Re: Making a list and checking it twice

[Paul Stenquist]

William Robb wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Paul;
> If you like, I could watch eBay for you, and when I see a likely
> one, I could post the URL to the list to make sure you see it.
> That way, for sure you can get one for a good price.
> Your Friend
> Wheatfield

Thanks buddy, you're all heart.

Re: Re: KMP lens info

[David Brooks]

Boz. 
I think I have the box for my smc a 80-200 f 4.7/5.6
still.I'll take a look.Also some were i think i still
have a pamphlet that came with a lens that listed
many Pentax items.I'll look for that one too.May
be of help.
BTW thanks for keeping the site going.
Dave


Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Manauls

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks. I just downloaded manuals for my 165/4LS and my AF400T flash.
That last one I really need.
Paul

Shaun Canning wrote:
> 
> For anyone interested, a heap of new manuals have been added to the download
> section of the Pentax USA site at
> http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Shaun Canning
> PhD Student
> Archaeology Department
> La Trobe University, Bundoora,
> Australia, 3086.
> 
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone: 0414-967 644

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[David Brooks]

I have been using either my SP500 or the S3.
I have not run any HIE in the K1000,but it should be 
ok.

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
. BTW, my 
'normal' choice for infrared is the K2.

Regards,
Ed Matthew

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



 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

RE: Me new

[Rob Brigham]

Welcome.  This is almost exactly the kit I had when I joined here (I had
the APO version of the 70-300).  I warn you, temptation is rife and I
have ended up spending much since then!!!

You can post as many issues as you like and whoever wants to repond is
welcome to.  You can also reply to any messages here and they will be
distributed to the list automatically.  If you want to reply directly to
a person, you need to click 'reply', then enter their address manually
rather than use the automatic pdml.net address.

I really like the MZ-30, although you will find some here complain
because it cant take older (non 'A') lenses.  If you don't have any then
that's no real problem however - just be careful if you buy used lenses.
The Sigma 70-300s are IMHO the best consumer zooms in this range made by
any manufacturer and it will serve you well, I am sure.  I am interested
if you are happy with the 28-80 though?  I was not impressed with mine,
and this was the first thing to be upgraded - the difference that made
was phenomenal.  I know it is the photographer, not the kit that makes
the image - but if you are crippled by your kit it doesn't help.

Again welcome...

Rob

> -Original Message-
> From: Amanda du Plessis [mailto:duplesa@;mweb.co.za] 
> Sent: 04 November 2002 04:14
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Me new
> 
> 
> Hey guys
> 
> I read the Amateur photographer and saw the aricle on you 
> guys at the = air show.  Those are some pretty big lenses!! I 
> then went to the site and subscribed, I own a MZ-30 a with a 
> 28-80 = lens and a Sigma 70-300 macro super dl + dedicated 
> pentax flash. Now I just need to know how this works?  Do you 
> get a new issue = everyday? Do you choose a topic and then 
> just send a message to that=20 person or what??
> 
> Cheers
> Neil
> South - Africa
> 
> 
> 

Re: ( Limited Pi) RESULTS! of the Normal Zoom Poll

[Keith Whaley]

Peter Alling wrote:
> 
> Shouldn't that be 3.1415.

Yes, it should be, but most folks raise/round the last digit to 6,
because the digit after the 5 is a 9...

keith whaley
> 
> At 03:18 PM 11/4/2002 +1100, you wrote:
> >Should be 3.15159 which is close enough for those of us that can remember pi
> >(22/7 in the real old days of approximations).
> >
> >Bob

Re: A time to guess

[Rfsindg]

Keith,
Looking at the intro date of 1981 for the MG, I would guess it is an ME with 
a new name.  Think about it as a marketing ploy.  Pentax says...
"We are going to introduce the ME Super, now how are we going to keep the 
customers from confusing this with the ME and recognizing all the extra 
functionality we built in.  I've got it!  We'll stop making the ME, introduce 
the ME Super for a bit higher price, and when the distributors are out of the 
ME, we'll introduce the MG... same camera as the ME, but with slightly 
reduced (more realistic?) specs than the ME.  We can price it at a bit less 
than the ME Super and more than the MV."
Regards,  Bob S.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Check out Mr. D's site at .
 Go to the bottom of the screen, and select "Bodies," then "Body Data &
 Descriptions" then finally "M-series" bodies.
 All the info is there on his chart...
 Seem to be almost identical, don't they? It might be that the MG did
 replace the basic ME, functionally, while the ME went off and became
 the ME-F and the ME-Super...but that's a wild guess on my part. I'm
 too new at this to make intelligent suppositions like that!   >>

Re: ( Limited Pi) RESULTS! of the Normal Zoom Poll

[Keith Whaley]

Doug Franklin wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:18:15 -0500, Peter Alling wrote:
> 
> > Shouldn't that be 3.1415.
> 
> 3.1415929... if I remember correctly.

Not ...5929, but ...5926...
 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

keith whaley

Re: Running with a Camera

[Mark Roberts]

Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>SD> I run quite a bit and many times I wish I had a camera with me.  I
>SD> think the safest way to carry one would be in the hand, but this still
>SD> gives a lot of bouncing. Can the camera take this? Does anyone do this? 
>
>   Last winter I've been skiing with my 5n and two lenses inside an
>   Off Trail 1 belt bag, which provided enough protection trough a
>   couple of falls. Never had any problems with the gear since.

One of Galen Rowell's last columns for Outdoor Photographer was about the
difficulty of finding any good way of carrying a camera while running. He
used a chest-pack that is no longer made and he was hoping to convince
someone else to take up manufacture of such an item.

I carry my MX with 43/1.9 in a standard belt-type pack when I want to take a
camera on a run. Usually have to stuff it with some kind of padding to keep
it from bruising me. Even so I wouldn't want to take it much longer than
10-12 miles.

-- 
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
Photography and writing

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[David Brooks]

Martin.
I beleive Konica,Ilford?? and Maco Phot have low nm(720)
IR type of film with anti-halation layers,but do not seem to have
the dramatic effect as the HIE without.I have tried a roll of
Maco Cube 400 with #25 red and other than darkening the blue sky,
was not much different than reg b&w.
Why not look for a used M42 mount,a 55 and or 35mm lens.
I use this and you dont have to worry about the plate.(I have a S3 
for sale:):))

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: Martin Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Anybody on this list have any knowledge on these matters that they 
can share
with me? Should I be looking at some other kind of Infra-red film, 
one that
includes an anti-halation layer?

Martin



 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Running with a Camera

[Gatis Visnevskis]

Off Trail 1 is great bag.

I have climbed with it in mountains 4300m high.
And even fall into water from canoe boat :))
... etc. etc.

Gasha

Alin Flaider wrote:


Steve wrote:

SD> I run quite a bit and many times I wish I had a camera with me.  I
SD> think the safest way to carry one would be in the hand, but this still
SD> gives a lot of bouncing. Can the camera take this? Does anyone do this? 

   Last winter I've been skiing with my 5n and two lenses inside an
   Off Trail 1 belt bag, which provided enough protection trough a
   couple of falls. Never had any problems with the gear since.

Re: New scanner

[Leonard Paris]

I think how much RAM you have has an impact on that.

Len
---


Does anyone know how much data Win98 can address before going
smurt?
Thanks
William Robb



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

Re: OT: Re: Eclipse

[Keith Whaley]

Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> 
> JC,
> 
> I wish my 400mm Sigma APO produced results as sharp!
> 
> If by mirror lens you mean something made specifically as a telephoto for
> terrestrial photography then your aversion to them may be justified. But
> consider the two Questars - 3.5" and 7". 
> These are far superior to any telephoto that has ever been offered for
> sale to the public. 

This statement is without dispute. Questar hand figures their optics
as individual sets, for each and every instrument they build, to
_exceed_ the usually recognized standards or 'limits' of astronomical
telescope resolution. I know of no telescope available to the general
public, as Don indicates, that is made to such exacting criteria.

I once had a 3.5" Questar, and it was so good, I was able to pick up
on the vibrations from cars passing by and others walking thru the
house... I had a very stout and stiff tripod, but it was the floor the
tripod was sitting on that was my problem. With other telescopes, you
couldn't notice it, mainly bacause you were power limited. Crank up
the power and very soon the image starts deteriorating badly, but with
the Questar, you could actually USE the power, if you could view thru
the eyepiece without touching the mount or instrument in any way! 
Lovely instruments, with a price to match...

keith whaley

> Every time you
> see the launch of the space shuttle on TV its been taken though a 7" Questar
> specially adapted for the job - or so I've read anyway. I used the small one
> in my laboratory and sometimes out in the field. I have none of those
> slides, but I'm sure there are samples to be seen on the Questar web site.
> 
> However, if you want sharp pictures with a Questar, or any really long
> telephoto for that matter, you need to go to extraordinary, and tiresome,
> lengths to get sharp pictures at high magnification. All the precautions
> used in photomicrography have to be applied. In a nutshell - as long as
> there is direct physical connection between the camera and the optics, half
> the battle is won. However, each part can be fastened to the same vibration
> free base. The shutter should either be replaced by an external one, or the
> exposure should be long - or very short indeed.
> 
> Don

Re: Re[2]: New scanner

[gfen]

Does the 2450 lay the negs on the glass platen, or is there another
mechanism there?

(sick of the newton rings my Umax 4450 loves to put any and everywhere)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: Another Shot with the 1000mm F8

[Steve Desjardins]

That is really good for a mirror lens.  That gentleman in boxers sure
looks happy about it.


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

Re: A time to guess

[Keith Whaley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> Keith,
> Looking at the intro date of 1981 for the MG, I would guess it is an ME with
> a new name.  Think about it as a marketing ploy.  Pentax says...
> "We are going to introduce the ME Super, now how are we going to keep the
> customers from confusing this with the ME and recognizing all the extra
> functionality we built in.  I've got it!  We'll stop making the ME, introduce
> the ME Super for a bit higher price, and when the distributors are out of the
> ME, we'll introduce the MG... same camera as the ME, but with slightly
> reduced (more realistic?) specs than the ME.  We can price it at a bit less
> than the ME Super and more than the MV."
> Regards,  Bob S.

I think you've summed it up nicely, Bob...
That reflects my feelings about how the MG came to be...

keith
 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> << Check out Mr. D's site at .
>  Go to the bottom of the screen, and select "Bodies," then "Body Data &
>  Descriptions" then finally "M-series" bodies.
>  All the info is there on his chart...
>  Seem to be almost identical, don't they? It might be that the MG did
>  replace the basic ME, functionally, while the ME went off and became
>  the ME-F and the ME-Super...but that's a wild guess on my part. I'm
>  too new at this to make intelligent suppositions like that!   >>

Re: OT: Re: Eclipse

[Dr E D F Williams]

I left out a word it should be - as long as there is *no* physical contact
between - etc.

Don

Dr E D F Williams

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002


- Original Message -
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Eclipse


>
>
> Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> >
> > JC,
> >
> > I wish my 400mm Sigma APO produced results as sharp!
> >
> > If by mirror lens you mean something made specifically as a telephoto
for
> > terrestrial photography then your aversion to them may be justified. But
> > consider the two Questars - 3.5" and 7".
> > These are far superior to any telephoto that has ever been offered for
> > sale to the public.
>
> This statement is without dispute. Questar hand figures their optics
> as individual sets, for each and every instrument they build, to
> _exceed_ the usually recognized standards or 'limits' of astronomical
> telescope resolution. I know of no telescope available to the general
> public, as Don indicates, that is made to such exacting criteria.
>
> I once had a 3.5" Questar, and it was so good, I was able to pick up
> on the vibrations from cars passing by and others walking thru the
> house... I had a very stout and stiff tripod, but it was the floor the
> tripod was sitting on that was my problem. With other telescopes, you
> couldn't notice it, mainly bacause you were power limited. Crank up
> the power and very soon the image starts deteriorating badly, but with
> the Questar, you could actually USE the power, if you could view thru
> the eyepiece without touching the mount or instrument in any way! 
> Lovely instruments, with a price to match...
>
> keith whaley
>
> > Every time you
> > see the launch of the space shuttle on TV its been taken though a 7"
Questar
> > specially adapted for the job - or so I've read anyway. I used the small
one
> > in my laboratory and sometimes out in the field. I have none of those
> > slides, but I'm sure there are samples to be seen on the Questar web
site.
> >
> > However, if you want sharp pictures with a Questar, or any really long
> > telephoto for that matter, you need to go to extraordinary, and
tiresome,
> > lengths to get sharp pictures at high magnification. All the precautions
> > used in photomicrography have to be applied. In a nutshell - as long as
> > there is direct physical connection between the camera and the optics,
half
> > the battle is won. However, each part can be fastened to the same
vibration
> > free base. The shutter should either be replaced by an external one, or
the
> > exposure should be long - or very short indeed.
> >
> > Don
>
>

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Pentax Guy]

- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


> Actually, I wasn't joking.  I would have put a smiley or a  after my
comment
> if I was.
>
> I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put "ettes"
after
> their name.
>
> The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female
listers
> to mere accessories, and not full participants.  Since there are far fewer
> females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to
making
> sure such a perception isn't perpetuated.
>
> I know you were joking.  As to whether it was funny, I leave that to
others.  I
> didn't find it particularly so.
>
> It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I
was
> mildly offended by it, and pointed that out.
>
> My last words on this topic.
>
> regards,
> frank
>
> Brad Dobo wrote:
>
> > I know you are joking Frank.  It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders
so
> > it's not sexist.  It's still funny.
> >
> > Bradley
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> >
> > > sexist comment.  not funny
> > >
> > > Pentax Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > > That would be our cheerleader section.
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > > I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
> > > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
> > > Oppenheimer
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist
> fears it is true." -J. Robert
> Oppenheimer
>
>

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Pentax Guy]

Wow, just back from never leaving and you're trying to start with me?

My last words on this topic.  To anyone.

Brad
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


> Actually, I wasn't joking.  I would have put a smiley or a  after my
comment
> if I was.
>
> I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put "ettes"
after
> their name.
>
> The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female
listers
> to mere accessories, and not full participants.  Since there are far fewer
> females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to
making
> sure such a perception isn't perpetuated.
>
> I know you were joking.  As to whether it was funny, I leave that to
others.  I
> didn't find it particularly so.
>
> It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I
was
> mildly offended by it, and pointed that out.
>
> My last words on this topic.
>
> regards,
> frank
>
> Brad Dobo wrote:
>
> > I know you are joking Frank.  It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders
so
> > it's not sexist.  It's still funny.
> >
> > Bradley
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> >
> > > sexist comment.  not funny
> > >
> > > Pentax Guy wrote:
> > >
> > > > That would be our cheerleader section.
> > > >
> > > > - Original Message -
> > > > From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> > > >
> > > > > I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
> > > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
> > > Oppenheimer
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist
> fears it is true." -J. Robert
> Oppenheimer
>
>

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[Ed Matthew]

Konica is 750 nm. The Maco I have used (once) was 820 nm. I don't remember 
the Ilford SFX nm, but it is less than Konica, making it a near-infrared. My 
results with Konica 750 and Maco 820 were satisfactory - less grainy than 
Kodak HIE, but also less ethereal in the appearance achieved in prints. 
Since I find (subjectively, of course) that the grain enhances the ethereal 
effect, I prefer the Kodak version. The SFX just didn't ring my bell.
The Infrared Photography Handbook by Laurie White has been very useful.
Less useful but still a good reference is The Art of Infrared Photography by 
Joseph Paduano. If you buy Paduano's book, get the 4th edition - I found the 
earliest edition to be almost useless. Border's (and I assume others) often 
stocks both.

Regards,
Ed Matthew






From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:07:23 -0500

Martin.
I beleive Konica,Ilford?? and Maco Phot have low nm(720)
IR type of film with anti-halation layers,but do not seem to have
the dramatic effect as the HIE without.I have tried a roll of
Maco Cube 400 with #25 red and other than darkening the blue sky,
was not much different than reg b&w.
Why not look for a used M42 mount,a 55 and or 35mm lens.
I use this and you dont have to worry about the plate.(I have a S3
for sale:):))

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: Martin Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Anybody on this list have any knowledge on these matters that they
can share
with me? Should I be looking at some other kind of Infra-red film,
one that
includes an anti-halation layer?

Martin



 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



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

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[David Brooks]

D'oh.Sorry Ed,your correct on the 750nm,not 720.Aaron Reynolds
recently tried the Maco 820 and said it had pleasing results.My
only experience is with the Cube 400,which did not 'ring my
bell' either.Next time i'm at his store,and when i get my Y-M 
back from the shop,i hope to try a roll of the 820,in 120
format.
I think the grain found in the Kodak film adds to 
the ghostly,dramatics of the picture.

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 07:55:37 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n


Konica is 750 nm. The Maco I have used (once) was 820 nm. I don't 
remember 
the Ilford SFX nm, but it is less than Konica, making it a near-
infrared. My 
results with Konica 750 and Maco 820 were satisfactory - less grainy 
than 
Kodak HIE, but also less ethereal in the appearance achieved in 
prints. 
Since I find (subjectively, of course) that the grain enhances the 
ethereal 
effect, I prefer the Kodak version. The SFX just didn't ring my bell.
The Infrared Photography Handbook by Laurie White has been very 
useful.
Less useful but still a good reference is The Art of Infrared 
Photography by 
Joseph Paduano. If you buy Paduano's book, get the 4th edition - I 
found the 
earliest edition to be almost useless. Border's (and I assume others) 
often 
stocks both.

Regards,
Ed Matthew









Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Making a list and checking it twice

[mike wilson]

Hi,

Paul S wrote:

"I am using the 400T. I was surprised to find that it didn't
pivot all the way around."

As with the 280T, the flash head rotates horizontally up to
90degrees in one direction (with click stops) and up to
180degrees in the other.  270degrees in total.  You just need to
turn it the other way.  I only discovered this myself after
reading the manual...

mike

Re: OT: Great Photo of the Leonids

[eactivist]

In a message dated 11/3/2002 6:28:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

> --- Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 04:05  PM,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi, newbie here, taking first photography class
> > with Pentax K-1000.
> > > TIA, eactivist aka Marnie Parker :-)
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Welcome Marnie. Good questions. I think Fuji Superia
> > 800 is popular for 
> > Astrophotography, but I'd like to know the other
> > details, too.
> > 
> > Dan Scott
> > 
> 
> It would seem that 800 speed would be too grainy for
> astropix.  I've never tried astrophotography... well
> almost never.  I have this sad little Vivitar slr that
> I used on a lunar eclipse, then I trashed the film
> inside because it wouldn't rewind.
> 
> Anyway, I'd like some details too.

I am a bit stumped by what you guys mean as details. I guess I thought by saying that 
I was a rank newbie I said it all. :-)

Some group around here (probably Sierra Club) will probably be going to the top of a 
local mountain for less interference with city lights. I figured I'd find out and 
accompany them. I actually saw the Leonids last time (fairly well) in my own backyard. 
But to try to take photographs, well, I probably need less background light.

Nothing fancy. Not attached to a telescope or anything -- just want to get some 
streaks on film.

Pentax K-1000 and two lenses (not that good, I guess) that I bought on ebay. An 
Albinar 28-80 3.5 and a Vivitar 85-200 4. The Albinar is actually the beter one, so 
I'd probably use it. I also have a tripod (cheap) and a cable release.

Just wondering what film and what aperture setting and how long to leave shutter open 
-- just to get some streaks, nothing that close up or impressive.

Is that the sort of details that you mean?

Doe aka eactivist aka Marnie Parker
(I am only using the AOL eactivist screen name for this mailing list -- normally my 
"handle" is Doe, so I will stick to that.) :-)

Re: Making a list and checking it twice

[Keith Whaley]

mike wilson wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Paul S wrote:
> 
> "I am using the 400T. I was surprised to find that it didn't
> pivot all the way around."
> 
> As with the 280T, the flash head rotates horizontally up to
> 90degrees in one direction (with click stops) and up to
> 180degrees in the other.  270degrees in total.  You just need to
> turn it the other way.  I only discovered this myself after
> reading the manual...
> 
> mike

I'll TELL ya! Ths stuff you learn when you read the manual!  

I'll admit, on occasion I've learned that way too...

keith whaley

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n (? For Ed M.)

[Delano Mireles]

Ed,

I'm glad to hear you've been successful running infrared through the zx5n.
I've been wanting to try but been hesitant on dropping $10/roll and then
have them fog up.  Can you let me know know which IR film you used?

Thanks,

Delano

on 11/4/02 6:16 AM, Ed Matthew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> - Original Message -
>> From: Timothy Sherburne
>> Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I can't personally vouch for the MZ-5n, but my ZX-M works fine
>> with HIE. No
>>> fogging caused by a frame counter or the plastic back, and I
>> put a piece of
>>> black electrical tape over the DX window to ease my paranoia.
>> I can't
>>> imagine that the 5n would be any different.
>> 
>> Good news!!!
>> It must be those darned Canons I was thonking about.
>> Though I still think the K1000 is the better choice.
>> 
>> William Robb
> 
> I have used the ZX5n with infrared with no fogging problems. I do black tape
> the DX window - whether or not it is necessary, I don't kmow. BTW, my
> 'normal' choice for infrared is the K2.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Matthew
> 
> _
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> 
> 

Re: ( Limited Pi) RESULTS! of the Normal Zoom Poll

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 03:44  AM, Dr E D F Williams wrote:


Someone calculated Pi to a million places. I don't know why.

Don

Dr E D F Williams



I believe they were on "hold" for tech support.

Dan Scott

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000 sliding OT

[Ed Matthew]

 30 nm isn't much among friends.
A few years ago I read a rumor about a 1000nm infrared film from Russia - 
GOMZ, perhaps. I never could find the stuff here, in the UK or in Europe. My 
son had an equal lack of success on Asian travels. Does anyone have 
information?

Regards,
Ed Matthew

From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:13:43 -0500

D'oh.Sorry Ed,your correct on the 750nm,not 720.Aaron Reynolds
recently tried the Maco 820 and said it had pleasing results.My
only experience is with the Cube 400,which did not 'ring my
bell' either.Next time i'm at his store,and when i get my Y-M
back from the shop,i hope to try a roll of the 820,in 120
format.
I think the grain found in the Kodak film adds to
the ghostly,dramatics of the picture.

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 07:55:37 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n


Konica is 750 nm. The Maco I have used (once) was 820 nm. I don't
remember
the Ilford SFX nm, but it is less than Konica, making it a near-
infrared. My
results with Konica 750 and Maco 820 were satisfactory - less grainy
than
Kodak HIE, but also less ethereal in the appearance achieved in
prints.
Since I find (subjectively, of course) that the grain enhances the
ethereal
effect, I prefer the Kodak version. The SFX just didn't ring my bell.
The Infrared Photography Handbook by Laurie White has been very
useful.
Less useful but still a good reference is The Art of Infrared
Photography by
Joseph Paduano. If you buy Paduano's book, get the 4th edition - I
found the
earliest edition to be almost useless. Border's (and I assume others)
often
stocks both.

Regards,
Ed Matthew









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



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

Re: Another Shot with the 1000mm F8

[gfen]

> "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
> > Check out this shot from about 600 yards away.
> > Looks like I nailed the focus on this one.
> > http://jcoconnell.com/temp/1000_CONDO2s.jpg

I think its time to invest in that 2x teleconverter now...

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: Re: Re: infra-red with K1000 sliding OT

[David Brooks]

Sorry Ed,never heard of that film.The 'pro lab' i use around the
corner from work(they do e6 120 format etc)had never heard of Maco 
films until i gave them a roll.They had no times etc.Some web digging 
and an email form Aaron on how he developed it,saved the day

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 30 nm isn't much among friends.
A few years ago I read a rumor about a 1000nm infrared film from 
Russia - 
GOMZ, perhaps. I never could find the stuff here, in the UK or in 
Europe. My 
son had an equal lack of success on Asian travels. Does anyone have 
information?

Regards,
Ed Matthew




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Making a list and checking it twice

[Paul Stenquist]

Thanks Mike, that's good news. Although using it in manual mode with the
reflector is probably a good discipline, since it forced me to use the
flash meter. I sometimes use the meter in auto mode as well, just to
make sure I'm in range of the indicated stop.
Paul

mike wilson wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Paul S wrote:
> 
> "I am using the 400T. I was surprised to find that it didn't
> pivot all the way around."
> 
> As with the 280T, the flash head rotates horizontally up to
> 90degrees in one direction (with click stops) and up to
> 180degrees in the other.  270degrees in total.  You just need to
> turn it the other way.  I only discovered this myself after
> reading the manual...
> 
> mike

Re: Newbies, rules, FAQs, etc.

[gfen]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Stan Halpin wrote:
> The recent fuss plus the public addition of a few new people has indicated

And public subtraction of a few of our favourites...

> the need for a collection of FAQs about the group and how it operates. We
> used to have one. Ralf Stabner put it together, and it included info on PDML
> and on Pentax stuff in general. I was reminded recently because someone
> found Ralf's FAQ (which still references the Pentax-sponsored version of the
> PDML site), obviously could not reach that site, saw my site referenced in
> the FAQ, and came to me for info.

I've been half-serious about rewriting a new version, which is open on a
window here on my desktop since I started.

Its mostly the questions, now, in a semi order.. Next step is to fill the
questions with answers I can provide, then send it off for everyone to add
to.

> Shouldn't somebody be taking his work and updating it and posting it
> someplace that we can link to? Maybe a reference in the mail footer?
> No, I am not volunteering. But I will host the file on my site if someone
> else wants to put it together.

Again, somewhat on it.. I'm lazy, and was on vacation.

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[gfen]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Treena Harp wrote:
> I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...

So do I... Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.

Anyways, teh short answer is it doesn't matter what we call ourselves,
however, my girlfriend has a name for me and everyone else on this list:
"You camera dorks."

It works, and its descriptive!


-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[gfen]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Martin Mielke wrote:
> I'd like to try some of infra-red photography. I have a K1000 and an MZ-5n.

Be prepared to sink money on IR film as you get sucked in.. its really
addictive.

> I was thinking of using Kodak High Speed Infra-Red black and white film (HIE

I've used the most of this, with one roll of EIR to my credit, as well.
Got a freezer with some Konica 750 in 120 in it, plus some more EIR.

> 135-36). Now I've read that there is a problem with the dimpled pressure
> plate of the K1000 creating a pattern on the Kodak film (for example, see
> http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/FAQ_IR.html#KDBW   - part 7: Which

Can't speak for this, but I've had no problem with the dimples in either
my ZX-50 or ZX-5n plate.

You can take a piece of something and lay it over the plate, I've heard
multiple recommendations for a piece of 120 paper backing. Ask your lab
for a piece of discarded backing.

> Cameras?). I've also read elsewhere that some cameras with a film window can
> result in film fogging, although the site I just provided the link for
> disputes this. Of course my MZ-5n has a film window.

Both cameras I've done this with have those windows.. I first covered it
with a piece of electrical tape, but eventually didn't bother... No
problems here, at least with the previously mentioned -50 and -5n.

> Anybody on this list have any knowledge on these matters that they can share
> with me? Should I be looking at some other kind of Infra-red film, one that
> includes an anti-halation layer?

The other IR B&W films include Ilford 200SFX (which is only near IR),
Konica 750 (which is IR, with a backing, but not as far into the IR
specturm and VERY slow), and Maco 820cc, which I know nothing abou (but it
comes in sheet film sizes!).

On a sunny day, just throw a #25 filter on your camera, set your aperature
to f11, your shutter to 1/125, and bracket a full stop both ways.
Seriously, don't worry about anything else. The meter will be essentially
useless, and you'll get a good shot at one of those 3 combiations (f8,
f11, f16).



-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[gfen]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, William Robb wrote:
> The MZ-5 will probably leak IR, either through the DX window, or

The -5 should be no problem, I've started to believe that the rumours of
IR fogging are much worse than the actual problem. People also told me not
toouse plastic tanks and reels when developing, but really now, that's
just goign too far.

If you're worried about the window, throw some tape over it.

> through the plastic back itself. Also, if it uses an electronic
> frame counter rhather than a mechanical one (I don't know), the
> IR source in the frame counter can fog the film, and also cause

I think only the MZ-S uses IR to print the information in the margins, I
supposed the 645NII, as well. Even with the EOS cameras, you only fog the
bottom along the sprocket holes.


-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Pentax Guy]

My friends call me an idiot when they learn how much I spend on camera
stuff, so, I'm 'hey idiot' ;-)

Brad
- Original Message -
From: "gfen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Treena Harp wrote:
> > I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
>
> So do I... Oh, wait, that's not what you meant.
>
> Anyways, teh short answer is it doesn't matter what we call ourselves,
> however, my girlfriend has a name for me and everyone else on this list:
> "You camera dorks."
>
> It works, and its descriptive!
>
>
> --
> http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your
eye.
> http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
>

Re:Re(2):New Scanner

[David Brooks]

The scanner comes with 3 holders,one for 35mm
strips,on for mounted slides and one for MF negs.
I dont know the spec but they are off the glass by about
2-3 mm at least.
I read a reveiw recently were the person was having
trouble scanning B&W,tried it laying
directly on the glass and it was the best of the samples.

Dave

-Original Message-
 From: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 04, 2002 08:54
Subject: Re: Re[2]: New scanner


>
>Does the 2450 lay the negs on the glass platen, or is there another
>mechanism there?
>
>(sick of the newton rings my Umax 4450 loves to put any and 
everywhere)
>
>-- 
>http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in 
your eye.
>http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
>


Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[David Brooks]

No truer words have ever been spoken.Trust the force,
repeat after us: f 11 at 1/125 etc etc

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On a sunny day, just throw a #25 filter on your camera, set your 
aperature
to f11, your shutter to 1/125, and bracket a full stop both ways.
Seriously, don't worry about anything else. The meter will be 
essentially
useless, and you'll get a good shot at one of those 3 combiations (f8,
f11, f16).



-- 
http://www.infotainment.org       <->     more fun than a poke in 
your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com    <->     photography and portfolio.



 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 

ignore: test after resub

[Jostein]

Got unsubbed because mail from the list bounced from my account. My
ISP couldn't explain it...

-So let's check if it's just a temporary problem...

Jostein

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n (? For Ed M.)

[Ed Matthew]

I have used Kodak, Konica, and Maco in the ZX5n. All three have been trouble 
free - except for any failures introduced by me. Don't forget to be paranoid 
and black tape the window - I'm pretty sure it doesn't help, but it makes me 
feel better . The results most pleasing to me have been achieved with 
Kodak. However, a friend shoots Konica 750 in medium format and gets 
excellent results.

Regards,
Ed Matthew

From: Delano Mireles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n (? For Ed M.)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:12:30 -0600

Ed,

I'm glad to hear you've been successful running infrared through the zx5n.
I've been wanting to try but been hesitant on dropping $10/roll and then
have them fog up.  Can you let me know know which IR film you used?

Thanks,

Delano

on 11/4/02 6:16 AM, Ed Matthew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> - Original Message -
>> From: Timothy Sherburne
>> Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I can't personally vouch for the MZ-5n, but my ZX-M works fine
>> with HIE. No
>>> fogging caused by a frame counter or the plastic back, and I
>> put a piece of
>>> black electrical tape over the DX window to ease my paranoia.
>> I can't
>>> imagine that the 5n would be any different.
>>
>> Good news!!!
>> It must be those darned Canons I was thonking about.
>> Though I still think the K1000 is the better choice.
>>
>> William Robb
>
> I have used the ZX5n with infrared with no fogging problems. I do black 
tape
> the DX window - whether or not it is necessary, I don't kmow. BTW, my
> 'normal' choice for infrared is the K2.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Matthew
>
> _
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>


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

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[Ed Matthew]

Yes, when using Kodak. When I use Konica it is 1/60.

Regards,
Ed Matthew


From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:15:35 -0500

No truer words have ever been spoken.Trust the force,
repeat after us: f 11 at 1/125 etc etc

Dave
 Begin Original Message 

From: gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On a sunny day, just throw a #25 filter on your camera, set your
aperature
to f11, your shutter to 1/125, and bracket a full stop both ways.
Seriously, don't worry about anything else. The meter will be
essentially
useless, and you'll get a good shot at one of those 3 combiations (f8,
f11, f16).



--
http://www.infotainment.org    <->  
 more fun than a poke in
your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com  <->   
photography and portfolio.



 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


_
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

Re:Re(2):New Scanner

[gfen]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, David Brooks wrote:
> The scanner comes with 3 holders,one for 35mm
> strips,on for mounted slides and one for MF negs.
> I dont know the spec but they are off the glass by about
> 2-3 mm at least.

I thought about raising my own negs off the glass iwht some sort of
holder, execpt I expected sharpness would suffer.


-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[gfen]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, David Brooks wrote:
> No truer words have ever been spoken.Trust the force,
> repeat after us: f 11 at 1/125 etc etc

See, everyone agrees.. F11 and be there. ;)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Paul Eriksson]

Funny, that's exactly what my wife call us :-)


Anyways, teh short answer is it doesn't matter what we call ourselves,
however, my girlfriend has a name for me and everyone else on this list:
"You camera dorks."

It works, and its descriptive!


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

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[Martin Mielke]

Thanks everybody. Lots of information there. Just to play it safe, I'll
start by getting some 120 paper backing for the K1000. In addition to the
Kodak film, the lab I use stocks the Ilford 200 SFX. I may wind up trying
both.

Martin

Re: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n

[gfen]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Ed Matthew wrote:
> Yes, when using Kodak. When I use Konica it is 1/60.

1/60 at f11 on a sunny day with a #25? I've been hesitant to pull the K750
out and try it.

I learned that 1/125@f11 worked well with the Kodak EIR, as well.
Unfortuantly, noen of my first roll shows any good foilage cover, but wow,
does the sky look freaky through a green filter!



-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n (? For Ed M.)

[Delano Mireles]

Thanks, Ed.

D

on 11/4/02 10:20 AM, Ed Matthew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I have used Kodak, Konica, and Maco in the ZX5n. All three have been trouble
> free - except for any failures introduced by me. Don't forget to be paranoid
> and black tape the window - I'm pretty sure it doesn't help, but it makes me
> feel better . The results most pleasing to me have been achieved with
> Kodak. However, a friend shoots Konica 750 in medium format and gets
> excellent results.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed Matthew
> 
>> From: Delano Mireles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n (? For Ed M.)
>> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:12:30 -0600
>> 
>> Ed,
>> 
>> I'm glad to hear you've been successful running infrared through the zx5n.
>> I've been wanting to try but been hesitant on dropping $10/roll and then
>> have them fog up.  Can you let me know know which IR film you used?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Delano
>> 
>> on 11/4/02 6:16 AM, Ed Matthew at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
 - Original Message -
 From: Timothy Sherburne
 Subject: Re: infra-red with K1000, MZ-5n
 
 
> 
> I can't personally vouch for the MZ-5n, but my ZX-M works fine
 with HIE. No
> fogging caused by a frame counter or the plastic back, and I
 put a piece of
> black electrical tape over the DX window to ease my paranoia.
 I can't
> imagine that the 5n would be any different.
 
 Good news!!!
 It must be those darned Canons I was thonking about.
 Though I still think the K1000 is the better choice.
 
 William Robb
>>> 
>>> I have used the ZX5n with infrared with no fogging problems. I do black
>> tape
>>> the DX window - whether or not it is necessary, I don't kmow. BTW, my
>>> 'normal' choice for infrared is the K2.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Ed Matthew
>>> 
>>> _
>>> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>>> http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
> _
> Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN.
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
> 
> 

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[gfen]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Paul Eriksson wrote:
> Funny, that's exactly what my wife call us :-)

Now, we need Wendy back to let us know if its universal, and her husband
refers to us as the same.. now that we know The Look is not gender
specific. :)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[Fred]

A recent eBay auction was billed as "FUJICA ST901 not pentax lx or
pentax kx" -

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393586812

It was for a Fujica body, a 50mm lens, and a TC.

My question is why the seller wanted to emphasize that the Fujica
was "not pentax lx or pentax kx" - is that a ~positive~ selling
point?  Or?  (???)

Fred

RE: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

I recently was looking at different camera lines on Ebay.
I would use the search function.  Knowing the camera body I was looking for
- say, Nikon N80/F80 or Canon Elan 7e - I would put that name into the
search.

Many times I got the same seller "Canon Elan II not 7 or 7e" in the title -
All this does is get the auction viewed by more people via search but does
not guarantee auction sales; and, if memory serves me correctly, it is
actually against Ebay rules/practices to use such a posting when listing an
item for auction.

Just my 2 cents,
Dave


Original Message:
-
From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:41:45 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach


A recent eBay auction was billed as "FUJICA ST901 not pentax lx or
pentax kx" -

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393586812

It was for a Fujica body, a 50mm lens, and a TC.

My question is why the seller wanted to emphasize that the Fujica
was "not pentax lx or pentax kx" - is that a ~positive~ selling
point?  Or?  (???)

Fred





mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[Mark Roberts]

Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>A recent eBay auction was billed as "FUJICA ST901 not pentax lx or
>pentax kx" -
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393586812
>
>It was for a Fujica body, a 50mm lens, and a TC.
>
>My question is why the seller wanted to emphasize that the Fujica
>was "not pentax lx or pentax kx" - is that a ~positive~ selling
>point?  Or?  (???)

Anyone who did a search for a Pentax LX or KX would find this auction in
their results. You see all kinds of "similar to K1000" things in
descriptions for this reason.

-- 
Mark Roberts
412-687-2835
www.robertstech.com

Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[Fred]

> All this does is get the auction viewed by more people via search
> but does not guarantee auction sales; and, if memory serves me
> correctly, it is actually against Ebay rules/practices to use such
> a posting when listing an item for auction.

> Anyone who did a search for a Pentax LX or KX would find this
> auction in their results. You see all kinds of "similar to K1000"
> things in descriptions for this reason.

I guess that would explain what the seller is doing - .

I guess that it's a "positive" for Pentax, then, since maybe the
seller is hoping that people are looking for LX's and KX's, and
might "stoop" to bid on his Fujica - .

Fred

Re: Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[David Brooks]

Looks like Sid bought it.

 Begin Original Message 

From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:51:24 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach


Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>A recent eBay auction was billed as "FUJICA ST901 not pentax lx or
>pentax kx" -
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1393586812
>
>It was for a Fujica body, a 50mm lens, and a TC.
>
>My question is why the seller wanted to emphasize that the Fujica
>was "not pentax lx or pentax kx" - is that a ~positive~ selling
>point?  Or?  (???)

Anyone who did a search for a Pentax LX or KX would find this auction 
in
their results. You see all kinds of "similar to K1000" things in
descriptions for this reason.

-- 
Mark Roberts
412-687-2835
www.robertstech.com



 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Bouncing list mail (was Re: ignore: test after resub)

[Jostein]

THanks for the tip, Dave.
My ISP was the first place I checked. They're nice people, and gave me
a full list of their spam filters. So, I'm pretty sure it's not them.
However, most email to Norway from abroad come through a few major
pipelines, and something may have gone haywire at the Norwegian
gateway. Or maybe somewhere else in the routing process, I don't know.
The "dump" of the message that bounced was interesting read; -the way
it is possible to trace the mail's journey through cyberspace from
PDML to Bergen (where my domain's mailserver is located).

It's now 6 hours since I resub'ed, and mails have come in a smooth
trickle as usual. Fingers crosxef...

Jostein

- Original Message -
From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Bouncing list mail (was Re: ignore: test after resub)


> Its funny.I can check my mail on this account,but when i
> check it on the other,there is mail that never did
> show up here.Perplexed??
> After the crash,i could not resubscribe on this account,
> Doug said i was still listed,so i emailed the tech people.
> There were some spam filters on,they took them off
> and voila,back:)
>
> Dave
>
>  Begin Original Message 
>
> From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:06:07 +0100
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Bouncing list mail (was Re: ignore: test after resub)
>
>
> Thanks for the info, Mark.
> According to the info in the unsub. notification, the last mail that
> caused the problem was produced by a full version of Outlook. Dunno
> which generation of the program, though...
> Maybe I should forward the whole thing to Doug?
>
> Jostein
> - Original Message -
>  From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: ignore: test after resub
>
>
> > "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Got unsubbed because mail from the list bounced from my account.
My
> > >ISP couldn't explain it...
> > >
> > >-So let's check if it's just a temporary problem...
> >
> > I've had the same problem. Some of the PDML messages (but not
all -
> seems to
> > depend of the software the sender is using) come through with
"From:
> > dbrewer@localhost" in the headers and then bounce because there's
no
> such
> > user here (localhost). I've emailed Doug about it and he's working
> on the
> > problem. I'd guess his system is applying "localhost" literally
> somewhere
> > instead of using it as a variable and inserting the actual PDML
host
> name
> > (pdml.net?) in the headers.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Roberts
> > www.robertstech.com
> > Photography and writing
> >
> >
>
>
>
>  End Original Message 
>
>
>
>
> Pentax User
> Stouffville Ontario Canada
> http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
> http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
> Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
>
>

Re: Bouncing list mail (was Re: ignore: test after resub)

[Jostein]

From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You probably should. There's no reason why the bounces you're
> getting/causing might not be caused by en entirely different
> problem than what's causing mine.

Sounds very similar to me. I was also a puzzled by the @localhost mail
address in the header.

> You might also try contacting your Internet provider to see
> if they can suggest anything.

First thing I did. They didn't really know what could cause it, but at
least it ruled out the spam-filter possibility.

So far, it seems that resub'ing solved the problem, but we'll see in a
couple of days, I guess.

Jostein

Re: Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: David Brooks
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach


> Looks like Sid bought it.

Looks like the reserve was not met. Just as well for Sid, the
Fuji mount isn't the same as the Pentax mount AFAIK.

William Robb

Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[Fred]

> Looks like Sid bought it.

Well, it looks like Sid ~wanted~ it, but not so much that he wanted
to pay the reserve price.

Fred

RE: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

Out patient

> -Original Message-
> From: Pentax Guy [mailto:pentax.guy@;rogers.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> 
> 
> Now that's just going way too far.  Silly. ;-)
> 
> I'll add another stupid one I like -- photographer
> 
> Brad

Re: RE: OT: What we call ourselves.

[David Brooks]

Or what my SO called me Saturday when she found out i bought
another lens.Small towns are sometimes good/sometimes bad:)

Dave

 Begin Original Message 

From: "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:04:31 -0500 
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OT: What we call ourselves.


Out patient

> -Original Message-
> From: Pentax Guy [mailto:pentax.guy@;rogers.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> 
> 
> Now that's just going way too far.  Silly. ;-)
> 
> I'll add another stupid one I like -- photographer
> 
> Brad



 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Brad Dobo]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: OT: What we call ourselves.


> Out patient

Lemme guess, your an out patient from a mental institution?

Pentax mousepad

[Paul Eriksson]

I hope this don't get anyone upset.

The perfect mousepad for checking your PDML messages.





_
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Norm Baugher]

Committed.

Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote:


Out patient

 

-Original Message-
From: Pentax Guy [mailto:pentax.guy@;rogers.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


Now that's just going way too far.  Silly. ;-)

I'll add another stupid one I like -- photographer

Brad
   



 

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Frits Wüthrich]

K-mounties creates another class next to the brotherhood, so it doesn't 
address all Pentax users. Do we need to include every user group in the name? 
How do we call the users of those endoscopes?

Frits Wüthrich, also not in Canada at the moment


On Sunday 03 November 2002 23:21, Debra Wilborn wrote:
> "Pentaxistes" looks a lot like "Pentaxites" which
> sounds like "parasites" and that's a no-go with me.  I
> personally like "Pentaxian".  It sounds like one of
> those cheesey names from Star Trek.  Then there's
> always "K-Mounters" or "K-Mounties" if your Canadian
> (Brad).
>
> Hmm, I'm definately liking "K-Mounties".  I need to
> find a red coat and a horse.
>
> Deb in not Canada

Re: Pentax mousepad

[William Kane]

Paul,

  It would probably help if you posted this to a website first. 
Attachments get stripped off the list.

IL Bill

Paul Eriksson wrote:

I hope this don't get anyone upset.

The perfect mousepad for checking your PDML messages.





_
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp




--
William Kane
  http://www.KaneScience.com
IABT Advisory Board Member
  http://www.iabt.net
Tinley Park High School
  6111 W. 175th Street
  Tinley Park, IL  60477
  V: 708/532-1900 ext 3909
  http://www.bhsd228.com

Re: What we call ourselves.

[Frits Wüthrich]

On Sunday 03 November 2002 22:13, Fred wrote:
> However, I much prefer "Pentaxer" to "Pentaxian".  To me, the
> connotation in English of an ending of "-ian" is of a person that
> ~lives~ in a particular place (e.g., Argentinian, Cambodian,
> Algerian, etc.), while the ending "-er" connotes a person who ~does~
> something particular (such as ~using~ Pentax gear) (e.g.,
> photographer, teacher, minister) - we don't say "photographian", but
> "photographer".  ;-)
>
> Fred

I think you assume we actually Pentax?
I pentax
you pentax
we pentax

Difficult language, English.

-- 
Frits Wüthrich, Pentaxer.

RE: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

Is that why everyone in my family has told me that UPS drivers now wear white coats?

> -Original Message-
> From: Norm Baugher [mailto:nbaugher@;earthlink.net]
> 
> Committed.
> 
> Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote:
> 
> >Out patient
> 

P3 rewinder crank

[Andy Vu]

I just called Pentax part service for the rewinder crank but they said,
they don't have that part anymore. Anyone know any shop in US has P3
rewinder knob? I really need it badly...

Best regards
Andy

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Feroze Kistan]

- Original Message -
From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


> K-mounties creates another class next to the brotherhood, so it doesn't
> address all Pentax users. Do we need to include every user group in the
name?
> How do we call the users of those endoscopes?

K-Brownies?

RE: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

Reason enough to switch brands.

> -Original Message-
> From: Feroze Kistan [mailto:angelart@;telkomsa.net]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
> 
> 
> > K-mounties creates another class next to the brotherhood, 
> so it doesn't
> > address all Pentax users. Do we need to include every user 
> group in the
> name?
> > How do we call the users of those endoscopes?
> 
> K-Brownies?
> 

Re: P3 rewinder crank

[Christian Skofteland]

On Monday 04 November 2002 16:33, Andy Vu wrote:
> I just called Pentax part service for the rewinder crank but they said,
> they don't have that part anymore. Anyone know any shop in US has P3
> rewinder knob? I really need it badly...
>
> Best regards
> Andy

Andy;

You may have to buy a whole camera.  P3's (P30's) are not too expensive.  As 
a matter of fact I found a non-working P30 on eBay with 2 days left currently 
at $20.  KEH has a bargain P3 for $65.

How much is the rewind crank worth to you?

Christian

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Frits Wüthrich
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.


> > Hmm, I'm definately liking "K-Mounties".  I need to
> > find a red coat and a horse.

It was years before I found out that GRC didn't mean "Grid Road
Cop"

William Robb

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: Feroze Kistan 
Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves.



> > How do we call the users of those endoscopes?
> 
> K-Brownies?

FoundViewers?
WW

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Norm Baugher]

Bruce, call your hospital, ask if there is anyone in your room, if 
there's not, you've escaped.

Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote:

Is that why everyone in my family has told me that UPS drivers now wear white coats?

 

-Original Message-
From: Norm Baugher [mailto:nbaugher@;earthlink.net]

Committed.

Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote:

   

Out patient
 



 

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[gfen]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Frits [iso-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote:
> K-mounties creates another class next to the brotherhood, so it doesn't
> address all Pentax users. Do we need to include every user group in the name?
> How do we call the users of those endoscopes?

I like K mounties, and the screwheads, but where do the Auto 110 and 645
types fall into? Was it the Little Brotherhood or something? :)

I'm still trying to figure ou where the Brotherhood fits into the PDML FAQ
(which got a serious boost of effort dumped into it today..)

-- 
http://www.infotainment.org   <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.

AF 400T swivel head

[Paul Stenquist]

Okay, I'm confused. I would love to be able to fire my AF 400T into a
reflector and still use it in auto mode on my 6x7. I downloaded the AF
400T manual in order to determine how the swivel head works. The manual
reads "...a convenient rotating flash head that swivels 90 degrees on
each side (up to 180 degrees to the left for backward bounce.)" That
seems contradictory. If it swivels 90 degress to each side, how can it
swivel 180 degrees to the left. My flash unit's head will only swivel 90
degrees to each side. I pushed as hard as I dare to try to get it to
move further, and it won't budge. Does anyone have an AF 400T that
actualy swivels all the way around to the back? Is there some trick to
making it move that far? 
Paul Stenquist

RE: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)]

Just got off the phone. Don't worry, there's a Pentax guy there weaving a DSLR.

> -Original Message-
> From: Norm Baugher [mailto:nbaugher@;earthlink.net]
> 
> Bruce, call your hospital, ask if there is anyone in your room, if 
> there's not, you've escaped.
> 
> 

Re: What we call ourselves.

[Jostein]

From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think you assume we actually Pentax?
> I pentax
> you pentax
> we pentax
>
> Difficult language, English.
>
> --
> Frits Wüthrich, Pentaxer.

Pentaxer and curiouser...

Jostein

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[Christian Skofteland]

You can always rotate it in the clamp/bracket.

180 degrees from full left to full right.

Christian

On Monday 04 November 2002 17:01, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Okay, I'm confused. I would love to be able to fire my AF 400T into a
> reflector and still use it in auto mode on my 6x7. I downloaded the AF
> 400T manual in order to determine how the swivel head works. The manual
> reads "...a convenient rotating flash head that swivels 90 degrees on
> each side (up to 180 degrees to the left for backward bounce.)" That
> seems contradictory. If it swivels 90 degress to each side, how can it
> swivel 180 degrees to the left. My flash unit's head will only swivel 90
> degrees to each side. I pushed as hard as I dare to try to get it to
> move further, and it won't budge. Does anyone have an AF 400T that
> actualy swivels all the way around to the back? Is there some trick to
> making it move that far?
> Paul Stenquist

17mm f4 fisheye

[Richard Sheppard]

I bought a 17mm f4 K fit a few years back - partly because it was 
going at a good price. There doesn't seem much said about this lens 
compared to the 16 f2.8 (?) fisheye. Anyone know how they to match 
up? I like it, but then I've never used a fisheye before. What I do 
know is it has much better resistance to flare than my Tokina 17mm 
rectilinear!
Regards Richard Sheppard
--
Want airsport pictures? www.airsport-photo.co.uk
Want to read all about it? www.xcmag.com

RE: P3 rewinder crank

[Andy Vu]

This is the second time my P3 has broken the rewinder knob, last time I
bought it from pentax dealer for around $7.00 included shipping.



-Original Message-
From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:c_skofteland@;mindspring.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: P3 rewinder crank

On Monday 04 November 2002 16:33, Andy Vu wrote:
> I just called Pentax part service for the rewinder crank but they
said,
> they don't have that part anymore. Anyone know any shop in US has P3
> rewinder knob? I really need it badly...
>
> Best regards
> Andy

Andy;

You may have to buy a whole camera.  P3's (P30's) are not too expensive.
As 
a matter of fact I found a non-working P30 on eBay with 2 days left
currently 
at $20.  KEH has a bargain P3 for $65.

How much is the rewind crank worth to you?

Christian

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Steve Desjardins]

I have it:  Pentaxianado


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

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Jostein]

From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Do we need to include every user group in the name?

Maybe there's a need for other subgroups too?
-Screwmount subgroup
-Optio subgroup
-645...
-Auto 110
-APS (ops.)

h...

Jostein

Re: OT: What we call ourselves.

[Jostein]

Norm?
Does that mean he hasn't escaped?

jostein

- Original Message -
From: "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: OT: What we call ourselves.


> Just got off the phone. Don't worry, there's a Pentax guy there
weaving a DSLR.

Re: What we call ourselves.

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 03:59  PM, Jostein wrote:


From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


I think you assume we actually Pentax?
I pentax
you pentax
we pentax

Difficult language, English.

--
Frits Wüthrich, Pentaxer.


Pentaxer and curiouser...

Jostein



"Pentaxeers"? ala buccaneers, engineers, etc.?

Dan Scott (guy with a camera)

Fujica screw mount compatibility

[andre]

the Fuji mount isn't the same as the Pentax mount AFAIK.

William Robb


It must have been said before.  But what are the compatibility problems?

Super-Takumar on Fujica 701, 705, 801 etc.

SMC-Takumar on Fujica

EBC-Fujinon on SP-F?  On older Pentax bodies?

Older Fujinon?

I read somewhere you would have to take out (with a file) a small 
metal part on the Fujinon lenses to use them on some Pentax bodies.

A complete answer could go to the FAQ.  About all compatibility problems...

Andre
--

New Velvia?

[Dan Scott]

(Resending this because I can't tell if it went through this morning)

Hi All,

I was surfing with a film bias, and heard that Fuji is coming out with 
a Velvia 100 that has the same saturation as Velvia 50 and finer grain? 
 Does anyone know if this is true or have more details?

Dan Scott

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[Steve Larson]

Hi Paul,
 Mine swivels 90 degrees to each side. Sounds like a 67II is in
the making to me. ;)
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:01 PM
Subject: AF 400T swivel head


> Okay, I'm confused. I would love to be able to fire my AF 400T into a
> reflector and still use it in auto mode on my 6x7. I downloaded the AF
> 400T manual in order to determine how the swivel head works. The manual
> reads "...a convenient rotating flash head that swivels 90 degrees on
> each side (up to 180 degrees to the left for backward bounce.)" That
> seems contradictory. If it swivels 90 degress to each side, how can it
> swivel 180 degrees to the left. My flash unit's head will only swivel 90
> degrees to each side. I pushed as hard as I dare to try to get it to
> move further, and it won't budge. Does anyone have an AF 400T that
> actualy swivels all the way around to the back? Is there some trick to
> making it move that far? 
> Paul Stenquist
> 

CCD/CMOS resolution vs film resolution

[Dan Scott]

(resending this because I can't tell if it went out this morning)


Check it out:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/film_ccd/index.htm

Does it make you want to switch or straddle the fence?

Dan Scott

Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: frank theriault 
Subject: Re: Interesting Non-Pentax eBay Marketing Approach


> Yeah, well, what do I know?

Whats your name, Frank?
HAR!!
WW

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head


> Rotating it in the bracket is basically what I do when using
the AF400T
> with my 6x7 and the soft shoulder reflector. I just mount the
flash on
> the soft shoulder so it's pointing backwards. Then I set it to
manual
> and determine my stop with a flash meter. It's just a couple
of extra
> steps. But TTL is awesome. My LX nails every exposure in TTL
mode. You
> can't ask for more than that.

My understanding of the manual (is that the best they can do?
The pages aren't even straight) is that the head itself cannot
be rotated 180º. Have you thought about pointing the head
straight up and attaching a reflector to it to direct the light
forwards?
FWIW, the Metz 45 and 60 series can do precisely what you want.
The 60 series can run multiple heads off a single power pack as
well, although recycle times are pretty slow.

William Robb

Re[2]: AF 400T swivel head

[Bruce Dayton]

TTL is good - awsome?  I will admit that it is very handy.  The one
weakness is that it is measuring reflected light just like a meter -
so you have to be aware of too much dark or too much light subject
matter.  The flash meter doesn't have that problem.  I use manual when
I have the time and TTL when I don't.  But I will agree that having
TTL available is a major improvement of the camera.


Bruce



Monday, November 4, 2002, 3:43:22 PM, you wrote:

PS> Rotating it in the bracket is basically what I do when using the AF400T
PS> with my 6x7 and the soft shoulder reflector. I just mount the flash on
PS> the soft shoulder so it's pointing backwards. Then I set it to manual
PS> and determine my stop with a flash meter. It's just a couple of extra
PS> steps. But TTL is awesome. My LX nails every exposure in TTL mode. You
PS> can't ask for more than that.
PS> Paul

PS> Steve Larson wrote:
>> 
>> He could, but he needs the sensor in the head to point
>> forward. With TTL it`s not a problem.
>> Steve Larson
>> Redondo Beach, California
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
>> 
>> > You can always rotate it in the clamp/bracket.
>> >
>> > 180 degrees from full left to full right.
>> >
>> > Christian
>> >
>> > On Monday 04 November 2002 17:01, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> > > Okay, I'm confused. I would love to be able to fire my AF 400T into a
>> > > reflector and still use it in auto mode on my 6x7. I downloaded the AF
>> > > 400T manual in order to determine how the swivel head works. The manual
>> > > reads "...a convenient rotating flash head that swivels 90 degrees on
>> > > each side (up to 180 degrees to the left for backward bounce.)" That
>> > > seems contradictory. If it swivels 90 degress to each side, how can it
>> > > swivel 180 degrees to the left. My flash unit's head will only swivel 90
>> > > degrees to each side. I pushed as hard as I dare to try to get it to
>> > > move further, and it won't budge. Does anyone have an AF 400T that
>> > > actualy swivels all the way around to the back? Is there some trick to
>> > > making it move that far?
>> > > Paul Stenquist
>> >

Pentax Motor Drive LX and Tokina 19-35mm AF Lens

[Shaun Canning]

Hi Gang, 
I have just listed these two items for sale on e-bay

Motor Drive LX
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1395779681&rd=1

and

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1395784814&rd=1

Cheers

Shaun Canning
PhD Student
Archaeology Department
La Trobe University, Bundoora, 
Australia, 3086.

e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 0414-967 644

Re: CCD/CMOS resolution vs film resolution

[Jim Apilado]

I have an Optio 230.  Not the same as owning a Canon D30.  The sharpness is
excellent in the D30.  I like the softness in the film image.  I would a
purchase a Pentax dslr if the price were to go lower than $1,000 and I could
adapt my SMC Takumars to it„
Jim A.

> From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:24:48 -0600
> To: Pentax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: CCD/CMOS resolution vs film resolution
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:25:30 -0500
> 
> (resending this because I can't tell if it went out this morning)
> 
> 
> Check it out:
> 
> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/film_ccd/index.htm
> 
> Does it make you want to switch or straddle the fence?
> 
> Dan Scott
> 
> 

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[Michel Adam]

Looking at my AF400T, and seen from the top, with the unit facing forward,
I can swivel the head right (clockwise) 90 degrees, and I can swivel
it left (counterclockwise) 180 degrees.

Perhaps it is a feature that was added later in the production run?
The serial number on my unit is 850011xx .

The stops on the right is 45 and 90 degrees.
On the left, it is 45, 90 and 180 (no stop at 135)

YMMV...

Michel

- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 04 November, 2002 17:04
Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head



- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist
Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head


> Rotating it in the bracket is basically what I do when using
the AF400T
> with my 6x7 and the soft shoulder reflector. I just mount the
flash on
> the soft shoulder so it's pointing backwards. Then I set it to
manual
> and determine my stop with a flash meter. It's just a couple
of extra
> steps. But TTL is awesome. My LX nails every exposure in TTL
mode. You
> can't ask for more than that.

My understanding of the manual (is that the best they can do?
The pages aren't even straight) is that the head itself cannot
be rotated 180º. Have you thought about pointing the head
straight up and attaching a reflector to it to direct the light
forwards?
FWIW, the Metz 45 and 60 series can do precisely what you want.
The 60 series can run multiple heads off a single power pack as
well, although recycle times are pretty slow.

William Robb

Re: New Velvia?

[Bill Owens]

Bill Fortney mentioned this at the Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weekend
last spring.

Bill

- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: New Velvia?


> (Resending this because I can't tell if it went through this morning)
>
> Hi All,
>
> I was surfing with a film bias, and heard that Fuji is coming out with
> a Velvia 100 that has the same saturation as Velvia 50 and finer grain?
>   Does anyone know if this is true or have more details?
>
> Dan Scott
>

Re: full moon; panning

[Debra Wilborn]

> Before someone catches me at it, I admit shooting
> clay targets is a
> little different, as you have to lead the fast
> moving target. 

I'm glad most SLRs don't have the same recoil of a 12-gauge.

__
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

RE: AF 400T swivel head

[Cesar Matamoros II]

Paul,

Mine also works as Michel's.  My serial number is 85003177.

César
Panama City, Florida

-- -Original Message-
-- From: Michel Adam [mailto:michela@;kirk.ca]
-- Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:24 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
--
--
-- Looking at my AF400T, and seen from the top, with the unit
-- facing forward,
-- I can swivel the head right (clockwise) 90 degrees, and I can swivel
-- it left (counterclockwise) 180 degrees.
--
-- Perhaps it is a feature that was added later in the production run?
-- The serial number on my unit is 850011xx .
--
-- The stops on the right is 45 and 90 degrees.
-- On the left, it is 45, 90 and 180 (no stop at 135)
--
-- YMMV...
--
-- Michel
--
-- - Original Message -
-- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Sent: Monday, 04 November, 2002 17:04
-- Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
--
--
--
-- - Original Message -
-- From: Paul Stenquist
-- Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
--
--
-- > Rotating it in the bracket is basically what I do when using
-- the AF400T
-- > with my 6x7 and the soft shoulder reflector. I just mount the
-- flash on
-- > the soft shoulder so it's pointing backwards. Then I set it to
-- manual
-- > and determine my stop with a flash meter. It's just a couple
-- of extra
-- > steps. But TTL is awesome. My LX nails every exposure in TTL
-- mode. You
-- > can't ask for more than that.
--
-- My understanding of the manual (is that the best they can do?
-- The pages aren't even straight) is that the head itself cannot
-- be rotated 180º. Have you thought about pointing the head
-- straight up and attaching a reflector to it to direct the light
-- forwards?
-- FWIW, the Metz 45 and 60 series can do precisely what you want.
-- The 60 series can run multiple heads off a single power pack as
-- well, although recycle times are pretty slow.
--
-- William Robb
--

Re: full moon; panning

[Norm Baugher]

The shutter on my 6x7 comes close.
Norm

Debra Wilborn wrote:


Before someone catches me at it, I admit shooting
clay targets is a
little different, as you have to lead the fast
moving target. 
   


I'm glad most SLRs don't have the same recoil of a 12-gauge.

 

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[Steve Larson]

Aha! The later ones do swivel. MMDV (my mileage does vary).
My serial # is 81002127 an earlier model (wanna trade?) ;)
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message - 
From: "Michel Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head


Looking at my AF400T, and seen from the top, with the unit facing forward,
I can swivel the head right (clockwise) 90 degrees, and I can swivel
it left (counterclockwise) 180 degrees.

Perhaps it is a feature that was added later in the production run?
The serial number on my unit is 850011xx .

The stops on the right is 45 and 90 degrees.
On the left, it is 45, 90 and 180 (no stop at 135)

YMMV...

Michel

RE: AF 400T swivel head

[Cesar Matamoros II]

Steve,

We can discuss whenever I make it out your way...

César
Panama City, Florida

-- -Original Message-
-- From: Steve Larson [mailto:stevenlarson@;adelphia.net]
-- Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:49 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
--
--
-- Aha! The later ones do swivel. MMDV (my mileage does vary).
-- My serial # is 81002127 an earlier model (wanna trade?) ;)
-- Steve Larson
-- Redondo Beach, California
--
--
-- - Original Message -
-- From: "Michel Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:24 PM
-- Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
--
--
-- Looking at my AF400T, and seen from the top, with the unit
-- facing forward,
-- I can swivel the head right (clockwise) 90 degrees, and I can swivel
-- it left (counterclockwise) 180 degrees.
--
-- Perhaps it is a feature that was added later in the production run?
-- The serial number on my unit is 850011xx .
--
-- The stops on the right is 45 and 90 degrees.
-- On the left, it is 45, 90 and 180 (no stop at 135)
--
-- YMMV...
--
-- Michel
--
--

Re: AF 400T swivel head

[Paul Stenquist]

Yeah, I'm a little sorry I didn't wait for a Metz 60. I bid on a couple
but never landed one for a price I could afford. Although I have to say
the AF 400T is ideal with the LX. And I can live with it on the 6x7. I'm
surprised they didn't design it so that you could use it in auto mode
with the head pointing rearward. Even my old Honeywell Strobonar 890 can
do that. (Actually, those old Honeywell potato mashers were great units.
It's just hard to keep them working now that they're thirty years old or
so. I still have one that I use as a slave now and then. I think it's a
stop or three more powerful than the AF 400T.)
Paul

William Robb wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Paul Stenquist
> Subject: Re: AF 400T swivel head
> 
> > Rotating it in the bracket is basically what I do when using
> the AF400T
> > with my 6x7 and the soft shoulder reflector. I just mount the
> flash on
> > the soft shoulder so it's pointing backwards. Then I set it to
> manual
> > and determine my stop with a flash meter. It's just a couple
> of extra
> > steps. But TTL is awesome. My LX nails every exposure in TTL
> mode. You
> > can't ask for more than that.
> 
> My understanding of the manual (is that the best they can do?
> The pages aren't even straight) is that the head itself cannot
> be rotated 180º. Have you thought about pointing the head
> straight up and attaching a reflector to it to direct the light
> forwards?
> FWIW, the Metz 45 and 60 series can do precisely what you want.
> The 60 series can run multiple heads off a single power pack as
> well, although recycle times are pretty slow.
> 
> William Robb