Re: Wanted: historical 6x7 information
Once I have the prototype up and going there will be plnety of opprotunities for people to contribute. I'm not silly enough to think I can do it all on my own and am trying to write the HTML in a simple and standardized way that will allow others to add pages relatively easily. I've already had a question about including 645 info on the site, and that would probably be something I would leave to others, apart from creating the intial links. Paul - Original Message - From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Wanted: historical 6x7 information Bruce Dayton wrote: My hat is off to you. That sounds like a great site and a lot of work. I'll help in any way I can. Same here. I did some initial work trying to collect info for a similar kind of site but put it on hold when other commitments took over. All I have is an incomplete table of lens information. Cheers, - Dave
RE: No Subject
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Brad, Imagine how expensive they would be if they were made of steel. You're seeing all these expensive plastic lenses because that's what they are making these days. I don't think it's the plastic that is expensive, it's the lenses and the little motors and stuff in them that make them autofocus... Yeah, but if plastic wasn't good enough they wouldn't use it on that level of lens. PS. The limiteds are actually a good comparison. They are outrageously expensive because they combine the mechanics of autofocus lenses (which is not cheap) with the build quality of the classic manual focus lenses. That comes at a dear price and one that few of us choose to pay. So, instead, they build less expensive plastic autofocus lenses. Don't get me wrong, I like my plastic autofocus lenses but I love my steel, brass manual focus lenses... There are many steel, brass manual focus lenses that are dogs optically or fall apart though...
RE: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200?
And my 100-300 becomes a 150-450/f4 which I rather fancy! Or a 210-630/f5.6 with the 1.4* converter! -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 09:25 To: Pentax List Subject: Re: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200? Has anyone tried the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 with the matched Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter? It turns the 70-200mm to a 98-280mm f/4 zoom lens. Popular Photography gave this combination a good review (I think it was tested in 1998). Hi Richard, I've used the Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 in both Pentax and Canon fit. I have never used the 1.4 teleconverter, but have heard very good reports about it. When the Pentax DSLR comes out, Sigma owners should note (assuming a chip size roughly equivelent to my D60) that the Sigma becomes a 112-320mm f/2.8 lens which is a mighty proposition. The Pentax and Tokina 80-200 becomes 128-320mm (1.6 conversion factor). Cotty 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: Lens manufacturers
On 20 Nov 2002 at 21:16, Kevin Waterson wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:49:09 +1000 Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you give us the slightest hint as to what you require so that someone that knows of a suitable lens can make a suggestion? Ideally a 135mm 1.4 OK that's not entirely unreasonable but would the 135/1.8 cut it, it's only a half stop away? Your best bet is to find a suitable lens (it will be older as no one makes such a beast at the moment) and have a new rear end machined and a K mount fitted. Keep looking as there are some strange beasts out there such as the Zoomatar 180/1.3 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: Pentax K 30mm f2.8
Hi Frank, If it is in good condition, with no blemishes on the glass then I would think at least 150 euro, and if mint maybe 200 or more. 60 euro is way too low, unless it has big chips and scratches in the glass. Paul Ewins - Original Message - From: F.T.A.W. Wajer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:12 AM Subject: Pentax K 30mm f2.8 Hi all, anyone know what this lens is worth? I found one. Someone already offered 60 euro for the lens. I think it should be worth more than that since it is pretty rare, but I'm not sure how much. Frank -- / Thales Naval Nederland \ | Frank Wajer | Radar System Designer | | tel 015-2517824 |Delftechpark 24 | | fax 015-2517801 | 2628 XH Delft | \_ Unclassified _/
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 ALWAS--Re:WideangleDilemmas
Pentax Guy wrote: I don't want to put down anyone that makes money or a living using Pentax, do so and more power to you, but they are few and far between. 'Good' is also a word that can be interpreted quite differently. You have taken a very narrow view of 'good professionals' Paul. There are a number of people here who derive all of their income from photography, and a few who have had considerable success at major gallery events. Others have been published in national magazines. That's my last word on the subject, rail on as you please. Paul Stenquist
RE: Once more into the 24
I'd live with it, though, and it would be something I had done with eyes wide open, so you could have a clear conscience. I would be content to use the lens on my PZ-1p and never focus it manually and, as I don't often use lenses of that focal length for selective focus effects, I wouldn't miss not having hyperfocal marks. Actually, I don't think any of my current lenses have them now. So, please reconsider. We could negotiate the price a bit, too. Len --- -Original Message- From: Chet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 8:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Once more into the 24 If the lens is in cosmetically good condition, with clean glass, I'll take it off your hands even with the serious problems you've encountered. How about $150US? Len $200US Brad g Oh yeah, clean glass, beautiful body, clean hood . . . but after my experiences . . . ? Nah . . . I'd only feel guilty about it afterward. --Chet
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
OK Brad, you hanve a valid point here, but it kinda gets lost in a lot of posturing. The point is you can get some very expensive, 'pro' rated (yeah I know this is subjective but in cases like this canon WA I think its proven) lenses which use plastic. OK, they may use plastic because it is lighter or cheaper or whatever, but they would not do so if it was not up to the job that a pro demands. Whether it was the BEST choice of materials or not, who knows, but its good enough. Plastic is not just a poor man's choice these days - it can and is good enough in a lot of cases. -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 00:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:29 PM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Re:WideangleDilemmas Would I be in error if I said that the black plastics on lens tended to also scratch less than a smooth metal and a not so hardy paint? I'm not talking about the paint jobs on some of the better cameras Pentax makes, new or old, as the LX or MZ-S. Just more of a vanity issue if an issue at all. Who knows? Who cares? There must be a reason for why expensive pro oriented cameras are made of metal, and cheap consumer cameras are plastic. Maybe the guys who make this stuff know something we don't? Back before you were born, the debate was whether a black camera was better than a chrome one. Apparently, chrome cameras were plated aluminium, and black ones were enameled brass. The black ones were pro, the chrome ones were amateur. The black ones started to look really nice after some of the paint got worn off the corners and the brass body started to show. We considered it a sign of a camera that earned it's way in the world, and respected the camera for taking the knocks. Plastic cameras don't get beauty marks. They start out ugly, and as time goes by, they get uglier. William Robb Only to William Robb, no one else, Oh geez William Robb, you are getting worked up again. Who knows? Someone has to. Who cares? I do, what do you think about that? Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. I happened to see an add in a flyer by Henry's (Toronto boys shall know of) of a 'pro' Canon USM this that the other 16-36mm f-something, and for a cheap plastic as you say, it was $2700Cdn. Maybe you're made of money William Robb raising goats on the flatlands, but that seemed to be pretty pricey to me. It was plastic, definitely not cheap! I been seeing a lot of very pricey and 'supposedly' very good lenses from other brands, and a lot of them are plastic too. Oh and please do not mention Limiteds, that's getting old on me. Back before I was born camera's meant ^%$ to me, and those cameras still do! Beauty marksHAR HAR (geez, I picked that up from this list!) Since we're getting all subjective now, I see them as signs of abusive or heavy use, in which case I consider them suspect, as I do all your Wild West William Robb opinions. And we are talking lens, but you changed it into cameras. Stick to lenses. And while your sticking it, look at all the bad old lens that were metal, wait, what I just said cannot be true can it? Yup, a little snotty abusive reply just slightly worse than yours and your general attitude in general, generally here, Thank you and have a Nice Day, Brad
Re: flash cord F5P or F5PL
Hey Alan, Don't forget you need the Hot Shoe Adaptor FG too. The problem is, F5P is rather short while F5PL is very very long and not suitable for outdoor IMO. A tough choice. Rather like the cable releases for the MZ-S. The 1.5ft CS-105 or the 10 foot CS-130. Middle of the road would be perfect. Brad regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: No Subject
Well, it's too bad I wouldn't find Limited stocked in the city or else I could at the very least go try one out, see what all the fuss is aboot! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: No Subject Brad, Imagine how expensive they would be if they were made of steel. You're seeing all these expensive plastic lenses because that's what they are making these days. I don't think it's the plastic that is expensive, it's the lenses and the little motors and stuff in them that make them autofocus... Vic PS. The limiteds are actually a good comparison. They are outrageously expensive because they combine the mechanics of autofocus lenses (which is not cheap) with the build quality of the classic manual focus lenses. That comes at a dear price and one that few of us choose to pay. So, instead, they build less expensive plastic autofocus lenses. Don't get me wrong, I like my plastic autofocus lenses but I love my steel, brass manual focus lenses... In a message dated 11/19/02 7:27:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. I happened to see an add in a flyer by Henry's (Toronto boys shall know of) of a 'pro' Canon USM this that the other 16-36mm f-something, and for a cheap plastic as you say, it was $2700Cdn. Maybe you're made of money William Robb raising goats on the flatlands, but that seemed to be pretty pricey to me. It was plastic, definitely not cheap! I been seeing a lot of very pricey and 'supposedly' very good lenses from other brands, and a lot of them are plastic too. Oh and please do not mention Limiteds, that's getting old on me.
Re: Lens manufacturers
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:31:54 +1000 Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ideally a 135mm 1.4 OK that's not entirely unreasonable but would the 135/1.8 cut it, it's only a half stop away? Your best bet is to find a suitable lens (it will be older as no one makes such a beast at the moment) and have a new rear end machined and a K mount fitted. Keep looking as there are some strange beasts out there such as the Zoomatar 180/1.3 I have tried with a 135 1.8 and the results were good, but not good enough. I also tried the 85 1.4 (nice lens) but need the extra length, even a 105mm 1.4 would cut it. I have tried various films but the added grain of higher speed gives a less than presentable result. As the work for this would be on going, it may just be benificial to have one made. I have done sillier things in my time ;) 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: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas
Hey, Actually, I didn't think this was one of those problem threads that would get out of hand For the record, it was hardly aggressive IMHO, or it was an equal opportunity email. I laughed at myself and praised folks that make $$$ with Pentax. I said my piece, I'm not going to go on about it, it's actually not Paul or myself, but others if anyone? It's darn cool in this area at the moment, snow turned to rain to freezing rain :( Regard, Brad
OT: Re: Lens manufacturers
Hey Kevin, Suddenly and investment of this magnitude lessens somewhat. Certainly a new outfit of another make would be cheaper. But if I applied that theory to my car, I would be driving a cheap Japanese import. It would still get me from A to B. But I prefer the added reliability, familiarity and comfort of something a little more expensive. My Toyota RAV4 is anything but cheap! Indoor fabrics are ugly, but the problems stop there ;-) Here they are a pricey car brand. Better than American? (I'm not) After experience in a lot of these cars, I say import is far more reliable than any (well, strict GM cars) American I/we have had. I'm a devote fundamentalistic GM/American car fan turned completely around and saw past the fundamentalist haze and noticed how darned nice some other cars were! Kind regards Kevin Brad
Re: K1000: Why a good student camera?
- Original Message - From: Bojidar Dimitrov Subject: Re: K1000: Why a good student camera? So, you seem to think that the K1000 is a great student camera. But when that student develops further interest in photography, he will want to have viewfinder info, self-timer, interchangeable screen, DOF preview, etc. My K1000s served me very well shooting weddings for several years (12, I think) because I couldn't trust my LX to not either break or refuse to fire the flash. Of course, that was pro use, not amateur, and the requirements do seem to differ. William Robb
RE: Grandfather Mountain (was: Re[2]: we're back)
Woult this be the (M)anagerial (I)nhibitor to (S)top (S)tupid (U)nauthorised (S)pending department? The very same... Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Ideal lens if you could...
Ideally a 135mm 1.4 OK that's not entirely unreasonable but would the 135/1.8 cut it, it's only a half stop away? Your best bet is to find a suitable lens (it will be older as no one makes such a beast at the moment) and have a new rear end machined and a K mount fitted. Keep looking as there are some strange beasts out there such as the Zoomatar 180/1.3 This got me thinking - what would be my ideal lens? I'd have them build an A*85mm f/1.2 Cotty 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: Lens manufacturers
The good doctor may come across as a little abrasive here (no offnce intended Don), but I agree with what he says. Surely there is very little focal lengths not already covered unless you want to get extremely precise down to fractions of millimetres, or want something not practical like a 4mm rectilinear or a 5000mm F1.8! Do you want the lens to be of any quality? If you do then you have to think of HUNDREDS of thousands rather than tens for the design, testing and refinement of different optical designs. If you just want them to slap a couple of random elements in modified gearing to give you the length you want then perhaps your price is closer, but I wouldn't want to be judged by the results. Many have asked what you are after, and perhaps if you would tell us (please, please tell us) it would make more sense. By not doing so, you make your request sound slightly absurd. -Original Message- From: Dr E D F Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 10:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers To even suggest having a custom lens made is, to be polite, uninformed. All the usable configurations are already available. Just go out and buy what you want - and a camera to go with it. If you need a special lens - say of 31.3 mm or 123.7 mm focal length that is not available - please let us know the reason. Once I needed flats for the optical bench in my institute. They had to be of a specific size - about 60 mm square. I had them made in Germany. They cost an average of $1250 dollars each and were coated (30~70 layers) to reflect 99%, 75% and 50% of the HeNe laser wavelength. A single lens element would cost ten to twenty times as much and a lens has many. And what about optical design? The computer time? The design and tooling or adaptation of existing mechanical parts? Of course if you are as rich as J Paul Getty or Mr Gates none of this matters. Buy the Pentax factory and have them make your lens. Get them to make a camera to go with your lens and while you're at it what about some new models based on the features we should all like to have in our 35 mm Pentaxes? I, for one, would like to program my cameras by voice; tell it what I want and let the camera get on with the job. 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: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why not do it with my available bodies that I am familiar with? Kind regards Kevin because it will be a lot cheaper to buy a complete new camera system of some other brand. we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for a one off worth using. Herb
SMC Pentax 500mm f/4.5 loose joint
I recently used this lens with an extension tube to photograph some birds and noticed that the lens has become loose in the middle. The back one third (approx) of the lens can be moved slightly off axis with the front two thirds of the lens. This appears to be a possible looseness with the focusing mechanism. The rear part that has this movement doesn't contain any optics. Any idea what is involved in this repair? Is it a simple adjustment or is the repair more involved than that? Thanks for any help you can provide. Tom Reese
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Any 50mm Pentax-M is going to be a very good prime, in my opinion. I've never hedard a negative report on them. What is the precise wording on the bezel surrounding the front element? keith whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I posted a while back (a week and a half?) that I was debating upgrading from my K-100 and also said that my pictures didn't seem as sharp as some other peoples pictures (in the class I just finished). I also complained about manual film load. Well, I've bought a ZX-5N (not arrived yet). It was recommended to me that I try a prime Pentax lens, 50mm, instead of my off-brand (and not so off-brand) zooms. Try it for more picture clarity and also try it for the discipline of shooting with just a 50mm. I took that to heart and bid on a 50mm 1.4 on ebay. And got out bid. To cut a long story short -- I bid on and got outbid on several 50mm 1.4, M or A (because everyone raved about it at Stan's) And when that wasn't working I switched to bidding on 50mm 1.7, M or A. I lost count on how many I got outbid on. Because I had just bought the new (used) camera, I wanted to keep my expenses down. I finally ended up paying $20 for a Pentax 50mm f2 (M). The only review I could find at Stan's was for a 50mm f2 (A). I hoped the two were very similiar. But, I mean, it was cheap. Is this a good enough 50mm prime for now? For me to see if I see a difference in picture sharpness? (I plan to shoot several subjects with my Alibnar zoom at 50mm and the new 50mm at the same aperture and shutter speed). Also, to try out discipline? My zooms only go as low as 3.5 (or as high as, still confused about that) now. So f2 is still an improvement. Or did I get a bad lens? I won't hate you if you tell me it is -- no big loss, it was cheap. Doe aka Marnie :-)
RE: Lens manufacturers
OK, thanks. Now we have some idea. You CAN get a 1.8 (http://www.phred.org/pentax/lensgal/a135_18/a135_18.html) already though - is the extra stop (or is it half stop) worth THAT much? -Original Message- From: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 10:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:49:09 +1000 Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't you give us the slightest hint as to what you require so that someone that knows of a suitable lens can make a suggestion? Ideally a 135mm 1.4 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: Re[3]: Grandfather Mountain (was: Re[2]: we're back)
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, both US Airways and British Airways are non stop London to Charlotte. GEORGE CARLIN Personally, I *demand* that my flight come to a stop. Preferrably at the end. /GEORGE CARLIN ROTFL! Good thing I was a kid in California - I can see him saying that. Thanks for the laugh, Mark. I take it you are planning on attending GFM? Oh yes, I'll be there. Looking forward to it already. I get to visit Grandfather Mountain several times a year because we have friends with a vacation cabin in the area, but the Nature Photography Weekend is special. Wouldn't miss it for the world. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: OT: negative archiving
CBWaters asked about storing negatives for later retrieval. I quit taking pictures with print film because of the storage problems. The prints and negatives are a PITA because of their bulk and, as you say, it's inconvenient to find one that I want. I switched to shooting all slides and I store them in archival plastic sheets in binders. I shoot almost all outdoor stuff and sort my slides into wildlife, scenics and macros. I can view a page of 20 slides at a time using a light box and quickly find what I'm looking for. The storage is very convenient, it's easy and it makes later retrieval a snap. The other bonus of shooting slides is that I no longer have to deal with the aggravation of receiving lousy prints from good negatives. The narrow latitude of slide film forces me to pay more attention to exposure and it's making me a better photographer. Processing is also cheaper. Tom Reese
Re: Re[3]: Grandfather Mountain (was: Re[2]: we're back)
Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: GEORGE CARLIN Personally, I *demand* that my flight come to a stop. Preferrably at the end. /GEORGE CARLIN GEORGE CARLIN F*** You! I'm getting _in_ the plane! Let the daredevils get _on_ the plane! /GEORGE CARLIN GEORGE CARLIN Please return the stewardess to her original upright position... /GEORGE CARLIN -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
Hi, here is the responce I got from Sigma Japan. Now I can wait for modified lenses, that will switch to manual focus only via clutch mechanism without using AF/MF switch on the body (just like FA* series!). It is nice that they took it in consideration! Also note second point on AF speed of 100-300 in comparison to HSM version :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek -- From: Denju Matsumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:36:34 +0900 To: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: question Dear Mr. Sylwester Pietrzyk We are sorry for delayed answer for your inquiry below. 1. We are planning to modify 28-70/2.8 EX DF lens but are not sure when the modified lens will be in the market at this moment. It should be identified by the serial number or printing on the barrel. It is the same situation for 100-300/4 EX lens. 2. I personally checked 70-300/4-5.6 DL Macro and 100-300/4 EX lens at our warehouse and found 100-300/4 EX focused much faster than 70-300 lens does. I could not measure how fast it was but I felt 20 to 30% faster. Also, I made comparison test with 100-300/4 EX HSM type lens and found the focusing speed was almost the same. I felt the difference in noise at focusing. Of course, non-HSM 100-300/4 made bigger noise than HSM type lens but it was better than 70-300 lens. I hope this report would satisfy your demand! Best Regards Sigma Corporation Denju Matsumoto -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: question on 13.11.02 9:27, Denju Matsumoto at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Mr. Denju Matsumoto, thank you for so quick answer! Can I ask you three more questions please? 1. We guess that you are talking about Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX DF and 24-70/2.8 EX DF lens. As you pointed out in your e-mail, both switch on the lens and camera body has to turn into MF position to focus manually. It was difficult for us to design as one switch operation on these models at the stage of development since we need to prepare the same model other than Pentax mount. Now, we are planning to modify the lens to one switch operation as you are requesting. These are great news for me, as I have 28-70/2.8 EX DF on my to buy list! When these modified lenses will be available on market? How will I recognize that they are new, when buying for instance in internet shop? Will you add such a modernisation to other EX lenses like 100-300/4 - the one I would like to buy soon? 4. Unfortunately, we can not tell you how fast the 100-300/4 EX lens focus. Because there are many conditions that influence to the focusing speed such as type of body, status of battery, photographic situation, contrast of subject, temperature and so on. Therefore, we recommend checking the lens at the camera shop. Unfortunately no shop is offering this lens in Pentax mount right now :-( Actually I was thinking about just plain comparison - is it much worse than with HSM version? Or better - how does its AF compare to AF speed in popular consumer lenses like 70-300/4-5.6 DL Macro?
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas
Sorry, I could just see it going that way. This is the trouble with email - you don't always see things when you type them in the same way that someone else reads them. I have seen other boards where the slightest mention of narrow-mindedness caused absolute mayhem. I realise you didn't specifically call Paul narrow-minded, but as he had already (arguably) read too much into an earlier statement I was concerned as to what the outcome of your message might be. So called 'equal opportunity' emails just drag the whole thing out... I didn't and don't mean to have a go or blame anyone by this, just spotted a thread which I could see degenerating shortly and wanted to nip it in the bud. Rob -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 12:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas Hey, Actually, I didn't think this was one of those problem threads that would get out of hand For the record, it was hardly aggressive IMHO, or it was an equal opportunity email. I laughed at myself and praised folks that make $$$ with Pentax. I said my piece, I'm not going to go on about it, it's actually not Paul or myself, but others if anyone? It's darn cool in this area at the moment, snow turned to rain to freezing rain :( Regard, Brad
Re: OT: Courses and Monty Python
You were lucky to have a tripod.We had to use to use an elephant.Got him to lie down and turn his trunk up.Kids these days just dont understand. (with apologize to Graham,Eric,John,Michael, etall) G Dave Begin Original Message From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] he'd thrash within an inch of our lives us with a tripod. etc... 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: Need help with Photoshop 7
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Had to go the the VIEW menu, PROOF SETUP submenu, and select MONITOR RGB. Now images still *load* with wonky color, but I can select VIEW and PROOF COLORS to make it look normal. It's still inconvenient to have to do this with every image, every time, but I can't find a way to make them look right from the moment they load. At least I *can* get them to look right now. Anyone know how I can do it without the manual tweaking? there is still something wrong with your settings. what do you have under Display|Options|Advanced|Color Managment in Control Panel? it looks like Photoshop is using the wrong profile. The obly thing in my Color Management settings is the profile for my ViewSonic PS775 monitor. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
RE: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
Does this mean you have decided on the 100-300 then? The brs - why didn't they tell me this before I bought mine? Does this mean that the MF gears will 'declutch' in AF mode? This would make it quieter and perhaps faster and use less juice/cause less wear. I don't mind switching modes using the body, but having the MF movements disengage in AF mode would be nice. I don't really like the 2 stage declutch that I have on my 105 macro though - the manual states that using AF with the lens set to MF could break the lens as the gears arent meant to be used in that way. I am often finding I have MF selected on the lens by mistake and it really bothers me. I never really saw HSM as being much faster anyway - especially if you compare it to a declutched non-HSM model! -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 12:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma! Hi, here is the responce I got from Sigma Japan. Now I can wait for modified lenses, that will switch to manual focus only via clutch mechanism without using AF/MF switch on the body (just like FA* series!). It is nice that they took it in consideration! Also note second point on AF speed of 100-300 in comparison to HSM version :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek -- From: Denju Matsumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:36:34 +0900 To: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: question Dear Mr. Sylwester Pietrzyk We are sorry for delayed answer for your inquiry below. 1. We are planning to modify 28-70/2.8 EX DF lens but are not sure when the modified lens will be in the market at this moment. It should be identified by the serial number or printing on the barrel. It is the same situation for 100-300/4 EX lens. 2. I personally checked 70-300/4-5.6 DL Macro and 100-300/4 EX lens at our warehouse and found 100-300/4 EX focused much faster than 70-300 lens does. I could not measure how fast it was but I felt 20 to 30% faster. Also, I made comparison test with 100-300/4 EX HSM type lens and found the focusing speed was almost the same. I felt the difference in noise at focusing. Of course, non-HSM 100-300/4 made bigger noise than HSM type lens but it was better than 70-300 lens. I hope this report would satisfy your demand! Best Regards Sigma Corporation Denju Matsumoto -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: question on 13.11.02 9:27, Denju Matsumoto at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Mr. Denju Matsumoto, thank you for so quick answer! Can I ask you three more questions please? 1. We guess that you are talking about Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX DF and 24-70/2.8 EX DF lens. As you pointed out in your e-mail, both switch on the lens and camera body has to turn into MF position to focus manually. It was difficult for us to design as one switch operation on these models at the stage of development since we need to prepare the same model other than Pentax mount. Now, we are planning to modify the lens to one switch operation as you are requesting. These are great news for me, as I have 28-70/2.8 EX DF on my to buy list! When these modified lenses will be available on market? How will I recognize that they are new, when buying for instance in internet shop? Will you add such a modernisation to other EX lenses like 100-300/4 - the one I would like to buy soon? 4. Unfortunately, we can not tell you how fast the 100-300/4 EX lens focus. Because there are many conditions that influence to the focusing speed such as type of body, status of battery, photographic situation, contrast of subject, temperature and so on. Therefore, we recommend checking the lens at the camera shop. Unfortunately no shop is offering this lens in Pentax mount right now :-( Actually I was thinking about just plain comparison - is it much worse than with HSM version? Or better - how does its AF compare to AF speed in popular consumer lenses like 70-300/4-5.6 DL Macro?
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: WideangleDilemmas
Alan Chan wrote: Perhaps from the engineer's point of view, a crack is better than a dent which might damage the inner elements. Besides, few cameras and lenses are sealed so moisture might not be a problem. A dent that can be demonstrated to not affect function is a non-serious problem. A crack of any kind can propogate, and become larger and longer. At some point, if it's long enough it MAY affect function. But then, it depends on where the crack is, as to whether it has the potential to become serious. Some don't and some won't. So, a dent as described above is far and away the safer damage of the two. keith whaley regards, Alan Chan Possibly, but it's also more likely to crack. So many examples... I've seen so many K-series bodies with dents on the top plate from being dropped that still worked perfectly. I bought a Super Program off eBay once that had a cracked top plate. It didn't dent, just cracked. For digital, I'm currently using an old Canon S10, which has a metal body. It used to be my Canon rep's demo camera, and its edges are covered in many small dents, none of which affect its performance, only its aesthetics. Now there's no way to say for sure, but I suspect that some those blows would have been strong enough to crack a plastic housing, and once you get the smallest crack the whole integrity of the camera is threatened, as moisture and dust can get in. I'm not a structural or a materials engineer, so I'm speaking from a somewhat ignorant perspective, but based on my experience I'd rather have metal than plastic.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
I have a 2.0 m 50, and it's a pretty good lens. Sharp enough, and you'll find that at 2.0, it will be useful in many lower light situations than your zooms. $20 is a good price - they can't be gotten for too much lower on eBay, but I've seen sellers with a bin of $40 or $50, although I doubt they'd get that much. But hey, for $20, you have a quality (if not too sexy or spectacular) solid lens that will serve you well. I think you'll be happy. Now you can bide your time, and wait for that bargain 1.2 g cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I posted a while back (a week and a half?) that I was debating upgrading from my K-100 and also said that my pictures didn't seem as sharp as some other peoples pictures (in the class I just finished). I also complained about manual film load. Well, I've bought a ZX-5N (not arrived yet). It was recommended to me that I try a prime Pentax lens, 50mm, instead of my off-brand (and not so off-brand) zooms. Try it for more picture clarity and also try it for the discipline of shooting with just a 50mm. I took that to heart and bid on a 50mm 1.4 on ebay. And got out bid. To cut a long story short -- I bid on and got outbid on several 50mm 1.4, M or A (because everyone raved about it at Stan's) And when that wasn't working I switched to bidding on 50mm 1.7, M or A. I lost count on how many I got outbid on. Because I had just bought the new (used) camera, I wanted to keep my expenses down. I finally ended up paying $20 for a Pentax 50mm f2 (M). The only review I could find at Stan's was for a 50mm f2 (A). I hoped the two were very similiar. But, I mean, it was cheap. Is this a good enough 50mm prime for now? For me to see if I see a difference in picture sharpness? (I plan to shoot several subjects with my Alibnar zoom at 50mm and the new 50mm at the same aperture and shutter speed). Also, to try out discipline? My zooms only go as low as 3.5 (or as high as, still confused about that) now. So f2 is still an improvement. Or did I get a bad lens? I won't hate you if you tell me it is -- no big loss, it was cheap. Doe aka Marnie :-) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Lens manufacturers
On 20 Nov 2002 at 23:00, Kevin Waterson wrote: I have tried with a 135 1.8 and the results were good, but not good enough. I also tried the 85 1.4 (nice lens) but need the extra length, even a 105mm 1.4 would cut it. I have tried various films but the added grain of higher speed gives a less than presentable result. As the work for this would be on going, it may just be benificial to have one made. I have done sillier things in my time Here is a link to a 90/1 made by Canon, don't know what the image circle is though, there was also a few 90/1 lenses made in the ELCAN factory in Leica M mount but the last one I saw sold for over US$20,000. I don't know if anyone has made such a fast lens in 135mm FL, maybe it's extremely impractical? 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: Lens manufacturers
On 20 Nov 2002 at 23:00, Kevin Waterson wrote: This relpy actually includes the link, doh! I have tried with a 135 1.8 and the results were good, but not good enough. I also tried the 85 1.4 (nice lens) but need the extra length, even a 105mm 1.4 would cut it. I have tried various films but the added grain of higher speed gives a less than presentable result. As the work for this would be on going, it may just be benificial to have one made. I have done sillier things in my time Here is a link to a 90/1 made by Canon, don't know what the image circle is though, there was also a few 90/1 lenses made in the ELCAN factory in Leica M mount but the last one I saw sold for over US$20,000. I don't know if anyone has made such a fast lens in 135mm FL, maybe it's extremely impractical? http://www.abex.co.uk/sales/optical/fast_lenses/canon_90f1/item.htm 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: Lens manufacturers
OK, here's a related question: Anyone know of a good shop that'll do lens *modifications*? I'd love to get the 4 built-in filters in my 25mm f3.5 changed to a more useful (to me) selection. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Lens manufacturers
On 20 Nov 2002 at 8:03, Mark Roberts wrote: OK, here's a related question: Anyone know of a good shop that'll do lens *modifications*? I'd love to get the 4 built-in filters in my 25mm f3.5 changed to a more useful (to me) selection. Me too, 80 series blue filter and a FL-W perhaps :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Anton Browne wrote: Fantastic photo, Simon From what I've read and my experience of K 1.8, M 1.7, A 1.4 A 1.2, any of the standard lenses will be very good (particularly is stopped down a bit). Precisely. Most of us don't actually take photos ~ at least regularly ~ at the largest aperture. The prime benefit of a wider aperture is the brightness of the view thru the viewfinder! With later Pentaxes, the lens stays wide open for everything except the moment of the exposure. So, you'll find that almost every prime in the neighborhood of 50mm will give superior performance, especially if it's stopped down a couple of stops from wide open. keith whaley
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas
Well, I wasn't going to take it any further, but I replied to your email, without reading Paul's. I have no interest in taking the thread further, my email stands on it's own, anything after that is just a waste of time. Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:36 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas Sorry, I could just see it going that way. This is the trouble with email - you don't always see things when you type them in the same way that someone else reads them. I have seen other boards where the slightest mention of narrow-mindedness caused absolute mayhem. I realise you didn't specifically call Paul narrow-minded, but as he had already (arguably) read too much into an earlier statement I was concerned as to what the outcome of your message might be. So called 'equal opportunity' emails just drag the whole thing out... I didn't and don't mean to have a go or blame anyone by this, just spotted a thread which I could see degenerating shortly and wanted to nip it in the bud. Rob -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 12:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas Hey, Actually, I didn't think this was one of those problem threads that would get out of hand For the record, it was hardly aggressive IMHO, or it was an equal opportunity email. I laughed at myself and praised folks that make $$$ with Pentax. I said my piece, I'm not going to go on about it, it's actually not Paul or myself, but others if anyone? It's darn cool in this area at the moment, snow turned to rain to freezing rain :( Regard, Brad
Re: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
Len Paris wrote: It seems that apart from marketing blah blah, the only advantage of USM is its quietness... -- Best Regards Sylwek I think, maybe, there could be some mechanical efficiency gained by putting the focusing motor in the lens itself rather than in the camera body. It could lead to slightly faster, as well as quieter, focusing. I would need to buy a few more USM/HSM lenses to be able to say for sure, though. Well, it (USM) certainly seems to allow you to have AF in lenses that we don't. R
Diana Walker on NPR
From http://www.wamu.org/dr/index.html Friday, November 22, 2002 11:00 - Diana Walker: Public and Private (National Geographic) Photographer Diana Walker shares stories from two decades of photographing U.S. presidents and their families in formal and informal settings. Her new book includes images of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and other world leaders. tv
RE: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
-Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma! Much snipped And the fact that you have a motor in every lens waiting to go wrong rather than just one in the body. Intesresting thought - which is more reliable/durable system? Does it mean that you should take backup lens rather than or in addition to backup body? If the lens motor fails, you can still focus manually, and you regain AF when you change lenses. If a body motor fails, you lose all AF capability but, of course, you can still focus manually. I wouldn't want to guess which is the more reliable or durable. Some makes of AF cameras have an AF motor in the body and can also use lenses with built-in AF motors. Len ---
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
In a message dated 11/20/2002 7:23:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any 50mm Pentax-M is going to be a very good prime, in my opinion. I've never hedard a negative report on them. What is the precise wording on the bezel surrounding the front element? keith whaley Well, haven't actually got it in hand yet, it will be a few days. It was mailed yesterday. Part of the reason I got it so cheap is that the seller (obviously not camera literate) did not describe it well (that happens sometimes -- they are not quite sure what they have). So there was only a side ways picture and from that I could tell it went up to f2 and he said it was a Pentax lens. I mean, normally, on ebay people say this will fit your K-1000, MX, whatever -- well, the camera literate and the camera stores do. But he didn't. Anyway it looked like a K mount not a screw mount to me. Which is all I was really worried about. And a 50mm f2 doesn't go for a lot higher on ebay, anyway. If there is a problem, the seller said I could return it in ten days and get a refund. So if he made a mistake I am covered. Thanks everyone for their feedback (and the baby picture is quite clear -- and cute!). That makes me feel a lot better. I am relieved. Now I just have to get my hands on it. :-) The ZX-5N is coming with an autofocus Pentax zoom and I will play with that too. So I will have two Pentax lenses rather than just the off-brands zooms that I now have. Thanks again, Doe aka Marnie
Re: Need help with Photoshop 7
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The obly thing in my Color Management settings is the profile for my ViewSonic PS775 monitor. -- Mark Roberts that's right then. Adobe Gamma Wizard has been run? Herb...
Re: Lens manufacturers
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My query was not of the cost of such a venture, but of anyone who does something like this. I have seen only 2 such lenses, both in brisbane and not for Pentax. Kind regards Kevin how do you know they were custom designed and built? Herb
Re: OT: My spelling sucks
What about my spelling in perpetually, woefully inadequate. Cory Waters the preceding was brought to you by the Microsoft spell checker. - Original Message - From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: OT: My spelling sucks Not very inventive, eh, Frank ;-) How about My spelling is worse than that of 18 one-armed monkeys composing Shakespeare on typewriters with no qwertyuiop Or something. At 10:52 PM 19/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: Apparently, that's okay... g Brad Dobo wrote: Fine, I'll change my wording, my spelling blows! g Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
In a message dated 11/20/02 12:04:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I've bought a ZX-5N (not arrived yet). It was recommended to me that I try a prime Pentax lens, 50mm, instead of my off-brand (and not so off-brand) zooms. Try it for more picture clarity and also try it for the discipline of shooting with just a 50mm. I took that to heart and bid on a 50mm 1.4 on ebay. And got out bid. To cut a long story short -- I bid on and got outbid on several 50mm 1.4, M or A (because everyone raved about it at Stan's) And when that wasn't working I switched to bidding on 50mm 1.7, M or A. I lost count on how many I got outbid on. Because I had just bought the new (used) camera, I wanted to keep my expenses down. I finally ended up paying $20 for a Pentax 50mm f2 (M). The only review I could find at Stan's was for a 50mm f2 (A). I hoped the two were very similiar. But, I mean, it was cheap. Is this a good enough 50mm prime for now? For me to see if I see a difference in picture sharpness? (I plan to shoot several subjects with my Alibnar zoom at 50mm and the new 50mm at the same aperture and shutter speed). Also, to try out discipline? My zooms only go as low as 3.5 (or as high as, still confused about that) now. So f2 is still an improvement. Or did I get a bad lens? I won't hate you if you tell me it is -- no big loss, it was cheap. Doe aka Marnie :-) Marnie the 50/2 is a fine lens, certainly better than the Albinar. You should see improved results. However, if your pictures are not as sharp as others in the class, I suspect it has more to do with technique than your lens and certainly, your camera. You can get just as sharp an image with the K1000 as you can with a top-of-the-line Nikon, Canon or Pentax. Other points to consider, 1) Are you using a tripod for most, if not every shot. 2) Are you maximizing the lens by shooting at or around F8 as opposed to using the lens wide open F2, F4 3) Are you using a fine grain film ASA 50, 100, 200. If you are using ASA400 or more, chances are this will help to soften the image. There are other reasons but these are probably the top three in order of importance. The use of a tripod is number one far ahead of importance than the second two... Vic
Re: My comments on Optio 430RS
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 23:04, Brad Dobo wrote: Hey Chris, Well, have you seen the results? At 15 frames per seconds it isn't exactly fun to watch, and indoors as in your example...yick. 30 seconds is all ya got kids, move fast! Then you move fast at 15 frames per second and what do you get, nothing. Plus it's avi, not small enough if you want small. Anyhow, a video that shows Uncle Pete and your 5 year old son opening a present that you can't make out, see the faces, nor the whoops of excitement from the kids. Digital cameras should stick to what they are good at, stills. It's like taking my same camcorder, hitting the photo button a few times to a Sony memory stick, put it on your computer and you have a wonderfully lousy 640x480 cap that is sadly lacking, so camcorders should stick to what they are good at, moving pictures! I take the camcorder, film it with audio and quality, transfer via a dv card, quick edits in Adobe Premier, use a Panasonic plug-in for mpeg, and viola! A smooth clear picture with superb colour and audio, and it's small. Throw it onto my ftp, and they can download to their hearts content. Do it enough, it takes no time at all, even toss some effects in and titles! The movie modes are just too poor to use, at least with the Optios. And the photo features are just too poor to use on camcorders. Regards, Brad. Brad; I have a blast with the cheezy video feature on my 330. Maybe because I wasn't expecting much and get what I want from it: Goofy, choppy 30 second videos without sound from a tiny little still camera. I bought a still camera with a goofy video function. If I want to play Janus Kaminski, I'll buy a real video camera. My 6 year old daughter loves it too. I must say that with each day of use I am more and more impressed by the optio. Christian
Re: Lens manufacturers
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Here is a link to a 90/1 made by Canon, don't know what the image circle is though, there was also a few 90/1 lenses made in the ELCAN factory in Leica M mount but the last one I saw sold for over US$20,000. I don't know if anyone has made such a fast lens in 135mm FL, maybe it's extremely impractical? Cheers, Rob Studdert i friend of mine just started working for the company that designed and built the Next Generation Space Telescope Mirror. it's in storage right now. he will have access to the optical design software, he thinks. i've asked for a 65mm f0.9 already. next up is 12-200mm f2.8 for the Pentax DSLR. Herb
Re: Need help with Photoshop 7
Good. But you need to set up the monitor quite often. I always do it before I work on any flower images where the colours are rather important. It takes a minute or two at the most. 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: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Need help with Photoshop 7 Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been reading this thread but don't quite understand the problem. Have you set up your monitor with Adobe Gamma? Interestingly enough, this turned out to be the problem. I *had* set up the monitor with Adobe Gamme previously, and it worked fine with Photoshop 5.5. Seems it had to be done again with 7.0. I can't imagine why but I'm not complaining now that it's looking good again! I really need to go through a complete color management set-up with my system but I need to get one of those monitor spiders and a test slide for my scanner(s). Beyond the budget at the moment. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Lens manufacturers
In a message dated 11/20/02 6:57:54 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have tried with a 135 1.8 and the results were good, but not good enough. I also tried the 85 1.4 (nice lens) but need the extra length, even a 105mm 1.4 would cut it. I have tried various films but the added grain of higher speed gives a less than presentable result. As the work for this would be on going, it may just be benificial to have one made. I have done sillier things in my time ;) Kind regards What the heck are you shooting anyway.. Vic
Re: MZ-S mirror lockup or prefire?
Scott Nelson a écrit: Does the MZ-S have any kind of mirror lockup or prefire? Just curious. -Scott Prefire coupled with 2s self timer if PF-14 = 2 (on PF-14=1 self timer is set at classic 12s without mirror prefire) Michel
Re: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
Sylwester Pietrzyk a écrit: Hi, here is the responce I got from Sigma Japan. Now I can wait for modified lenses, that will switch to manual focus only via clutch mechanism without using AF/MF switch on the body (just like FA* series!). It is nice that they took it in consideration! Also note second point on AF speed of 100-300 in comparison to HSM version :-) Sigma has no very clutch mechanism as Pentax: - on Pentax the AF/MF switch the AF on the lens AND on the body - on Sigma the AF/MF switch the AF on the lens ONLY, NOT the body (On my 2.8/70-200 EX) Michel
Re: Tokina ATX PRO 80-200 or Sigma EX 70-200?
Cotty a écrit: Has anyone tried the Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 with the matched Sigma EX 1.4x teleconverter? It turns the 70-200mm to a 98-280mm f/4 zoom lens. Popular Photography gave this combination a good review (I think it was tested in 1998). I use Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 with the Sigma EX 2x teleconverter. You can see four pictures on my web: (French, but you can translate with : http://babel.altavista.com/tr) http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/ http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/sigma.htm 5click on the pics for enlarge. Bonjour de France, Michel
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
Yup, indeed I did. Meant what I said, did what I meant. I had my reasons. I don't see the need to explain them to you however. You had to reply, it was on the list, that's fine, that's why it was there. It was public but related to him only. The rest of your comments are subjective and repetitive, I have another view. To each his own and so forth. I have my mysteries, and you have yours 'gfen'. Thanks for the email, Brad - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas And one posted out to the list when you event MEANT it to be private (first line, to william robb and no one else). However, you couldn't either take it off list or bite it back, but you had to do it openly for some reason?
Re: OT: My spelling sucks
Heh...your quote shows the limitations of a spell checker! g - Original Message - From: CBWaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:48 AM Subject: Re: OT: My spelling sucks What about my spelling in perpetually, woefully inadequate. Cory Waters the preceding was brought to you by the Microsoft spell checker. - Original Message - From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:38 PM Subject: Re: OT: My spelling sucks Not very inventive, eh, Frank ;-) How about My spelling is worse than that of 18 one-armed monkeys composing Shakespeare on typewriters with no qwertyuiop Or something. At 10:52 PM 19/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: Apparently, that's okay... g Brad Dobo wrote: Fine, I'll change my wording, my spelling blows! g Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: K1000: Why a good student camera?
Hi Boz... I'll try to clarify my thoughts on this... Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: Hi Keith, Is that what Boz said? If so, I find myself disagreeing with him for the very first time! I think you said something like you didn't think much of a K1000. It's that comment/opinion that surprised me. But then, I don't know HOW you meant it. As a stand-alone comment, I disagree with it. !!! In which way do you disagree with me? The K1000 is not a good student camera? Well, this could be read more than one way: a) The K1000 is not a good camera, or b) the K1000 is not a suitable camera for a beginning student of photography, or c) the K1000 is not _enough_ camera for the student. The K1000 is a better camera as an MX, KX or KM? Huh? Odd sentence structure there... Do you mean ...better camera THAN an MX, etc? I am not totally familiar with the KX nor the KM, but it's a certainty that the MX is more capable than any of the Ks as well as the K1000, and if the student could afford it, it's probably better for him or her to use. I guess my big thing is, I'd avoid as much 'automation' as possible. The KM is a very basic camera, as well. Perhaps the KX would work too. For the same reason a math student is not allowed a calculator in the most basic courses of his or here math study. One must KNOW certain basics, the reason these basics exist and they must be able to derive answers for themselves, using logic and tried and true principals. A calculator bypasses these steps, and as a result cripples the student. So, you seem to think that the K1000 is a great student camera. Well, no, maybe not a great student camera, but certainly a sturdy, capable and reliable platform for any of the K-mount lenses, readily available on the market because of its long production life span, and it allows the student to practice what he's learned about the interaction between shutter speeds and apertures, with both of them fully adjustable. It can function as an aperture preferred or speed preferred camera, depending on how the student uses it, and I consider that a good learning experience. Any camera that will allow that and not do too much FOR the student, in the beginning, is the better good teaching tool, in my most humble opinion. But when that student develops further interest in photography, he will want to have viewfinder info, self-timer, interchangeable screen, DOF preview, etc. Of course he will. I also presume those features will cost him more, and cost is a major consideration for a lot of beginners... If the idea is to teach the fundamentals of photography, I think the K1000 mounting a 50mm SMC prime can do a very good, reasonably inexpensive job of it. I got the idea that you don't agree that the K1000 *is* a good teaching tool, or that most any other camera would be better for the newby... It's that opinion with which I disagreed. Cheers, Boz keith
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
-Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. You've made this abundantly clear. tv
Re: Lens manufacturers
In a message dated 11/20/02 5:32:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK that's not entirely unreasonable but would the 135/1.8 cut it, it's only a half stop away? Your best bet is to find a suitable lens (it will be older as no one makes such a beast at the moment) and have a new rear end machined and a K mount fitted. Keep looking as there are some strange beasts out there such as the Zoomatar 180/1.3 Cheers, I'm sure the 135/1.8 is perfectly fine. A half stop is nothing heck I bet the 135/3.5 is all you neeed... Vic
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
In a message dated 11/20/2002 10:49:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, Pentxuser writes: Marnie the 50/2 is a fine lens, certainly better than the Albinar. You should see improved results. However, if your pictures are not as sharp as others in the class, I suspect it has more to do with technique than your lens and certainly, your camera. You can get just as sharp an image with the K1000 as you can with a top-of-the-line Nikon, Canon or Pentax. Other points to consider, 1) Are you using a tripod for most, if not every shot. 2) Are you maximizing the lens by shooting at or around F8 as opposed to using the lens wide open F2, F4 3) Are you using a fine grain film ASA 50, 100, 200. If you are using ASA400 or more, chances are this will help to soften the image. There are other reasons but these are probably the top three in order of importance. The use of a tripod is number one far ahead of importance than the second two... Vic Well, yes, those are all factors and I plan to try those next. I was comparing myself in class to some one using a Canon. And I am pretty sure most of what she did was handheld too. So what I was/am aiming for was raising my baseline (so to speak) to the best quality I could get (for now) before proceeding to the next steps. I was/am still using 200 print film. I've had two 8x10 blowups done for instance, and, frankly, they look pretty good. As I said in my previous ramblings, I wasn't totally sure how much was in my mind because I am critical of my own shots. But to get pictures as clear as John Shaw for instance (well, I doubt I will ever become as good a photographer as him), I realize I probably have to use a slower speed film and a tripod. So I plan to start using my cheapo tripod more (watching the wind :-)). And I am thinking about moving to slide film next year, maybe a lot of Fuji Velvia, for instance. Will have to see, no doubt it is more expensive and that is a factor that I am thinking about. But I think I've already hit the wall on the quality that print film can give me. And I have questions on that, but I want to put some pictures together first and think of how to word my questions. So you'll be hearing more about that down the road. I am glad to hear that I should see improvement for my baseline, though. Very glad. Later, Doe aka Marnie :-)
Re: OT: Courses and Monty Python
Kevin posted: Just a little curious about the relationship between photographers and Monty Python. I am myself an avid Python fan. Is this a pre-requisite for photography? Gee, I hope not!! However, I did notice that the most recent Python posts came from Australia -- is Monty Python especially popular there?
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ZX-5N is coming with an autofocus Pentax zoom and I will play with Which lens comes with the -5n? that too. So I will have two Pentax lenses rather than just the off-brands zooms that I now have. Unfortuantly, the -5n's screen isn't the nicest thing in the world to manually focus on.. Fortuantly, it does have a focus confirmation beep even with an old manual focus lens on it, so you'll be able to use autofocus to assist your manual focussing. In other news, my FA28/2.8 came the other day. What a fine lens. I've finally, now, experienced what an AF lens with a good focus feel can be like. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But to get pictures as clear as John Shaw for instance (well, I doubt I will ever become as good a photographer as him), I realize I probably have to use a slower speed film and a tripod. tripod and sharp lenses shot at apertures that are most sharp are part of the equation. ISO 100 slide film is another part. for now, don't worry about the sharpness aspect until you get composition down. utterly sharp bad composition doesn't get you anywhere. Herb
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
Oh now, let's not get snippy on this. The limitations of text. I need a Dr. Williams ;-) in there tv, eh? I was of course, being cheeky, flippant, impudent. Or does that not matter and statements made are really directly not related to this message and quoted statements, forgetting the author? - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. You've made this abundantly clear. tv
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Heiko, Actually I'm owning the Tamron-built 28-105 in silver which fits nicely to my MZ-5n. I was just wondering, if it makes sense to buy a MZ-S with a 24-90 or to use a cheaper 28-105 with the MZ-S. Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash user, however, and the other extra or better features are more or less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more important than having an MZ-S. Please let me know, how you judge the lenses in comparison. BTW - the old 28-105 Powerzoom is told to be very good. Did you use one and can you compare it to the other 28-105? I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read a long commentary from Dario in a recent Spotmatic where he concluded that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the FA85/1,4. The older 28-105 was also tested, and it was respectable but the other lenses were noticeably better, especially at wider apertures. Cheers, Boz
Re: Lens manufacturers
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Herb Chong wrote: i friend of mine just started working for the company that designed and built the Next Generation Space Telescope Mirror. it's in storage right now. he will have access to the optical design software, he thinks. i've asked for a 65mm f0.9 already. next up is 12-200mm f2.8 for the Pentax DSLR. somewhat releated to the above, however, I'm abou to engage in a little thread hijacking.. Does anyone know where to get a good optical diagram of a classic lens*? This includes the elements/groups, but also the lines indicating what path the light takes through the lens? I found one of these, once, that would totally meet my demands**, but it was too small and I couldn't scale it up cleanly to meet my requirements. I even went so far as to try some software that was supposed to turn them out, but nothing really worked how I wanted it. Unfortuantly, I can't find the original gif that I liked. It must be on my girlfriend's computer. If you think you can help, let me know, and I'll show you what I'm looking for with that example. * - Ideally, I wanted to find a Zeiss tessar. The one I found appears to be a Zeiss planar 80/2.8, which also worked. A Pentax 50/1.4 would also be swell, but at this point, almost anything would work well (except, well, I really would love it tto be something truly classic, like those Zeiss lenses). ** - It needs to be complex enough to be interesting, but not so much that theres TOO much. A straight up optical formula is kinda boring. Its the l ines that abstract it and make it interesting. There was a point when Hassleblad designers were posting to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format. I meant to hit them up witrh the same request, but never did, and now it appears they've vanished. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tripod and sharp lenses shot at apertures that are most sharp are part of the equation. ISO 100 slide film is another part. for now, don't worry about the sharpness aspect until you get composition down. utterly sharp bad composition doesn't get you anywhere. There is nothing more useless than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept. - Ansel Adams -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was/am still using 200 print film. I've had two 8x10 blowups done for instance, and, frankly, they look pretty good. I've had enlargements at 8x10 from 400 speed film, and I'm quite happy too. However, there are different levels of film even in the given speeds, some are cheap, and some are not. I've heard quite a bit of raving about the sharpness of Fuji Superia 200. However, that's all second hand information. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Yes, everything is second hand information until you try it for yourself but there are many things in life that I prefer to believe as heard, and don't want to try for myself. ;-) I don't want to qualify for a Darwin award, for one. Not everything will fit everyone's application. Still, a consensus of opinions does give one the basis for comparison, at least. Len --- -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was/am still using 200 print film. I've had two 8x10 blowups done for instance, and, frankly, they look pretty good. I've had enlargements at 8x10 from 400 speed film, and I'm quite happy too. However, there are different levels of film even in the given speeds, some are cheap, and some are not. I've heard quite a bit of raving about the sharpness of Fuji Superia 200. However, that's all second hand information.
Re: Fw: Terrorist Warning
So, which Doug is having a birthday today? Regardless of which Doug it is, let me say, Happy Birthday to Doug! Len --- 3. Smoke or fire that might emanate from incendiary exercises such as, the incineration of large numbers of candles or 4. Outbursts of Happy Birthday Doug! _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Digital enthusiasts note...
Pretec Electronics have announced 1.5, 2, and 3 GB Compact Flash cards... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0211/02111901pretec3gb.asp Cheers, Cotty 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: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
But I LIKE and PREFER ground glass focusing. Much like large format. Right, guy? :) Collin At 12:45 PM 11/20/2002 -0500, you wrote: From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ZX-5N is coming with an autofocus Pentax zoom and I will play with Which lens comes with the -5n? that too. So I will have two Pentax lenses rather than just the off-brands zooms that I now have. Unfortuantly, the -5n's screen isn't the nicest thing in the world to manually focus on.. Fortuantly, it does have a focus confirmation beep even with an old manual focus lens on it, so you'll be able to use autofocus to assist your manual focussing.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Precisely. Most of us don't actually take photos ~ at least regularly ~ at the largest aperture. The prime benefit of a wider aperture is the brightness of the view thru the viewfinder! With later Pentaxes, the lens stays wide open for everything except the moment of the exposure. So, you'll find that almost every prime in the neighborhood of 50mm will give superior performance, especially if it's stopped down a couple of stops from wide open. I'd agree with you Keith, but shooting portraits, there are many occasions where I want to use absolute maximum aperture, for the minimal depth of field. This pic illustrates the effect I adore: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/portraits/images/pic19.html Since I have sold my A*85 f/1.4, my widest lens is now a 50 1.7 on film - worse f/2.8 shooting a digital. An f1.2 portrait lens would be col - I realise I am in a good position (cost aside) with non-Pentax offerings for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... .02, Cotty 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: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma!
Does this mean you have decided on the 100-300 then? Probably yes. I just looked again at you standing at PDML UK with 100-300 and imagined I would surely look as great as Rob with this lens :-) ROTFL He is a handsome bugger, isn't he!!! 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: Digital enthusiasts note...
EGAD! At $833 a GB (for the 3 GB card), it's hardly for us pipsqueaks, is it! g keith whaley * * * * Cotty wrote: Pretec Electronics have announced 1.5, 2, and 3 GB Compact Flash cards... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0211/02111901pretec3gb.asp Cheers, Cotty
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Cotty wrote: keith whaley had written: Precisely. Most of us don't actually take photos ~ at least regularly ~ at the largest aperture. The prime benefit of a wider aperture is the brightness of the view thru the viewfinder! With later Pentaxes, the lens stays wide open for everything except the moment of the exposure. So, you'll find that almost every prime in the neighborhood of 50mm will give superior performance, especially if it's stopped down a couple of stops from wide open. I'd agree with you Keith, but shooting portraits, there are many occasions where I want to use absolute maximum aperture, for the minimal depth of field. This pic illustrates the effect I adore: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/portraits/images/pic19.html Oh, absolutely! I've seen that photo before, and I agree with you. There are indeed times that wide open is the only acceptable way to go. I happen to prefer as wide an aperture as I can put up with, because unless we're talking scenery, almost every subject benefits from a shallow[er] depth of field... Since I have sold my A*85 f/1.4, my widest lens is now a 50 1.7 on film - worse f/2.8 shooting a digital. An f1.2 portrait lens would be col - I realise I am in a good position (cost aside) with non-Pentax offerings for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... .02, Cotty Thanks... keith
Re: Was: ...lenses from Sigma! Now: advantages of HSM
IMHO- The real advantage of HSM (at least in the Canon and Nikon implementation) is Full Time Manual Focussing, allowing one to touch up the fine focus after lock has been achieved without touching any switches, levers, grinding of gears, etc this is no small thing, after you've experienced it... Chris L. Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:56:20 -0600 From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma! Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Len Paris wrote: It seems that apart from marketing blah blah, the only advantage of USM is its quietness... -- Best Regards Sylwek I think, maybe, there could be some mechanical efficiency gained by putting the focusing motor in the lens itself rather than in the camera body. It could lead to slightly faster, as well as quieter, focusing. I would need to buy a few more USM/HSM lenses to be able to say for sure, though. Well, it (USM) certainly seems to allow you to have AF in lenses that we don't. R
RE: Lens manufacturers
Is this of any use? http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/lenstec7.htm -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 17:02 To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Herb Chong wrote: i friend of mine just started working for the company that designed and built the Next Generation Space Telescope Mirror. it's in storage right now. he will have access to the optical design software, he thinks. i've asked for a 65mm f0.9 already. next up is 12-200mm f2.8 for the Pentax DSLR. somewhat releated to the above, however, I'm abou to engage in a little thread hijacking.. Does anyone know where to get a good optical diagram of a classic lens*? This includes the elements/groups, but also the lines indicating what path the light takes through the lens? I found one of these, once, that would totally meet my demands**, but it was too small and I couldn't scale it up cleanly to meet my requirements. I even went so far as to try some software that was supposed to turn them out, but nothing really worked how I wanted it. Unfortuantly, I can't find the original gif that I liked. It must be on my girlfriend's computer. If you think you can help, let me know, and I'll show you what I'm looking for with that example. * - Ideally, I wanted to find a Zeiss tessar. The one I found appears to be a Zeiss planar 80/2.8, which also worked. A Pentax 50/1.4 would also be swell, but at this point, almost anything would work well (except, well, I really would love it tto be something truly classic, like those Zeiss lenses). ** - It needs to be complex enough to be interesting, but not so much that theres TOO much. A straight up optical formula is kinda boring. Its the l ines that abstract it and make it interesting. There was a point when Hassleblad designers were posting to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format. I meant to hit them up witrh the same request, but never did, and now it appears they've vanished. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: Lens manufacturers
Tessar T* f/2.8 - 45 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c1256709007 04e24/a82fe043bf31376bc12567a80044ee76/$FILE/Tessar%202,8_45_e.pdf Distagon T* f/3.5 - 15 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/2e01b79b6d188a5dc12566fe003 b2654/03c6616470f47e07c12567a80044eff9/$FILE/Distagon_3_5_15_e.pdf Tele-Tessar T* f/4 - 300 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/2e01b79b6d188a5dc12566fe003 b2654/c101f9904e1f3beac12567a80044f0a8/$FILE/TeleTessar_4_300_e.pdf -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 17:02 To: INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens manufacturers On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Herb Chong wrote: i friend of mine just started working for the company that designed and built the Next Generation Space Telescope Mirror. it's in storage right now. he will have access to the optical design software, he thinks. i've asked for a 65mm f0.9 already. next up is 12-200mm f2.8 for the Pentax DSLR. somewhat releated to the above, however, I'm abou to engage in a little thread hijacking.. Does anyone know where to get a good optical diagram of a classic lens*? This includes the elements/groups, but also the lines indicating what path the light takes through the lens? I found one of these, once, that would totally meet my demands**, but it was too small and I couldn't scale it up cleanly to meet my requirements. I even went so far as to try some software that was supposed to turn them out, but nothing really worked how I wanted it. Unfortuantly, I can't find the original gif that I liked. It must be on my girlfriend's computer. If you think you can help, let me know, and I'll show you what I'm looking for with that example. * - Ideally, I wanted to find a Zeiss tessar. The one I found appears to be a Zeiss planar 80/2.8, which also worked. A Pentax 50/1.4 would also be swell, but at this point, almost anything would work well (except, well, I really would love it tto be something truly classic, like those Zeiss lenses). ** - It needs to be complex enough to be interesting, but not so much that theres TOO much. A straight up optical formula is kinda boring. Its the l ines that abstract it and make it interesting. There was a point when Hassleblad designers were posting to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format. I meant to hit them up witrh the same request, but never did, and now it appears they've vanished. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Epson 2450 results
Just for those who are wondering, I have been doing some comparative scans of slides with my Epson 2450 and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II. What I am finding is that the Epson is delivering a more usable scan. Basically I think that the diffused light source in the lid is hiding more scratches/dust and the resultant scan is smoother - less grainy looking. Both deliver about 2400 dpi resolution. The scan software that is working best for this operation is the supplied Silverfast product. I haven't tried comparing negatives yet. Any questions, let me know. Bruce
RE: Epson 2450 results
Are you making prints? Are you talking about 35mm or just 67? -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085 -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:08 PM To: PDML Subject: Epson 2450 results Just for those who are wondering, I have been doing some comparative scans of slides with my Epson 2450 and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II. What I am finding is that the Epson is delivering a more usable scan. Basically I think that the diffused light source in the lid is hiding more scratches/dust and the resultant scan is smoother - less grainy looking. Both deliver about 2400 dpi resolution. The scan software that is working best for this operation is the supplied Silverfast product. I haven't tried comparing negatives yet. Any questions, let me know. Bruce
RE: Digital enthusiasts note...
Bear in mind that someone has said FAT16 file systems used my many digicams do not support more than 2GB. Cannot validate this personally, but beware! -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 17:53 To: Pentax List Subject: Digital enthusiasts note... Pretec Electronics have announced 1.5, 2, and 3 GB Compact Flash cards... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0211/02111901pretec3gb.asp Cheers, Cotty 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: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: But I LIKE and PREFER ground glass focusing. Much like large format. Right, guy? :) Yeah, but it looses something without the hood and loupe. I was never able to focus clearly off the plain matte glass of the ZX-5n, however, when I got the 645 I suddenly realized that if the glass were big enough, it were indeed possible. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Cotty wrote: for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... Wow... good call, and one I never thought of.. I wonder if we'll see an FA50/1.2? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hi Bojidar, on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, second the lens and after that the camera itself. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I· see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash· user, however, and the other extra or better features are more or· less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more· important than having an MZ-S.· I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you could review my posting Some personal thoughts and speculations over my Pentax future..., where I've made an extensive explanation of my intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read a long commentary from Dario in a recent Spotmatic where he concluded that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the FA85/1,4. Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to read your comment on your first 24-90 results. Regards, Heiko
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Forget the lenses, forget the tripod and all the rest of the technique jazz. Get a roll of Fuji Reala (or even Kodak Supra 100) and then take a look at the enlargements. I have found that the type of film has a bigger effect on how a picture looks, because of fine grain (smoother tones and ability to render fine details) than all the other hardware factors. BR Go! Right now, before the new toys show up any you think that they made the pictures better. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was/am still using 200 print film. I've had two 8x10 blowups done for instance, and, frankly, they look pretty good.
Re[2]: Epson 2450 results
Tom, So far, I have only printed a few 4X6 prints. I mostly have been comparing on screen. I am talking about 35mm as the Minolta will only scan 35mm. To date, I have been somewhat disappionted with scanning slides on the Minolta. That is what prompted me to try this out. I'll try printing an 8X10 from both scanners and let you know what I think. Bruce Wednesday, November 20, 2002, 11:28:51 AM, you wrote: t Are you making prints? t Are you talking about 35mm or just 67? t -- t Thomas Van Veen Photography t www.bigdayphoto.com t 301-758-3085 -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:08 PM To: PDML Subject: Epson 2450 results Just for those who are wondering, I have been doing some comparative scans of slides with my Epson 2450 and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II. What I am finding is that the Epson is delivering a more usable scan. Basically I think that the diffused light source in the lid is hiding more scratches/dust and the resultant scan is smoother - less grainy looking. Both deliver about 2400 dpi resolution. The scan software that is working best for this operation is the supplied Silverfast product. I haven't tried comparing negatives yet. Any questions, let me know. Bruce
Re[2]: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Boy, I'll second that. Fuji Reala is one of my favorite films. Low contrast, but saturated and the grain (or lack thereof) is wonderful to behold. I seriously doubt that you have seen the limits of print film until you try good print films. Another nice one is Konica Impressa 50. Bruce Wednesday, November 20, 2002, 11:46:46 AM, you wrote: BR Forget the lenses, forget the tripod and all the rest of the technique jazz. BR Get a roll of Fuji Reala (or even Kodak Supra 100) and then take a look at BR the enlargements. I have found that the type of film has a bigger effect on BR how a picture looks, because of fine grain (smoother tones and ability to BR render fine details) than all the other hardware factors. BR BR BR Go! Right now, before the new toys show up any you think that they made the BR pictures better. BR From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BR I was/am still using 200 print film. I've had two 8x10 blowups done for BR instance, and, frankly, they look pretty good.
RE: Digital enthusiasts note...
Yeah, first purchasers have to pay for the development costs. As soon as a few other manufacturers make them the price should come down. Len --- -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital enthusiasts note... EGAD! At $833 a GB (for the 3 GB card), it's hardly for us pipsqueaks, is it! g keith whaley * * * * Cotty wrote: Pretec Electronics have announced 1.5, 2, and 3 GB Compact Flash cards... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0211/02111901pretec3gb.asp Cheers, Cotty
RE: Was: ...lenses from Sigma! Now: advantages of HSM
Yes, that is nice. I think Contax did that first, though who was first doesn't mean much. Len --- -Original Message- From: Christopher Lillja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Was: ...lenses from Sigma! Now: advantages of HSM IMHO- The real advantage of HSM (at least in the Canon and Nikon implementation) is Full Time Manual Focussing, allowing one to touch up the fine focus after lock has been achieved without touching any switches, levers, grinding of gears, etc this is no small thing, after you've experienced it... Chris L.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
The A50mm f/1.2 is currently manufactured, but without looking, I don't know if Pentax made an M50mm f/1.2. Who knows? Wait a minute, I have a small, 60-page brochure on Asahi Pentax Lenses and Accessories by Pentax, published in 1971 I believe, indicating they did indeed make a SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.2 7 elements, 6 groups. The search goes on... g keith whaley gfen wrote: On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Cotty wrote: for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... Wow... good call, and one I never thought of.. I wonder if we'll see an FA50/1.2?
Re: Re: SF-1 and PZ-1p compared
Thanks Bob. I was hoping it was about the same weight,feel etc as the SF-1.The PZ-1p seems to have all that i want in an AF camera.I'm getting use to wheels to change things having used the D1 for a year now.I dont have a 300 (yetg) but will use the 100-300 Sigma and possibly the 100-300 f4 Sigma if i can find one used local. I'll start hunting for one soon. Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:06:59 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SF-1 and PZ-1p compared Dave, The PZ-1p ( PZ-1) are a joy to hold, but not your father's Pentax Spotmatic! They are an ergonomic upgrade to the SF-1 with a nice feel and good handling. The thumb and index finger wheels are great control mechanisms, but a change from what the cameras of yore had and a big upgrade from the rocker switch on the SF-1. The camera itself is a heaver than an ME Super or Super Program, but about the same weight as an SF-1. It is just a bit big for my hands, but I was raised on the tiny ME size cameras. It feels a bit bigger than the SF-1. The grip is molded into the camera body with a raised portion for your thumb on the back...works just fine. With big, heavy lenses like a 300mm or 135/1.8, there is an accessory grip strap that is handy but not necessary. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A question for those who have had the SF-1 and PZ-1p cameras. I like the Sf-1 for its feel in my hand,big,bulky but not heavy due to plastics.The AF,even being old is fast for me using the Sigma 100-300 consumer lens. How does the PZ-1p feel.It looks similar to the SF-1, looks like it has some sort of grip like the SF-1,but looks smaller by a tad. I am thinking the PZ-1p would be a good step up from the SF-1 but have never seen one locally to try. MZ-S is out of price range at this time. MZ-5n felt to small and did not like the view finder. How it feels in my hands is as important to me as AF speeds etc. 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: Lens manufacturers
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Rob Brigham wrote: Tessar T* f/2.8 - 45 mm http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c1256709007 04e24/a82fe043bf31376bc12567a80044ee76/$FILE/Tessar%202,8_45_e.pdf I thought you found something that I missed when I checked Zeiss directly, but alas, its not quite what I'm looking for. Its got the element photos, but its missing those lines that make itwhat I'm really looking for. This isn't quite as nice as the one I cannot find, but... http://www.geosoff.com/samples.html This is pretty nice, too, except obviously its a misdesigned lens: http://www.opticalres.com/oranews/oranewsv7n3supp.html I wish I could find the other one.. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marnie the 50/2 is a fine lens, certainly better than the Albinar. You should see improved results. However, if your pictures are not as sharp as others in the class, I suspect it has more to do with technique than your lens and certainly, your camera. You can get just as sharp an image with the K1000 as you can with a top-of-the-line Nikon, Canon or Pentax. Other points to consider, 1) Are you using a tripod for most, if not every shot. 2) Are you maximizing the lens by shooting at or around F8 as opposed to using the lens wide open F2, F4 3) Are you using a fine grain film ASA 50, 100, 200. If you are using ASA400 or more, chances are this will help to soften the image. Another thing that I've found when shooting is that focusing is MUCH more critical when you're shooting at a wide aperture with a small depth of field. A small focus error is much easier to notice in a situation like that. Unfortunately, the simple focusing screen on the K1000 isn't the best for manual focusing, especially if your eyes aren't the best. I seem to remember someone on the list mentioning that they bracket their focusing on some shots, which is a good idea. The 50/2 lens is a good lens, and I used one as my primary lens through my 8 weeks of photography class. I think I only handed in 3 shots that weren't taken with it, one was done w/ a 28mm wide angle, for the distortion of distance, and another was done with my old cheap zoom for a specific blurring effect (put camera on tripod, zoom lens while tripping the shutter). We were shooting 100 speed BW film, and printing on 8x10 paper as mandated by the teacher. Any sharpness problems I saw I could attribute to either the grain of the film or my technique. -Mat
Re: SF-1 and PZ-1p compared
I was hoping it was about the same weight,feel etc as the SF-1. The PZ-1p seems to have all that i want in an AF camera. How about the comparative reliabilities of the SFX/SF1 (and the SFXn/SF1n) versus the Z1p/PZ1p ? I never had much contact with any PZ1p body, but I think I've read some aspersions on its robustness. On the other hand, my initial impression with the SF1 is that its plastic-over-metal shell seems to be pretty sturdy. (Or, is the PZ1p built the same way, or?) By the way, despite the somewhat similar forms of the SF1 and the PZ1p, it seems to me that their controls are quite different - I do feel pretty much right at home with the SF1, despite the fact that all of my experience has been with older manual focus bodies (not including the MEF). Fred
RE: Was: ...lenses from Sigma! Now: advantages of HSM
Surly Pentax could implement this in the body though? Have a 'superAF mode' which only engages AF when the shutter is depressed and once focus lock is achieved, retracts the AF gear back into the body. Should be simple. -Original Message- From: Christopher Lillja [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 18:31 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Was: ...lenses from Sigma! Now: advantages of HSM IMHO- The real advantage of HSM (at least in the Canon and Nikon implementation) is Full Time Manual Focussing, allowing one to touch up the fine focus after lock has been achieved without touching any switches, levers, grinding of gears, etc this is no small thing, after you've experienced it... Chris L. Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:56:20 -0600 From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New 100-300/4 and 28-70/2.8 lenses from Sigma! Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Len Paris wrote: It seems that apart from marketing blah blah, the only advantage of USM is its quietness... -- Best Regards Sylwek I think, maybe, there could be some mechanical efficiency gained by putting the focusing motor in the lens itself rather than in the camera body. It could lead to slightly faster, as well as quieter, focusing. I would need to buy a few more USM/HSM lenses to be able to say for sure, though. Well, it (USM) certainly seems to allow you to have AF in lenses that we don't. R
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Hallo, I have both the MZ-S and the MZ-5n. The MZ-S is the far better camera, the viewfinder is a bit better. (I were glasses) Í like the data-inprinting very much. I have also both lenses. The new 3.2-4.5 28-105 is smaller and it cost only about 300 Euro. The 24-90 is overpriced for it's build quality. I think it specialy expensive in Germany, in Japan it cost the same as the 28-200 or the old powerzoom 28-105 which mean 400 Euro. That would be a fair price. I got a used one for 350 Euro, so a bought it. Up to now I could see any differences in the pictures between this two lenses. at http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=190#Pentax is a test of both. Regards Rüdiger -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Heiko Hamann [EMAIL PROTECTED] An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: Mittwoch, 20. November 2002 20:31 Betreff: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 Hi Bojidar, on 20 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Well, my opinion is that bodies matter little. I would turn the question around and ask if any given lens requires a new body. For example, in order to use features of the lens that an older body does not suppert. You're absolutely right: first, the photographer makes the picture, second the lens and after that the camera itself. The AF of the 5n has always been sufficient to me, and I· see no reason at all to upgrade to the MZ-S. I am not much of a flash· user, however, and the other extra or better features are more or· less irrelevant. To me having an LX in addition to the 5n is more· important than having an MZ-S.· I have both a MZ-5n and an LX. But I'm a little bit unhappy as I'm wearing glasses and don't like the MZ-5n's viewfinder for manual focissing. In dim light its AF is quite poor. OTOH I want to concentrate on one camera to use on vacations etc. And as my girlfriend doesn't want to use an MF LX, I need a better AF than that of the MZ-5n. Maybe you could review my posting Some personal thoughts and speculations over my Pentax future..., where I've made an extensive explanation of my intentions...;-) I would really be interested in your opinion I have never used the oldest 28-105, so I cannot comment on it. I read a long commentary from Dario in a recent Spotmatic where he concluded that the 24-90 is very close to or equal to the 24/2, 35/2, 50/? and the FA85/1,4. Interesting - it seems that the 24-90 is worth its price. I'm eager to read your comment on your first 24-90 results. Regards, Heiko
RE: SF-1 and PZ-1p compared
-Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I was hoping it was about the same weight,feel etc as the SF-1. The PZ-1p seems to have all that i want in an AF camera. How about the comparative reliabilities of the SFX/SF1 (and the SFXn/SF1n) versus the Z1p/PZ1p ? I never had much contact with any PZ1p body, but I think I've read some aspersions on its robustness. On the other hand, my initial impression with the SF1 is that its plastic-over-metal shell seems to be pretty sturdy. (Or, is the PZ1p built the same way, or?) My PZ-1p's were bricks. I never had a problem. tv
Re: K1000: Why a good student camera?
At 22:38 2002-11-19 +0100, Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: I do not think highly of the K1000. I think that the only reason that it is (was?) so puplar with photo students is that it was cheap and available new. The K1000 was my first SLR over 20 years ago, and I missed it so much I got one a couple of years ago. It cost me about half of what I paid for an MX a year later. The first installment gave me a solid, useable camera, the other the convenience of a small body, a DOF preview (which I find no use for) and some extra info in the finder. Not sure I would have preferred the latter when I was a student. I do think that the lack of information is a bad thing, and I would take an MX any day over a K1000. Well, I have both (plus an MV-1 and my favourite, the ME Super). The continous needle meter does have its merits against LEDs, which are invisible in daylight on my MX. In darkness the LEDs are better than a needle, but then I can't see the shutter and aperture displays, which makes it less than perfect for concerts (here the ME Super rules). Perhaps one should not compare apples with oranges and instead discuss the relative merits between the MX and KX. If one can afford neither the K1000 is the only choice from that era... if one can find one without an over-inflated price (KEH sells them all for about the same price). Naturally, everybody wants an LX, but few students can afford it. BTW, I am currently reworking the Bodies section of the KMP, and will soon need descriptions and subjective evaluations for all bodies. Nice to see a good thing getting better. It's always my starting reference point for checking specs for Pentax bodies. __ Geir Aalberg http://www.aalberg.com/ http://www.fandom.no/
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
The A50mm f/1.2 is currently manufactured, but without looking, I don't know if Pentax made an M50mm f/1.2. Who knows? Wait a minute, I have a small, 60-page brochure on Asahi Pentax Lenses and Accessories by Pentax, published in 1971 I believe, indicating they did indeed make a SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.2 7 elements, 6 groups. Indeed - I have two Pentax booklets, one from 1988 and the other much earlier - I suspect it is the same one you have - it is 60 pages and features a couple of Pentax SLRs on the front, one is plugged into the 1000mm mirror lens, the other into 45-125mm zoom, with 4 other lenses visible, all against an orange grad background. The back page features the gear photo that greets you on Boz's website. Is this the same booklet? The only ref is on the back page: '06771' and 'Printed in Japan'. But was this from 1971?? It is a lens brochure, but the cameras featured in some of the photos are MXs and MEs. In fact the intro to the 'The Advantage of Interchangeable Lenses' paragraph starts: 'The unique bayonet mount of the Pentax MX, ME, K2, KX and KM allows...' I thought MXs and MEs came out later than '71 or am I mistaken? And what about the K1000 and the LX? Can anyone verify the date of this brochure? Oh yeah - and it has the 'SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.2' :-) Cheers, Cotty 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: Digital enthusiasts note...
Bear in mind that someone has said FAT16 file systems used my many digicams do not support more than 2GB. Cannot validate this personally, but beware! Indeed, as is mentioned in the article. 2 GB is a whopping size, but only for today's digis. As the Kodak 14 MP and its ilk come on stream, storage with larger and larger file sizes will become more of an issue. For me, at 2.5 Mb jpegs (or thereabouts), and presumably in the same ballpark for the Pentax DSLR (he noted, to stay on topic :-) it's not a problem. Even in RAW capture, 2 GB will hold well over 250 shots. In Jpegs, thats 800 pics! I can squeeze 300 onto 2 cards and that's plenty for me. Costs are dropping all the time, too. A while back, a 512Mb CF card here in the UK was between £200 and £300. I bought a no-name 512Mb card from the USA for £135, and a Lexar 256 MB card here for £100. Shortly after, 7DayShop offered a 512 for £155, so things will slowly filter down... BTW, Rob. You were keen on the Sigma SD-9. Now that Pentax is coughing up the DSLR in SD-9 price territory, are you waiting to bite?? Cotty 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: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Good point! Whats the best autofocus 50? Is it worth buying new, or just getting one on ebay - perhaps I will finally take the ebay plunge. -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2002 19:27 To: Pentax List Subject: Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Cotty wrote: for digi, and when the Pentax DSLR is released, the latest and greatest portrait lens will become the A50 f/1.2 - get one before the price jumps. However, only for a while - when the full frame chips become the norm, the 85mm f/1.4s will rule again... Wow... good call, and one I never thought of.. I wonder if we'll see an FA50/1.2? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
new to the list, + a repair question
I recently joined the list and have been watching your messages fly by at light speed. I figure now would be a good time to introduce myself. I'm a photography enthusiast who recently started working toward an arts degree, majoring in fine art/bw. I've had a camera around my neck for the past three years and am hoping to one day be able to make a living in the darkroom. hey, I can dream, right? anyways, I'm happy to find a community of what seems to be like-minded individuals. on to my question: I recently acquired an old, very loved, Pentax ME Super SE. the mirror is stuck in the up position and replacing the batteries hasn't fixed the problem. I tried to gently dislodge the mirror and it will move back to the down position, but then it pops right back up. neither the shutter release or the film advance lever are functioning. any ideas? the camera was free, so throwing a few bucks at it won't be a problem, or if there's a way that I (being fairly mechanically adept) can repair it myself that would be great also. ~sjs - And I'm floating in a most peculiar way - And the stars look very different today
