Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[Brad Dobo]

Hmm...that particular lens isn't in my lens book, wanted to see it, guess
I'll have to search the web!

Brad (wishing Pentax would send new literature over to Canada one day ;-))

- Original Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:46 AM
Subject: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot


> I got my new A* 300 f/4 a few days ago and finally got the opportunity to
> take it out for a spin today. I like to go up into the city and photograph
> the homeless on the streets of our town. We have a local group that brings
> them help whenever possible. I have taken quite a few images of them, but
> two that I am particularly fond of are listed below. The second shot is
the
> one I took around 4:00pm this afternoon. I had no idea the poster was
behind
> this gentleman as I exposed the image. I didn't realize it's presence
until
> I picked the prints up from the photo lab this evening. All I could think
> was "what a coincidence". By the way, the "no parking" sign in the other
> image was a complete accident as well, but it says so much about the
plight
> of the homeless everywhere. They are constantly having to move on to avoid
> loitering charges. They literally have no place to "park".
>
> I am searching for a title for the new picture. Any suggestions would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Glen
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1070436
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1178334
>
>

Re: Parking ticket

[Dr E D F Williams]

This is terribly funny, but sad too. What about the poor bugger who owned
the motor-cycle.

Don

Dr E D F Williams

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


- Original Message -
From: "Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:22 AM
Subject: Parking ticket


> I went to the store the other day, and I was in there for only about 5
> minutes.  When I came out there was a [#@!$] motorcycle cop writing a
> parking ticket.  So I went up to him and said, "Come on, buddy, how about
> giving a guy a break?"
>
> He ignored me and continued writing the ticket.  So I called him a
> pencil-necked Nazi.  He glared at me and started writing another ticket
for
> having worn tires!  So I called him a piece of horse s**t. He finished the
> second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first.  Then he
started
> writing a third ticket!
>
> This went on for about 10 minutes.  The more I abused him, the more
tickets
> he wrote.  I didn't care.  My car was parked around the corner.
>
> I try to have a little fun each day. It's important.
>
>

Re: Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm2.8)

[akozak]

I wonder if you stepped down a bit a lens was the bokeh still bad?
BTW, how do you assess A501/4 in comparison with other 50mm Pentax lenses?Better/worse 
than FA version?
PS But for instance Yoshihiko believes that K105/2.8 very good lens. I share the 
opinion, stepping down a bit should help a lot.
Alek
What about K85/1.8








ggesting that
>anyone should necessarily go and sell his/her 105. I did so,
>myself, and specifically for its bokeh characteristics, but that's
>because bokeh is very important to me. In my opinion, there is
>nothing else at all wrong with the 105's lens design - nonetheless,
>I would not be doing anybody any favor by ignoring to mention a
>lens' faults - if never a bad word were to be said about any Pentax
>gear on the PDML, then we list members would not be able to benefit
>fully from our collective experience here.
>
>> That would not be wise, unless of course they want to sell it to
>> me.
>
>;-)
>
>Fred
>
--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...)

[akozak]

How do you assess K24/2.8 lens?
Alek
Użytkownik Jonathan Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
>I will second the comments Andre made concerning the K
>35/3.5. It is one hell of a sharp lens with
>practically no flare at all. I have comtemplated
>replacing it with one of Pentax's f2 versions, but I
>can't really justify two 35's and I'm NOT getting rid
>of my K 35/3.5. It is the lightest of their 35's,
>albeit slightly larger than the M/A types. The slow
>speed is somewhat compensated for by the fact that it
>is still amazingly sharp at full aperture. 
>
>I find myself using this lens more and more for the
>fine detail and overall brilliance of the pictures it
>produces. It is well worth the $95 USD that I paid for
>it in like new condition. Admittedly I use my K 24/2.8
>far more often because I like its angle of view and
>brighter image in the finder, but the K 35/3.5 ~is~
>indeed in an a special optical class above most other
>lenses I've used.
>
>-Jonathan-
>
>__
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
>http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
--r-e-k-l-a-m-a-

Święta tuż tuż!
http://swieta.onet.pl

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Dario Bonazza 2]

Pål Jensen wrote:

> > I've got a 77mm Limited to test (again!) against two different 85mm
f/1.4
> > Star lenses (Mr. Lastrucci's one, which was tested by himself some
months
> > ago, and mine, bought one month ago).
>
> A pity you don't have two Limiteds as well as your previous opinion on
this matter could indicate that you had dog of a 77mm lens.

The 77mm I got this time is different (S/No. 327) from that tested last year
(S/No. 302).

> I was sure that my sample of the FA* 85 was a bad one but Pentax made
tests shootout
> with another sample and the result was indistinguishable.

So we'll see if I get another dog of a star with the second sample I'm going
to test alongside the good one.

Bye,

Dario Bonazza

http://www.dariobonazza.com

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Dario Bonazza 2]

Hello Arnold,

You wrote:

> just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus
> bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my
> own tests.

Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the
exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that
we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine.
No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures
don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this.

Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of
the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic
No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image
in MX viewfinder.

My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either
infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject
(hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same
this time. Suggestions are also accepted.

Bye,

Dario Bonazza

http://www.dariobonazza.com

SMC Takumar 135/2.5

[Frankie Lee]

Just received a SMCT 135/2.5 (later version with same quality with SMC 135/2.5). I got 
it for portrait because it has good quality at wide open aperture (no test it yet, 
just based on other user reviews) and it is in near new condition as well as at a very 
good price.

One question: There is a half f-stop click evenly between f2.5 and f4. Is it f3.5 or 
f2.8? Thanks for advice.

_
Weight Loss products, Herbal Viagra, and much more!http://www.VitaDepot.com

_
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, 
POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

To get K30/2.8 ?

[Frankie Lee]

I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me have also-good 
K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket.

I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?

_
Weight Loss products, Herbal Viagra, and much more!http://www.VitaDepot.com

_
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, 
POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Bob Rapp]

Hi Frankie,
I have all three and would not part with any of them. The choice is
yours and the fact that the 30s are hard to find and expensive, I would go
after either the 28 or 35mm. Actually, any of the three will be hard to
find.

Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: "Frankie Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:30 PM
Subject: To get K30/2.8 ?


> I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me have
also-good K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket.
>
> I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?
>
> _
> Weight Loss products, Herbal Viagra, and much
more!http://www.VitaDepot.com
>
> _
> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No
Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
>

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Camdir]

In a message dated 15/12/02 23:16:23 GMT Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

<< I was watching this but forgot about it while (bullied into) making the 
 dinner tonight:
 
 http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1944242163
 
 was that a bargain? >>

Hardly! 50mm f2 M retails £20-25 averagely from most dealers, hopefully in 
rather better condition with all the attendant 'benefits'.

KR

Peter

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Mark D.]

--- Frankie Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price
> could let me have also-good K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus
> remaining money in my pocket.
> 
> I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have
> K30?

Keh has a couple of K28/3.5s at ~$100 and $80 (EX+ and
EX condition). They've got an EX+ 30/2.8 for ~$450. I
think it would be far wiser to the K35/3.5 and K28/3.5
(or M version of that one) and wait until you can find
a good deal on the 30/2.8. 

Mark

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

> If it was a f1.2 it would be a bargain, but the lens pictured is
>an f2.

Hi Steve,

Just shows how much attention I was paying!

Cheers

Cot


Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

>I also saw the lens, but noticed that the "f/1.2" is actually f/2. 
>The lens is correctly an SMC PENTAX-M 1:2 50mm.   
>
>Given the fungus and the f/2 maximum aperture, I'd say that
>the buyer was either misled by the item description or was
>a very foolish eBay-er!
>
>Regards,
>
>John

Thanks for that John - I woulda spotted it soon enough .

Cheers,

Cotty


Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

>Cotty,
>I don't think so...
>Is there any difference between mildew and fungus?  I don't think so!  
>"It's gone now and doesn't seem to affect picture quality."  I don't think 
>so!
>If you really want one, tell me off line and I'll look over here for you.  
>M50/2 are pertty cheap.
>Regards,  Bob S.

Thanks Bob.  Just scouting views out

Cot


Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

>I hope 519172 doesn't think he's getting an f/1.2 lens, as the ad
>says! He isn't! It's a quite ordinary f/2.0 lens...
>He paid U.S. equivalent of $30, and while not bad, it's not quite a
>bargain...especially with the fungus, which would indeed have required
>complete disassembly and soaking to get rid of it...

Thanks Keith. The photo is quite obvious, but it caught me out without 
difficulty. Mind you, with the chaos goin on in our house at the time, I 
defy anyone to try and concentrate on anything at all

Cheers,
Cot


Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

>Considering it is a fungussy M 50/2 (if the photo is accurate), you'd 
>be better off buying a clean sample for the same amount of money.

Cheers Dan. You are right.

Cot


Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at
http://www.macads.co.uk/

Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/

The old man and the Pentaxes

[Dr E D F Williams]

The Old Man and the Pentaxes

Outside a small village in Finland, in a little wooden house in a forest,
there lives an old man. He has four small dogs and a few Pentax cameras; a
couple of P30s and an ME Super. He has a handful of lenses too.
Unfortunately, although he's been used to the best, he has fallen on hard
times. He can no longer go out and buy stuff like other folks can.

One day he asks himself: "What can I do with my meagre equipment where a
larger format will not be needed and will offer no possible advantage. I
must find something at which 35 mm excels and can't be beaten, anyway,
anyhow, anytime. That will make me happy I'm sure." He looks at his wrinkled
brow in a mirror and sighs deeply. "What a shame I don't have my lovely
Linhofs, or my Hassie, or Rolleiflex. Most of all I miss my beautiful
Questar. Oh dear me." A few sparse tears run down his dry rugged cheeks. He
calls to his little dog and she climbs laboriously onto his lap. He starts
to think. But he already knows what 35 mm can do better than any other
format. But he has to kill time somehow. The snow has all fallen from the
trees so he can't go out and take pictures. He did that last week anyway
when the place looked like fairyland and it was -27C in the yard. Besides he
has no film. He has to wait for his pension to come through. So he has to
think it over and over and over ... he falls asleep with the little dog
curled up in his lap. Time passes.

"Ah!" he exclaims brightly, suddenly awake. "Eureka!" and he lifts Zozo from
his lap and they both stretch. His bones creak and crack. "Any final image
that ends up smaller than the 35 mm frame cannot be improved upon by being
put onto a larger format," he tells his reflection in the cracked mirror by
his bedside, loudly, with absolute confidence. "What do you think?" he asks
Zozo. Zozo wags her tail in agreement.

"I know what," he says walking through to his little study where the
computer sits waiting for his attention. "I'll tell my buddies about this.
Many of them only have 35 mm and will be happy to hear about this great
discovery." He sits down and writes a message which in essence say's the
following:

"Where the final image does not exceed the film size there is no point in
using bigger film," he mutters as he taps away at the keys. Talking to
himself is a habit that has slowly crept upon him over the last couple of
decades. "And where do we find such conditions?" he asks Zozo who has
followed him and is now under his feet. "In macro work where the final image
is smaller than the film size." He continues. "And also in the exit pupil of
a transmission microscope, a telescope - especially the Questar my own dear
favourite - or any optical system where the image will fit on 35 mm." He
mutters smugly, "using bigger film will be wasteful. Ha! Why put a 1 inch
image in the middle of a larger piece of film?" Then he thinks about the
good old days. His laboratory in that far off land, closed down after his
departure, his loyal staff, now all over the globe. And the sunny days that
go on and on. More tears flow.

He goes on typing for a while. "Why does Carl Zeiss use 35 mm in their
Photomicroscopes when they could just as well use 220 roll film?" he
suddenly asks Zozo who is now fast asleep and snoring. "Because the image
fits the film!" he screams aloud jumping from his chair which falls over
backwards. The little dog runs like hell for the door and the old man groans
because he has disturbed a weak lumbar disc that has given trouble for
years. He finishes and sends his message.

The poor old bugger! He doesn't understand his fellows very well. He fails
to anticipate their reactions. That they will insist, absolutely and without
compromise, that the image be enlarged to fit the larger film, never mind
what. No matter what he says. He doesn't anticipate either that his remarks
will cause anger. Nor does he know that he, in turn, will be frustrated and
angered. Later he tries giving examples: an image at more than 1000X exiting
from the eyepiece of a microscope fits on 35 mm and so that's all you need.
He talks about his beloved Questar. All is ignored. Make it bigger they all
say. Make it bigger. Bigger is always better. Grain! Print size! Resolution!
Tonality! The old man is bewildered. Aghast! Hurt! And finally angry. All he
wanted to point out was that one should use the film size most suitable for
the image. People hurl remarks at him like - 'self-proclaimed education' he
doesn't know what that means, and believes the author doesn't either, but
takes it as an insult and to heart.

But, for some unaccountable reason, he never has the sense to say, during
all the resulting furore, that the whole idea behind his brilliant discovery
was to let people who only had 35 mm know that there was something that
their equipment could do that would, and could, not be improved upon by the
use of a larger format. He failed time after time to get his buddies to
accept this simple point: that if th

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Keith Whaley]

I have a question for the group, along the same lines as the current discussion.
My personal preference for focusing is the split image viewfinder screen.
If I had any question as to the accuracy of the distance noted
thereby, up to some 50 feet, I could actually measure with a tape, and
compare that with what the lens says. I haven't taken the time to do that.

My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then
one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet
and beyond?
In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate
measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is
it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder
will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified?

keith whaley

Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
> 
> Hello Arnold,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > just one question about your testing procedure: Do you do focus
> > bracketing? I found careful focus bracketing to be quite important in my
> > own tests.
> 
> Most previous tests were done by Carlo Lastrucci, not by me (with the
> exception of the 24-90mm, published in Spotmatic No. 30, October 2001, that
> we made together). Then I commented Carlo's pictures on Spotmatic magazine.
> No, we usually don't do focus bracketing, since most people in most pictures
> don't. I'd appreciate your further comments on this.
> 
> Carlo's tests were done focusing with MZ-5 autofocus, with the exception of
> the latest comparison (35/2 FA vs. 31/1.8 Ltd, published in Spotmatic
> No.34), where focusing was manually adjusted by looking at the split-image
> in MX viewfinder.
> 
> My test about the 24-90 was done with MZ-S, autofocusing on subject (either
> infinity or mid-distance) always going farther away from a closer subject
> (hence reaching focus from close distance). I was thinking of doing the same
> this time. Suggestions are also accepted.
> 
> Bye,
> 
> Dario Bonazza
> 
> http://www.dariobonazza.com

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

>No, it's not a bargain, because it's not a 1.2. It's an M 2.0, and it's
>not worth the price of having it disassembled and cleaned. Nice lens,
>but not worth very much on the open market.
>Paul

Thanks Paul,

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: The old man and the Pentaxes

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Dec 2002 at 14:50, Dr E D F Williams wrote:

> The Old Man and the Pentaxes

> ... Then the old man's
> nose began to bleed and he looked around for a box of tissues. After he'd
> stopped the haemorrhaging he sat on his bed in a daze for a long time. He
> wished he had a bottle of whisky. Maybe he'd get one for Christmas? "Some
> hope!" he muttered. The small light beside his bed suddenly went out but he
> just sat there, doing nothing

I don't believe that I can easily air freight some whisky or a decent macro 
lens to Finland for 67 before Christmas otherwise I would, what a sad story :-(

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Alan Chan]

My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then
one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet
and beyond?
In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate
measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is
it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder
will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified?


I think not. The reason is that the numbers on the lenses are approximate 
only. Also, wide angle lenses are more likely to reveal any focus accuracy 
flaw. To ensure the accuracy of the viewfinder/screen, the only testing 
distance is infinity (AFAIK). However, the accuracy of the viewfinder is not 
the same as the accuracy of the film plate (because Pentax 135 SLR bodies 
employ washers to guide the distance between the mount and the film plane). 
Missing washers (not uncommon with used Pentax bodies which were serviced by 
non-Pentax experts) mean lenses would focus beyond infinity (more noticable 
with wide angle lenses). I had an used Super Program with this exact 
problem.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Was this a bargain?

[Cotty]

><< I was watching this but forgot about it while (bullied into) making the 
> dinner tonight:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1944242163
> 
> was that a bargain? >>
>
>Hardly! 50mm f2 M retails £20-25 averagely from most dealers, hopefully in 
>rather better condition with all the attendant 'benefits'.


Common sense eh. Thanks for that Pete.

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: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Dec 2002 at 4:51, Keith Whaley wrote:

> My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then
> one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet
> and beyond?
> In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate
> measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is
> it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder
> will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified?

It should work but it would make the experiment far more accurate if one of the 
measurements was quite close ie a metre or so. However the definitive method is 
to focus onto ground glass across the film rails (using a loupe for 
magnification) then comparing that with the image in the finder. If they 
coincide then you'll be able to trust your finder focus aid.

A quick and dirty way to make a "ground glass" plate for placing across 35mm 
film rails is to stick translucent scotch tape to a piece of glass from a 35mm 
glass slide mount.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: The old man and the Pentaxes

[Rob Studdert]

On 17 Dec 2002 at 0:05, Rob Studdert wrote:

> I don't believe that I can easily air freight some whisky or a decent macro lens
> to Finland for 67 before Christmas otherwise I would, what a sad story :-(

Maybe someone can send me an editor :-(

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Dec 2002 at 4:51, Keith Whaley wrote:

> My question is, if I should measure to a stake placed at 5 feet, then
> one at 15 feet, could I expect a linearity all the way out to 50 feet
> and beyond?
> In other words, if I took the easy way out, and did an accurate
> measurement only at 10 or 15 feet, and the lens agreed with that, is
> it rational to assume that my measurement with split image rangefinder
> will be good for ALL distances shorter and longer than that just verified?

It should work but it would make the experiment far more accurate if one of the
measurements was quite close ie a metre or so. However the definitive method is
to focus onto ground glass across the film rails (using a loupe for
magnification) then comparing that with the image in the finder. If they
coincide then you'll be able to trust your finder focus aid.

A quick and dirty way to make a "ground glass" plate for placing across 35mm
film rails is to stick translucent scotch tape to a piece of glass from a 35mm
glass slide mount.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Don't buy lenses with fungus, . <--that little dot ispronounced "period"

[Mike Johnston]

>> I was watching this but forgot about it while (bullied into) making the
>> dinner tonight:
>> 
>> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1944242163
>> 
>> was that a bargain?
>> 
>> What are the chances the mildew would return? Would it have needed a
>> strip down and CLA?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Cotty
>> 



Note that it's an f/2 lens, not an f/1.2 lens. If an f/2 lens is what you
want, I've got a very clean one I'm trying to sell for a friend for $19. Let
me know.

--Mike

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:22  AM, Pål Jensen wrote:


Dan wrote:



What does "its performance is diffraction limited" mean?


When light passes though a hole light are getting scattered or "bent". 
This limites the theoretically possible resolution of a lens.

Pål


Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you 
specified the 77/1.8 in that way.

Dan Scott

Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[Brad Dobo]

Last winter I spent a week in Toronto right downtown.  I was thinking of
homeless shots, but asked around first, the friends I stayed with were
artistic and employed as such.  They said it was common, but paying a sum of
money for a good hot meal at least was generally the custom.  I had my
reservations beforehand, and once there, seeing them, I could not shoot
pictures of them.

Brad
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot


>
> On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 07:34  AM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > IMNSHO, having been there a time or two in my life, I can tell you the
> > down
> > and out really like people sniping them with a 300mm lens. It helps
> > keep
> > their paranoia at a high level which is probably a survival factor.
> > But, as
> > a former street (road, actually) person I do so like to snap yuppie
> > photographers when I find them in embarrassing situations, and posting
> > them
> > on the web. Make no mistake, unless they are far gone into insanity,
> > drugs,
> > or alcohol, street people are embarrassed by their situation.
> >
> > I never have figured out the faciation of photographing the destitude,
> > unless it is the feeling that they can't afford an attorney and
> > therefore
> > will not wind up sueing the photographer.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Graywolf
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
>
> Couldn't have said it any better myself.
>
> Dan Scott
>
>

Pentax Teleconverters

[Brad Dobo]

Hey folks,

I have a friend who wants to sell his TC.  It is apparently in mint
condition, minus the original case.  It's the Pentax A 1.4X-L.  He's looking
at asking about $225USD for it.  Is that a good deal?  From what I've
learned, they are very expensive new (and it would take me 6 months to get
it shipped here).  I have no lenses that I wish to use a TC for at this
point, besides my A 400mm f/5.6, which is why I'm looking at the the better
L version that is usually reserved for those with * or ED glass.

Comments and all,

Brad
**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#: 1658

Re: PUG reminder

[Christian Skofteland]

On Monday 16 December 2002 12:10, Dan Scott wrote:

> Good question, even if not serious. I'm sure other people have
> wondered, too. I think the general rule is either a Pentax lens or a
> Pentax body. As far as I know, no one has abused it enough to put it to
> a test (like, say, a Canon EOS something with a Canon lens with a
> Pentax UV filter on it).
>
> I hope we don't have to get persnickety enough to get that specific...
>
> Dan Scott

Really, I was just kidding.  Trying to stir the pot. ;-)

We've had this discussion at least ten times since I've been on the list and 
I thought it was time for 11! 

Christian

Rumour mill again...

[Rob Brigham]

VERY SCEPTICAL, but here for your opinions:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=a9a24ea6
81d8566035b8610ee567;act=ST;f=3;t=67

Just a heads upI was privy to some info and specs on a new camera
that will debut this spring at PMA.  Pentax will be putting out a 14
megapixel Full Frame SLR utilizing a Foveon sensor. No Typo here14
megpixel full frame Foveon. Don't ask me for my sources because I won't
tell . Whether or not you believe it is up to you. Lets just say I am
100% cetain of this info.

The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an
environtmentally sealed body.

Specs that I saw were as follows:

- 35mm Full Frame Foveon Sensor with RAW only recording. No JPG.
Firewire and USB enabled ports. External flash shoe will accept
Pentax-AF series units.

- Maximum ~2.0 FPS recording

- ISO 100-800 with ISO 800 being a special programmed in camera
function.

- Anti Alias filter and dust protector over sensor.

Obviously no estimated Street Value but my source tells me expect the
final street price to be roughly $6,000. Release date sometime in April
2002. 

RE: PUG reminder

[Rob Brigham]

Thanks.  The warning didn't help last month, but this month I am taking
note.  I think it is great that people are kind enough to offer a heads
up every month!

> -Original Message-
> From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 15 December 2002 20:36
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: PUG reminder
> 
> 
> 5 days left...
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> --
> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. 
> The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
> 
> 
> 

RE: Rumour mill again...

[Rob Brigham]

Yep - could that be the 1st???

> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 16 December 2002 17:55
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Rumour mill again...
> 
> 
> "... Release date sometime in April 2002." ??
> 
> keith whaley
> 
> Rob Brigham wrote:
> > 
> > VERY SCEPTICAL, but here for your opinions:
> > 
> > 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi->
bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=a9a24e
> > a6
> > 81d8566035b8610ee567;act=ST;f=3;t=67
> > 
> > Just a heads upI was privy to some info and specs on a 
> new camera 
> > that will debut this spring at PMA.  Pentax will be putting 
> out a 14 
> > megapixel Full Frame SLR utilizing a Foveon sensor. No Typo 
> here14 
> > megpixel full frame Foveon. Don't ask me for my sources because I 
> > won't tell . Whether or not you believe it is up to you. 
> Lets just say 
> > I am 100% cetain of this info.
> > 
> > The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an 
> > environtmentally sealed body.
> > 
> > Specs that I saw were as follows:
> > 
> > - 35mm Full Frame Foveon Sensor with RAW only recording. No JPG. 
> > Firewire and USB enabled ports. External flash shoe will accept 
> > Pentax-AF series units.
> > 
> > - Maximum ~2.0 FPS recording
> > 
> > - ISO 100-800 with ISO 800 being a special programmed in camera 
> > function.
> > 
> > - Anti Alias filter and dust protector over sensor.
> > 
> > Obviously no estimated Street Value but my source tells me 
> expect the 
> > final street price to be roughly $6,000. Release date sometime in 
> > April 2002.
> 
> 

RE: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[Glen O'Neal]

Brad ... you obviously have a heart for these people. They will sometimes
welcome help when there are no strings attached and they feel you are
offering assistance to them in a way that doesn't offend their dignity. Cash
is rarely the right answer unless you know the person very well. Cash can be
used for destructive behavior by some. Don't be afraid to offer to buy a hot
meal. By the way "hot" is important, especially this time of year. There is
absolutely nothing more terrifying than being cold and hungry with no way to
get warm. The body continues to burn nourishment to warm itself and the
hunger and cold are brutal. A warm meal and some light friendly
communication about anything is usually welcome. Ending it with, "I hope to
get to talk with you again some time" helps. Make it all about the
conversation. Touch is important to some. If you can tell they are
comfortable with you, a handshake means a lot. They know they need help but
are often afraid to accept it. Asking politely to take a pic or two is ok.
Have someone take one of the two of you together if you have a friend with
you, but don't hand your camera to a stranger. Don't be afraid to talk. Go
in pairs or threes but no more, could be intimidating to them if they are
approached by a group. Be compassionate but careful. Take interest in them
and their lives. Everyone has a story to tell and hearing some of theirs
will both amaze and sadden. It really helped me to learn how close I am to
being in their shoes.

Glen

-Original Message-
From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot


Last winter I spent a week in Toronto right downtown.  I was thinking of
homeless shots, but asked around first, the friends I stayed with were
artistic and employed as such.  They said it was common, but paying a sum of
money for a good hot meal at least was generally the custom.  I had my
reservations beforehand, and once there, seeing them, I could not shoot
pictures of them.

Brad
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot


>
> On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 07:34  AM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > IMNSHO, having been there a time or two in my life, I can tell you the
> > down
> > and out really like people sniping them with a 300mm lens. It helps
> > keep
> > their paranoia at a high level which is probably a survival factor.
> > But, as
> > a former street (road, actually) person I do so like to snap yuppie
> > photographers when I find them in embarrassing situations, and posting
> > them
> > on the web. Make no mistake, unless they are far gone into insanity,
> > drugs,
> > or alcohol, street people are embarrassed by their situation.
> >
> > I never have figured out the faciation of photographing the destitude,
> > unless it is the feeling that they can't afford an attorney and
> > therefore
> > will not wind up sueing the photographer.
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Graywolf
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
> >
>
> Couldn't have said it any better myself.
>
> Dan Scott
>
>

April 2003 PUG

[Joseph Tainter]

This is the PUG with the theme "Cliché." In my opinion, it is one of
Bill's most brilliant ideas.

I suggest that we set up a vote for the best cliché photo that month.
(And I'm suggesting it for that month only, unless we want to make it an
annual.)
I have in mind something like the annual Bulwer-Lytton award.
Bulwer-Lytton was a Victorian novelist who wrote "It was a dark and
stormy night." So every year the Bulwer-Lytton award goes to the most
creative awful opening sentence - a classic cliché. People work hard to
produce them, and some are quite witty (www.bulwer-lytton.com). A
photography equivalent would be fun.

Unless folks find this objectionable, I'll volunteer to handle the
e-mails and keep the tally.

Joe

P.S. I suspect that Cotty is the real annual winner of the Bulwer-Lytton
award, writing under various noms-de-plume.

Re: Photography

[gfen]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, 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

As did I, but this isn't the season to be testing any exciting colour
film. :)

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

Re: Anybody got a shot OF a 6x7?

[Jan van Wijk]

Hi Mike,

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:15:12 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:

>Does anybody have a nice color shot OF a Pentax 67 that I could use as an
>illustration for my column?
>
>If you can help, e-mail me off-list. Thanks.

Tried to reply twice to you off-list, but both emails are refused by your 
email server because it doesn't like the return address ...



I have a shot of the 67II with the 45mm wide-angle on it.

Grab it if you like, it is at:

http://www.dfsee.com/gallery/p67iilf.htm

Regards, JvW



--
Jan van Wijk;   http://www.dfsee.com/gallery

Re: Don't buy lenses with fungus, full stop.

[Mike Johnston]

> Thanks for the advice re the fungus - I assumed that to be the case. But
> let's say that that lens *was* a 50 1.2 in that condition. At £19 ($30)
> would it have been worth buying? What about at £40 ($60)? Where is the
> cutoff, assuming a strip down and de-fungus action taken?
> 
> Thoughts?

Cotty,
It's never worth buying a lens that has fungus. Two basic reasons:

1. Even if it's cleaned, there's no guarantee the fungus won't come back.

2. The fungus can spread to other lenses stored with the afflicted lens.

Plus, it's either impossible to re-sell the lens; either that, or (assuming
you don't inform the buyer about the lens's history) it's unethical.

You'll hear various stories on the internet about how people have
successfully had lenses cleaned or used them with no problems, etc., or
shined sunlight through the, or stored them with ammonia, or whatever, and
I'm not saying you'll absolutely always have problems, but as a general rule
I think it's just better not to mess with fungus. Mushrooms and penicillin
excepted.

--Mike

Re[2]: Photography

[Bruce Dayton]

I find that these types of films are actually what is needed when it
starts to get dreary.  The colors are already drab and the extra punch
can make quite a difference.  When the lighting is good, heavy
saturation can sometimes be too much.

Just got to find a few minutes to get out...


Bruce



Monday, December 16, 2002, 10:16:19 AM, you wrote:

g> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, 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

g> As did I, but this isn't the season to be testing any exciting colour
g> film. :)

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 12:14  PM, Joseph Tainter wrote:


This is the PUG with the theme "Cliché." In my opinion, it is one of
Bill's most brilliant ideas.

I suggest that we set up a vote for the best cliché photo that month.
(And I'm suggesting it for that month only, unless we want to make it 
an
annual.)

Unless folks find this objectionable, I'll volunteer to handle the
e-mails and keep the tally.

Joe


Sounds good to me. I'm currently wracking my brain trying to figure out 
what is the photographic equivalent of a velvet painting of a "sad, 
crying, clown in an iron lung" [Rocko's Modern Life]. Maybe the classic 
photographer's self-portrait—a camera obscuring most of one's face as 
seen in the bathroom mirror? Too easy?

Dan Scott

RE: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[Glen O'Neal]

I am asking that we bring an end to this thread. My original post was to ask
for comments on my image and suggestions for a title. It was my first time
ever sharing one of my images with the PDML. It has been implied (both on
list and off) that I am insensitive to the plight of the homeless and
careless in subjecting them to my lens from a distance of more than 15 feet.
I will leave that up to those homeless whom I have photographed and with
whom I have conversed. At this point the discussion has become about
homelessness and what we can do. Although I feel strongly that this is a
topic worth discussion, like many other threads on the PDML it has drifted
way off topic. Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the PDML and
learn a great deal from all of you.

Best regards,
Glen O'Neal

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 11:38  AM, Rob Brigham wrote:


The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an
environtmentally sealed body.

Specs that I saw were as follows:

- 35mm Full Frame Foveon Sensor with RAW only recording. No JPG.
Firewire and USB enabled ports. External flash shoe will accept
Pentax-AF series units.

- Maximum ~2.0 FPS recording

- ISO 100-800 with ISO 800 being a special programmed in camera
function.

- Anti Alias filter and dust protector over sensor.

Obviously no estimated Street Value but my source tells me expect the
final street price to be roughly $6,000.


Entirely believable until you get to the "roughly $6,000.00" part. 
Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at that price level with 
anyone. Had you said, "$899.99" or even "$549.99" I would find it 
entirely credible, but "$6,000.00" shows someone is pulling someone's 
leg or finger or something.

Dan Scott 

Re: Stupid threads

[gfen]

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, William Robb wrote:
> Try alt.dogs.behavior sometime. They make us look positively
> lucid.

Is it filled to the brim with crud from some guy named Jerry (I think?). I
used to read the APBT group for awhile, and he'd spew his nonsense and
respond to everything he could in order to push his training method.

I eventually gave up.

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

would you guys take a look at .... plus epson prices comment

[Ann Sanfedele]

http://users.rcn.com/annsan/
my home page and follow link to America Naturally  Calendar?

One of the Scrabble guys has 8 points on guesses of where things are -
I'm keeping the contest open until Christmas eve -

Ya gotta beat this guy !  :)
rules:


read across and then down for numbers 1-12
2 points for each exact location (e.g., Yellowstone National Park,
Wyoming - which of course, isnt
on the calendar)
1 point for correct state without further info.

all are in the USA.  None are in Hawaii, tho.

There are some that could only be one spot, but on the others you really
do have to guess.

on another topic -
a few of my things are on the www.birthydaycards.com site -
both for cards (postcards) and "skins" - which was fun to do...
The guys running the site is,again, someone I know from my wordgame
connections...
He aint paying me much, but supposed to link back to my page and I'm
hoping for
some hits to eventually work in my favor.

Much of his greeting card stuff is rather aimed at the kids on the web
and
some of his photos are really awful, but difficult to tell him that.

At least it is a little bit of cash coming in.

And, of course, I'm selling the calendars that I'm making to order
Pentax content? You bet - all but one image on my calendar taken
with either KX or LX .

AND - re the cartridges
Staples guy told me he would match price I got from altex if I bring in
receipt
from same within 14 days of having purchased the ones from my Staples!
Cant miss with that, right?

annsan

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Jose R. Rodriguez]

Frankie,

I sold a SMC Pentax-M 35mm f/2.0 and SMC K Pentax 28mm f/3.5 to purchase a SMC Pentax 
K 30mm f/2.8 and have not regretted the decision.  I did not perform any formal tests, 
but I feel the images the K 30mm produces are superior to the M 35mm and K 28mm.  If 
you can find a K 30mm at a reasonable price, I would recommend you purchase it...

Regards,

Jose R. Rodriguez 


> 
> From: Frankie Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2002/12/16 Mon AM 05:30:20 CST
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: To get K30/2.8 ?
> 
> I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me have also-good 
>K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket.
> 
> I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?
> 
> _
> Weight Loss products, Herbal Viagra, and much more!http://www.VitaDepot.com
> 
> _
> Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, 
>POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
> 
> 

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Pål Jensen]

Rob wrote:

> The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an
> environtmentally sealed body.


If this is true, then it's film sibling is certainly the long awaited flagship

Pål

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Pål Jensen]

Dan wrote:

> Entirely believable until you get to the "roughly $6,000.00" part. 
> Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at that price level with 
> anyone. Had you said, "$899.99" or even "$549.99" I would find it 
> entirely credible, but "$6,000.00" shows someone is pulling someone's 
> leg or finger or something.

None of the mega $$$ DSLR are being manufactured to "sell". They are statement 
products signalising corporate health and corporate intentions.

Pål

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Pål Jensen]

Dan wrote:

> Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you 
> specified the 77/1.8 in that way.

No. The point is what's the limiting factor; the glass quality or the laws of physics.

Pål

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Brendan]

But! Pentax does not make products to show signalising
corporate health and corporate intentions but to sell!


 --- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
Dan wrote:
> 
> > Entirely believable until you get to the "roughly
> $6,000.00" part. 
> > Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at that
> price level with 
> > anyone. Had you said, "$899.99" or even "$549.99"
> I would find it 
> > entirely credible, but "$6,000.00" shows someone
> is pulling someone's 
> > leg or finger or something.
> 
> None of the mega $$$ DSLR are being manufactured to
> "sell". They are statement products signalising
> corporate health and corporate intentions.
> 
> Pål
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: OT: Re: 35mm vs 8x10 macro

[gfen]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Dan Scott wrote:
> Is it possible to do macro work with a 4x5? What lens and extension
> would be needed?

I've fooled around with mine quite a few times.. Using my old Pacemaker
with a Dagor WA 111/6.8 or the Optar 135/4.7 that came with. You have to
extend the bellows to twice the length to acheive 1:1. I'm pretty happy
with my results, they're also lacking this weird blur/flare thing that I
get whenever I reverse a lens on my Pentax.

Focussing isn't very easy, I do most of it by raising and lowering the
tripod head from the center coloum.

The biggest problem I have is lack of movements.

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

Re: Brother Robb needs and 8x10

[gfen]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Crappy little tiny 4x5. What you really need is an 8x10. Real view camera.

Why stop there, go find yourself an 11x14!

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

Re: Photography

[Thibault GROUAS]

I personally think that winter and bad weather is the best moment to test
very saturated color films like Ultra 100 or Portra UC.
In summer colors are allready saturated enough and I prefer to use soft
color films like Portra NC or Reala.

I ran my first two rolls of Ultra 100 this week-end, deep into the forest
then on the atlantic shore by an awful weather : windy, rainy and with an
almost black sky.

The results will be interesting because the light was real crappy and flat
at the beginning (working at f/2 - f/2.8, 1/60)  and finally the sun came up
from behind the clouds and with the sand of the beach I ended the roll
shooting at f/8 1/250.

I am not a color neg fan but I'll post my first impressions on ultra 100
when I get the prints this week.

Thibault Grouas.


« gfen » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, 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
> 
> As did I, but this isn't the season to be testing any exciting colour
> film. :)

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Thibault GROUAS]

I am not a collector but I own a 30/2.8 which immediatly became my second
most used lens. I was not really happy with the K 28/3.5 which I found a
little too big and heavy for what it was.

If you buy it from KEH, $450 is a bit pricey though...

Thibault Grouas.

« Frankie Lee » <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :

> I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me have
> also-good K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket.
> 
> I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Ann Sanfedele]

Joseph Tainter wrote:

> This is the PUG with the theme "Cliché." In my opinion, it is one of
> Bill's most brilliant ideas.
>
> I suggest that we set up a vote for the best cliché photo that month.
> (And I'm suggesting it for that month only, unless we want to make it an
> annual.)
>
> Unless folks find this objectionable, I'll volunteer to handle the
> e-mails and keep the tally.
>
> Joe
>
> P.S. I suspect that Cotty is the real annual winner of the Bulwer-Lytton
> award, writing under various noms-de-plume.

Sounds like fun to me, Joe :)

annsan

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Mike Johnston]

> Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you
> specified the 77/1.8 in that way.

Dan,
"Diffraction limited" means that diffraction is the main
aberration--"masking" all others. Since diffraction _can't_ be done away
with, when diffraction is the dominant aberration it means that the
performance of the lens basically can't get any better.

With most (good) lenses, there is an "optimum" f-stop...one at which the
principal aberrations have been minimized but diffraction has not yet begun
to degrade the image quality too badly. Since diffraction has less of an
effect at wider apertures, the optimum aperture of a lens is the _widest_
aperture at which the basic aberrations (spherical, chromatic, etc.) are
brought under control.

A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction limited
at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction limited
camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are a few
short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction limited at
maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good.

Hope this helps,

--Mike

Re: Beards? Non.

[gfen]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Pat White wrote:
> Have you seen Kenny Rogers' large-format work?  It's pretty good!

No, but I've seen Leonard Nimoy's 35mm work.

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

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Brad Dobo]

Yes.  It would be a strictly professional tool.  Professionals define what
happens.  To make their work faster and easier, they'll go to digital.  Only
professionals (or those that employ them) can afford a DSLR.  Professionals
will likely choose a Nikon or Canon.  For Pentax to bother at all is silly
IMHO.  Why do we *need* a DSLR at this point in time?  It's like big glass.
Technology.  Pentax cannot even provide literature that is new to North
America.  Pentax Canada doesn't stock anything (basically) for the MZ-S or
the Medium Formats because there is just no demand.  This I know.  Why?
Well, as one member said we are number 4 of the big 3.

Everyone has sources, and they just haven't added up to anything yet.  I
don't see anything big coming out, that's just my personal opinion.  If they
do, I'll have to see it in a store to believe it.

Oh boy, this'll be good.

Happy holidays,

Brad

- Original Message -
From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Rumour mill again...


> But! Pentax does not make products to show signalising
> corporate health and corporate intentions but to sell!
>
>
>  --- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Dan wrote:
> >
> > > Entirely believable until you get to the "roughly
> > $6,000.00" part.
> > > Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at that
> > price level with
> > > anyone. Had you said, "$899.99" or even "$549.99"
> > I would find it
> > > entirely credible, but "$6,000.00" shows someone
> > is pulling someone's
> > > leg or finger or something.
> >
> > None of the mega $$$ DSLR are being manufactured to
> > "sell". They are statement products signalising
> > corporate health and corporate intentions.
> >
> > Pål
> >
> >
>
> __
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
>
>

Re: Anybody got a shot OF a 6x7?

[Mike Johnston]

> Tried to reply twice to you off-list, but both emails are refused by your
> email server because it doesn't like the return address ...

Ah, you mean  "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" I understand.

Thanks anyway, Jan. I did get a nice shot of a Pentax from William R., so
I'm all set. Thanks to anyone who offered to help (or tried to offer!).

--Mike








* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Some of Mike Johnston's online articles about photography:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/m-johnston.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/opinion/mikejohnston/index.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/opinion/html/sharpness.htm

http://www.cycloid-fathom.com/html/collect.htm

RE: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[Mike Johnston]

> Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
> will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the PDML and
> learn a great deal from all of you.

I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have earned
the right to photograph the homeless. Thanks.

--Mike

[no subject]

[Rodelion]

Goodday folks,

To all you wizzkids out there:

I'm probably able to buy a K2 + SMC-K 50/1.4 and a KX + SMC-K 55/1.8, together for 
like $ 220,- (maybe even less). Is this like a 'good price'? And what should I watch 
out for? Are there any specific flaws I should check? Thank you for your advice.

Rodelion.

buying a K2 and a KX, advice?

[Rodelion]

Goodday folks,

To all you wizzkids out there:

I'm probably able to buy a K2 + SMC-K 50/1.4 and a KX + SMC-K 55/1.8, together for 
like $ 220,- (maybe even less). Is this like a 'good price'? And what should I watch 
out for? Are there any specific flaws I should check? Thank you for your advice.

Rodelion.

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Brendan]

Actually Pentax does well in medium format! it's just
not in large demand in general tho.

 --- Brad Dobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. 
It would be a strictly professional tool. 
> Professionals define what
> happens.  To make their work faster and easier,
> they'll go to digital.  Only
> professionals (or those that employ them) can afford
> a DSLR.  Professionals
> will likely choose a Nikon or Canon.  For Pentax to
> bother at all is silly
> IMHO.  Why do we *need* a DSLR at this point in
> time?  It's like big glass.
> Technology.  Pentax cannot even provide literature
> that is new to North
> America.  Pentax Canada doesn't stock anything
> (basically) for the MZ-S or
> the Medium Formats because there is just no demand. 
> This I know.  Why?
> Well, as one member said we are number 4 of the big
> 3.
> 
> Everyone has sources, and they just haven't added up
> to anything yet.  I
> don't see anything big coming out, that's just my
> personal opinion.  If they
> do, I'll have to see it in a store to believe it.
> 
> Oh boy, this'll be good.
> 
> Happy holidays,
> 
> Brad
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Rumour mill again...
> 
> 
> > But! Pentax does not make products to show
> signalising
> > corporate health and corporate intentions but to
> sell!
> >
> >
> >  --- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Entirely believable until you get to the
> "roughly
> > > $6,000.00" part.
> > > > Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at
> that
> > > price level with
> > > > anyone. Had you said, "$899.99" or even
> "$549.99"
> > > I would find it
> > > > entirely credible, but "$6,000.00" shows
> someone
> > > is pulling someone's
> > > > leg or finger or something.
> > >
> > > None of the mega $$$ DSLR are being manufactured
> to
> > > "sell". They are statement products signalising
> > > corporate health and corporate intentions.
> > >
> > > Pål
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
__
> > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
> >
> >
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp,
Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have in mind something like the annual Bulwer-Lytton award.
> Bulwer-Lytton was a Victorian novelist who wrote "It was a dark and
> stormy night." So every year the Bulwer-Lytton award goes to the most
> produce them, and some are quite witty (www.bulwer-lytton.com). A
> photography equivalent would be fun.

Keep the Dark and stormy night in mind, I would just need to submit my
Leonid photos

Kind regards
Kevin

-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Kevin Waterson
Byron Bay, Australia

Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot

[T Rittenhouse]

My fault, Glen.

I noticed you mentioning working with the homeless, and my hat is off to you
for that. I probably would not have the patience.

My comments were not addressed to you personally, but were of a more general
nature. One of the problems with a list conversation, unless one is very
careful, it is easy to take a general statement personally. Both side should
try to make it clear where they are coming from. I did not do that. My
apologies, if you took it as a personal attack.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: RE: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot


> Tom,
>
> Thank you for your words. I think I understand what you are saying. I have
> worked with the homeless for nearly ten years in several shelters (in
> several cities) and with groups that try to help provide for their needs.
As
> I mentioned in my first note we have a local group that helps out when we
> can. We are not affiliated with any organization. We like to determine
> ourselves what we can do for them without the "help" of any government or
> civic agency. We were started by a little Chinese woman with a very big
> heart who runs a dress shop in my hometown. Her name is Kim. We take them
> coats, gloves, blankets, food and other personal needs items. We try to
help
> the ones who can work find jobs. We try to help reestablish relationships
> with those who have been forgotten by their families or can't find them.
We
> work to get rehabilitative assistance for the chemically dependant and
> emotional help for those with emotional or psychiatric difficulties. We
work
> to get financial assistance from the government to those we can get
> permanently located. I have known some of them personally, have had them
in
> my home for a meal or fed them at the Denny's where I meet with them on
> Tuesday and Friday mornings. The people at Denny's get real ticked at me
but
> I don't care. Some are afraid, some are mad, and yes some are mentally
> handicapped or dependent on chemicals. But they (almost) all need help. My
> camera has sometimes been an introduction to a new friend. I take the
> pictures so that we can put a few at a time up in the store where Kim
works.
> A lot of people in suburbia never see someone this unfortunate and if they
> did they might just look the other way. So thoughts of their needs never
> enters their mind nor would they know how to help. When they see a picture
> at the store and ask about it, Kim shows them an album we have showing
what
> we do and often people give a donation to help. We don't make a big deal
> about what we do. We don't go out and solicit assistance. Most of what we
> have to give comes from our own pockets or donations made at Kim's dress
> shop. I feel it would be wrong to look the other way and ignore when
seeing
> someone who needs help. I would rather look through a lens and then keep
> looking for a new ways to provide assistance. Now my son is getting
involved
> and helping out at the shelter.
>
> By the way, I am glad you are doing better and hope the driving school is
> going well. I still hold my CDL having gone through the Swift driving
school
> in Ft. Scott, Kansas and driving for them for some time. Life on the road
is
> hard, very hard, but it can be a real adventure if you look for
> opportunities to find the experiences that make it fun as well.
>
> Glen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: T Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot
>
>
> IMNSHO, having been there a time or two in my life, I can tell you the
down
> and out really like people sniping them with a 300mm lens. It helps keep
> their paranoia at a high level which is probably a survival factor. But,
as
> a former street (road, actually) person I do so like to snap yuppie
> photographers when I find them in embarrassing situations, and posting
them
> on the web. Make no mistake, unless they are far gone into insanity,
drugs,
> or alcohol, street people are embarrassed by their situation.
>
> I never have figured out the faciation of photographing the destitude,
> unless it is the feeling that they can't afford an attorney and therefore
> will not wind up sueing the photographer.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:46 AM
> Subject: My new Pentax-A* 300 f/4 and an interesting shot
>
>
> > I got my new A* 300 f/4 a few days ago and finally got the opportunity
to
> > take it out for a spin today. I like to go up into the city and
photograph
> > the homeless on the streets of our town. We have a local group that
brings
> > them help whenever possible. I have 

Re: SMC Takumar 135/2.5

[Andre Langevin]

Just received a SMCT 135/2.5 (later version with same quality with 
SMC 135/2.5). I got it for portrait because it has good quality at 
wide open aperture (no test it yet, just based on other user 
reviews) and it is in near new condition as well as at a very good 
price.

One question: There is a half f-stop click evenly between f2.5 and 
f4. Is it f3.5 or f2.8? Thanks for advice.

Probably 3.2.  (My guess...)

Andre
--

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp,
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Pentax will be putting out a 14
> megapixel Full Frame SLR utilizing a Foveon sensor.
Not unbelievable if there is a range of lesser models eg:
6=8-12 Mega pixel.

> The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an
> environtmentally sealed body.
Support for existing lenses has long been a selling point for Pentax.
What is 'environmentally sealed'?
> 
> - 35mm Full Frame Foveon Sensor with RAW only recording. No JPG.
> Firewire and USB enabled ports.
A firewire port or some form of networkable camera would be awesome.

 External flash shoe will accept
> Pentax-AF series units.
This would be expected of any Pentax 35mm, digital or film

> - Maximum ~2.0 FPS recording
A little slow for some but handy, the MZ-S I think does 2.5
 
> - ISO 100-800 with ISO 800 being a special programmed in camera
> function.
Again a little slow for low light situations, 

> - Anti Alias filter and dust protector over sensor.
standard
 
> Obviously no estimated Street Value but my source tells me expect the
> final street price to be roughly $6,000.
This is where rumour becomes rough, at that price, I imagine they will
sell 2. Pentax has never competed in that price category so why would they
begin now?

 Release date sometime in April
> 2002. 

I think you mean April 1 2003 ;)

Would like to see it all come true, exept for the $$$

Kind regards
Kevin
-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Kevin Waterson
Byron Bay, Australia

Re: buying a K2 and a KX, advice?

[Mark Roberts]

"Rodelion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I'm probably able to buy a K2 + SMC-K 50/1.4 and a KX + SMC-K 55/1.8, together for 
>like $ 220,- (maybe even less). Is this like a 'good price'? And what should I watch 
>out for? Are there any specific flaws I should check? Thank you for your advice.

With the K2 you should beware of a stuck film speed ring. CLA will usually
take care of it.

The weak point of the KX is the meter: I've seen more KXs with dead light
meters than any other camera. I've never been able to fix one yet (I have 2)
but I suspect it's the IC in the metering circuit. (I know it's not the SPD
cells or the galvanometer.)

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

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Andre Langevin]

I am thinking about getting a K30/2.8. But its price could let me 
have also-good K35/3.5 and K28/3.5 plus remaining money in my pocket.

I am not a collector. Is it still reasonable to have K30?

Tough choice.  First I thought it's better to have two lenses and 
choose the focal lenght according to the needs of the moment.  But 
2.8 is 2/3 of stop faster than 3.5 and 30mm is a good compromise, 
almost a 28mm...

But what others said stands, so wait for a better priced 30mm and 
then sell the 28mm and/or the 35mm to pay for it.

Andre
--

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Jostein]

Joe,
I think this is a very good idea.

Interesting to see what different people think of as a cliché. To
Norwegian nature photographers, the no. 1 cliché is "Elk In Sunset".
Which probably Wouldn't mean much to eg. Sridhar, Albano or Rob
Studdert...:-)



Jostein
Norwegian Lanscape Cliché-ist.




- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:14 PM
Subject: April 2003 PUG


> This is the PUG with the theme "Cliché." In my opinion, it is one of
> Bill's most brilliant ideas.
>
> I suggest that we set up a vote for the best cliché photo that
month.
> (And I'm suggesting it for that month only, unless we want to make
it an
> annual.)
> I have in mind something like the annual Bulwer-Lytton award.
> Bulwer-Lytton was a Victorian novelist who wrote "It was a dark and
> stormy night." So every year the Bulwer-Lytton award goes to the
most
> creative awful opening sentence - a classic cliché. People work hard
to
> produce them, and some are quite witty (www.bulwer-lytton.com). A
> photography equivalent would be fun.
>
> Unless folks find this objectionable, I'll volunteer to handle the
> e-mails and keep the tally.
>
> Joe
>
> P.S. I suspect that Cotty is the real annual winner of the
Bulwer-Lytton
> award, writing under various noms-de-plume.
>
>

Re: Stupid threads

[Mark Roberts]

gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, William Robb wrote:
>> Try alt.dogs.behavior sometime. They make us look positively
>> lucid.
>
>Is it filled to the brim with crud from some guy named Jerry (I think?). I
>used to read the APBT group for awhile, and he'd spew his nonsense and
>respond to everything he could in order to push his training method.
>
>I eventually gave up.

Yep, some of the smaller newsgroups can easily be ruined by a single person.
There is (was) a group called alt.culture.ny-upstate that sounded
interesting to me when I lived in upstate New York. Rendered utterly useless
by one (possibly two but I doubt it) individual posting under a variety of
names.

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

Re: Stupid threads

[gfen]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Yep, some of the smaller newsgroups can easily be ruined by a single person.
> There is (was) a group called alt.culture.ny-upstate that sounded
> interesting to me when I lived in upstate New York. Rendered utterly useless
> by one (possibly two but I doubt it) individual posting under a variety of
> names.

It amazes me how easy it really is to bring down a newsgroup with a few
well placed trolls... Or when the alt.fan.karl-maldens-nose crew decides
to start a cascade through your group.

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

Re: The old man and the Pentaxes

[Paul Stenquist]

Thank you for the fascinating tale. I enjoyed it thoroughly. You are
obviously a very intelligent man and a fine writer of English prose.
However, I still don't agree with your premise. But that's okay. We can
agree to disagree.
Paul

Re: Beards? Non.

[Timothy Sherburne]

On 12/16/02 12:08 PM, gfen wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Pat White wrote:
>> Have you seen Kenny Rogers' large-format work?  It's pretty good!
> 
> No, but I've seen Leonard Nimoy's 35mm work.


You mean this? 

t

Re: more on ghostless coating [quite long]

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Dec 2002 at 15:08, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:

> Just look at lenses descriptions. It seems that ghostless coating is applied to
> almost every new lens produced after 199x (?)!!! So here we have not only
> Limiteds, but also new FA 35/2, FA* 200/4 Macro and even cheap long zooms like
> FA 100-300/4.7-5.8 and 80-320/4.5-5.6.

Searching on the keyword "ghostless" on the European and US Pentax sites will 
reveal the press releases associated with lenses featuring Ghostless coatings, 
also and incidentally all are also SMC coated.

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Re[2]: Beards? Non.

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 8:08:00 PM, you wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, Pat White wrote:
>> Have you seen Kenny Rogers' large-format work?  It's pretty good!

> No, but I've seen Leonard Nimoy's 35mm work.

Dr. Who uses an Auto 110, but when you open the back it's like a 6x7.
Amazing. Does some great time exposures.

---

 Bob  

"Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction"
Francis Picabia

Re[2]: Rumour mill again...

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 10:05:13 PM, you wrote:

> Brad wrote:

>>Only
>> professionals (or those that employ them) can afford a DSLR.  Professionals
>> will likely choose a Nikon or Canon.  For Pentax to bother at all is silly
>> IMHO.  

> Once upon a time no professional chose Nikon or Canon.

that was over 50 years ago.

---

 Bob  

"Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction"
Francis Picabia

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Rob Studdert]

On 16 Dec 2002 at 22:26, Jostein wrote:

> Joe,
> I think this is a very good idea.
> 
> Interesting to see what different people think of as a cliché. To
> Norwegian nature photographers, the no. 1 cliché is "Elk In Sunset".
> Which probably Wouldn't mean much to eg. Sridhar, Albano or Rob
> Studdert...:-)

Correct. I can envisage a shot of the Sydney Opera House with the Sydney 
Harbour Bridge in the background...

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Ethics of Documentary Photography

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17  PM, Mike Johnston wrote:


Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the 
PDML and
learn a great deal from all of you.

I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have 
earned
the right to photograph the homeless. Thanks.

--Mike


I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn 
anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I 
understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when 
you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape.

If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your 
vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself 
presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you 
are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your 
powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along 
looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is 
most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit.

I think that is wrong.

Dan Scott

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Dan Scott]

On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 01:59  PM, Mike Johnston wrote:



Dan,
"Diffraction limited" means that diffraction is the main
aberration--"masking" all others. Since diffraction _can't_ be done 
away
with, when diffraction is the dominant aberration it means that the
performance of the lens basically can't get any better.

With most (good) lenses, there is an "optimum" f-stop...one at which 
the
principal aberrations have been minimized but diffraction has not yet 
begun
to degrade the image quality too badly. Since diffraction has less of 
an
effect at wider apertures, the optimum aperture of a lens is the 
_widest_
aperture at which the basic aberrations (spherical, chromatic, etc.) 
are
brought under control.

A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction 
limited
at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction 
limited
camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are 
a few
short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction 
limited at
maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good.

Hope this helps,

--Mike


Yes, it does. Thanks,

Dan Scott

Re: April 2003 PUG

[frank theriault]

Hmm...

I think I'll do well with this one.  I could send in pretty much any pic
I've taken over the last couple of years - I specialize in cliches.  I've
got lots of lighthouse photos;  what's more cliche than that?

cheers,
frank

Rob Studdert wrote:

> Correct. I can envisage a shot of the Sydney Opera House with the Sydney
> Harbour Bridge in the background...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Alan Chan]

In addition, I wouldn't trust manual focusing with an old camera like the 
MX unless it has been recently adjusted with the use of a ground glass at 
the film plane. I'm sure that if you used several bodies with the same lens 
focused at the same subject the readout for correct focus on the lens with 
the different bodies will vary.

Ironically, my calibrated MX delivers noticeably sharper images than my 3 
years old Z-1p which was bought new, manual focus or AF.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Alan Chan]

A _lens_ is said to be "diffraction limited" when it is diffraction limited
at its widest aperture. Strictly speaking, there are no diffraction limited
camera lenses. Maybe a few enlarging lenses come close. And there are a few
short teles (like the Leica 90mm Elmarit-R) that are diffraction limited at
maybe one and a half stops down, which is damned good.


Could that be the reason why my Z-1p usually chooses f4-5.6 when it was set 
to MTF mode? I always thought f8 would deliver the sharpest images for 
primes.

regards,
Alan Chan

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

Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography

[frank theriault]

I share your uneasiness about photographing the indigent, Dan.  As I posted
less than an hour ago, I think we should afford the homeless a shred of
privacy - they may be "in public", but the unfortunate reality is that bus
shelters and doorways are their homes, and really should be seen as
"private places".

That being said, when is "exploiting misery" acceptable - if ever?  PJ's
and documentary or reportage photogs take photos of people in pain all the
time - accident victims, those grieving such accidents, the victims and
survivors of disasters, the poor of war-torn areas - all of those seem fair
game.  Even if a photographer is taking pictures out of a sense of social
justice, is it fair to do so at the expense of such unfortunate
individuals?  When and where is "the line" crossed?

I'm not taking you to task on your comments, Dan, but I've often wondered
where the line is, or if it even exists.  As I posted before, there are
rare occasions that I've asked street people if I can take their pictures,
and sometimes they say yes, so I do (I won't if they say "no").  But, if
one is suffering from a major mental illness, is such consent to be relied
upon?  Am I just asking to assuage my guilt in exploiting them?

Like I said, genuine questions here, not just a philosophical debate.

regards,
frank

Dan Scott wrote:

> I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn
> anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I
> understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when
> you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape.
>
> If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your
> vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself
> presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you
> are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your
> powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along
> looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is
> most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit.
>
> I think that is wrong.
>
> Dan Scott

--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Bob Blakely]

Once upon a time in the 35mm professional world, the Pentax Spotmatic was
THE camera to have.

Regards,
Bob

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!"
   - Benjamin Franklin

- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Rumour mill again...


> Brad wrote:
>
> >Only
> > professionals (or those that employ them) can afford a DSLR.
Professionals
> > will likely choose a Nikon or Canon.  For Pentax to bother at all is
silly
> > IMHO.
>
> Once upon a time no professional chose Nikon or Canon.
>
>
> Pål
>
>

RE: Rumour mill again...

[Alan Chan]

Yep - could that be the 1st???


Doesn't really matter, as long as it really worked, and relatively 
affordable, and didn't come too late.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Alan Chan]

If this is true, then it's film sibling is certainly the long awaited 
flagship

Not again...

regards,
Alan Chan

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Pentax Teleconverters

[Alan Chan]

I have a friend who wants to sell his TC.  It is apparently in mint
condition, minus the original case.  It's the Pentax A 1.4X-L.  He's 
looking
at asking about $225USD for it.  Is that a good deal?  From what I've
learned, they are very expensive new (and it would take me 6 months to get
it shipped here).  I have no lenses that I wish to use a TC for at this
point, besides my A 400mm f/5.6, which is why I'm looking at the the better
L version that is usually reserved for those with * or ED glass.

US$225 seems ok if it's mint or EX+. However, I wouldn't expect the price 
would be much higher on eBay. There are only a handful of Pentax lenses use 
this TC.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography

[Paul Stenquist]

Dan Scott wrote:
 When someone comes along
> looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is
> most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit.
> 
> I think that is wrong.
> 

I disagree. I shoot street people every now and then. I always pay them
quite well, usually five US dollars. I talk to them about their
situation and their aspirations. I have found that almost all are very
pleased to be able to earn a few dollars as a model, and that many are
anxious to talk to someone. I shot this fellow at night on a Santa
Monica, California street corner. He's there all the time, and we have
spoken on several occassions. You can see the five dollar bill in is
hands. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=800895&size=lg
Paul

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Cotty]

>I think this is a very good idea.
>
>Interesting to see what different people think of as a clichÈ. To
>Norwegian nature photographers, the no. 1 clichÈ is "Elk In Sunset".
>Which probably Wouldn't mean much to eg. Sridhar, Albano or Rob
>Studdert...:-)

A great British one is old codgers sat outside pub with flat caps, dogs 
and walking sticks, smiling and chatting (when in reality they spit 
venom)


:-)


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: Ethics of Documentary Photography

[Glen O'Neal]

Okay so you have chosen to continue the thread as a discussion of
photographic ethics. I can jump in on that. Let's ask the question; do we
applaud or condemn the "Afghan Girl" image of Steve McCurry? This was a
fourteen year old orphan girl in a refugee camp. Because of this image the
whole world's awareness of the needs of the Afghani people was raised. I
would not know of many of the needs of the less fortunate had it not been
for an article, photograph, or video that brought another individual and
their story into my knowledge. Are we exploiting someone when we capture an
image of them? First of all what have we taken from them. If they are
walking the street they can be easily see by the eye. What is the difference
between seeing with the eye and capturing what is already easily seen on
film. Their image is still readily available to eye, camera, or video.
Here's the question; what have we taken from them. You know these people
don't want to be treated differently. If you would take a photo of a
merchant on the street, or a street musician, or just a passerby, why not
someone in difficult circumstances. I'll tell you what they say to me. They
don't say, "don't take my picture". The say, "don't act like you don't see
me". They want to be people like anyone else, with presence and dignity. Not
treated like they are not something to be looked at.  Here's one more way to
look at it. If you walked into any homeless shelter or mission and asked
those with sound mind, "would you mind being photographed on the street if
you knew that it would in some way bring about help for you and others like
you", what do you think their answer would be.

I agree on this point. The person who takes a photographic image of these
individuals, and profits from the image, and then returns nothing to those
whose images were used (or at least those like them), should reconsider
their ethics. I think the answer is to give back from what you take, be
generous, share and care. Remember the old saying a picture is worth a
thousand words? Well consider the impact an image has on the heart of
someone who needs a reason to lend a hand to help someone less fortunate.
Those of us who refused to photograph them out of conscience; did we go back
and help them in some way anyway. If so they probably would have invited
your photograph. Especially after you treated them to a warm meal and a hot
shower.

Glen

-Original Message-
From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Johnston
Cc: Dan Scott
Subject: Ethics of Documentary Photography



On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 02:17  PM, Mike Johnston wrote:

>> Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
>> will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the
>> PDML and
>> learn a great deal from all of you.
>
> I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have
> earned
> the right to photograph the homeless. Thanks.
>
> --Mike
>

I applaud Glen's good works. But I don't know that good works earn
anyone the right or an entitlement to photograph someone else. I
understand that being in public entails being seen in public, but when
you are homeless you have no privacy and no choice. You can't escape.

If you are sick, dirty, hungry and cold, you can't pop home, throw your
vomit/diarrhea stained clothing into the wash and make yourself
presentable. Unless you are fortunate enough to loose your mind, you
are entirely aware of how wretched your condition is and your
powerlessness to raise yourself out of it. When someone comes along
looking for something interesting to shoot, their interest in you is
most likely in exploiting your misery for their benefit.

I think that is wrong.

Dan Scott

Our man on the west coast

[T Rittenhouse]

I received the following from Shel Blinkoff: a few minutes ago. Thought
folks on list would be interested.

" ...you can certainly mention that I'm OK, out of jail , and
looking forward to a full and rewarding future - or not, as you wish."

"You could do me a favor - a dear friend is looking for a chrome MX, with
excellent cosmetics and mechanics.  Preferably with a mid-400 serial
number (That's a bonus).  If you'd care to mention it on the list... "


Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

Re: April 2003 PUG

[Treena]

I'm thinking of a B+W shot of an old barn, with a barbed-wire fence. And
maybe a nice outhouse.

- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: April 2003 PUG


On 16 Dec 2002 at 22:26, Jostein wrote:

> Joe,
> I think this is a very good idea.
>
> Interesting to see what different people think of as a cliché. To
> Norwegian nature photographers, the no. 1 cliché is "Elk In Sunset".
> Which probably Wouldn't mean much to eg. Sridhar, Albano or Rob
> Studdert...:-)

Correct. I can envisage a shot of the Sydney Opera House with the Sydney
Harbour Bridge in the background...

Cheers,

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html

Whew....

[Shaun Canning]

Whewsummer's finally arrived at my place with a vengeance. 36 
degrees yesterday, same today, and supposed to be 4oC tomorrow. Too 
damned hot to be outside taking photo's that's for sure. I just came 
back from the shops, and my thongs (flip flops, sandals or whatever you 
call em) stuck to the tar on the road. I really hate that

Oh well, it is great weather for icy cold beers by the river

Cheers

Shaun

Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services 		
High Street, Broadford,
Victoria, 3658.

www.heritageservices.com.au/

Phone: 0414-967644
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096

Re: Ethics of Documentary Photography

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Monday, December 16, 2002, 10:57:15 PM, you wrote:

> When someone comes along looking for something interesting
> to shoot, their interest in you is most likely in exploiting
> your misery for their benefit.

I broadly agree with the arguments you put forward to support this,
but as usual there are shades of grey (not just harsh, grainy, black &
white ). I'd like to present a slightly extended line of argument
which justifies a certain amount of admitted exploitation in the name
of honesty.

David Hurn in one of his books talks about covering a situation
honestly, and trying to show it the way it is. He gives the example of
somebody covering a 3-hour demonstration during which nothing much
happens at all, everything is peaceful and well-ordered, but at one
point there is a fight between extremists and the police, which lasts
for about 3 minutes and results in a few arrests. Honest coverage
would barely include the fight because it is insignificant relative to
the rest of the demo. However, many sections of the press (and other
institutions) would concentrate their attention on the fight because
of its dramatic and photogenic impact. Other people might pretend it
never happened at all, because it doesn't suit their interests.

Now, when I travel to places like Africa, Romania or India, people
often ask me, or tell me, not to photograph some of the uglier aspects
of their country. In general my motivation in going to these places is
that they are interesting, and I want to know something about them and
go behind the obvious cliches like the Taj Mahal and colourful
priests. I try to come back with a balanced view of what I've seen,
but if anything I accentuate the positive - particularly in a place
like Ethiopia, which has had a very bad press over the years. Balanced
coverage, in my opinion, includes showing some, but by no means all, of
the ugly things that I've seen, but I hope it's done with sensitivity
towards the individuals concerned.

In the same way I hope that my photographs of my own country are a
reasonably well-balanced portrait, although I think I'm entitled to be
harder on my own country than I am on others. This means that I do
sometimes photograph homeless people - I can think of 2 occasions
over the last 5 or 6 years, and they are probably more amusing than
anything else. One shows a guy sitting on a car seat in the middle of
a crowded pavement, reading a broadsheet newspaper; the other shows a
man lying on the pavement luxuriantly smoking a cigarette, while
covered in pigeons, so they're not really about misery, but they are
probably somewhat exploitative. The pigeon guy acquiesced in the
photograph, the other guy didn't know I took it.

Now, returning to Hurn, he talks about the photographer being honest
to his subject, and defines honesty by contrast with its opposite: as
a photographer you should know when you are being dishonest or untrue
to your subject and to your instincts, and act (or not) accordingly.

---

 Bob  

"Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction"
Francis Picabia

Re: fa 85mm 1.4 vs 77mm limited

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Alan Chan wrote:

> I always thought f8 would deliver the sharpest images for primes.

only if employed as a "professional photojournalist"

!;^D  Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

Re: Whew....

[Mishka]

just curious, how many death threats have you received so far, since you've
posted that here?

best,
mishka

> From: Shaun Canning
> Subject: Whew
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:11:56 -0800
>
> -
> Whewsummer's finally arrived at my place with a vengeance. 36 degrees
> yesterday, same today, and supposed to be 4oC tomorrow. Too damned hot to
be
> outside taking photo's that's for sure. I just came back from the shops,
and
> my thongs (flip flops, sandals or whatever you call em) stuck to the tar
on
> the road. I really hate that
>
> Oh well, it is great weather for icy cold beers by the river
>
> Cheers
>
> Shaun

Re: buying a K2 and a KX, advice?

[Peter Spiro]

I second what Mark said about meter problems on the KX.  A couple of years 
ago I was interested in getting one, and looked at two in two different 
stores.  In both of them, the meter was totally inaccurate.  So just because 
you see the needle move, don't assume it's OK.





_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Whew....

[Shaun Canning]

None yet, but I was expecting a few from those nearer to the arctic 
circle than me

:):):):)

Cheers

Shaun

Mishka wrote:
just curious, how many death threats have you received so far, since you've
posted that here?

best,
mishka



From: Shaun Canning
Subject: Whew
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:11:56 -0800

-
Whewsummer's finally arrived at my place with a vengeance. 36 degrees
yesterday, same today, and supposed to be 4oC tomorrow. Too damned hot to


be


outside taking photo's that's for sure. I just came back from the shops,


and


my thongs (flip flops, sandals or whatever you call em) stuck to the tar


on


the road. I really hate that

Oh well, it is great weather for icy cold beers by the river

Cheers

Shaun





.




--

Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services 		
High Street, Broadford,
Victoria, 3658.

www.heritageservices.com.au/

Phone: 0414-967644
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096

Re: Rumour mill again...

[Brad Dobo]

True, but those glory days are gone.

> Once upon a time no professional chose Nikon or Canon.
>
>
> Pål

Re: To get K30/2.8 ?

[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]

If you can handle the cost, it can be an excellent strategy to purchase one
"in-between" focal length in place of two. I was going nuts choosing between
my Zenitar 20/2.5K and my Pentax SMC 24/2.8K. I sold both when I found a
Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8K that's more like 22mm. (The Jena is actually an M42
screwmount to which someone has permanently fitted a K mount. It has the
Auto/Manual switch and the view grows dim when you stop down in Manual.)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


<>