Re: Film Change Tent ?
I have 2 changing tents. One is small and I take with me everywhere. The other is large and measures about 600mm X 600mm and use for loading tanks, film inserts and film holders. It has a rubberised insert and long sleeve access. I can't tell you the manufacturer as I have had it for 20 years. Just think large and double lined. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:39 PM Subject: Film Change Tent ? > Hi, > > I've been looking at film changing tents for my film holder loads > (mainly 4x5" sheet film but for some spontaneous 35mm stuff as well). > The harrison tent(s) look(s) very sturdy and perfect for this kind of > work. Any recommendations ? > > Antti-Pekka > --- > * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * > * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 * >
Re: Re: Pentax Autofocus Adapter?
What is the price of such adapter AF? Alek Użytkownik Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Hi Bill, > >On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:53 -0800, Bill Lawlor wrote: > >> I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus adapter >> to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is there really >> such an animal? Anybody used it? > >Boy, this is definitely a question that needs to end up in the FAQ! I >think I've answered it three or four times in the last two weeks or so. > >In short: > >1) Yes, there is such a beast. >2) Yes, I've used it >3) It works splendidly with lenses up to about f/4 ... over that and >the light falloff is getting to the point the AF system starts >hiccuping, even with the MZ-S. > >I use it primarily with an A 50/1.4 and a Tamron 90/2.5 and it works >just fine. Don't even have to diddle with the host lens' focus point >very much. I've also used it with the A 200/4. Does a bit more >hunting, and you can just generally tell it's not as happy as it could >be with the amount of light getting to the AF sensors. Also have to >fiddle with the focus point more than the 50 or 90. > >Just for giggles, I tried it with the SMC 400/5.6 and Tokina 400/5.6 >... those were basically nonstarters due to the lack of light ... >wouldn't lock onto the subject except in very bright circumstances. > >TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi, What does exactly harsh bokeh mean? I see my K105/2.8 is very sharp (Velvia) and wonder what you mean saying about harsh bokeh..How does it perform if compared with Nikkor 105/2.5? Alek Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >On Monday, December 9, 2002, at 08:41 PM, Fred wrote: > >>> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> N*k*n users. >> >> Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >> bokeh: >> >> http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> >> [Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >> at f/2.8" link - .] >> > >woah...flashback city. > >Nasty. > >Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: pentax UK repair dept
Hello Jeff I'm sorry to learn of the dreadful service you received from Pentax UK. I'm afraid my story is no better. Pentax UK had my recently serviced LX in for a very specific repair, they said their repair involved servicing again as that's how they do it (dismantle and check all components and re-assemble) the camera was returned three weeks later and I immediately noticed that the fault was still present, I sent the camera back the same day. They kept it another two weeks and returned it... it was still faulty. I spoke to your Mr Jetha and asked for a refund as I had been clear and specific in my repair request. Mr Jetha argued the toss finally saying that the camera was working to specification and he'd send me a letter to say so, he then more or less told me to go away. At this point I made the decision to pay a visit. I duly turned up with the camera and within seconds had displayed the fault to the sullen Mr Jetha. He fiddled with the camera and observed the fault for himself. He then muttered about sending the camera to Pentax Europe and this is what he did. Three weeks later I'm still waiting. Mr Jetha never once apologised. He'd had the camera twice and was finally denying that there was any fault. I went to the considerable trouble of visiting and within seconds it was plain that he was wrong but he said nothing, no apology, no simple courtesy. One final point that sums it up for me. When leaving the camera I wanted to remove the strap so I asked for a screwdriver to push the tabs on the LX fasteners. Mr Jetha (the Technical Supervisor remember) couldn't lay hands on a screwdriver so returned with a pair of sharp pointed tweezers - one slip and you either stab your fingers or scratch the camera. A pitiful and disappointing display. Regards Anton ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to describe bokeh in other words? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >> N*k*n users. > >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >bokeh: > >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >at f/2.8" link - .] > >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... > >Fred > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Build quality of lenses
You prefer A50/1.4 or FA 50/1.4 to other 50mm from different companies? Alek Użytkownik Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> What about K35/2.0 and FA35/2.0? Those three lenses are considered to be the >> best PEntax 35mm lens. Which one do you recommend? >> Alek >> Some people believe that A50/1.7 is even sharper than A50/1.4? True or false. >> You wrote you prefer 1.4 version > > >Alek, >I believe the best 35mm may be the current FA 35/2, although I haven't tried >them all. > >I prefer the 50/1.4 not only to other Pentax 50s (which are also very good), >but to most other manufacturer's 50mms. > >--Mike > > > > > > >Mike Johnston > > >See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two >locations: > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html > >Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black & White >Photography_ magazine! > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which is the best? Alek Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. >> Alek >> > >No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". > > >Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: K35/3.5 K35/2 M35/2.8 (was: Who has switched...)
So it is better to find FA 35/2.0, or old K 35mm I hope Alek Użytkownik Pal Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Alek wrote: > > >> And it was M35/2.8 lens for sure? test was done about 15 year ago I think. >> Even better than Zeiss? I asked since many people believe K 35mm lenses are >alegedly much better. > > >I find this a bit weird as I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the M 35/2.8 is >optically identical to the A 35/2.8, the latter among Pentax weaker efforts (probably >in the league with the A 28/2.8 and A 135/2.8 lenses). According to tests I've seen >the A 35/2 is apparently even worse. > > >Pal > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Build quality of lenses
Most manufacturers build excellent 50mm f1.4 lenses. They have to because it is the single focal length that most people stress. However, it is the complete lot that really matters and, on a whole, the Pentax prime lenses are unmatched IMHO. Between the "A" and "F/FA", they are designed for different functions and the "A" will offer longer service because the build quality was sacrificed for A-F speed. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Re: Build quality of lenses You prefer A50/1.4 or FA 50/1.4 to other 50mm from different companies? Alek Użytkownik Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >> What about K35/2.0 and FA35/2.0? Those three lenses are considered to be the >> best PEntax 35mm lens. Which one do you recommend? >> Alek >> Some people believe that A50/1.7 is even sharper than A50/1.4? True or false. >> You wrote you prefer 1.4 version > > >Alek, >I believe the best 35mm may be the current FA 35/2, although I haven't tried >them all. > >I prefer the 50/1.4 not only to other Pentax 50s (which are also very good), >but to most other manufacturer's 50mms. > >--Mike > > > > > > >Mike Johnston > > >See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two >locations: > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml > >http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html > >Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black & White >Photography_ magazine! > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and buy one in the K mount! Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which is the best? Alek Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. >> Alek >> > >No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". > > >Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably K 35mm are better... Any opinion? Alek Użytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and >buy one in the K mount! > >Bob Rapp >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM >Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? > > >Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which >is the best? >Alek >Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. >>> Alek >>> >> >>No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". >> >> >>Dan Scott >> >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
Dnia 10-12-2002 o godz. 10:03 Flavio Minelli napisal: > Hi all, > reading this thread I remembered the smallest police car I ever saw. In Poland they also have a small Police car. It's not as small as yours though. It's meant to transport police dogs (K-9 unit). Not a very good photo is here: http://lukasco.ssk.pl/sam_spec/policja/p_cc_pies.jpg Cheers! Maciej --- LUKAS e-Konto PRO. Wysokie oprocentowanie, 1000 darmowych bankomatów, internet, telefon, placówki. Załóż konto http://lukasbank.pl
Re: Re: Re: Build quality of lenses
And optically which is better?A or FA? Alek Użytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Most manufacturers build excellent 50mm f1.4 lenses. They have to because it >is the single focal length that most people stress. However, it is the >complete lot that really matters and, on a whole, the Pentax prime lenses >are unmatched IMHO. > >Between the "A" and "F/FA", they are designed for different functions and >the "A" will offer longer service because the build quality was sacrificed >for A-F speed. > >Bob Rapp >- Original Message - >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:43 PM >Subject: Re: Re: Build quality of lenses > > >You prefer A50/1.4 or FA 50/1.4 to other 50mm from different companies? >Alek > >Użytkownik Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>> What about K35/2.0 and FA35/2.0? Those three lenses are considered to be >the >>> best PEntax 35mm lens. Which one do you recommend? >>> Alek >>> Some people believe that A50/1.7 is even sharper than A50/1.4? True or >false. >>> You wrote you prefer 1.4 version >> >> >>Alek, >>I believe the best 35mm may be the current FA 35/2, although I haven't >tried >>them all. >> >>I prefer the 50/1.4 not only to other Pentax 50s (which are also very >good), >>but to most other manufacturer's 50mms. >> >>--Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Mike Johnston >> >> >>See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two >>locations: >> >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml >> >>http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html >> >>Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black & White >>Photography_ magazine! >> >***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Dobry adres nie jest zły! Bądź sobą! Wybierz własną domenę! http://domeny.onet.pl/oferta_domeny.html
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
on 07.12.02 17:38, Joseph Tainter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was away all of November, so I am just now reading the December issue > of Shutterbug, including the report on Photokina. It appears that both > Tamron and Sigma are introducing several new and interesting lenses, > which are specifically not available in Pentax mount. All current lenses made by Sigma are available in KAF mount. I think these new products will be available sooner or later too. And if you look more carefully on the new Tamron lenses (17-35/2.8-4, macro 180/3.5 , 70-200/2.8) it is obvious that these are OEM's made by Sigma! All of them are of course available in KAF-mount! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Veering rapidly OT: Battery life
Hi, Timothy Sherburne wrote: "I'm not sure of the exact demonstration Boris mentions, but he refers to either gas-powered microturbine or fuel cell technology. In either case, the "fluid" is simply methanol or a similar fuel. Fuel cells have been around for some time but have been slow to reach the marketplace, IMO because there's little incentive for industries to change to a technology that has a very low consumable cost. It's also an expensive technical feat to productize these concepts. Fuel cells are relatively uncomplicated and environmentally friendly; nuclear power and chemical batteries are, of course, not." Fuel cells and suchlike have been around for almost 50 years. Given the market potential for such devices, there are two possible reasons for them not appearing. One, there are (presently) insurmountable technical problems. Two, vested interests are preventing development. Regarding one, the simple fuel cells using methanol and hydrogen have had enough development time for them to have evolved to the equivalent of a 50megapixel camera. As far as I can tell, they are still having difficulty at normal size generating enough energy to drag a car body around for a reasonable time. Micro applications are complete non-starters. More and more esoteric and hazardous fuels are being applied and yet there is still no functional cell available for purchase. I find the idea of microturbines to be both funny and frightening. To be functional, a microturbine will have to revolve at speeds in the hundreds of thousands of revs per minute. By the time you have associated the relevant cooling and power creation systems, not to mention the fuel tanks, they are non-starters, if you will pardon the pun. Also, the thought of something spinning and steaming away in my jacket pocket like that fills me with trepidation. The shielding required to deal with potential catastrophic and explosive failure only adds to the problem. My (admittedly intuitive) conclusion is that the difficulties involved in successful application of this technology are nowhere near solved. In fact, it seems that each new (near) resolution only creates more problems. Regarding two - who knows? Certainly the petrol companies have bought and applied for many patents in this area. No technology is environmentally friendly. Maybe fuel cells are, relatively, but I think that there has been absolutely no research on this matter. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I stand by my belief that power supply is one of the biggest inhibitors for photographers to move to digital and that it is likely to become the biggest in the relatively near future. I would be very careful of believing the statements of sources that can come up with the following twaddle. Source: www.smalltimes.com "In fuel cells big and small, hydrogen atoms enter at the anode, a negatively charged electrode, where a catalyst strips them of their electrons. These electrons provide the current that powers the device that the fuel cell is connected to. Meanwhile, the ionized hydrogen atoms travel through an electrolyte, essentially a screen that blocks loose electrons from flowing to the other side of the fuel cell and mucking up the chemical reactions. These hydrogen ions end up at the cathode, the positively charged electrode. Oxygen from the air also flows into the cathode, where it combines with the electrons returning from the device and the hydrogen ions. The resulting waste products are heat, carbon dioxide and water, which micro fuel cells often burn off as steam." Just as a comparison: State of the art technology, from the same source as above. "Berkeleys steel mini-engine currently runs on hydrogen and can keep a bicycle headlight lighted for two hours on a shot glass of fuel" My Coleman lantern can go for about 14 hours on a pint and puts out considerably more light and warmth. mike
RE: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
You know, I had not even noticed these new products. I just looked on photozone and you are right - they do look very similar to Sigma versions. And the 200-500 looks very much like a sigma, although they don't make one in this range I think. This would be fascinating if Sigma and Tamron have tied up! Will Tamron start making lenses in Sigma mount too? This would push Tokina and others to support the mount too, and that is what Sigma needs to give credibility to their body OEM status IMO. > -Original Message- > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > And if you look more carefully on the new Tamron lenses > (17-35/2.8-4, macro 180/3.5 , > 70-200/2.8) it is obvious that these are OEM's made by Sigma! > All of them are of course available in KAF-mount!
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? > How to describe bokeh in other words? > Alek First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf Keith Whaley > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh > >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to > >> N*k*n users. > > > >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its > >bokeh: > > > >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > > > >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants > >at f/2.8" link - .] > > > >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, > >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a > >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent > >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... > > > >Fred
Re: better calendar layout and guessing game come on its fun!
Happy birthday, Ann. I hope you have an absolutely wonderful day and a really great and exciting year!! I think your calendar is beautiful. I can recognize some of the scenes (I think). Kathy Leickly - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:20 PM Subject: better calendar layout and guessing game come on its fun! > http://users.rcn.com/annsan/calendar4adonweb.jpg > > better layout -- > using matte heavyweight - as Dan suggested. but glossy for the cover. > > So any of you guys game for joining the where in the USA was ann > sanfedele? > what, pictures too small? > > 2 points for each correct locale, 1 point for correct state without > precise locale, > 1/2 point of you are in the neighborhood. > > Only one picture was taken in a state I have NOT been to in the past > year and 1/2. > > I remember someone nailing a picture I quizzed you guys on last year > saying "I love google" > > If Robb doesn't get 6 points I'll be really disappointed. > > And a big thanks for all of you who gave me printing tips... > > annsan > who will be (gasp!) 66 years young tomorrow. Making the calendars is my > birthday present > to myself, even if I cant sell enough to make a little profit. > > > >
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Thanks! But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. Do you have this lens? Alek Użytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? >> How to describe bokeh in other words? >> Alek > >First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. >A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: > >http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf > >Keith Whaley > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >> >> N*k*n users. >> > >> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >> >bokeh: >> > >> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> > >> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >> >at f/2.8" link - .] >> > >> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >> > >> >Fred > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. How much superior is totally dependend on what the user does with it. There are several features or qualities about lenses and how they perform. What is important to YOU is only known by you. If you want mid-range sharpness, that lens has few equals. If you want good bokeh, you'll have to listen to those who know ~ I don't pretend to be a lens expert NOR a bokeh expert. Do try to understand one thing, and this does not only apply to lenses: there is no such thing as "best" over all others. There is only "better than" something else. What might turn out to actually BE best for YOU, may not be agreed upon by somebody else. They may have reasons to say it is NOT best, for them. It's that reason that no-one can absolutely say "This [whatever] is the very best." It cannot be true for everyone, for all circumstances. So, having said that, I'd try to stay with the question "Which lens is better for me, than any others I know about?" Also, don't forget, price enters into it as well. There are probably special lenses that have incorporated certain design features in them, that are quite superior to most if not all other lenses of it's type. But the cost is very very high. For instance, if you only get more sharpness from that extra money, may not be worth the high price. No-ne can answer that question for you. Take all you learn and think on it. Only you can decide. Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably K >35mm are better... Any opinion? > Alek > > U¿ytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and > >buy one in the K mount! > > > >Bob Rapp > >- Original Message - > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM > >Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? > > > > > >Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which > >is the best? > >Alek > >U¿ytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. > >>> Alek > >>> > >> > >>No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". > >> > >> > >>Dan Scott
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
on 10.12.02 12:32, Rob Brigham at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You know, I had not even noticed these new products. I just looked on > photozone and you are right - they do look very similar to Sigma > versions. And the 200-500 looks very much like a sigma, although they > don't make one in this range I think. Tamron SP lenses (except for 90 macro) were never popular. That probably pushed them to buy ready designs from Sigma. > This would be fascinating if Sigma and Tamron have tied up! > > Will Tamron start making lenses in Sigma mount too? This would push > Tokina and others to support the mount too, and that is what Sigma needs > to give credibility to their body OEM status IMO. Who knows? We have seen so many strange turning points in history of photography, that it could be easily possible! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? Alek [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał: >Thanks! >But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only >shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. >Do you have this lens? >Alek >Użytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? >>> How to describe bokeh in other words? >>> Alek >> >>First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. >>A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: >> >>http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf >> >>Keith Whaley >> >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >>> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> >> N*k*n users. >>> > >>> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >>> >bokeh: >>> > >>> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >>> > >>> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >>> >at f/2.8" link - .] >>> > >>> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >>> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >>> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >>> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >>> > >>> >Fred >> >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thanks! > But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. > I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. > Do you have this lens? > Alek No, I don't. I was only talking about bokeh, not about how good or not good the lens is. If you only use this lens at infinity setting, you'll probably never even know about how this lens treats out of focus areas, so it's bokeh is less unimportant - probably not worth talking about. You said: "But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. So where is the problem?" If that makes you happy, then there IS no problem, Alek! Keith Whaley > U¿ytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? > >> How to describe bokeh in other words? > >> Alek > > > >First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. > >A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: > > > >http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf > > > >Keith Whaley = snipped =
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Do you know if Nikkor 105/2.5 is better/worse than Pentax 105? > Alek Me? No. I don't own nor use Nikons, so I don't use Nikkor lenses. Perhaps someone else on the list does. keith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa3: > >Thanks! > >But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I think. I nearly only >shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did not observed the problem. > >Do you have this lens? > >Alek > >U¿ytkownik Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> > >>> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem? > >>> How to describe bokeh in other words? > >>> Alek > >> > >>First, you have to learn what "bokeh" is. > >>A very good article on "bokeh" is located at: > >> > >>http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/ATVB.pdf > >> > >>Keith Whaley > >> > >>> > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >>> >> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh > >>> >> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to > >>> >> N*k*n users. > >>> > > >>> >Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its > >>> >bokeh: > >>> > > >>> >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ > >>> > > >>> >[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants > >>> >at f/2.8" link - .] > >>> > > >>> >In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, > >>> >too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a > >>> >100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent > >>> >my K 105/2.8 on to another home... > >>> > > >>> >Fred > >> > >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > > > >Masz do¶æ p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? > >mBank - za3ó¿ konto > >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > > Masz do¶æ p3acenia prowizji bankowi ? > mBank - za3ó¿ konto > http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
I have a friend with the M35/2.8 and I have the Super Takumar 35/3.5 which is supposed to be the same optically as the K35/3.5 (except no SMC) and the Super Tak is definitely a better lens, though the M35 is not bad. If you can find the K35 at a good price, I would pick it up. I'm still looking for one myself, I got the Super Tak because the K is so scarce, and I haven't regretted it at all. William in Utah. 12/10/2002 4:06:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably K >35mm are better... Any opinion? >Alek > >Użytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and >>buy one in the K mount! >> >>Bob Rapp >>- Original Message - >>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM >>Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? >> >> >>Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which >>is the best? >>Alek >>Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. Alek >>> >>>No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". >>> >>> >>>Dan Scott >>> >>--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- >> >>Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >>mBank - załóż konto >>http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank >> >***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > >
Re: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Hi Alek, Bokeh is how the areas of the picture that are not in focus are rendered. Whether a lens has good bokeh or not is generally a personal preference. Most people prefer a less distracting background than the pictures that are shown in Fred's link below. I have this same lens and have taken some very nice portraits with it also, but I have also taken some that look just like Fred's examples also. In my experience, with this lens, is that I have to be very careful to choose a non-competing background (no out of focus specular highlights, for sure) for this lens to be usuable. Much more so than any other lens I own. It does make a good landscape/hiking lens when I am more likely using it focused close to infinity. Hope this helps, William in Utah. 12/10/2002 3:27:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >But I shot some portraits and they looked very good.So where is the problem?How to >describe bokeh in other words? >Alek > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>> Yep, but at the same time, the lens is reknown to have a harsh >>> bokeh. Which is not important to all of us and certainly not to >>> N*k*n users. >> >>Yes, the K 105/2.8 is a sharp lens, but (unfortunately) so is its >>bokeh: >> >>http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/k105f28/ >> >>[Make sure you're sitting down before you click on the "Some plants >>at f/2.8" link - .] >> >>In general, I like the ol' SMC K lenses a lot. I liked this lens, >>too, ~except~ for its bokeh. However, bokeh is important to me in a >>100-ish lens, which I would often be using for portraits, so I sent >>my K 105/2.8 on to another home... >> >>Fred >> >--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- > >Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >mBank - załóż konto >http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank > > >
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
Gosh, it's a FIAT 500! I hope they don't plan to put big german sheperds in there... Ciao, Flavio
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
It was K35/3.5 I think. I see what you mean it is difficult to say it is the best lens etc. But taking into consideration only sharpness, resolution and color rendition one can show which is better. I know the price of FA 35/2.0 ( do not know average price of K35/2.0) but I just wanted to know which you recommend. Of course if old K35/3.5 will turn out just a little bit worse than new FA 35/2.0 I would buy old one. I usually use this focal length for landcapes and speed is not so important for me. Alek com> napisał: >As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better >than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. >That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. > >How much superior is totally dependend on what the user does with it. >There are several features or qualities about lenses and how they perform. >What is important to YOU is only known by you. >If you want mid-range sharpness, that lens has few equals. >If you want good bokeh, you'll have to listen to those who know ~ I >don't pretend to be a lens expert NOR a bokeh expert. > >Do try to understand one thing, and this does not only apply to >lenses: there is no such thing as "best" over all others. >There is only "better than" something else. >What might turn out to actually BE best for YOU, may not be agreed >upon by somebody else. They may have reasons to say it is NOT best, >for them. >It's that reason that no-one can absolutely say "This [whatever] is >the very best." It cannot be true for everyone, for all circumstances. >So, having said that, I'd try to stay with the question "Which lens is >better for me, than any others I know about?" > >Also, don't forget, price enters into it as well. >There are probably special lenses that have incorporated certain >design features in them, that are quite superior to most if not all >other lenses of it's type. But the cost is very very high. For >instance, if you only get more sharpness from that extra money, may >not be worth the high price. > >No-ne can answer that question for you. Take all you learn and think >on it. Only you can decide. > >Keith Whaley > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably K >35mm are better... Any opinion? >> Alek >> >> Użytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >> >Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and >> >buy one in the K mount! >> > >> >Bob Rapp >> >- Original Message - >> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM >> >Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? >> > >> > >> >Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which >> >is the best? >> >Alek > >> >Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: >> >>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. >> >>> Alek >> >>> >> >> >> >>No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". >> >> >> >> >> >>Dan Scott > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
Which brings up a point. Is a 28-200 Tamaron with a Pentax name on it better than a one with a Nikon badge, or a Canon badge? Is a 100/3.5 macro Pentax better than the Vivitar, or the Phoenix? Except for the top of the line "pro" lenses which I would assume are at least designed in-house, can you be certain your high-priced camera brand lens is any better than the low priced off brand, or even any different. I find it amusing that folks will swear up and down that the brand they own is lots better than some other brand when they are actually the same lens. Out sourcing is a reality of our time whether it is cars, or cameras, or TVs, or what-not. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:19 AM Subject: Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax? > on 07.12.02 17:38, Joseph Tainter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I was away all of November, so I am just now reading the December issue > > of Shutterbug, including the report on Photokina. It appears that both > > Tamron and Sigma are introducing several new and interesting lenses, > > which are specifically not available in Pentax mount. > All current lenses made by Sigma are available in KAF mount. I think these > new products will be available sooner or later too. And if you look more > carefully on the new Tamron lenses (17-35/2.8-4, macro 180/3.5 , > 70-200/2.8) it is obvious that these are OEM's made by Sigma! All of them > are of course available in KAF-mount! > > -- > Best Regards > Sylwek > > >
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
on 10.12.02 13:42, T Rittenhouse at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is a 28-200 Tamaron with a Pentax name on it better than a one with a Nikon > badge, or a Canon badge? Is a 100/3.5 macro Pentax better than the Vivitar, > or the Phoenix? Except for the top of the line "pro" lenses which I would > assume are at least designed in-house, can you be certain your high-priced > camera brand lens is any better than the low priced off brand, or even any > different. > > I find it amusing that folks will swear up and down that the brand they own > is lots better than some other brand when they are actually the same lens. > Exactly - many low-cost lenses for are made outside main compqany. Only better models in the range are house-made. Pentax is no exception here - Nikon 70-300/4-5.6 ED is nothing less or more but just Tamron LD... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: smc 55 f2.0
I firmly believe that it is aging the stuff in oak barrels that caused those delusions (Pentax DSLR in this case) we don't have that problem with the plane ol' corn liqueur we drink over here. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:32 AM Subject: Re: smc 55 f2.0 > >What are the advantages of 55mm any opinions on this lens > > It becomes an 88mm on a Pentax DSLR at 1.6X mag factor for estimated chip > size. The 50mm is only 80mm effective, and not as good for portraiture > IMO. However, I'd still go for the wider aperture of the 50 1.4 or 1.2 > > You did ask > > 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: Talking about tiny cars...
Beats chasing thiefs on foot or bicycle. Jeff. PS: looks similar to the "Smart" car I've seen in Ontario. - Original Message - From: "Flavio Minelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:03 AM Subject: Talking about tiny cars... > Hi all, > reading this thread I remembered the smallest police car I ever saw. I > was in Capri, the famous island in front of Sorrento and Naples where > VIPs and generally affluent people likes to show their Big Boats, nice > and powerful friends or beautiful wives and husbands. Well, I'll leave > it here. It's a very nice place, BTW, and I was there with my wife in a > warm spring week. A sweet place, really. > > Anyway Capri is actually a small rocky place so road are very limited > and quite narrow. The one in the picture was a real police car, probably > the only one able to get into the most narrow streets and not get stuck. > Of course a good part of Capri has no roads but only cobbled paths so > you can only walk if you have to get there. But that's another story. We > even rented a small scooter to have a better look around and even that > way you still had to walk a lot. It's like a mountain valley in the > middle of the sea. > > Have a look: > http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/tinplcar.jpg > > Ciao, Flavio >
Re: M len hoods
Is there a reliable mail order source for hoods for the M 50/1.7 and M 28/2.8? Thanks, Bill Lawlor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
So good luck in looking for K35/3.5 lens. I also plan to replace my M35/2.8 with any K 35mm or even FA35/2.0 in future. Alek Użytkownik William Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >I have a friend with the M35/2.8 and I have the Super Takumar 35/3.5 which is >supposed to be the same optically as the K35/3.5 (except no SMC) and the Super Tak is >definitely a better lens, though the M35 is not bad. If you can find the K35 at a >good price, I would pick it up. I'm still looking for one myself, I got the Super Tak >because >the K is so scarce, and I haven't regretted it at all. > >William in Utah. > >12/10/2002 4:06:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably K >35mm are better... Any opinion? >>Alek >> >>Użytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >>>Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and >>>buy one in the K mount! >>> >>>Bob Rapp >>>- Original Message - >>>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM >>>Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? >>> >>> >>>Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which >>>is the best? >>>Alek >>>Użytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. > Alek > No _probably_ about it Alek. Just, "FA35/2.o which is very good". Dan Scott >>>--r-e-k-l-a-m-a- >>> >>>Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >>>mBank - załóż konto >>>http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank >>> >>***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** >> >>Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? >>mBank - załóż konto >>http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank >> >> >> > --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Masz dość płacenia prowizji bankowi ? mBank - załóż konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
RE: Talking about tiny cars...
Flavio, Your account brought back memories. I travelled to Italy with my mother and sister two years ago. We made it to Capri. This was back when my scanning capabilities were poor, but you can have a look at http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/Italia_Capri.html for a few shots on the Isle. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Flavio Minelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:04 AM -- -- -- Hi all, -- reading this thread I remembered the smallest police car I -- ever saw. I -- was in Capri, the famous island in front of Sorrento and Naples where -- VIPs and generally affluent people likes to show their Big -- Boats, nice -- and powerful friends or beautiful wives and husbands. Well, -- I'll leave -- it here. It's a very nice place, BTW, and I was there with -- my wife in a -- warm spring week. A sweet place, really. -- -- Anyway Capri is actually a small rocky place so road are very limited -- and quite narrow. The one in the picture was a real police -- car, probably -- the only one able to get into the most narrow streets and -- not get stuck. -- Of course a good part of Capri has no roads but only cobbled paths so -- you can only walk if you have to get there. But that's -- another story. We -- even rented a small scooter to have a better look around and -- even that -- way you still had to walk a lot. It's like a mountain valley in the -- middle of the sea. -- -- Have a look: -- http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/tinplcar.jpg -- -- Ciao, Flavio --
Re: Pentax Autofocus Adapter?
Shaun posted: > What are you then trying to focus on? If you are attempting to focus on > anything closer than 3 feet or thereabouts, the AF adapter will not work > properly. If, on the other hand you are focusing from three feet too > infinity and the AF doesn't work, it may well be stuffed. I have been > trying mine with an SMC-A 50mm f1.4, and it works just fine from > infinity down to about 3 feet. Maybe you need to send yours off too > Pentax for a service? Thanks for your comments (these and earlier). Your troubleshooting tips and comparison with the behaviour of your adapter are just the kind of feedback I needed, since before this exchange I merely suspected, but wasn't sure if the intermittent failure to focus my fast 50 on distant subjects meant I had a defective adapter (as opposed to the adapter being unreliable normally).
OT: Talking about tiny cars...
> Beats chasing thiefs on foot or bicycle. > Not where there are no roads...but as long as the thief has no fast boat there's little chance he can escape. There's very little crime there, anyway. > Jeff. > > > PS: looks similar to the "Smart" car I've seen in Ontario. In fact it is one of those. A rather silly name though as no car can be smarter then the guy/gal driving it. Same thing applies for cameras, IMO. Sorry for forgetting the OT but the shot was done with my Z1-p and 24/2.8 K, so it's not completely OT. Ciao, Flavio
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It was K35/3.5 I think. > I see what you mean it is difficult to say it is the best lens etc. > But taking into consideration only sharpness, resolution and color > rendition one can show which is better. I know the price of FA 35/2.0 >( do not know average price of K35/2.0) but I just wanted to know which > you recommend. Of course if old K35/3.5 will turn out just a little bit > worse than new FA 35/2.0 I would buy old one. I usually use this focal > length for landcapes and speed is not so important for me. > Alek Visit this site for data on that series of lenses: http://www.concentric.net/~Smhalpin/BriefComments.html#35 mm f/3.5 Here's a few quotes folks have said about the k35mm f/3.5, as taken directly from the site I list above: John Vanderaalst - The K3.5/35 is probably one of the cheapest in the K-series, and also one of the best. I have the K3.5/35 as well as the M 2/35 and to tell you the truth, I like the K3.5 better...sharp, contrasty, insensitive to back-light. The contrast of the K3.5 is that good that focussing is, despite its limited aperture, quite easy. Yoshihiko Takinami - I have/had K35/2, K35/3.5, M35/2, M35/2.8 and FA35/2AL. Go for K35/2 if you do need the extra speed. Go for K35/3.5 if you do need fine prints. I prefer K35/3.5 to K35/2 in point of center resolution/sharpness and better correction of aberrations. Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - very little light-fall-off even at wide open, amazingly sharp, good color rendition, great color saturation, scarce distortion, natural bokeh, great resolution Yoshihiko Takinami (again) - . . . one of the best Pentax lenses. . . Its color rendition and 3-dimensionality are really great. FA35/2AL is superior to K35/3.5 in point of correction, color saturation, and uniformity of image all over the frame. They are the two best 35mm (focal length) lenses Pentax ever made, IMO. David Collett - If you get a chance buy a 35/3.5, IMO it is the best "cheap" 35mm second hand lens you can buy. It has good contrast and is very sharp between f5.6 and f11. This may push the price up then perhaps I can sell mine for an inflated price and buy a[new] FA35/2 :-) Timo Hartikainen - a really great lens! . . . I'm very pleased. The image quality is really good, even at f3.5. . David Mann - . . .Its small, light and really sharp. * * * * * keith whaley > > com> napisa3: > >As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better > >than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. > >That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. > > > >How much superior is totally dependend on what the user does with it. > >There are several features or qualities about lenses and how they perform. > >What is important to YOU is only known by you. > >If you want mid-range sharpness, that lens has few equals. > >If you want good bokeh, you'll have to listen to those who know ~ I > >don't pretend to be a lens expert NOR a bokeh expert. > > > >Do try to understand one thing, and this does not only apply to > >lenses: there is no such thing as "best" over all others. > >There is only "better than" something else. > >What might turn out to actually BE best for YOU, may not be agreed > >upon by somebody else. They may have reasons to say it is NOT best, > >for them. > >It's that reason that no-one can absolutely say "This [whatever] is > >the very best." It cannot be true for everyone, for all circumstances. > >So, having said that, I'd try to stay with the question "Which lens is > >better for me, than any others I know about?" > > > >Also, don't forget, price enters into it as well. > >There are probably special lenses that have incorporated certain > >design features in them, that are quite superior to most if not all > >other lenses of it's type. But the cost is very very high. For > >instance, if you only get more sharpness from that extra money, may > >not be worth the high price. > > > >No-ne can answer that question for you. Take all you learn and think > >on it. Only you can decide. > > > >Keith Whaley > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> I do not need AF! I just want to have great 35mm lens. I own M35/2.8 and probably >K 35mm are better... Any opinion? > >> Alek > >> > >> U¿ytkownik Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >> >Only if you need auto focus. The 35 f3.5 is in a league of its own - try and > >> >buy one in the K mount! > >> > > >> >Bob Rapp > >> >- Original Message - > >> >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:49 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? > >> > > >> > > >> >Is FA 35/2.0 better than highly recommended K35/2.0 and K35/3.5 lenses?Which > >> >is the best? > >> >Alek > > > >> >U¿ytkownik Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa3: > >> >>On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 08:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> FA35/2.0 which is probably very good. > >> >>> Alek > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >>No _p
Re: Veering rapidly OT: Battery life
<< State of the art technology, from the same source as above. "Berkeley’s steel mini-engine currently runs on hydrogen and can keep a bicycle headlight lighted for two hours on a shot glass of fuel" >> Mike. How does that compare to a carbide lamp? I think we should be told Kind regards Peter
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
> But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. > But shootig at infinity K105/2.8 should give great results I > think. I nearly only shoot in this way so maybe that is why I did > not observed the problem. Did you shoot the portraits at infinity? > Do you have this lens? Well, I used to have one, but I sold it, and specifically for its bokeh characteristics. Fred
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
> I see my K105/2.8 is very sharp (Velvia) and wonder what you mean > saying about harsh bokeh. > How to describe bokeh in other words? The K 105/2.8 is indeed very sharp, for in-focus subjects. However, it also seems to produce rather sharp outlines around out-of-focus objects, too (i.e., "harsh bokeh"). Fred
Re: smc 55 f2.0
> At f5.6 through f8, I think it is, along with its twin the f1.8, > the sharpest normal lens that Pentax has manufactured. I sort of agree, Bob, but I would say that the very high sharpness starts at f/8. The two 55/1.8 samples I've had (and I still have one of 'em) were/are only average through f/5.6, but then became super-sharp ~all-of-a-sudden~ at f/8 and above - sort of a "schizophrenic lens design", I'd say. See: http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_normal.html http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm The 55/1.8 and the 55/2 lenses are, of course, the same lens design, except that Pentax took a lot of the 55/1.8's and "dummied them sown" with a baffle to f/2 for (I guess) some sort of (dubious) marketing purposes. Fred
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
> Tamron SP lenses (except for 90 macro) were never popular. I think that the SP 500/8 mirror has sold fairly well (they show up on eBay fairly often, anyway), and ~it~ (as the same lens design, I believe, although I am not certain of that) has been in the Tamron lineup for a long time. It has gotten good reviews, and its 1:2.5 almost-macro focusing is a real plus (1:1.25 with the SP 2X TC, too). I have four mirrors right now, the Tamron SP 500/8, the VS1 600/8 Solid Cat, the VS1 450/4.5 Aspheric, and the SMC K 1000/11, and they're all quite good (for mirror lenses), but they are all quite different from each other, too. Fred
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
> As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and > better than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. That is HIS > opinion. It is also my opinion. I would say that Bob's opinion has been stated by a number of us, too. I think K 35/3.5 owners are happy owners. Fred
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
Keep looking. They are available. I have been watching ebay for a couple of years for a K3.5/35. I found one a month ago on ebay for $30 in mint condition. Only the plastic cap had a little silver lettering rubbed off on it. On Tuesday 10 December 2002 01:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So good luck in looking for K35/3.5 lens. I also plan to replace my > M35/2.8 with any K 35mm or even FA35/2.0 in future. Alek -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 10:03:38 +0100, Flavio Minelli wrote: > Have a look: > http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/tinplcar.jpg The front "license plate" seems to say "BOOBZ"! :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: looking for an odd lens
Howdy, Peter, On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 04:20:10 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would say generally that mirrors are never quite going to perform like > regular lenses, however if you can provide a stable platform that will help > considerably. You know, I've seen this opinion expressed many times. It's a very common opinion within photographic circles. I've even fallen under its spell, though I have no experience with "mirror" lenses. But in astronomy, even at the low end of the price and capability spectrum, folks seem to prefer "mirror" telescopes. Is there some sort of paradox here, or does it all have to do with the prohibitive expense of a refractive telescope/lens with 6" or larger elements? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
OT: Finally back!
We finally got our electric power back late yesterday, after 5 days without. Thank you Alabama Power, one of the many out of state companies who have come to North Carolina to help restore some sense of normalcy here. I haven't heard the latest, but last Thursday there were 1,200,000 Duke Power customers without power. I would assume that many "customers" would be the equivalent of 3,000,000-5,000,000 people without electricity. We were doing fine here with the emergency generator until Saturday night when the carburetor iced up. At this point I managed to screw it up royally by breaking the governor and ending up with entirely too much voltage. We got water back Sunday morning though, so with the Coleman stove and water we were at least able to cook and wash. Driving around town, it's really a mess. I don't think there's a tree in the entire Piedmont of NC that hasn't lost limbs, many of which are still hanging in utility lines. It's good to be back. Have I missed anything interesting? Bill
Re: OT: Finally back!
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We finally got our electric power back late yesterday, after 5 days without. >Thank you Alabama Power, one of the many out of state companies who have >come to North Carolina to help restore some sense of normalcy here. > >I haven't heard the latest, but last Thursday there were 1,200,000 Duke >Power customers without power. I would assume that many "customers" would >be the equivalent of 3,000,000-5,000,000 people without electricity. > >We were doing fine here with the emergency generator until Saturday night >when the carburetor iced up. At this point I managed to screw it up royally >by breaking the governor and ending up with entirely too much voltage. We >got water back Sunday morning though, so with the Coleman stove and water we >were at least able to cook and wash. > >Driving around town, it's really a mess. I don't think there's a tree in >the entire Piedmont of NC that hasn't lost limbs, many of which are still >hanging in utility lines. Man, sounds like Rochester after the ice storm of 1991! (I was without power for a week.) >It's good to be back. Have I missed anything interesting? Dunno. I had mail server problems and have been offline since Friday. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Goodies Today
#1 ME-F$100 Excellent condition. Just a few typical small paint chips on the edge of the back. The perfect substitute/replacement for your ME/ME Super. Why? It's basically the same camera with Focus Confirmation added. #2 35-70/2.8 (for ME-F) $40 Good Condition. Some metal oxidation on the mount, but contacts & glass are just fine. I can't figure out how to make it work. And what are the buttons on the side of the lens for, anyway? #3 Fotomat (yes, Fotomat) 75-200/3.5 $50 Excellent condition. #4 ZX-M $35 This is the one I got from the PDML sale. Lettering worn, so it's not pretty. Works perfectly fine. Comes with a flash. (Selling only due to my unemployment) Prices are SHIPPED in US.
OT: Hanukah & Christmas gift all-in-one
Today I received the Minolta Spotmeter F in the mail. It's in great condition. Great Hanukah gift. The bonus (Christmas gift) came from Customs. No taxes. Saved $35US. Yes!!! Jeff.
Re: smc 55 f2.0
>> >What are the advantages of 55mm any opinions on this lens >> >> It becomes an 88mm on a Pentax DSLR at 1.6X mag factor for estimated chip >> size. The 50mm is only 80mm effective, and not as good for portraiture >> IMO. However, I'd still go for the wider aperture of the 50 1.4 or 1.2 >> >> You did ask >I firmly believe that it is aging the stuff in oak barrels that caused those >delusions (Pentax DSLR in this case) we don't have that problem with the >plane ol' corn liqueur we drink over here. > >Ciao, >Graywolf We're a nation of dreamers, er *hic* I mean drinkers. As Robert Capa wites: 'I decided the British were a great people, that they had a wonderful sense of humor, and that, when it came to the impossible, they were very nice to have around'. I'll go along with that . 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: Talking about tiny cars...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It is a Smart car, sold under the brand Smart and marketed by Mercedes Benz > (it think) here in Europe. There was some involvement with Swatch, the swiss > brand selling funny plastic watches, but I don't know the extent of it. > > In overcrowded towns here like Rome they're sold like hot cakes altough > the price is rather steep. They have a yuppish market image and young professionals > or executives tend to see it as status symbols. > > I never drove one and it gives me a sense of immediate danger seeing them > speed by at 130 Km/h (70-75 Mph?). They say they tend to loose control quite > easyily under less then ideal conditions on Rome's center paved roads. > > Flavio I'll bet that's true! You need a longer wheelbase (vs. track dimensions) to aid stability. Still, for 'around town' it seems hard to beat! You could not be a Juan Fangio, or a Nuvolari (!) but if you drive sanely, it ought to be a ton of fun! keith whaley
Re: Goodies Today
I also have goodies for sale, well one anyway: Pentax MX in excellent condition. Really *tiny* ding in top of pentaprism and small dent in bottom plate. In general it's a beautiful specimen: Chrome is great and just a couple of little spots of paint wear on the film door (hinge and latch end look really good). Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg $100.00 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Fw: Re[6]: Displaying images on the web
- Original Message - From: Valentin Donisa Subject: Re: Re[6]: Displaying images on the web > Hi Bill, > > Since I'm now in Montreal, and on a slow dial-up link, > there's nothing I can do about it. If anyone wants to > move the gallery on a different server and maintain > it, please feel free to do so. > > Valentin > > P.S. Due to the slow internet access, I also don't > subscribe to PDML for the moment. Please kindly > forward this to the list. > > P.P.S. Any pentaxian here in Montreal ?
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
A Smart Police car! Is that an oxymoron? Assuming cops travel in pairs, where do they stow the handcuffed burglar? 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: Re: Pentax Autofocus Adapter?
Hi Alek, On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:13:44 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What is the price of such adapter AF? I'm not sure how much the 1.7X AF T/C costs currently. I think I paid about $100 or $150 for mine a couple of years ago. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
In a message dated 12/10/02 7:05:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. >> I have 35/3.5 lens and agree that it is a very good lens. But one lens that seems to get overlooked here on a regular basis is the 30/2.8. If you are a believer in lens tests, this is the one to get. Vic
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 06:11 AM, Keith Whaley wrote: You said: "But I shot some portraits and they looked very good. So where is the problem?" If that makes you happy, then there IS no problem, Alek! Keith Whaley Very true. Dan Scott
Re: pentax UK repair dept
The only thing I can ad to this thread would be that I have dealt with a company in London called Asahi Photo. Their technicians are ex-Pentax technicians and I have found them friendly and QUICK. My ex-LX (bit of a tongue twister there) went in for a full service before I sold it. The cost was under a hundred pounds and it was ready in a week. They give the option of 24 hours turnaround on the LX and MF gear. Their web site is http://www.asahiphoto.co.uk/ which oddly enough I've just tried am getting a 'specified server could not be found' message which does no bode well eh ;-) They are in Wembley and the phone number is (020) 8908 2931 HTH 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: Talking about tiny cars...
Do you know the manufacturer of that car? Model? keith whaley Flavio Minelli wrote: > > Hi all, > reading this thread I remembered the smallest police car I ever saw. I > was in Capri, the famous island in front of Sorrento and Naples where > VIPs and generally affluent people likes to show their Big Boats, nice > and powerful friends or beautiful wives and husbands. Well, I'll leave > it here. It's a very nice place, BTW, and I was there with my wife in a > warm spring week. A sweet place, really. > > Anyway Capri is actually a small rocky place so road are very limited > and quite narrow. The one in the picture was a real police car, probably > the only one able to get into the most narrow streets and not get stuck. > Of course a good part of Capri has no roads but only cobbled paths so > you can only walk if you have to get there. But that's another story. We > even rented a small scooter to have a better look around and even that > way you still had to walk a lot. It's like a mountain valley in the > middle of the sea. > > Have a look: > http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/tinplcar.jpg > > Ciao, Flavio
Re: Slightly OT: Digicam survey, anyone game?
I have an Optio 330 and think it's just great. Small size, CF, good optical zoom and "Pentax" etched into the front cover is what appealed to me. Now with the underwater case I'm having a blast. It's replaced my IQZoom 120 as "snap-shooter" I would have bought an Optio 430 but couldn't justify the cost of the extra megapixel. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 10:26 PM Subject: Slightly OT: Digicam survey, anyone game? > > I'm curious as to which of the current crop of digicams has the feature > set or look that appeals to the Pentax users on the list (i.e., how > many of you would take an Optio over a Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, > Olympus and all the rest). > > So, what I am looking for, if anyone is game, is your opinion on which > digicam holds the greatest appeal for you. And why? > > Feel free to mention your second choice if you like. > > Restrictions are: > > 1) no next-week-ware, must be on store shelves now > > 2) no removable lens slr digicams > > Anyone interested? > > Dan Scott >
Re: Goodies Today
My ISP's (Netscape) connction attempts were refused by your server, for some reason... keith whaley Mark Roberts wrote: > > I also have goodies for sale, well one anyway: > > Pentax MX in excellent condition. Really *tiny* ding in top of pentaprism > and small dent in bottom plate. In general it's a beautiful specimen: Chrome > is great and just a couple of little spots of paint wear on the film door > (hinge and latch end look really good). > Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg > Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg > > $100.00 > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
I think that most folks on this list *assume* that the primary interest of the other members of the list is photography, either as their main or only hobby or for photography commercial purposes. This is a *false* assumption. I enjoy photography and probably have $15k or so in Pentax equipment. My primary avocation, however, is competitive shooting. I belong to 7 lists associated with this. Nowhere on these lists has anyone ever disparaged photography or Pentax let alone do it using falsehoods, lies, untruths, major errors in logic and a complete lack of any ability to assess risk, either for themselves or for populations. If they did, I'd set them straight. Below is a publication of rubbish which is dangerous to my primary avocation and major source of joy in my life, not to mention nearly $100k of my own small wealth. In as much as a battle of the minds continues on this issue in *all* forums, with the particular anticipation of perverting truth, you can expect, given my investment, that I will not stand idle while hateful fellows encourage others to deprive me of my primary avocation and no small fortune. I really don't give a damn what the Australians, Brits, Germans, French, Dutch, Mexicans, Spaniards, Canadians (I dropped my dual citizenship) do to their own countries. It's their business. I don't care what their views (your) are. I do have a specific and personal interest in lies and untruths on the topic. This is the most asinine posts I've ever read. - Completely devoid of fact and logic. Hence the comments below. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: Keith Whaley > > > You're not talking to old gun nuts like me, you're > antagonizing > > camera-loving folks, some of whom have an absolutely paranoid > and > > obsessive hate for firearms of any kind, shape or color, and > you know that. > > That you and I love cameras _too_ matters not one whit! > > That their position is logically unsupportable and their > arguments are > > specious matters not. > > Their position is completely and logically supportable. Guns are > used primarily to kill people. This is absolute nonsense. Today in the US there are perhaps 280 million firearms in the hands of some 80 million citizens and less than 0.0088% are ever fired at any person. It is therefore clear that 99.99% of these firearms served some other purpose. Each year, more than one billion rounds of ammunition are sold to citizens (manufacturers' domestic sales) and less than 0.002% are ever fired at another person. This means that 99.998% of ammunition expended by citizens serves some other purpose. I myself expend between 400 and 800 rounds a month preparing for matches. > Most guns are designed with killing people as the primary design goal. This is utter nonsense. A walk into any firearms store anywhere in the US easily proves otherwise. Look at the array of rifled long guns. Clearly, the vast majority are designed for hunting deer, pig and the like. Another large category are designed for target. You will be lucky to see even one or two that was designed to kill anyone and these will be old military rifles such as a 1903A3, M1 Garand, M1A or perhaps a No. 4 Enfield. All three of which, though designed to kill people, make excellent big game rifles for hunters on a budget. All are also used as target rifles in classes that allow only these rifles. Look at the array of smooth bore long guns. Clearly, the vast majority are designed for hunting bird, rabbit and the like. Another large category are designed specifically for skeet, trap or clays. You will be lucky to see even one or two that was designed to kill anyone and these will be old trench guns or home invasion protection. One of these has saved my actual butt. Look at the array of hand guns. A little more than half will be for self defense. Most of the rest were built for target. No one buys a national match or Gold Cup .45 to use on people. Currently, when a firearm is used in self defense in the US, 98 percent of the time it is not fired. > Logically, a person of sound mind would find the whole concept > of a device designed specifically to kill another member of > their own species from enough distance that self defence cannot > be argued, Bullshit! Your country's military, the US military, all militaries of the world logically maintain such devices and more. > or to kill a member of another species, I find deer, moose and pig to be tastey. Further, I want a Moose head over my fireplace. > or their own, > as that fellow in Maryland was doing a couple of months ago, for > sport or trophy completely reprehensible. Now here is the complete breakdown of logic. Because we all agree that killing people for sport is reprehensible, we are supposed to agree that the firearm itself is reprehensible. Well, I a
Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their eyes were closed? Any thoughts? Michael Cross Chico, CA
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Well Mr. Blakely, you definitely have the bigger virtual penis. Your self serving factoids are as valid as self serving factoids can be. Regards William Robb
OT: Talking about tiny cars...
Keith Whaley wrote: > You could not be a Juan Fangio, or a Nuvolari (!) You're showing your age, sir... > but if you drive sanely, it ought to be a ton of fun! Yes, but the sense of self-satisfaction is greater when driving sanely in a car capable of insanity, no? Anybody race these things? Stephen _ Programmer who creates truth table writes Boole sheet
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
I also have many interests more important to me than photography: my family, my dogs, music, movies, collecting political campaign buttons and coins of imperial Russia, politic, religion, etc. I don't, however, presume to bore my Pentax friends on this list with my enthusiasms for all these other things. Bob Blakely wrote: > I think that most folks on this list *assume* that the primary interest of > the other members of the list is photography, either as their main or only > hobby or for photography commercial purposes. This is a *false* assumption. > I enjoy photography and probably have $15k or so in Pentax equipment. My > primary avocation, however, is competitive shooting.
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
I wanted to stay out of this but... I'm on the pro side of this thread, but let's face facts. Regardless of any posts made here, no one is going to change their opinion of the other side of this debate. Therefore, LET THIS DAMNED THREAD DIE! Bill - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:09 PM Subject: Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. > Well Mr. Blakely, you definitely have the bigger virtual penis. > Your self serving factoids are as valid as self serving factoids > can be. > > Regards > > William Robb >
Re: Goodies Today
Just tried 'em from here and they're working OK. SOmething in between may be not working. Try again in a few minutes. http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My ISP's (Netscape) connction attempts were refused by your server, >for some reason... > >keith whaley > >Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> I also have goodies for sale, well one anyway: >> >> Pentax MX in excellent condition. Really *tiny* ding in top of pentaprism >> and small dent in bottom plate. In general it's a beautiful specimen: Chrome >> is great and just a couple of little spots of paint wear on the film door >> (hinge and latch end look really good). >> Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg >> Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg >> >> $100.00 >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts >> Photography and writing >> www.robertstech.com -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Hi Michael... I don't have direct experience with the AF360, but here's my theory on the cause: Camera flashes cause most folks to blink. Hey, it's a natural reaction to a very intense light. Usually, by the time a person blinks the exposure has been completed. So it's not a matter of *if* people blink, but *when* people blink. One may be able to go so far as to find the average amount of time a person take to react to a flash, may be 1/4 sec? It sounds like the quantity and duration of the pre-flashes generated by the 360 are delaying the main burst enough to catch your subjects in the "blinking" act. How may pre-flashes are being used? One for calculating reflective light and one for red eye reduction? Can you reduce the number of pre-flashes? I'm interested to see what the list's 360 users suggest. t On 12/10/02 10:00 AM, Michael Cross wrote: > On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some > pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the > majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. > > The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of > Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes > had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the > AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their > eyes were closed? > > Any thoughts? > > Michael Cross > Chico, CA > > > > >
Re: Re: Talking about tiny cars...
It is a Smart car, sold under the brand Smart and marketed by Mercedes Benz (it think) here in Europe. There was some involvement with Swatch, the swiss brand selling funny plastic watches, but I don't know the extent of it. In overcrowded towns here like Rome they're sold like hot cakes altough the price is rather steep. They have a yuppish market image and young professionals or executives tend to see it as status symbols. I never drove one and it gives me a sense of immediate danger seeing them speed by at 130 Km/h (70-75 Mph?). They say they tend to loose control quite easyily under less then ideal conditions on Rome's center paved roads. Flavio
Re: Goodies Today
Okay. A little time is a common fix for recalcitrant URLs... I did see the photos. Veery nice indeed. Were it black, I'd have snapped at it. ;^) As it is, I just got my first MX body about 2 weeks ago, and I'm still wringing it out. I know the one I have will not be my last, as I must have a backup body ~ just as I do for my well-used MG. Good luck, keith whaley Mark Roberts wrote: > > Just tried 'em from here and they're working OK. SOmething in between may be > not working. Try again in a few minutes. > http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg > http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg > > Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >My ISP's (Netscape) connction attempts were refused by your server, > >for some reason... > > > >keith whaley > > > >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> > >> I also have goodies for sale, well one anyway: > >> > >> Pentax MX in excellent condition. Really *tiny* ding in top of pentaprism > >> and small dent in bottom plate. In general it's a beautiful specimen: Chrome > >> is great and just a couple of little spots of paint wear on the film door > >> (hinge and latch end look really good). > >> Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-1.jpg > >> Photos at http://www.robertstech.com/temp/mx_6-2.jpg > >> > >> $100.00 > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Roberts > >> Photography and writing > >> www.robertstech.com
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA
Re: OT: Talking about tiny cars...
Stephen Moore wrote: > > Keith Whaley wrote: > > > You could not be a Juan Fangio, or a Nuvolari (!) > > You're showing your age, sir... And proudly so! Those were the days of raw racing, and tough race-car drivers. I'll drop the subject on that note, but these two men alone represented just about the finest race-driving skills it's possible to have, using cars that were so "twitchy" a number of present day drivers would not be able to just get in and drive them. To drive what they regularly drove at 10 tenths, was possible by a mere handful of drivers world wide. > > but if you drive sanely, it ought to be a ton of fun! > > Yes, but the sense of self-satisfaction is greater > when driving sanely in a car capable of insanity, no? Yessir! Just knowing you have something like that under the hood and a race-tuned chassis is a tremendous source if inner smiles! > Anybody race these things? > > Stephen Suicide mission! keith whaley
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Nor do I, but no one is lying about your other interests in a manner that accumulates to a potential for having those interests taken away. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I also have many interests more important to me than photography: my family, my > dogs, music, movies, collecting political campaign buttons and coins of imperial > Russia, politic, religion, etc. I don't, however, presume to bore my Pentax > friends on this list with my enthusiasms for all these other things.
RE: Talking about tiny cars...
Cesar posted: I travelled to Italy with my mother and > sister two years ago. We made it to Capri. Cesar: Where HAVEN"T you been? Come to think of it, I'm not sure I want to know. I'm already jealous of your well-travelled status.
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Bob wrote: >I belong to 7 lists > associated with this. Nowhere on these lists has anyone ever disparaged > photography or Pentax let alone do it using falsehoods, lies, untruths, Of course not. They don't discuss pentax or photography but Guns. Can you please have decency and consideration to take your crap away from this list or in private if you must. Please note that this is a polite post while your constant abuse of the members of this list is not. Pål
RE: Talking about tiny cars...
-- -Original Message- -- From: Flavio Minelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 9:15 AM -- -- -- Cesar Matamoros II wrote: -- > -- > ... -- > -- > This was back when my scanning capabilities were poor, but -- you can have a -- > look at http://cesar_abdul.homestead.com/Italia_Capri.html -- for a few shots -- > on the Isle. -- > ... -- -- Wow, you had a pretty good coverage of Italy. I hope you -- didn't make it -- in one week or so. Touring it's exausting enough even when you don't -- have to run. -- -- I can see the weather was unusually bad in Capri...nice shots, BTW, -- altough I agree the acquisition stage might have been neater. -- -- Ciao, Flavio -- Flavio, I feel I need to rescan them. I 'scanned' them by using an adapter on my digital camera. The lighting is all important. These went up to show the family. I now have access to a nice older Nikon scanner and the results are much better. As for the trip, it was only about ten days. It was a trip my mother always wanted to take. The next time I go I will only stay in two places to get to know them better. A friend of mine has family in southern Italy. I am trying to talk him into visiting them for a week. That would mean completely immersing myself into the language and culture. I told him that I could pick enough of it up beforehand that I would translate for him. From there I would probably head north (Firenze perhaps) for another week. A dream for the moment, but I will do it shortly. Hmmm, maybe I can meet some PDMLers when I do it. Cesar Panama City, Florida
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Of course it's self serving! It's clearly also serving of a fairly large community, and specifically by one of that community who is affected. Everyone who wants to preserve some part of liberty for himself is serving of others as well as himself. Your whine is like saying that any member of a group that complains about bad treatment is being self serving! Further, so what if it is self serving? If a fact is self serving, by what logic is it therefore untrue? Wouldn't the facts a black man offers as evidence that he was unfairly treated at a job interview be self serving? Would they therefore be "as valid as self serving 'factoids' can be?" Perhaps this is a logical reason for dismissing them or denigrating him as a person? Would you require an independent assessment from a white man without employment problems because the black mans "evidence" or "factoids" are self serving? Aren't all facts argued in evidence of anyone's position self serving? Of course they are! Are you capable of arguing ideas or only of disparaging persons? I assume you are capable. I know you are. Right now you are looking like a man "unarmed in a battle of wits" and resorting to ad homonym remarks. Surely there's a better man in there. I've seen it before so I know that a decent intellect resides in there somewhere. fac·toid n. 1.. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: "What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoidsa profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon" (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt). 2.. Usage Problem. A brief, somewhat interesting fact. How many private firearms are owned by how many US citizens is provided by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The amount of ammunition sold each year to private US citizens is from the same source. Firearm use against persons is from published FBI statistics, but may also be obtained (strangely enough) from the US Center for Disease control. Do you take issue with any particular "factoid"? Which one? Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well Mr. Blakely, you definitely have the bigger virtual penis. > Your self serving factoids are as valid as self serving factoids > can be. <>
KAF forced focus movement
How can I FORCE (by pin shorting or some other means) the 28-70 lens to move? Collin
Re: KAF forced focus movement
Forget it. I got it to work. Collin >Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:47:45 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: KAF forced focus movement > >How can I FORCE (by pin shorting or some other means) >the 28-70 lens to move? > >Collin
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Bruce, With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. I used fast film (Portra 800). Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere around f/11). I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which is not necessarily a problem. A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 to f/5.6? What camera settings do you use in situations like this? Thanks, Michael Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA
Re[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Michael, Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and not greater than flash synch speed. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: MC> Bruce, MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere MC> around f/11). MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which MC> is not necessarily a problem. MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 MC> to f/5.6? MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? MC> Thanks, MC> Michael MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: >>Michael, >> >>Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to >>is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it >>looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. >> >>I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to >>blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have >>used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main >>flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to >>be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are >>indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, >>the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more >>opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down >>the longer the duration. >> >>A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to >>TTL and see if you notice any difference. >> >>Just a few thoughts. >> >> >>Bruce >> >> >> >>Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: >> >>MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some >>MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the >>MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. >> >>MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of >>MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes >>MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the >>MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their >>MC> eyes were closed? >> >>MC> Any thoughts? >> >>MC> Michael Cross >>MC> Chico, CA >> >> >> >>
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Bruce, Manually setting the aperture at f/5.6, the shutter speed doesn't go lower than 45 in either Program or TV. Would it be better to set the shutter speed at 30 in Manual mode to get a little more ambient light? Michael Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and not greater than flash synch speed. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: MC> Bruce, MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere MC> around f/11). MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which MC> is not necessarily a problem. MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 MC> to f/5.6? MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? MC> Thanks, MC> Michael MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Michael Cross wrote: On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their eyes were closed? Any thoughts? Michael Cross Chico, CA At any given point in time someone in a group is likely to be blinking? Perhaps, as I've noticed among people around here, some few in an advanced state of imbibification were doing the blink, blink, "how many," blink, "blinking photographers are in here, anyway?" blink... routine? A possibility. Dan Scott
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Bruce, I just tried selecting the red-eye reduction mode on the camera. That mode gives a noticeably earlier pre-flash about a second prior to the shot. I wonder if the red eye mode would allow people to adjust to the flash and get their eyes back open before the shot? Michael Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and not greater than flash synch speed. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: MC> Bruce, MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere MC> around f/11). MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which MC> is not necessarily a problem. MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 MC> to f/5.6? MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? MC> Thanks, MC> Michael MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA
Re: OT: Hanukah & Christmas gift all-in-one
Sounds good Jeff.Let us know your thoughts:) Dave Begin Original Message From: "Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:59:33 -0500 To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Hanukah & Christmas gift all-in-one Today I received the Minolta Spotmeter F in the mail. It's in great condition. Great Hanukah gift. The bonus (Christmas gift) came from Customs. No taxes. Saved $35US. Yes!!! Jeff. 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[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Michael, No, let it go. The camera believes that you shouldn't hand hold it lower than 1/45 with your 35mm lens. That should be ok for the time being. Do a few test shots there and see how they turn out. You might try it on a few who didn't blink and a few who did. The other thing to try is setting the shutter speed to max flash synch and 5.6 and see what you get. Perhaps the slower shutter speed is allowing people enough time to blink. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:32:57 PM, you wrote: MC> Bruce, MC> Manually setting the aperture at f/5.6, the shutter speed doesn't go MC> lower than 45 in either Program or TV. Would it be better to set the MC> shutter speed at 30 in Manual mode to get a little more ambient light? MC> Michael MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: >>Michael, >> >>Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in >>program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and >>not greater than flash synch speed. >> >> >>Bruce >> >> >> >>Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: >> >>MC> Bruce, >> >>MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. >>MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). >> >>MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In >>MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. >>MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera >>MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere >>MC> around f/11). >> >>MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed >>MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these >>MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which >>MC> is not necessarily a problem. >> >>MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter >>MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 >>MC> to f/5.6? >> >>MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? >> >>MC> Thanks, >> >>MC> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> >> Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA >> >> >> >>
Re[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Michael, I wouldn't try the red-eye reduction mode simply because too many people let their guard down after the first flash and you end up more often with the "after shot" look. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:39:39 PM, you wrote: MC> Bruce, MC> I just tried selecting the red-eye reduction mode on the camera. That MC> mode gives a noticeably earlier pre-flash about a second prior to the MC> shot. I wonder if the red eye mode would allow people to adjust to the MC> flash and get their eyes back open before the shot? MC> Michael MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: >>Michael, >> >>Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in >>program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and >>not greater than flash synch speed. >> >> >>Bruce >> >> >> >>Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: >> >>MC> Bruce, >> >>MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. >>MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). >> >>MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In >>MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. >>MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera >>MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere >>MC> around f/11). >> >>MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed >>MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these >>MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which >>MC> is not necessarily a problem. >> >>MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter >>MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 >>MC> to f/5.6? >> >>MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? >> >>MC> Thanks, >> >>MC> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> >> Michael, Having used 360's extensively, the mode you are probably referring to is P-TTL where a pre-flash for measurements is taken. In practice it looks like one really long flash rather than two short ones. I have not really noticed an excessive amount of shut eyes due to blinking on hundreds of pictures taken. Two differences - 1) I have used an MZ-S. I don't know if the delay between pre-flash and main flash is longer with your camera or not. I would not suspect it to be. 2) I don't normally shoot with flash in as dim a light as you are indicating. This may have more to do with it. The dimmer the light, the longer the flash duration will be. This would give people more opportunity to blink. Also the slower the film and more stopped down the longer the duration. A simple test would be to use those variables, plus compare P-TTL to TTL and see if you notice any difference. Just a few thoughts. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 10:00:12 AM, you wrote: MC> On Saturday evening, I used my new (to me) AF360-FGZ to take some MC> pictures at our Christmas party. When I got back the prints, the MC> majority of the photos had at least one person with their eyes closed. MC> The house was fairly dark and the revelers had imbibed quite a bit of MC> Christmas cheer by the time the camera came out. Since everyone's eyes MC> had adjusted to very dim lighting, I am wondering if the preflash on the MC> AF360 caused people to blink so that when the photos were taken, their MC> eyes were closed? MC> Any thoughts? MC> Michael Cross MC> Chico, CA >> >> >> >>
Re: OT: Finally back!
As far as the PDML goes, Bill,same old,same old:) However we did get a new kitten.Not sure if we should name it Wheatfield or MJ. (Sorry guys,just to tempting Dave Begin Original Message From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> lines. It's good to be back. Have I missed anything interesting? Bill 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: Re[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
The problem is that in Av the camera ZX-L chooses shortest handholdable speed (1/45s for 50mm,1/30s for 35mm and so on)and in shutter priority the camera chooses the largest aperature for the lens. This can not be forgone by setting the aperature on the lens since this automatically sets the camera in Av. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Paul From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Michael Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:46:44 -0800 Michael, No, let it go. The camera believes that you shouldn't hand hold it lower than 1/45 with your 35mm lens. That should be ok for the time being. Do a few test shots there and see how they turn out. You might try it on a few who didn't blink and a few who did. The other thing to try is setting the shutter speed to max flash synch and 5.6 and see what you get. Perhaps the slower shutter speed is allowing people enough time to blink. Bruce _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Michael, > > I wouldn't try the red-eye reduction mode simply because too many > people let their guard down after the first flash and you end up more > often with the "after shot" look. Do they also have a sudden urge to have a smoke? keith > Bruce > > Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:39:39 PM, you wrote: > > MC> Bruce, > > MC> I just tried selecting the red-eye reduction mode on the camera. That > MC> mode gives a noticeably earlier pre-flash about a second prior to the > MC> shot. I wonder if the red eye mode would allow people to adjust to the > MC> flash and get their eyes back open before the shot? > > MC> Michael > > MC> Bruce Dayton wrote: > > >>Michael, > >> > >>Try about 5.6 with the aperture ring. Leave the rest of the camera in > >>program and I think that it will not set the shutter below 1/30 and > >>not greater than flash synch speed. > >> > >> > >>Bruce > >> > >> > >> > >>Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 12:13:45 PM, you wrote: > >> > >>MC> Bruce, > >> > >>MC> With the ZX-L, I cannot select TTL, my only choices are A, M and P-TTL. > >>MC> I used fast film (Portra 800). > >> > >>MC> Could you offer a little guidance about camera settings with flash? In > >>MC> this instance, I was using the FA 50mm f/1.4. > >>MC> I used the Program AE (a smiley face on the ZX-L), and the camera > >>MC> selected a shutter speed of 45 and pretty small apertures (somewhere > >>MC> around f/11). > >> > >>MC> I have also tried using shutter-priority and setting the shutter speed > >>MC> at 30, which gives larger apertures close to wide open. In these > >>MC> settings, ambient light dominates, so I get a yellow color shift which > >>MC> is not necessarily a problem. > >> > >>MC> A third possibility I considered was using M and setting the shutter > >>MC> speed at 20 or 30 and then manually selecting an aperture around f/2.8 > >>MC> to f/5.6? > >> > >>MC> What camera settings do you use in situations like this? > >> > >>MC> Thanks, > >> > >>MC> Michael
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Then what the f*ck were they doing it here with constant posts of lies? I waited, biting my lip, for more than 40 posts on this subject before observing that all the "Stop posting that" folks had begun fighting among themselves. YOU pissed on me for that! Well I got bloody tired of it about the time I noticed that replies of "shut up" were principally being addressed to only one side. If you folks don't want an argument... Don't start one! It's that simple. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob wrote: > > >I belong to 7 lists > > associated with this. Nowhere on these lists has anyone ever disparaged > > photography or Pentax let alone do it using falsehoods, lies, untruths, > > Of course not. They don't discuss pentax or photography but Guns. [skip]
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Bob Blakely wrote: I think that most folks on this list *assume* that the primary interest of the other members of the list is photography, either as their main or only hobby or for photography commercial purposes. This is a *false* assumption. So what. This isn't the GunDML- so please take this off list.
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 01:41 AM, Ken Archer wrote: Keep looking. They are available. I have been watching ebay for a couple of years for a K3.5/35. I found one a month ago on ebay for $30 in mint condition. Only the plastic cap had a little silver lettering rubbed off on it. On Tuesday 10 December 2002 01:04 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So good luck in looking for K35/3.5 lens. I also plan to replace my M35/2.8 with any K 35mm or even FA35/2.0 in future. Alek -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs" Hey Ken, On our next get together let's each shoot a couple frames of the same subject with the K35/3.5 and the FA 35/2. That ought to show a little of the similarities and differences between the two (@ f/3.5 and down). What do you think? Dan Scott
Re: OT: The weekend in Ontario
--- Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, QEW is short for Queen Elizabeth Way. You're right about speeds > in California. Last summer I drove to California, and typical speeds on I-5 > were 75-90 mph, but almost no-one travelled any faster. Have you driven in > Europe? Nope, never driven to Europe (haven't had a chance to journey there). The posted speed limit in California varies from 55-65mph (approx. 105km/hr). Portions of I-5 may be posted up to 75mph. During the day driving over 90mph may well earn you a ticket. Although driving in the dead of night, I'm told some people go *much* faster. Pat in SF __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 07:54 AM, Cotty wrote: A Smart Police car! Is that an oxymoron? Assuming cops travel in pairs, where do they stow the handcuffed burglar? Cotty They put him under the hood and let the hamster take a break? Dan Scott
Re: OT: The weekend in Ontario
--- Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, QEW is short for Queen Elizabeth Way. Oops, I stand corrected. I asked the same question myself one snowy winter in Toronto. I guess there must've been a snow ball or a muffler over my ears that day . Pat in SF __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re[2]: Photography
Dan, My experience with Max 400/800 has been poor. Pretty good color - bad contrast (too contrasty) and crappy grain. I know that Tom V. has not had good luck with Portra 800 - so now I have to pull out the proofs from the few rolls of it that I have shot. In looking them over, the contrast is lower than Max, grain much smaller and cleaner. The color is more muted, but not unnatural. I should mention that I am looking at 67 proofs. I do have vague recollections of shooting some Portra 800 in 35mm and not liking it very much. It seemed quite dead. Probably needed to be rated down some in speed. Just looked at the Fuji NPZ 800 that I have shot for comparison. Grain looks better than Superia 800, color is a bit on the cool side (that is what I usually get from Fuji and my lab). Slightly contrasty but not bad. I would say that either film is an improvement over Max. The Fuji may be slightly faster. I mostly shoot Kodak Portra NC films when doing people (weddings/portraits) and would use the Portra 800 over the Max 800. But you should probably also give the Fuji NPZ 800 a try. I find that the lab can have some impact on the film chosen. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 3:35:26 PM, you wrote: DS> On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 04:36 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> So, to actually talk about something on topic for a bit. I just >> recently received from B&H some Kodak Portra 400 UC and some Agfa >> Ultra 100. I haven't had a chance to shoot either one yet but was >> curious if anyone else has any reports >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Bruce >> DS> Related question--Portra 800? Anyone have any comments about it? Lately DS> I've been using Max 800 instead of Superia 800, but Portra 160NC has DS> displaced my other print films and I'd like something similar. DS> Dan Scott
