off, or even check that you are not accidentally leaving it on all the time? If the forecast DSLR is indeed built on the same basic chassis as the MZ-S, I would expect all the accessories to fit, as there would be little point in changing the mechanics of the fit: IMHO, the change between the original MZ-fit accessories and the MZ-S set was to accommodate additional control information, and that is now accomplished. If, on the other hand, you want to wait for the film flagship, all bets are off! Since Pentax are reported to have said it will be based on a completely new chassis, I don't think we have any way of knowing how it will be put together, and therefore whether anything (except hopefully, our glass) will fit it. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:22 AM, Shaun Canning [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > Thanks for the first replies everyone. The catch-22 for me is if it is > going > to be worth changing over to an MZ-S now (and need a new cable release > and > flash etc to get it all to work properly) or wait until the fabled > DSLR or > new film flagship arrives? If I buy an MZ-S there is no guarantee that > the > extras will be universal (i.e. the cable release and flash). We still > haven't really heard anything about the film flagship. Everyone seems > hell > bent on the DSLR. What's happening Pal? Have you heard anymore about > the > film flagship? Of course, it could be worse. At least I can get the > parts I > want for my camera's, hey Brad? > > I am 'stuck' with an LX only at the moment, which I must say is not > really > that much of a tragedy (I love my LX). However, I do have a genuine > need for > flash bracketing, flash exposure compensation and AF. The z-1p is a > great > camera, except for those stupid damned 2CR5 batteries that seem to > evaporate > when they are taken out of the packet. From what has been on the list > lately > though, it seems that the MZ-S chews up the batteries as well. > > Hmmm the dilemmas of being a Pentaxian. > > Will they...wont they...wish they did > > Shaun Canning > PhD Student > Archaeology Department > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > Australia, 3086. > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > -Original Message- > From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml@;nrg666.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 04:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MZ-S vs Z-1p > > Hi, > > I've had both and the MZ-S hunts alot less, in both well lit and low > light > situations. > > I only ever used the central sensor on the MZ-S. > > Regards, > Paul Jones > - Original Message - > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:41 PM > Subject: RE: MZ-S vs Z-1p > > > > Thanks Bruce > > > > Shaun Canning > > PhD Student > > Archaeology Department > > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > > Australia, 3086. > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton@;rcsis.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 30
Re: Praises and Thank Yous!
- Original Message - From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: RE: Praises and Thank Yous! > Yeah, the Manfrotto stuff is OK. I really want a carbon fibre version, but > can't justify the exorbitant price. So, my old '55 will do me for now. It > has survived everything I have thrown at it for 10 years now. Airport > baggage handlers, desert, snow, salt water...nothing can kill them. The only > thing I would change are the leg locks. Man, those things will kill you if > you get your fingers in the way Well, when I went out and bought the MZ-S, grip, remote, 2 lenses, I also decided it was time to replace my year old tripod. It was a VERY cheap Manfrotto, a piece of junk. So I looked at the carbon fibres, and I had the money, but I didn't like them, too light. I wanted something strong, heavy, where I can plant it in heavy winds and not worry about it. The 055CB is that old? Interesting. Anyhow, it's all I want in a tripod, sure light is nice if you have to carry it far, but I like 'em heavy ;-) No pain, no gain. Of course, that Gitzo ball head while Magnesium, makes it quite a lot heavier. I do wish I had not got one with a quick release. I never use it, well almost, and when I try, it interferes with my hands and fingers too much. I know what you mean about the leg locks. They're solid though, just gotta be careful ;-) Regards, Brad Dobo > Cheers > > Shaun Canning > PhD Student > Archaeology Department > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > Australia, 3086. > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 0414-967 644
Re: 1 day to go: Normal zoom poll
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:49 PM, Arnold Stark wrote: Please do not hesitate to vote, that is to say: to answer the following 3 questions: 1.) Imagine that you need a k-mount zoom which covers at least the focal lengths 40 to 70mm. Imagine further, that you have more than enough money to spend on such a zoom. Now imagine, that you enter a shop which has plenty of new and used Pentax glass. What are the 3 SMC Pentax zooms (1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice) that you would like to pick most? Pick among these lenses: FA 24-90/f3.5-4.5 IF&AL FA*28-70/f2.8 AL 3.) If you were dreaming, what would be your ideal (but realistic) SMC Pentax Zoom lens for k-mount, covering at least the 40-70mm range? So far, these lenses have been proposed: FA 18-36 ltd. any speed Dan Scott
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
In a message dated 10/30/02 7:55:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Unfortunately Pal, it is. Just like whomever in Europe traced the PDML server and got a lightning fast response, while I'm on the same continent and got poor results. Anyhow, if you just look at the Photo I courses, 90 people 1 Pentax camera. Interesting eh? Regards, Brad Dobo >> Maybe it just means more people who buy Cs and Ns don't know how to take pictures. Vic
RE: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
On the wall of my office I have a print hanging of an image I took at Lake Mungo some years ago. The same image is thumbnail #14 (counting from top left) at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096 I had an interneg made of the original 35mm trannie, and then had the interneg printed at 48'x36', then mounted and framed. It still looks stunning. The original trannie was taken using my old Pentax z-1, with a sigma 24mm AF lens stopped all the way down, a cable release and a Manfrotto 055 tripod and 141 head. The exposure details escape me, but it was a long (one minute or so) exposure as it was just before dawn. Sure MF provides undoubtedly better detail and quality in each neg or pos. However, humble old 35mm gear can still churn out some stunners when we put our minds too it. Making the interneg was definitely the secret of getting a print as big as I did that still has such good detail and relatively unnoticeable grain. (The interneg was shot on a 67 by the way.) Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:hifisapi@;gate.net] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) I disagree, I can see a difference between 35mm and medium format even in a print as small as 8X10. As for 11X14, I'm not sure if 4X5 negs would look better than medium format, but 35mm 11X14s are pushing the limits of 35mm for sure. JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser@;aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Brad I competely disagree. 35mm is not dying and yes it can compete. It > depends on what you are shooting and how large you are going to > blow it up. > Many shots are taken with 35mm equipment that could not be taken > with larger > format equipment. Many people like larger format because they are > impressed > with the larger negative. Fair enough. But if you never enlarge > beyond 11X14, > me thinks it's a little bit of overkill. > > Vic > > > In a message dated 10/30/02 11:17:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << No doubt. 35mm cannot compete, and it's dying anyhow. > > > > Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns > > > and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in > > > the 35mm world ceased to concern me. > > > > > > I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 > > > rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with > > > the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very > > > nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when > > > they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... >> >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
In a message dated 10/30/02 8:17:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << As for Brad's dilemma. Mate your really up s*&t creek unless you want to purchase online, or at least travel to somewhere that has the parts you want. >> Brad call Burlington Camera in Burlington Ont. just a hop skip and jump from where you are. They are very good when it comes to Pentax equipment. They are truly a professional store where most of the guys not only push Pentax but even wear Pentax shirts. They will have what you need and if they don't have it, they'll get it fast. Call 905-632-7722. Go for a nice drive on the weekend and pick up your cable release. They are down near the lake... You'll be impressed by the store Vic
RE: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
I disagree, I can see a difference between 35mm and medium format even in a print as small as 8X10. As for 11X14, I'm not sure if 4X5 negs would look better than medium format, but 35mm 11X14s are pushing the limits of 35mm for sure. JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser@;aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Brad I competely disagree. 35mm is not dying and yes it can compete. It > depends on what you are shooting and how large you are going to > blow it up. > Many shots are taken with 35mm equipment that could not be taken > with larger > format equipment. Many people like larger format because they are > impressed > with the larger negative. Fair enough. But if you never enlarge > beyond 11X14, > me thinks it's a little bit of overkill. > > Vic > > > In a message dated 10/30/02 11:17:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << No doubt. 35mm cannot compete, and it's dying anyhow. > > > > Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns > > > and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in > > > the 35mm world ceased to concern me. > > > > > > I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 > > > rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with > > > the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very > > > nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when > > > they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... >> >
Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Brad I competely disagree. 35mm is not dying and yes it can compete. It depends on what you are shooting and how large you are going to blow it up. Many shots are taken with 35mm equipment that could not be taken with larger format equipment. Many people like larger format because they are impressed with the larger negative. Fair enough. But if you never enlarge beyond 11X14, me thinks it's a little bit of overkill. Vic In a message dated 10/30/02 11:17:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << No doubt. 35mm cannot compete, and it's dying anyhow. > Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns > and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in > the 35mm world ceased to concern me. > > I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 > rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with > the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very > nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when > they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... >>
DC PDML Get-together #4
Ok, I think this is number 4. Unlike last time, this outing won't involve guns, dogfish or Fritos. When - 11:00 a.m. Sunday 11/10/02. Where - The Smithsonian Arts and Industries Building. We'll meet at the entrance. http://www.si.edu/ai/ Why - David Hume Kennerly's "Photo du Jour" exhibit. http://www.kennerly.com/current/pdj_exhibition.php Afterwards we'll stroll or metro somewhere to get a bite and maybe take some pics along the way. Actually, DC PDMLers don't stroll. We stride or strut, though sometimes Cesar likes to sashay when he's got his snaky cameras. tv -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
See what happens when I don't take my meds? From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hey Bob, > > North America silly! > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Where the hell is "NA" > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > > --- > > "Beer is proof that God loves us > > and wants us to be happy" > >- Benjamin Franklin > > > > From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > [skip] > > ...at least here in NA. > > [skip]
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
I'm investing in cameras and images not technology. Vic http://hometown.aol.ca/Pentxuser/myhomepage/artgallery.html In a message dated 10/30/02 9:31:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Brad Dobo wrote: > If they don't come > out with a DSLR, what will you do? > Uh, if Pentax doesn't come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. And if Pentax does come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. Is your Pentax incapable of recording images on film? Mine are all functioning quite well, thank you. Paul Stenquist >>
Brad's Pentax Gripe Grows Old and Dies :)
I think we've had our outlets and fun. We can stop nowexcept you TO PDMLers... :-) Regards, love, and appreciation, Brad Dobo (who is about to start his 4th assignment...composition...5 different styles (tough eh? :)
Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:00 PM Subject: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) No doubt. 35mm cannot compete, and it's dying anyhow. > Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns > and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in > the 35mm world ceased to concern me. > > I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 > rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with > the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very > nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when > they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... > > I will continue shooting my 67 - I derive much satisfaction out of > using it and the results that I can attain with it. I was never as > happy with my 35mm work. So whether Pentax comes out with a DSLR or a > new film flagship - no worries. > > As a side note: I got to view a bunch of 8X10's and a 12X18 printed on > the Agfa DLab from my friend's D100 today. I will say that they > looked pretty good. As far as sharpness and color rendition, about on > par with a 35mm camera, but the detail and sharpness was nowhere near > my 67 stuff - no matter what Luminous Landscape may say. > > > Bruce > > > > Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 6:30:18 PM, you wrote: > > > > PS> Brad Dobo wrote: > >> > PS> If they don't come > >> out with a DSLR, what will you do? > >> > > PS> Uh, if Pentax doesn't come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make > PS> photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. And if Pentax > PS> does come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my > PS> Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. Is your Pentax incapable of > PS> recording images on film? Mine are all functioning quite well, thank you. > PS> Paul Stenquist >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Every region is different I would expect. > > Anyway, the MZ-S isn't a sales flop. As I understand it, it > exceeded > > Pentax's own forecast, and it was backlogged for several > months. > > I wondered about that as well. > > William Robb > >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:38 PM Subject: RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > The MZ-S is a weird camera. It's not going to get a Nikon or > > Canon user excited because on paper it doesn't compete. > > Anyway, the MZ-S isn't a sales flop. As I understand it, it exceeded > Pentax's own forecast, and it was backlogged for several months. > > tv Hey, we all have our views, opinions and sources. It doesn't matter really. For any topic you can find an expert that will tell you A+B=C, and another that will say that is completely wrong. Who's right? So, my sources, as lowly as they may be said it was a big sales flop in this region, and to Pentax Canada. MZ-S's are being bought by the tens of thousand in Iraq however, they want to take pictures of how stupid Bush is. I hope the reps. know something. At the best shop in my city, they sold 2, yes two, MZ-S, mine was one. I have an instructor that has 90 students with SLRs, there is only one Pentax, me. So it varies all over are we correct? Yes. I like my MZ-S (for the 10^3 time) but I think Pentax Canada stinks. I don't know if it is the top guys at Pentax Canada, or HQ, or what HQ thinks of this region. From the lack of ads, I'd say not much. Just jump the border and you may just see the exact opposite! Brad
Re: Newby
Bob: Would you like to share these with us... It's always good to tap into other members' knowledge base... Vic In a message dated 10/30/02 6:29:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I've used the PZ-1 more and know all of it's little used features. >>
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > - Original Message - > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > The MZ-S is a weird camera. That it is, but I love it to death. > > > > Did I make a wrong choice right from the beginning? > > Why did you buy an MZ-S? Did you buy it because it had a 7 fps > motordrive, and a 42 point autofocus? If you did, then yes, you > should have read the brochure more closely. I was told it would make 3 dimensional digital images. I was disappointed it did not when I got it. I've wrote time and time again that I think 2.5fps is too fastfor me. fps I could care less. I mostly use the old centre spot focus, so 42 points is a little drastic. I read the material on the camera, and purchased it. I can usually understand some basic english. So, fun over, Did I make the wrong choice? I wasn't referring to Pentax camera models. I was looking at brands. And I hadn't made up my mind if I have, had, etc, made the right choice. > No one buys Pentax for cutting edge camera body technology. > It's been this way for 40 years. No they do not. Nor did I. > One buys Pentax to use Pentax lenses, which are, IMO, the best > lenses available. Yes, you have that right, and others share it, and Nikon people will blast you, Canon people will blast you, and Carl Zeiss will put you to shame instead of blasting you. They (Pentax) have good optics, no doubt. However, whoever makes the glass for the US spy sats. probably win the top award. > Is there a problem with your MZ-S? Does it not live up to it's > specification? You bought it to shoot film, right? > Or did you buy it to shoot digital? > If you bought it to shoot film, and it does what it is supposed > to do, then it was the right choice. > If it doesn't, then you have to look at why. Heh, you're getting a bit carried away. Remember the problem, CS-130, stock, advertising. Anyhow, like I said above I thought it would make 3 dimensional digital images. I was wrong. As for all your questions the real answer is none. I was talking brands. > Does the camera perform as advertised? Well, I liked the pictures in the large brouchure, but they were mostly taken with the FA* lenses I cannot afford. The camera is fine. > If it does, then you made the wrong choice, sorry. No sorrys needed. I think I've stated 10^2 that I like the MZ-S > If it doesn't, then you have a beef with Pentax, The same way > anyone who buys a defective product has a beef with the company. Right! And on topic! And hopefully someone will see this and make some changes! > > Just a random thought, this Pentax DSLR, coming out in > what...the PCA? Or > > something. Anyhow, what if it doesn't come out, everyone had > all these same > > reactions up to and a couple days past the Photokina. If they > don't come > > out with a DSLR, what will you do? Never answer a question with a question. Best to either answer it, or choose not to. Everyone knows I'm not going to buy a digital SLR in the next 5-10 years. What brand, who knows!? ;-) > So what? If they make one, that's nice. If they don't, > whatever. > I don't really care one way or the other. My life doesn't depend > on whether Pentax makes a digital SLR. > Your's doesn't either, if you think about it. > For myself, I will keep shooting film. > I like film. > > William Robb Thank you for being you Bill. I appreciate the help and insight you've shown me. Regards, Brad Dobo
Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in the 35mm world ceased to concern me. I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... I will continue shooting my 67 - I derive much satisfaction out of using it and the results that I can attain with it. I was never as happy with my 35mm work. So whether Pentax comes out with a DSLR or a new film flagship - no worries. As a side note: I got to view a bunch of 8X10's and a 12X18 printed on the Agfa DLab from my friend's D100 today. I will say that they looked pretty good. As far as sharpness and color rendition, about on par with a 35mm camera, but the detail and sharpness was nowhere near my 67 stuff - no matter what Luminous Landscape may say. Bruce Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 6:30:18 PM, you wrote: PS> Brad Dobo wrote: >> PS> If they don't come >> out with a DSLR, what will you do? >> PS> Uh, if Pentax doesn't come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make PS> photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. And if Pentax PS> does come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my PS> Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. Is your Pentax incapable of PS> recording images on film? Mine are all functioning quite well, thank you. PS> Paul Stenquist
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Hey Paul, Hope you read everything thread. I'm happy that you shall continue what you will. I will do the same (even if they do come out with one). Last time I checked, my Pentax did take pictures. Relax a bit. Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Brad Dobo wrote: > > > If they don't come > > out with a DSLR, what will you do? > > > > Uh, if Pentax doesn't come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make > photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. And if Pentax > does come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my > Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. Is your Pentax incapable of > recording images on film? Mine are all functioning quite well, thank you. > Paul Stenquist >
Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130
Missing the point. Edmonton is VERY VERY far away. I shouldn't have to get a part there, with such a low-density population, than here, the hub area of my country. Any Toronto PDMLers ever see if the various shops around there have it? I don't know if I'll make the trip, but I could, it would then be a $200 cable.headachessigh. Brad - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:19 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130 > On 30 Oct 2002 at 20:42, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > I don't yet have any 'personal cheques' and many places won't accept plain > > old cheques. > > Well buy a postal money order then, it couldn't be that difficult? > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Hey Frank, I know they would not, I know of several in the middle of a switch, etc. However, as I said, I like my gear a lot. As far as service goes? They stink, and are fools. However, I'd rather not pay extra for a name or a special feature I'll never use. Quite a dilemma eh? ;-) While you could call it complaining, it is also showing the lack of service in various areas for Pentax. That's an on-topic. However to quote unnamed and unknown sources who have no doubt blocked me, but a great cry rang out when I and others said stop the DSLR BS. They said, "Then the Pentax people silently watching the list will not know that we are dis-pleased with having no DSLR" Not an exact quote, but quite close. Anyhow, the same could be said for my problem here. If I don't point out that they lack in service in some places, and don't do any real sort of advertising. They won't change. I'm happy with the Pentax gear (that I have!!! :)) Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:15 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > Brad, > > I really don't think anyone here would think anything one way or t'other if you > sold off your Pentax gear and bought another system. People do it all the > time. I can think of a couple of regular contributors here that have sold off a > goodly amount of their Pentax systems over the last few months > > If you're unhappy with Pentax, either the equipment or the service, or both, you > should get into a system that suits your needs. Complaining to this list will > not solve your photographic problems (not that I have a problem with your > venting here). Getting into a system that you're happy with will. > > regards, > frank > > Brad Dobo wrote: > > > I may die of shock if I saw Pentax advertising here. Especially on TV! > > > > Yes, I'm up that dirty creek. I'm not too happy about it and honestly want > > to take everything and sell it and save and get a Nikon or Canon DSLR. No > > more bull. If Pentax can't meet needs, it won't survive. I don't care if > > it's local, Pentax Canada, or Pentax. > > > > What I just laugh my rear off at is that they are coming out with a new 35mm > > SLR? LOL Just when everyone is going digital...that's Pentax for ya. Was > > the MZ-S (in sales, not performance) not enough of a flop? Looks to me like > > they are digging their own grave. > > > > Now, ya all hear this. :-) Just because I'm ticked at Pentax doesn't mean > > I'm insulting the group or individuals. So no flames, please. I'm still a > > Pentax owner, so here I am. I still will need help with it, so here I am. > > Did I make a wrong choice right from the beginning? I am starting to think > > so. Unless Pentax gets their act together. I happen to like what I've been > > able to get my hands on. They make it hard however. > > > > Just a random thought, this Pentax DSLR, coming out in what...the PCA? Or > > something. Anyhow, what if it doesn't come out, everyone had all these same > > reactions up to and a couple days past the Photokina. If they don't come > > out with a DSLR, what will you do? > > > > Regards, > > > > Brad Dobo > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:15 PM > > Subject: RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > Isn't it funny how different distributors behave in different places? > > Pentax > > > is really getting pushed in the media here at the moment, and in > > particular > > > the Optio 330 and 430's and binoculars. Mainly because it is spring, and > > > that means horse races The Melbourne Cup, Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate etc > > > etc. Now this may be an entirely Victorian phenomenon, because of the > > spring > > > racing carnival, but I haven't noticed any other manufacturers advertising > > > at all. I'm talking mainstream prime-time TV ads here. > > > > > > As for Brad's dilemma. Mate your really up s*&t creek unless you want to > > > purchase online, or at least travel to somewhere that has the parts you > > > want. Same goes for the ads mentioned above, distributors are funny > > things. > > > There's a box of cable releases less than 75 kilometres from my > > door.yet > > > you can't get one for love nor money. > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Shaun Canning > > > PhD Student > > > Archaeology Department > > > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > > > Australia, 3086. > > > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:01 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Chris Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16
Re: FS - Yep its not Friday.
They look beautiful. You must have a good camera. William Robb - Original Message - From: Paul Jones Subject: Re: FS - Yep its not Friday. > Somehow i dont there going to sell :)
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > Anyway, the MZ-S isn't a sales flop. As I understand it, it exceeded > Pentax's own forecast, and it was backlogged for several months. I wondered about that as well. William Robb
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> Insure it Fred, you'll feel a whole lot better if it happens to go
> splat!
Perhaps. But, if my A* 135/1.8 were to die an untimely death
("untimely" being defined as any time sooner than my own death -
), I would not be too happy with the insurance company
(cheerfully or otherwise) buying me, say, an FA 135/2.8 or
something...
Fred
Re: FS - Yep its not Friday.
Oh yeah, I also have an original hood for the 55/1.8 takumar with the case for sale. http://www.nrg666.com/ebay/new/tak-hood-2.jpg You can also admire the beautiful results from the Pentax E-100, who needs DSLR! Regards, Paul - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:28 PM Subject: Re: FS - Yep its not Friday. > The Adidas are cool. The stripes match the Leica logo. > > William Robb > >
RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
> -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:w_robb@;accesscomm.ca] > > > > - Original Message - > From: Brad Dobo > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > What I just laugh my rear off at is that they are coming out > with a new 35mm > > SLR? LOL Just when everyone is going digital...that's Pentax > for ya. Was > > the MZ-S (in sales, not performance) not enough of a flop? > Looks to me like > > they are digging their own grave. > > The MZ-S is a weird camera. It's not going to get a Nikon or > Canon user excited because on paper it doesn't compete. Anyway, the MZ-S isn't a sales flop. As I understand it, it exceeded Pentax's own forecast, and it was backlogged for several months. tv
Re: FS - Yep its not Friday.
Somehow i dont there going to sell :) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:28 PM Subject: Re: FS - Yep its not Friday. > The Adidas are cool. The stripes match the Leica logo. > > William Robb > >
Re: FS - Yep its not Friday.
The Adidas are cool. The stripes match the Leica logo. William Robb
FS - Yep its not Friday.
Hi, I have a few items for sale: LX - Just serviced and received new prism cover and new shutter assembly (?), havent even put a role through it yet. Body shows signs of alot of use, but not beaten. M100/2.8 - Small nik in front element, but has never effected pictures, other wise in great condition. Pentax-M 28/2.8 - Good Condition. Pentax-K 35/3.5 - Good Condition. Pentax-F 70-210 - Was bought from keh in bargain condition and has only been used 5 or so times since, great lense, i just dont use it. Pentax Z1 - In 9/10 condition. I've also got an Leica M6 on ebay at the moment if any one is interested, my ebay user id is nrg-1 If your interested in any of this stuff, then email me off list. Regards, Paul Jones
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > Thank you Bill, a person that's here and understands the problems with > Pentax Canada. I really do envy Pål regarding Pentax Norway's service. He has a reliable LX, and maintains the LX is a good reliable camera. I have 3 LX's, none of which are particularly reliable. I can't even blame the hard Canadian climate, as he lives farther north than I do. It also sounds like Pentax Norway is fairly pro-active with customer service. Oh, u, I really don't blame PCI for not stocking the 2000mm lens. The big lenses like that tend to be built in very small batches, as they don't really sell all that many of them. Having them in stock won't change that. I had a customer ask me to inquire after the Nikkor 2000mm reflex several years ago. At that time, the street price on that lens was 12-16k. NCI confirmed the price and gave a delivery time of a few months. They didn't have one in all of North America. I have a story wanting to get out, please bear with me.. After I bought my F3, I decided I wanted a 50mm f/1.2 lens to go with it. I was able to order my 50mm f/1.2 directly from NCI, it was a perk of working for the camera store. I got it for 10% off best dealer net. I paid about 600.00 for it. I waited nearly 5 months to get it. Apparently, it was built to order from parts, as Nikon only sold about 50 of then a year, worldwide. The day it came was a happy one, for a while. I put my new lens onto my F3 and took it to show a buddy. I know I had it mounted and locked on properly. Anyway, the lens fell off the camera and hit the sidewalk. It broke the UV filter, but the filter ring saved the threads, and jammed the focus helicoid. It took a few days for the local repair guy to fix, and when I got it back, the helicoid jammed again shortly therafter. Apparently, it collimated OK, but I didn't think it was right. Basically the lens was a mess, and never worked properly. I never got to find out if it was a good lens. William Robb
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > What I just laugh my rear off at is that they are coming out with a new 35mm > SLR? LOL Just when everyone is going digital...that's Pentax for ya. Was > the MZ-S (in sales, not performance) not enough of a flop? Looks to me like > they are digging their own grave. The MZ-S is a weird camera. It's not going to get a Nikon or Canon user excited because on paper it doesn't compete. And everyone knows that pros use Nikon or Canon. The MZ-S isn't my cup of tea, but if I had to buy three of them tomorrow to replace the LX fleet, I could live with them over the competition's SLRs. > > Did I make a wrong choice right from the beginning? Why did you buy an MZ-S? Did you buy it because it had a 7 fps motordrive, and a 42 point autofocus? If you did, then yes, you should have read the brochure more closely. No one buys Pentax for cutting edge camera body technology. It's been this way for 40 years. One buys Pentax to use Pentax lenses, which are, IMO, the best lenses available. Is there a problem with your MZ-S? Does it not live up to it's specification? You bought it to shoot film, right? Or did you buy it to shoot digital? If you bought it to shoot film, and it does what it is supposed to do, then it was the right choice. If it doesn't, then you have to look at why. Does the camera perform as advertised? If it does, then you made the wrong choice, sorry. If it doesn't, then you have a beef with Pentax, The same way anyone who buys a defective product has a beef with the company. > > Just a random thought, this Pentax DSLR, coming out in what...the PCA? Or > something. Anyhow, what if it doesn't come out, everyone had all these same > reactions up to and a couple days past the Photokina. If they don't come > out with a DSLR, what will you do? So what? If they make one, that's nice. If they don't, whatever. I don't really care one way or the other. My life doesn't depend on whether Pentax makes a digital SLR. Your's doesn't either, if you think about it. For myself, I will keep shooting film. I like film. William Robb
RE: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
Insure it Fred, you'll feel a whole lot better if it happens to go splat! Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:fwcetus@;erols.com] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 01:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay > I have this lens and I love it but I sure would hate to have it > fall on a hard surface. [snip] Needless to say, I take > extraordinarily good care of it. I also, for the sake of safety, only use the lens when I really need its qualities (especially its speed). I often take the K 135/2.5 on the road instead - not only is this safer for the 135/1.8, but the K 135/2.5 is a rugged little lens that is quite good in its own right. I know that some might say that, if you have a good lens you should use it all the time. However, I'd be a really unhappy buckaroo if something dastardly happened to the ol' 135/1.8. I'll use it, but I simply won't use it routinely... Fred
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. Does anyone know which model of Heliopan hood to look for? Fred
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> I have this lens and I love it but I sure would hate to have it > fall on a hard surface. [snip] Needless to say, I take > extraordinarily good care of it. I also, for the sake of safety, only use the lens when I really need its qualities (especially its speed). I often take the K 135/2.5 on the road instead - not only is this safer for the 135/1.8, but the K 135/2.5 is a rugged little lens that is quite good in its own right. I know that some might say that, if you have a good lens you should use it all the time. However, I'd be a really unhappy buckaroo if something dastardly happened to the ol' 135/1.8. I'll use it, but I simply won't use it routinely... Fred
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Brad Dobo wrote: > If they don't come > out with a DSLR, what will you do? > Uh, if Pentax doesn't come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. And if Pentax does come out with a DSLR, I'll continue to make photographs with my Spotmatics, my LX, my MX, and my 6x7. Is your Pentax incapable of recording images on film? Mine are all functioning quite well, thank you. Paul Stenquist
Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130
On 30 Oct 2002 at 20:42, Brad Dobo wrote: > I don't yet have any 'personal cheques' and many places won't accept plain > old cheques. Well buy a postal money order then, it couldn't be that difficult? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Brad, I really don't think anyone here would think anything one way or t'other if you sold off your Pentax gear and bought another system. People do it all the time. I can think of a couple of regular contributors here that have sold off a goodly amount of their Pentax systems over the last few months If you're unhappy with Pentax, either the equipment or the service, or both, you should get into a system that suits your needs. Complaining to this list will not solve your photographic problems (not that I have a problem with your venting here). Getting into a system that you're happy with will. regards, frank Brad Dobo wrote: > I may die of shock if I saw Pentax advertising here. Especially on TV! > > Yes, I'm up that dirty creek. I'm not too happy about it and honestly want > to take everything and sell it and save and get a Nikon or Canon DSLR. No > more bull. If Pentax can't meet needs, it won't survive. I don't care if > it's local, Pentax Canada, or Pentax. > > What I just laugh my rear off at is that they are coming out with a new 35mm > SLR? LOL Just when everyone is going digital...that's Pentax for ya. Was > the MZ-S (in sales, not performance) not enough of a flop? Looks to me like > they are digging their own grave. > > Now, ya all hear this. :-) Just because I'm ticked at Pentax doesn't mean > I'm insulting the group or individuals. So no flames, please. I'm still a > Pentax owner, so here I am. I still will need help with it, so here I am. > Did I make a wrong choice right from the beginning? I am starting to think > so. Unless Pentax gets their act together. I happen to like what I've been > able to get my hands on. They make it hard however. > > Just a random thought, this Pentax DSLR, coming out in what...the PCA? Or > something. Anyhow, what if it doesn't come out, everyone had all these same > reactions up to and a couple days past the Photokina. If they don't come > out with a DSLR, what will you do? > > Regards, > > Brad Dobo > > - Original Message - > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:15 PM > Subject: RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Isn't it funny how different distributors behave in different places? > Pentax > > is really getting pushed in the media here at the moment, and in > particular > > the Optio 330 and 430's and binoculars. Mainly because it is spring, and > > that means horse races The Melbourne Cup, Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate etc > > etc. Now this may be an entirely Victorian phenomenon, because of the > spring > > racing carnival, but I haven't noticed any other manufacturers advertising > > at all. I'm talking mainstream prime-time TV ads here. > > > > As for Brad's dilemma. Mate your really up s*&t creek unless you want to > > purchase online, or at least travel to somewhere that has the parts you > > want. Same goes for the ads mentioned above, distributors are funny > things. > > There's a box of cable releases less than 75 kilometres from my > door.yet > > you can't get one for love nor money. > > > > cheers > > > > Shaun Canning > > PhD Student > > Archaeology Department > > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > > Australia, 3086. > > > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > > Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:01 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Chris Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16 PM > > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > > > > > Seriously. I am not going to pay USD and all the other hassles to get > > this > > > > product, I have never done so and will never do so. I'm old fashioned > > yet > > > > young. I will not give out Visa numbers on the Internet nor over the > > phone. > > > > My mother is a bank manager and you'll be appalled at the stuff that > > happens > > > > with fraud. It also makes it more expensive and harder to return if > > > > something is screwy. > > > > > > Why not? My experiences have been fast, fun and easy. I've ordered a > > > $20USD Light bulb for my enlarger, it worked fine (it shipped el' > > > cheapo ground too!). I've spent $2000CAD online at dell's website to buy > a > > > new computer. Millions do it daily. so whats the big deal? I like to > keep > > > my money in Canada, but if I can't source something locally, why stress > > > out about it? > > > > I told ya! ;-) I simply will not on principle and cautiousness > > > > > > So, my only other alternative. I could order it from the say 10 > stores > > > > (some are not real camera stores) here in London, and area, and they > > would > > > > all put their orders into the same place 'Pentax No-Canada'. I don't > > know > > >
RE: David Hume Kennerly on NPR
Ahhh, good point. Unfortunately, or fortunately to avoid more travel, I will be working at Ironman Florida. Should I mention being around some of the world´s finest triathletes? César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:c_skofteland@;mindspring.com] -- Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:56 PM -- -- It is a weekend. -- -- Christian Skofteland -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- -- - Original Message - -- From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:34 AM -- Subject: RE: David Hume Kennerly on NPR -- -- -- > Oh sure, wait until I am gone. -- > -- > I know when I am not appreciated - sniff, sniff... -- > -- > All in all, with the way work is going I would rather be -- up north... -- > -- > At least it is warmer here, -- > -- > Cesar -- > Panama City, Florida --
Re: MZ-S vs Z-1p
Well, I won't believe it until I can hold one. In my area that means it'll never come out ;) Jokingly, Brad > Yes we have. Pentax UK say they will make three slr's and I happen to know > in which segments they fit. One of them is high-end. I don't know how > high-end. > Also, large camera stores in japan has been told from Pentax reps that > Pentax will release a fabulous film slr. > > Pål > Pål >
Re: Prints from slides questions
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Tom Reese wrote: > 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: I took my first slide to print to a commerical Ritz lab which usually makes me happy, and took a slide loaded with vibrant colour.. http://www.eighteenpercent.com/c4.html I got something back that has NONE of this colour in it, and I'm confused. I'm going to take a digital copy of this and ask for teh same thing, and then ask them to explain why they can't reproduce this as that was done. I was told "you can only get those kinds of colours from a cibachrome," and while I'll buy that the colours won't be AS vibrant, surely the washed out thing I got back can't be right, can it? (wish I had a copy of what they gave me, but I do not) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Focus screen preferences?
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Rob Studdert wrote: > 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 learned photography on a rangefinder, and I always wanted a view like that again, but didn't get it (yet), because I don't own a range finder. Then I got a ZX-50, and I only used AF, so the matte screen didn't bother me. Then I got a ZX-5n, and started doing manual focus. The matte screen was useless, except it had a focus confirm, which I've come to depend on. Then I was going to buy a 645, which should have a split image, and I figured this would be almost as good as that old ranger finder, when the body came it had the matte grid on it, and I was bitter...until I realized the 645 was big enough that I _could_ manually focus on it, and now I'm quite happy.. with the grid lines, I can actually get a straight horizon! That said, I'm on vacation and ignroing mail as much as I can.. I'm tearing thorugh the 900 messages that have piled up since Satuday.. Took some pictures at my brother's child's christening this weekend, then went up north to upper NY state to take some fall photos, only to have miserable days.. Taught myself how to mount pictures, setting up two for a show I'm going to be in next week (what does one charge for a matted and framed 8x10? my cost is about $25/per, gallery takes 25%, so what, $75 seems fair or should I go higher?).. And that's about it. Oh, and I started to actually UPDATE my 18% website. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Lol, you guys are diffusing my anger ;-) - Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:59 PM Subject: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > Hi, > > > Good grief, a boat from Japan to Canada sank in the Atlantic Ocean? That > > would take some serious doing. > > it was a Pentax boat. The captain didn't see the enormous digital > iceberg heading towards him... > > Bob >
Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130
I don't yet have any 'personal cheques' and many places won't accept plain old cheques. I plan on doing a little more bitching (not here), but in Pentax's ear. I'd like to find out when the rep comes to my store so I can put him into a full nelson ;-) until he coughs up the release. Oh, and you can all thank me for lighting up the conversation. At least we're all into it :-) And it isn't even mean yet! I hope it stays that way. In the meantime, I'll accept US money orders for the conversation lighting, contact me offline ;-) - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130 > Brad, if McBains has one, mail em a cheque. > > William Robb >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
I may die of shock if I saw Pentax advertising here. Especially on TV! Yes, I'm up that dirty creek. I'm not too happy about it and honestly want to take everything and sell it and save and get a Nikon or Canon DSLR. No more bull. If Pentax can't meet needs, it won't survive. I don't care if it's local, Pentax Canada, or Pentax. What I just laugh my rear off at is that they are coming out with a new 35mm SLR? LOL Just when everyone is going digital...that's Pentax for ya. Was the MZ-S (in sales, not performance) not enough of a flop? Looks to me like they are digging their own grave. Now, ya all hear this. :-) Just because I'm ticked at Pentax doesn't mean I'm insulting the group or individuals. So no flames, please. I'm still a Pentax owner, so here I am. I still will need help with it, so here I am. Did I make a wrong choice right from the beginning? I am starting to think so. Unless Pentax gets their act together. I happen to like what I've been able to get my hands on. They make it hard however. Just a random thought, this Pentax DSLR, coming out in what...the PCA? Or something. Anyhow, what if it doesn't come out, everyone had all these same reactions up to and a couple days past the Photokina. If they don't come out with a DSLR, what will you do? Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > Isn't it funny how different distributors behave in different places? Pentax > is really getting pushed in the media here at the moment, and in particular > the Optio 330 and 430's and binoculars. Mainly because it is spring, and > that means horse races The Melbourne Cup, Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate etc > etc. Now this may be an entirely Victorian phenomenon, because of the spring > racing carnival, but I haven't noticed any other manufacturers advertising > at all. I'm talking mainstream prime-time TV ads here. > > As for Brad's dilemma. Mate your really up s*&t creek unless you want to > purchase online, or at least travel to somewhere that has the parts you > want. Same goes for the ads mentioned above, distributors are funny things. > There's a box of cable releases less than 75 kilometres from my door.yet > you can't get one for love nor money. > > cheers > > Shaun Canning > PhD Student > Archaeology Department > La Trobe University, Bundoora, > Australia, 3086. > > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 0414-967 644 > > -Original Message- > From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chris Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16 PM > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > > > Seriously. I am not going to pay USD and all the other hassles to get > this > > > product, I have never done so and will never do so. I'm old fashioned > yet > > > young. I will not give out Visa numbers on the Internet nor over the > phone. > > > My mother is a bank manager and you'll be appalled at the stuff that > happens > > > with fraud. It also makes it more expensive and harder to return if > > > something is screwy. > > > > Why not? My experiences have been fast, fun and easy. I've ordered a > > $20USD Light bulb for my enlarger, it worked fine (it shipped el' > > cheapo ground too!). I've spent $2000CAD online at dell's website to buy a > > new computer. Millions do it daily. so whats the big deal? I like to keep > > my money in Canada, but if I can't source something locally, why stress > > out about it? > > I told ya! ;-) I simply will not on principle and cautiousness > > > > So, my only other alternative. I could order it from the say 10 stores > > > (some are not real camera stores) here in London, and area, and they > would > > > all put their orders into the same place 'Pentax No-Canada'. I don't > know > > > how I'd go to dealers across the province to get this (seeing if each > one > > > had it in stock). The gas would cost more than their most expensive > lens, > > > and by the time I got home with my cable, a year would have past and my > > > order from the store arrived! ;-). If Pentax Canada cannot get > something > > > so simple, I think Pentax has a real problem at least here in NA. If > they > > > want to sell the MZ-S here, they should be selling it's accessories. > They > > > should at least have them in stock. I know this is a bad market area > for > > > them, so I understand when my store (or the others) does not have them > on > > > the shelf because they simply won't sell. But I would expect, unless > > > ordering the 2000mm mirror or similar, that Pentax Canada would keep > stock > > > on these items. It's a lousy releas
Re: Brad's Nasty CS-130
Brad, if McBains has one, mail em a cheque. William Robb
RE: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Isn't it funny how different distributors behave in different places? Pentax is really getting pushed in the media here at the moment, and in particular the Optio 330 and 430's and binoculars. Mainly because it is spring, and that means horse races The Melbourne Cup, Caulfield Cup, Cox Plate etc etc. Now this may be an entirely Victorian phenomenon, because of the spring racing carnival, but I haven't noticed any other manufacturers advertising at all. I'm talking mainstream prime-time TV ads here. As for Brad's dilemma. Mate your really up s*&t creek unless you want to purchase online, or at least travel to somewhere that has the parts you want. Same goes for the ads mentioned above, distributors are funny things. There's a box of cable releases less than 75 kilometres from my door.yet you can't get one for love nor money. cheers Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo@;rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) - Original Message - From: "Chris Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > Seriously. I am not going to pay USD and all the other hassles to get this > > product, I have never done so and will never do so. I'm old fashioned yet > > young. I will not give out Visa numbers on the Internet nor over the phone. > > My mother is a bank manager and you'll be appalled at the stuff that happens > > with fraud. It also makes it more expensive and harder to return if > > something is screwy. > > Why not? My experiences have been fast, fun and easy. I've ordered a > $20USD Light bulb for my enlarger, it worked fine (it shipped el' > cheapo ground too!). I've spent $2000CAD online at dell's website to buy a > new computer. Millions do it daily. so whats the big deal? I like to keep > my money in Canada, but if I can't source something locally, why stress > out about it? I told ya! ;-) I simply will not on principle and cautiousness > > So, my only other alternative. I could order it from the say 10 stores > > (some are not real camera stores) here in London, and area, and they would > > all put their orders into the same place 'Pentax No-Canada'. I don't know > > how I'd go to dealers across the province to get this (seeing if each one > > had it in stock). The gas would cost more than their most expensive lens, > > and by the time I got home with my cable, a year would have past and my > > order from the store arrived! ;-). If Pentax Canada cannot get something > > so simple, I think Pentax has a real problem at least here in NA. If they > > want to sell the MZ-S here, they should be selling it's accessories. They > > should at least have them in stock. I know this is a bad market area for > > them, so I understand when my store (or the others) does not have them on > > the shelf because they simply won't sell. But I would expect, unless > > ordering the 2000mm mirror or similar, that Pentax Canada would keep stock > > on these items. It's a lousy release cable. The other 3 I am told by my > > store, takes 1-5 days to get even the strangest items. Pentax, at least in > > NA, is dying I'm afraid (or maybe just Canada) Remember, Pentax Canada is > > one location in the largest country in the world. > > Pentax Canada has an office in Vancouver too. Call. I find it hard to > belive that Pentax is dying. I see so many new MZ bodies at different > events, parades, hockey games, etc. I see a good mix or Nikon, Canon, and > pentax, even a few Minoltas. Maybe its just London, ON. Have you tried > calling any stores in Toronto? I've had good experiences with McBain > Camera in Edmonton, thats in Canada too. Does Vancouver have an office or a warehouse? Still, I won't be getting them from there. > http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/pentax/bodyAcc.htm > > They even have the CS-130 listed. $120 CAD First, that is $15 more than my store, and I'm not about to drive to Edmonton. (You already know I won't do Visa, etc over 'net or phone.) > It really does sound like "Your store" is giving you the run around. It > may be too much work for them to bother, or they just don't sell enough > Pentax gear. I see lots of Pentaxes in BC, maybe thats the difference. Well, it's not my store. The reason the owner sorta suggested the dropping of Pentax (and a big camera store here already has) is because of the few customers they get for Pentax, they have these same problems, like me. They cannot get Pentax Canada to ship something that is not in the warehouse, and they have taken abuse and beatings from peeved off customers and while he didn't say it, he sorta said, they didn't need the hassle and it
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
I have called Pentax USA for brochures before and they said they will not deal anything when it comes to Canada. - Original Message - From: "James Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > The cable release could be stuck in a container on a ship off the shore of > the West coast of the US or Canada. Between the labor lock out and know the > supposed slow down a lot of material is setting off shore. Try calling > Pentax USA to see if they have any in stock. > > Jim Fellows > - Original Message - > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:00 PM > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: Bob Blakely > > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > > > > > Where the hell is "NA" > > > > Northern Antilles > > WW > > > > >
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: "Chris Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > Seriously. I am not going to pay USD and all the other hassles to get this > > product, I have never done so and will never do so. I'm old fashioned yet > > young. I will not give out Visa numbers on the Internet nor over the phone. > > My mother is a bank manager and you'll be appalled at the stuff that happens > > with fraud. It also makes it more expensive and harder to return if > > something is screwy. > > Why not? My experiences have been fast, fun and easy. I've ordered a > $20USD Light bulb for my enlarger, it worked fine (it shipped el' > cheapo ground too!). I've spent $2000CAD online at dell's website to buy a > new computer. Millions do it daily. so whats the big deal? I like to keep > my money in Canada, but if I can't source something locally, why stress > out about it? I told ya! ;-) I simply will not on principle and cautiousness > > So, my only other alternative. I could order it from the say 10 stores > > (some are not real camera stores) here in London, and area, and they would > > all put their orders into the same place 'Pentax No-Canada'. I don't know > > how I'd go to dealers across the province to get this (seeing if each one > > had it in stock). The gas would cost more than their most expensive lens, > > and by the time I got home with my cable, a year would have past and my > > order from the store arrived! ;-). If Pentax Canada cannot get something > > so simple, I think Pentax has a real problem at least here in NA. If they > > want to sell the MZ-S here, they should be selling it's accessories. They > > should at least have them in stock. I know this is a bad market area for > > them, so I understand when my store (or the others) does not have them on > > the shelf because they simply won't sell. But I would expect, unless > > ordering the 2000mm mirror or similar, that Pentax Canada would keep stock > > on these items. It's a lousy release cable. The other 3 I am told by my > > store, takes 1-5 days to get even the strangest items. Pentax, at least in > > NA, is dying I'm afraid (or maybe just Canada) Remember, Pentax Canada is > > one location in the largest country in the world. > > Pentax Canada has an office in Vancouver too. Call. I find it hard to > belive that Pentax is dying. I see so many new MZ bodies at different > events, parades, hockey games, etc. I see a good mix or Nikon, Canon, and > pentax, even a few Minoltas. Maybe its just London, ON. Have you tried > calling any stores in Toronto? I've had good experiences with McBain > Camera in Edmonton, thats in Canada too. Does Vancouver have an office or a warehouse? Still, I won't be getting them from there. > http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/pentax/bodyAcc.htm > > They even have the CS-130 listed. $120 CAD First, that is $15 more than my store, and I'm not about to drive to Edmonton. (You already know I won't do Visa, etc over 'net or phone.) > It really does sound like "Your store" is giving you the run around. It > may be too much work for them to bother, or they just don't sell enough > Pentax gear. I see lots of Pentaxes in BC, maybe thats the difference. Well, it's not my store. The reason the owner sorta suggested the dropping of Pentax (and a big camera store here already has) is because of the few customers they get for Pentax, they have these same problems, like me. They cannot get Pentax Canada to ship something that is not in the warehouse, and they have taken abuse and beatings from peeved off customers and while he didn't say it, he sorta said, they didn't need the hassle and it wasn't a money maker for them (Linden Photo as well, they are considering dropping Pentax, so a young clerk told me, whether that is true or not...who knows. Interesting about Linden is that when my store didn't have the AF360FGZ in stock, I called them and they had it. An anomaly) > - Chris > > -- > Chris Murray /"\ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN > http://apeman.org/ XAGAINST HTML MAIL > Cell: 604.861.8307 / \/ > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html >
Re: Newby
Hi Richard, Welcome to the PDML. Don't have a Z1p for sale, but one will turn up eventually here. Dan Scott On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 05:37 PM, Richard Sheppard wrote: Hi folks. I've just joined the list. My name is Richard and I'm living near Oxford, UK. I've been using Pentax stuff for about 20 yrs - all MF. Last year I bought a (shock horror) EOS 600 of Ebay and must say that I think it's a great camera. However, I don't like having 2 systems when I've already got a few nice Pentax fit lenses. I'm thinking of selling the EOS and getting a Z1 or Z1p to replace it with. I read on the web of some chap having overexposure problems when he fitted KA MF lenses to a Z1. Anyone come across this sort of thing? BTW my MZM seems to overexpose by about 2/3 stop so I always have to override the DX setting. Finally, anyone want to sell me a Z1p? Richard Sheppard -- Want airsport pictures? www.airsport-photo.co.uk Want to read all about it? www.xcmag.com
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
- Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:20 PM Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > - Original Message - > From: Pål Jensen > Subject: Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Considering that we are only 4,5 million people here, I cannot > imagine the situation is worse in any part of north America > considering the size of that market. > > Hi Pål: > Please take this in a friendly way, as it is meant in a friendly > way: > > You are totally out of touch with the unfortunate reality that > is Pentax Canada Inc. > > William Robb > Thank you Bill, a person that's here and understands the problems with Pentax Canada. Brad
Re: 1 day to go: Normal zoom poll
Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please do not hesitate to vote, that is to say: to answer the following > 3 questions: Hi Arnold, My votes: 1) FA*28-70/f2.8 AL 2) FA24-90/f3.5-4.5 IF&AL 3) FA28-70/f4 AL 1) Tokina 28-70 F2.8 thingy ATX whatever 2) Tokina ATX-PRO 28-70/2.8 SV 3) Tamron AF24-135 f/4-5.6 1) FA*24-105/f2.8-4.0 IF&AL 2) FA 28-120 f/2.8-4 AL ED (IF) 3) FA 24-105/4 (or 3.5-4.5) AL & IF & USM Ciao, Gianfranco = __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Newby
Hi folks. I've just joined the list. My name is Richard and I'm living near Oxford, UK. I've been using Pentax stuff for about 20 yrs - all MF. Last year I bought a (shock horror) EOS 600 of Ebay and must say that I think it's a great camera. However, I don't like having 2 systems when I've already got a few nice Pentax fit lenses. I'm thinking of selling the EOS and getting a Z1 or Z1p to replace it with. I read on the web of some chap having overexposure problems when he fitted KA MF lenses to a Z1. Anyone come across this sort of thing? BTW my MZM seems to overexpose by about 2/3 stop so I always have to override the DX setting. Finally, anyone want to sell me a Z1p? Richard Sheppard -- Want airsport pictures? www.airsport-photo.co.uk Want to read all about it? www.xcmag.com
Re: OT: Great Photo of the Leonids
Hmmm. Sounds like a great idea for a mid-week TOPDML meet!! Where do you go to take pics, Brendan? I'm guessing there's so much light pollution in town, you'd have to go way up north somewhere. And, why do you need two lawnchairs? regards, frank Brendan wrote: > 2 lawn chairs, lots of coffee, 2 cameras, a 28mm f2.8 > and 50mm F1.7, 2 tripods, lots of sleep before ( it's > on a tuesday argh!! ) and lots of luck. > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re[2]: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:49:11 +1000 "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I use Bobs old Heliopan hood on my A*135/1.8, very nice low profile and > excellent for reducing flare especially at concerts :-) Is such a lense available for the 645? 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[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Hi, > Good grief, a boat from Japan to Canada sank in the Atlantic Ocean? That > would take some serious doing. it was a Pentax boat. The captain didn't see the enormous digital iceberg heading towards him... Bob
Re: Re[2]: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
On 30 Oct 2002 at 21:14, Bob Walkden wrote: > Hi, > > I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. I never had > one of the 'correct' Pentax hoods for it, and when I first bought the > lens I was given a Mamiya heavy-duty collapsible rubber one (which I > still have somewhere). Somebody else, possibly Shel, used to stack > Heliopans to get maximum flare protection. But my main interest was in > physical protection - impact resistance - so I never really tested the > Heliopan for maximum flare protection. > > The Heliopan is not as physically strong or robust as, for example, > the Pentax metal hood for the A* 85/1.4, but it's far easier to obtain > and at a decent price. I use Bobs old Heliopan hood on my A*135/1.8, very nice low profile and excellent for reducing flare especially at concerts :-) 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: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Good grief, a boat from Japan to Canada sank in the Atlantic Ocean? That would take some serious doing. Brad, just order from someone else. You could have ordered it from a hundred other outlets by now. Doug At 04:22 PM 10/30/02 -0500, you wrote: Hey folks, Well, today, went in to my camera store and ripped two salespeople up and down about my release cable CS-130. They pulled the order form. Dated August 9th 2002. So I said that was complete unreasonable, since it's October 30th. I talked to one of the owners. In carefully phrased terms he sounded like he didn't want to deal with Pentax. They called the so-called 'Pentax Canada' and again said they were out. Apparently it was on order from Pentax Canada from Japan, but the boat it came by sank in the Atlantic Ocean ;-) j/k This store I use is the best in the city, they handle all the professionals, and they work closely with the University under contract. What is going on with Pentax?? Does anyone here think am I wrong for waiting too long on a simple item, ordered on August 9th has still not even arrived on October 30th, at Pentax Canada, is unreasonable? It makes me sick to my stomach. So the store and 'Pentax No-Canada" are going to try other businesses in the region that may stock it. Unbelievable. I should not have to deal with this. Looks to me like they don't want my business. I'm being to wonder. Peeved Once More, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> Where'd my meds go? You sold 'em, Bob, to pay for that hunk o'glass - . Fred
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. I never > had one of the 'correct' Pentax hoods for it, and when I first > bought the lens I was given a Mamiya heavy-duty collapsible rubber > one (which I still have somewhere). Somebody else, possibly Shel, > used to stack Heliopans to get maximum flare protection. But my > main interest was in physical protection - impact resistance - so > I never really tested the Heliopan for maximum flare protection. The RH-A77 would be almost worthless for physical protection - it's a flimsy rubber hood that can be compressed to get it out of the way, but which would also bend out of the way in even the smallest impact. Perhaps the plastic threaded mounting ring might offer a bit of protection to the lens's own filter threads... Fred
Re: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
I've been waiting 3 years to have a bay window thats leaked all its gas to be replaced. Dave Begin Original Message From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:22:01 -0500 To: "PDML \(Pentax\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) Hey folks, Well, today, went in to my camera store and ripped two salespeople up and down about my release cable CS-130. They pulled the order form. Dated August 9th 2002. So I said that was complete unreasonable, since it's October 30th. I talked to one of the owners. In carefully phrased terms he sounded like he didn't want to deal with Pentax. They called the so- called 'Pentax Canada' and again said they were out. Apparently it was on order from Pentax Canada from Japan, but the boat it came by sank in the Atlantic Ocean ;-) j/k This store I use is the best in the city, they handle all the professionals, and they work closely with the University under contract. What is going on with Pentax?? Does anyone here think am I wrong for waiting too long on a simple item, ordered on August 9th has still not even arrived on October 30th, at Pentax Canada, is unreasonable? It makes me sick to my stomach. So the store and 'Pentax No-Canada" are going to try other businesses in the region that may stock it. Unbelievable. I should not have to deal with this. Looks to me like they don't want my business. I'm being to wonder. Peeved Once More, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658 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
Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Hey folks, Well, today, went in to my camera store and ripped two salespeople up and down about my release cable CS-130. They pulled the order form. Dated August 9th 2002. So I said that was complete unreasonable, since it's October 30th. I talked to one of the owners. In carefully phrased terms he sounded like he didn't want to deal with Pentax. They called the so-called 'Pentax Canada' and again said they were out. Apparently it was on order from Pentax Canada from Japan, but the boat it came by sank in the Atlantic Ocean ;-) j/k This store I use is the best in the city, they handle all the professionals, and they work closely with the University under contract. What is going on with Pentax?? Does anyone here think am I wrong for waiting too long on a simple item, ordered on August 9th has still not even arrived on October 30th, at Pentax Canada, is unreasonable? It makes me sick to my stomach. So the store and 'Pentax No-Canada" are going to try other businesses in the region that may stock it. Unbelievable. I should not have to deal with this. Looks to me like they don't want my business. I'm being to wonder. Peeved Once More, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: FA* lenses build quality details
I do not know about the inside, but the plastic aperture rings of the FA* lenses that I own (24/2, 200/2.8, 300/f4.5) with numbers merely printed on them has always been a nuisance to me. The focusing rings probably are made of plastic, too. The distance scale windows are plastic, of course, and what is beneath them it is just some paper with numbers printed on it, isn't it? However, the weakest point is the silver barrel colour that is scratched rather easily, as we have discussed her before. I believe the focus ring of the 24 is plastic, but the 85 & 200 are metal. Never own the FA*300 so don't know (mine is F*). From what I have read so far, the white finish on the Canon L lenses isn't very scratch resistance either, so to my F*300/4.5. But it is true that the silver finish of the FA* lenses is so attractive that it makes you nervious. AFAIK, inner mechanisms of FA* lenses were made of metal. 2 thing I don't like about FA* lenses are the stupid silver metal focus scale window frame, and the dust sucking feature (why can't they be better sealed from dust? FA*24/2 is quite dust resistance however). The limited lenses have none of these weeknesses. Their only "problem" is that the bigger resistance that they offer for good manual focusing makes them slow in AF mode (simimlar to the F series lenses). I used to believe the silver Limited lenses were scratch resistance, until I have discovered my 43/1.9 has a long scratch on it, or what appear to be a long crack on the finish. I have no idea why it was there. I always babe my gears. Basically the design of Limited lenses is like the M-series lenses with A setting and autofocus. My 43/1.9 has a little play on the focus ring and it's enough to affect the aperture blades position a little. However, it doesn't seem to cause any practical difference. The 43/1.9 is quite well sealed and inside still free from dust after 3 years. The 77/1.8 has the firm but loose focus feel. I cannot spot any flaw with it, except it sucks lots of dust. The very first time I used it few years ago, the inner elements became quite dusty already (I swear it was perfectly cleaned when I bought it in Japan). It is now very dusty, in fact, my most dusty lens ever (FA*85/1.4 come 2nd). regards, Alan Chan _ Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
Re[2]: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
Hi, I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. I never had one of the 'correct' Pentax hoods for it, and when I first bought the lens I was given a Mamiya heavy-duty collapsible rubber one (which I still have somewhere). Somebody else, possibly Shel, used to stack Heliopans to get maximum flare protection. But my main interest was in physical protection - impact resistance - so I never really tested the Heliopan for maximum flare protection. The Heliopan is not as physically strong or robust as, for example, the Pentax metal hood for the A* 85/1.4, but it's far easier to obtain and at a decent price. --- Bob Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 7:52:16 PM, you wrote: >> Nothing in the text mentions the lens hood. Are you sure what's >> pictured is an RH-A77? > Someone here on the PDML, I think, uses a Heliopan or a Nikon hood instead. > Fred
Streamlining also
Well, got rid of the MX, A35/2, & FA50/1.4. Got my new-to-me 5n coupled with 43/1.9. Nice. Pretty. Only one other lens kept -- A100/2.8. I put the data back from the 5n onto the ZX-M The ZX-M's for sale to anyone interested. $125. I might regret getting rid of the MX. Some day. But that's easier to replace than losing the opportunity for a 43/1.9. The test shots with it make me happy with the acquisition. Very happy. Now, for an 8x10 lens ... just a 305 Caltar or Ektar or other entry-level item. Anyone got one to swap? ;-) Collin
Re: New Kodak print film
Retaining Skin tones would be a BONUS - that's the one problem I found with VC - it did do some weird things to skin tones - depending on who you were shooting - the skin just didn't seem right so I would always opt for NC instead but then you sort of wished you had the POP of color that VC gave you. I look forward to giving this baby a whirl. Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: dick graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:55:17 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Kodak print film The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of the new Portra 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased color saturation over VC skin tones remain true. DG mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: 35mm film scanners
As I remember, Dual Scan II doesn't have ICE while III has Minolta's designed dust removal software. The III also has higher dynamic range which I recommend. regards, Alan Chan Looking for a film scanner for 35mm. How about the Nikon LS-40 and the Minolta Dimage scan Dual II and Dimage dual scan III (the two Minolta scanners cost the same - whats the difference between them?)? How do these scanners compare to the Nikon LS-4000 (too expensive). Will they give credit for the Epson 2100 (2200 US) printer? Plan of using the new 3200DPI Epson flatbed scanner for MF. _ Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re[4]: New Kodak print film
Maybe it is just relabeled Gold Max 400. :) Bruce Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 12:40:33 PM, you wrote: t> I have no idea! t> I personally don't think VC skin tones are particularly accurate in t> general. I would think the UC might be a good vacation film, but I t> can't see using it for portraits. Then again, I haven't tried it t> tv >> -Original Message- >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton@;rcsis.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:08 PM >> To: tom >> Subject: Re[2]: New Kodak print film >> >> >> Tom, >> >> Even if you assume the VC skin tones are accurate, why would you >> oversaturate the skin tones? I can see possibly oversaturating the >> scenery. >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 12:02:42 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: dick graham [mailto:Dick.Graham@;ndscs.nodak.edu] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:55 PM >> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Subject: Re: New Kodak print film >> >> >> >> >> >> The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of >> >> the new Portra >> >> 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased >> >> color saturation >> >> over VC skin tones remain true. >> >> t> I guess if you think VC skin tones are accurate that's >> great news. >> >> t> tv >>
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
Harder and (usually) 1.5 to 2 times the price of the A*85/1.4. Due to relative rarity as well as quality, I think. This is an exceptional hunk o' glass and YOU can't live without one. Go DIRECTLY to ebay every morning and look for one. Pay ANYTHING the poor bastard wants. Pimp yer wife if you have to, but get you this HUNK O" GLASS before you die. Take it to concerts. Take it to plays. Take it to clubs. Take it to the evening streets. Snap! Snap! Snap! Ah, Oo. It's so good. Where'd my meds go? Regards, Bob... --- "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
Pentax XL eyepieces
Anyone ever used these for astronomy? Were looking at upgrading the eyepieces on our scope. Evan
RE: Re[2]: New Kodak print film
I have no idea! I personally don't think VC skin tones are particularly accurate in general. I would think the UC might be a good vacation film, but I can't see using it for portraits. Then again, I haven't tried it tv > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:bkdayton@;rcsis.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:08 PM > To: tom > Subject: Re[2]: New Kodak print film > > > Tom, > > Even if you assume the VC skin tones are accurate, why would you > oversaturate the skin tones? I can see possibly oversaturating the > scenery. > > > Bruce > > > > Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 12:02:42 PM, you wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: dick graham [mailto:Dick.Graham@;ndscs.nodak.edu] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:55 PM > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: New Kodak print film > >> > >> > >> The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of > >> the new Portra > >> 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased > >> color saturation > >> over VC skin tones remain true. > > t> I guess if you think VC skin tones are accurate that's > great news. > > t> tv >
Re: Re[2]: New Kodak print film
It's probably worth shooting a roll or two just to see whether you have a good application for it. I'm going to try it when I have the chance. Len --- From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: dick graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[2]: New Kodak print film Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:29:02 -0800 dick, Yeah, I read that. The question is, why would I use an overlay saturated film? I'm not thinking that I would be using it for people, when Porta NC or VC do just great already. Bruce _ Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re[2]: New Kodak print film
Tom, Even if you assume the VC skin tones are accurate, why would you oversaturate the skin tones? I can see possibly oversaturating the scenery. Bruce Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 12:02:42 PM, you wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: dick graham [mailto:Dick.Graham@;ndscs.nodak.edu] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:55 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: New Kodak print film >> >> >> The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of >> the new Portra >> 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased >> color saturation >> over VC skin tones remain true. t> I guess if you think VC skin tones are accurate that's great news. t> tv
Re: 35mm film scanners
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It get excellent reviews and they claim it is better than anything >available for desktop use even a few years back. However, what does >this mean? As a novice in these matters I'm a bit confused. Is this >scanner good enough to get high quality prints from an Epson 2100 printer? The Scan Dual III is a 2820 dpi scanner so you probably won't be able to take advantage of the large print size capability (it's up to 13 x 44 like the earlier Epsons, IIRC?) but other that that it should be excellent. If you want to make larger than 8 x 12 inch prints you really need a 4000 dpi class scanner (I use the Kodak RFS 3600, which is 3600 dpi and makes beautiful 12 x 18 inch prints on my Epson 1270). >Obviosly I want the best quality possible at the lowest cost possible. I plane >to use a cheap(?) 35mm film scanner for 35mm and the sucessor to the Epson 2450 >for MF. My main usage will be high(?) quality prints with the 2100. >Does this makes sense? As long as you stick to A4 size (or maybe just slightly larger) for prints. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
RE: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
How hard are these lenses to come by. Like the 85/f1.4 I imagine it is next to impossible Glen O'Neal -Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:fwcetus@;erols.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay > Nothing in the text mentions the lens hood. Are you sure what's > pictured is an RH-A77? You're right, Bob - I am not sure. I just made the assumption that it is the RH-A77 - it looks (as much as can be judged in the photo) as if it's the RH-A77 - that is, it looks just as useless as the RH-A77 - . The RH-A77 is simply too wide and too shallow to really provide full flare protection (not that the 135/1.8 needs all that much help in the flare department). Someone here on the PDML, I think, uses a Heliopan or a Nikon hood instead. Fred
Re: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
> Nothing in the text mentions the lens hood. Are you sure what's > pictured is an RH-A77? You're right, Bob - I am not sure. I just made the assumption that it is the RH-A77 - it looks (as much as can be judged in the photo) as if it's the RH-A77 - that is, it looks just as useless as the RH-A77 - . The RH-A77 is simply too wide and too shallow to really provide full flare protection (not that the 135/1.8 needs all that much help in the flare department). Someone here on the PDML, I think, uses a Heliopan or a Nikon hood instead. Fred
RE: New Kodak print film
> -Original Message- > From: dick graham [mailto:Dick.Graham@;ndscs.nodak.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:55 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Kodak print film > > > The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of > the new Portra > 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased > color saturation > over VC skin tones remain true. I guess if you think VC skin tones are accurate that's great news. tv
RE: 35mm film scanners
Hallo Sylwek I'd like to se those tests too! Cheers Jens, Denmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:sylwek@;ozon.com.pl] Sendt: 30. oktober 2002 14:32 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: 35mm film scanners on 30.10.02 14:14, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Looking for a film scanner for 35mm. How about the Nikon LS-40 and the Minolta > Dimage scan Dual II and Dimage dual scan III (the two Minolta scanners cost > the same - whats the difference between them?)? > How do these scanners compare to the Nikon LS-4000 (too expensive). Will they > give credit for the Epson 2100 (2200 US) printer? > Plan of using the new 3200DPI Epson flatbed scanner for MF. > I think LS-40 is the best of them three. But new Minolta can be interesting too. Dual Scan III has Minolta's equivalents of Digital ICE3, USB 2.0 and better D/A converter (48 bit - they claim it gives D=4.8 - don't believe it :-). If you want exact results I can send you PDF file with results of big test made in German Color Foto magazine. Big suprise is that not all scanners has real resolution as it is claimed by their makers... -- Regards Sylwek
FS: SMC-M 150mm f3.5, excellent
Mint, and I do mean mint, SMC-M 150mm f3.5, with hard case in excellent condition. $125.00. Yes, I know, I'm nuts. Respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: New Kodak print film
dick, Yeah, I read that. The question is, why would I use an overlay saturated film? I'm not thinking that I would be using it for people, when Porta NC or VC do just great already. Bruce Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 10:55:17 AM, you wrote: dg> The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of the new Portra dg> 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased color saturation dg> over VC skin tones remain true. dg> DG dg> At 12:30 PM 10/30/02 -0500, you wrote: >>Kodak has a new print film, Portra 400UC (ultra-color): >> >>http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+PROFESSIONAL+ >>PORTRA+400UC+Film&cc=US&lc=en >> >>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/port >>raIndex.jhtml >> >>Curious that they didn't come out with a 160 or 100 UC. I wouldn't >>mind seeing a Portra 100BW. >> >>I wonder what happened to the new Fuji slide film? My lab guy was >>actually testing it a few months back. >> >>tv
Re: New Kodak print film
The latest issue of Pop Photo has a little discription of the new Portra 400UC. In it Kodak claims that while it has increased color saturation over VC skin tones remain true. DG At 12:30 PM 10/30/02 -0500, you wrote: Kodak has a new print film, Portra 400UC (ultra-color): http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+PROFESSIONAL+ PORTRA+400UC+Film&cc=US&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/port raIndex.jhtml Curious that they didn't come out with a 160 or 100 UC. I wouldn't mind seeing a Portra 100BW. I wonder what happened to the new Fuji slide film? My lab guy was actually testing it a few months back. tv
RE: New Kodak print film
Yeah. -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085 > -Original Message- > From: Doug Brewer [mailto:dbrewer@;richmond.ky.us] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:32 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Kodak print film > > > You got that mailing too, eh? > > > At 12:30 PM 10/30/02 -0500, you wrote: > >Kodak has a new print film, Portra 400UC (ultra-color): > > > >http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+PR > OFESSIONAL+ > >PORTRA+400UC+Film&cc=US&lc=en > > > >http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ > portra/port > >raIndex.jhtml > > > >Curious that they didn't come out with a 160 or 100 UC. I wouldn't > >mind seeing a Portra 100BW. > > > >I wonder what happened to the new Fuji slide film? My lab guy was > >actually testing it a few months back. > > > >tv >
Re: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
I will never go to Ritz camera after I tried to get film from them a few months back. The guy didn't know the difference between slides and prints and wasn't aware of a company called Fuji. Sheesh! Ritz sucks! (sorry Wendy...) Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Debra Wilborn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 6:37 PM Subject: Re: rec.photo.equipment.35mm > None of my camera stuff was bought new, except film. > So, I don't really care if Ritz stocks Pentax stuff or > not. Besides, this was started by a *clerk* in the > shop. A CLERK. Consider the source. >
Re: OT:Prints From Slides
Bring the slides to a custom lab that can do high-resolution scans. The Kodak photo cd scans won't due (mainly because they probably weren't scanned by a knowledgeable person but just batch scanned with no regard for final outcome). After you are happy with the scans have them printed. I do a lot of my own printing with CHEAP equipment and I get pretty good results. Having a custom lab do them where you can talk to the photo-finisher and tweak the scanning, etc is expensive but in the end the results will make you much happier than having a bad job done for less money. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "dick graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:15 PM Subject: OT:Prints From Slides > I'm looking for the best route to take to make prints (up to 11x14) from > slides. Has anyone had digital prints made from Kodak Photo CD's and, if > so, how has the quality been? I don't have my own scanning equipment and > printing equipment so I must rely on outside commercial resources. > > DG >
Re: David Hume Kennerly on NPR
It is a weekend. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:34 AM Subject: RE: David Hume Kennerly on NPR > Oh sure, wait until I am gone. > > I know when I am not appreciated - sniff, sniff... > > All in all, with the way work is going I would rather be up north... > > At least it is warmer here, > > Cesar > Panama City, Florida
1 day to go: Normal zoom poll
Please do not hesitate to vote, that is to say: to answer the following 3 questions: 1.) Imagine that you need a k-mount zoom which covers at least the focal lengths 40 to 70mm. Imagine further, that you have more than enough money to spend on such a zoom. Now imagine, that you enter a shop which has plenty of new and used Pentax glass. What are the 3 SMC Pentax zooms (1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice) that you would like to pick most? Pick among these lenses: FA24-90/f3.5-4.5 IF&AL FA*28-70/f2.8 AL FA28-70/f4 AL A28-80/f3.5-4.5 F28-80/f3.5-4.5 FA28-80/f3.5-4.7 FA28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 IF&AL FA28-105/f4-5.6 FA28-105/f4-5.6 IF A28-135/f4 FA28-200/f3.8-5.6 IF&AL AF35-70/f2.8 (for ME-F) M35-70/f2.8-3.5 A35-70/f3.5-4.5 F35-70/f3.5-4.5 A35-70/f4 A35-80/f4-5.6 F35-80/f4-5.6 FA35-80/f4-5.6 A35-105/f3.5 F35-105/f4-5.6 A35-135/f3.5-4.5 F35-135/f3.5-4.5 A35-210/f3.5-4.5 M40-80/f2.8-4 2.) What 3rd party zoom lenses covering at least the 40-70mm range would you consider good alternatives? Please name up to 3 3rd party zooms. So far these lenses have been voted for: Rikenon P or XR Rikenon 28-100/4 (2-touch, 67mm filter) Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DF Sigma 28-70 F2.8 EX Sigma 28-135/3.8-5.6 Macro Aspherical IF Sigma AF 28-135 f/4-5.6 Tamron AF24-135 f/4-5.6 Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 (2 votes) Tokina ATX-PRO 28-70/2.8 SV Tokina 28-70 F2.8 thingy ATX whatever Tokina AT-X 28-85/4 Tokina ATX 28-135 f/4-4.5 (67mm filter) Tokina AT-X 35-70/2.8 Vivitar Series One 28-90 f/2.8 to 3.5 (1-touch, 67mm filter) Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 Varifocal 3.) If you were dreaming, what would be your ideal (but realistic) SMC Pentax Zoom lens for k-mount, covering at least the 40-70mm range? So far, these lenses have been proposed: FA 24-70/4 (just like the 28-70) FA24-90/f3.5-4.5 IF&AL FA*24-105/f2.8-4.0 IF&AL FA 24-105/4 (or 3.5-4.5) AL & IF & USM 24-135, f/4-4.8, 1:4 close focus throughout the range F25-100/f4 (similar to F35-105 but with better close focus) FA*28-70/f2.8 AL & IF & USM FA 28-120 f/2.8-4 AL ED (IF) 31-77/2-2.8 (it would probably measure as f2.1 to f2.7...) Have fun with these polls, and thanks in advance for contributing! Arnold
RE: 35mm film scanners
Yes, I get very good 11x17 prints from scans done with a HP S20, which isn't nearly as good as the new Minolta appears to be. BR > -Original Message- > From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen@;sensewave.com] > > It get excellent reviews and they claim it is better than > anything available for desktop use even a few years back. > However, what does this mean? As a novice in these matters > I'm a bit confused. Is this scanner good enough to get high > quality prints from an Epson 2100 printer? >
RE: 35mm film scanners
Consensus on scanner reviews says that 2900dpi (LS IV) is perfect up to A4, but you really want 4000dpi (LS 4000) for A3. Of course the days of digital cameras, 'ressing-up' and geniune fractals has reduced expectancies in this respect... > -Original Message- > From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen@;sensewave.com] > Sent: 30 October 2002 16:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35mm film scanners > > > Dan wrote: > > > The Scan Dual III looks like a significant improvement over the Scan > > Dual II and with a street price 25% less than what I paid > for my Dual > > II back when they came out. > http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEW1.HTM > > has a preliminary > review of the SD III up. Only place I've come across > > so far. BTW B&H shows them in stock for $300. > > > It get excellent reviews and they claim it is better than > anything available for desktop use even a few years back. > However, what does this mean? As a novice in these matters > I'm a bit confused. Is this scanner good enough to get high > quality prints from an Epson 2100 printer? > > Obviosly I want the best quality possible at the lowest cost > possible. I plane to use a cheap(?) 35mm film scanner for > 35mm and the sucessor to the Epson 2450 for MF. My main usage > will be high(?) quality prints with the 2100. Does this makes sense? > > > Pål > >
Re: OT: Great Photo of the Leonids
this is the best from last year, it is in focus, just had to shoot thru fog and dew on the lens. http://webhome.idirect.com/~trini/flowers2/a002.jpg --- Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 08:28 AM, > Brendan wrote: > > > Which reminds me, time to get ready for this years > > shower/storm, light show :-) > > > > How do you get ready? What do you use? > > Dan Scott > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: OT: Great Photo of the Leonids
2 lawn chairs, lots of coffee, 2 cameras, a 28mm f2.8 and 50mm F1.7, 2 tripods, lots of sleep before ( it's on a tuesday argh!! ) and lots of luck. --- Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 08:28 AM, > Brendan wrote: > > > Which reminds me, time to get ready for this years > > shower/storm, light show :-) > > > > How do you get ready? What do you use? > > Dan Scott > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: 35mm film scanners
ICE, ROC and GEM are trademarked names, of course. Vuescan does have it's own dust & scratch removal system using the IR channel, and its own grain reduction and color enhancing functions. Maris - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:19 AM Subject: RE: 35mm film scanners > The Coolscan IV does not have multi-sampling, you have to buy the 4000 > for that. > > The Coolscan does have the best ICE3 though. > > I think if you use vuescan you cant use ICE/ROC/GEM though, so I say the > OEM software has to figure in your decision. The Nikon stuff is pretty > good, but doesn't have pre-made film profiles. > > You cant use ICE3 on true B&W either, in case you didn't know. > > I would buy the Coolscan in an instant (and I did - I got the 4000!).
Re: 35mm film scanners
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:31 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: If you want exact results I can send you PDF file with results of big test made in German Color Foto magazine. Big suprise is that not all scanners has real resolution as it is claimed by their makers... -- Regards Sylwek Sylwek, Could you send a copy to me, or summarize for the list? Thanks, Dan Scott
Re: OT: Great Photo of the Leonids
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 08:28 AM, Brendan wrote: Which reminds me, time to get ready for this years shower/storm, light show :-) How do you get ready? What do you use? Dan Scott
Re: MZ-S battery mystery
Reminds me of what happens when the power manager in a laptop computer gets confused. The way to cure this in a laptop is to completely disconnect all power sources and leave the computer powerless for a few hours. This resets the power management chip and all will be well again. Perhaps you could try the same thing in the MZ-S...take out the batteries and let the camera sit without power for a day or two (I'm assuming it'll take longer to drain the charge left in a camera) then put in a fresh battery and see what happens. --jc On Tuesday, Oct 29, 2002, at 23:01 America/New_York, Kevin Waterson wrote: I just finished off a roll of film, and replaced it with another.. no prizes there, but when I took the first photo with the new film in place, the camera made a dying whirrr rather than rolling on to the next frame. The low battery light began flashing and I thought it odd as I had only just put a new battery in it 2 rolls ago. Perhaps I bought a dud battery and need a new one, so, I purchased another battery from a different store and put that in. Still the low battery indicator is flashing. The manual does touch on this saying if the camera is not used for a period of time this behaviour may occur and to hold the shutter release half down till the low battery indicator goes away. Well, I have tried this but still no joy. The low battery indicator still flashes and the camera is basically a paper weight. Any thoughts as to what may be the problem here or how I might get it working? 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: 35mm film scanners
I think scanners have to have a separate IR light source in order to use ICE type dust and scratch removal systems. AFAIK none of the Scan Duals have this. Vuescan might be able to do multisampling on the Coolscan IV, have you tried that yet? Dan Scott On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 08:19 AM, Rob Brigham wrote: The Coolscan IV does not have multi-sampling, you have to buy the 4000 for that. The Coolscan does have the best ICE3 though. I think if you use vuescan you cant use ICE/ROC/GEM though, so I say the OEM software has to figure in your decision. The Nikon stuff is pretty good, but doesn't have pre-made film profiles. You cant use ICE3 on true B&W either, in case you didn't know. I would buy the Coolscan in an instant (and I did - I got the 4000!).
Re: 35mm film scanners
The Scan Dual III looks like a significant improvement over the Scan Dual II and with a street price 25% less than what I paid for my Dual II back when they came out. http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEW1.HTM has a preliminary review of the SD III up. Only place I've come across so far. BTW B&H shows them in stock for $300. Dan Scott On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:14 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: Looking for a film scanner for 35mm. How about the Nikon LS-40 and the Minolta Dimage scan Dual II and Dimage dual scan III (the two Minolta scanners cost the same - whats the difference between them?)? How do these scanners compare to the Nikon LS-4000 (too expensive). Will they give credit for the Epson 2100 (2200 US) printer? Plan of using the new 3200DPI Epson flatbed scanner for MF. Pål
A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1391357452 The seller is an Hamburg, just like me, however, thte price is quite out of my reach. Arnold
Re[2]: 35mm film scanners
Pål, I have the Scan Dual II and find it just great for negatives. Slides, however are a different story. It doesn't have the dynamic range to scan high contrast slides to my satisfaction. It just won't pick up the deep shadows very well. Other than that, I like the unit quite well. It sounds like the III version might be a reasonable choice. Bruce Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 6:06:00 AM, you wrote: APV> At 14:14 30.10.2002 +0100, you wrote: >>Looking for a film scanner for 35mm. How about the Nikon LS-40 and the Minolta >Dimage scan Dual II and Dimage dual scan III (the two Minolta scanners cost the same >- whats the difference between >>them?)? APV> Dimage dual scan II comes with 12 bit a/d while the III comes with 16 bit a/d. APV> With a 16 bit a/d converter you get a lot better dynamic range. It seems that APV> the III is a new version of the II with cool new features. Both are 2820 dpi. APV> The Nikon LS-40 is a 2900 dpi scanner with 12 bit a/d. APV> From these specs I'd say the Minolta III is the best. APV> Antti-Pekka APV> --- APV> * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * APV> * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
Re: Some pictures from PDML UK @ Northumbria
Thanks, Cotty. :-) Let's do it together some time? Jostein - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:07 AM Subject: Re: Some pictures from PDML UK @ Northumbria > Stunning pics, Jostein. I especially like the sea front shots. Well done! > > Cot > > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > > >
Re: Some pictures from PDML UK @ Northumbria
I can remember some TV-program some years ago (there's probably been many more) about the excavation of a civil settlement beside a military installation on the wall, where they had found some organic remnants like buttons, leatherware and even letters. Been wanting to see Hadrian's wall since then. Glad you liked the pics. best, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:17 PM Subject: Re: Some pictures from PDML UK @ Northumbria > These are very nice. On a recent tour of England, our group went to > Alnwick Castle. I really wanted us to see parts of Hadrian's wall, and > I was pleasantly surprised that this was a commonly held feeling on a > busload of Americans. I guess I have to credit the History Channel with > this general knowledge of Hadrian's wall. > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
