Re: flash suggestion for a pz-1p?
I have one of these I'm looking to sell. Minor cosmetic wear, perfect working condition, comes with original soft case and box. $200 US. If anyone's interested, please write me off-list. Cheers, chris On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Look for an AF500FTZ on ebay. US$250 > Does everything you want and more. > > Regards, Bob S. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > so i'm now looking for suggestions for a reasonably priced > > flash that i can mount on the pz-1p. > > > > i would think my needs are simple: > > -tilt/swivel so i can bounce the light when necessary > > -ttl flash > > -let me easily dial flash compensation > > > >
Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
Nice story, John - by the look on their faces she said 'Yes'! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:58 PM Subject: Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm?? > On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:33:34 -0500, you wrote: > > >Were you in the next county when you made those shots? > > > >They ARE good. > > > Thanks everyone for the nice comments. The distance was not exactly in > the next county - maybe 40 feet for the Spoon photo, and 60 feet for > the freckled lady. > > Speaking of long focal lengths, here's an interesting shoot, taken at > effective focal length of 450mm. My wife and I were at the pond > looking for bird photo opportunities when we were approached by a guy > who asked me if I would take some photos of his friend about to > propose marriage to a girl. So I agreed to take a photo or two, no > promises on the outcome. It actually worked out pretty good. > > http://www.photolin.com/special/index.htm > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com > >
Glass houses
> I come from a family with several musicians. You don't play classical > music without solid technique. You don't develop solid technique without > practice. Technique doesn't make you a good musician (although with > enough practice the vast majority of people wouldn't know it), but you > don't become a great musician without it. > Mike, you've wandered into an area where your ignorance has painted you > a fool. You need to pay a little closer attention to the discussion, Bruce. You're conflating two different conversations. The statement was that "music is pure mathematics," which is why we were discussing music. The technique arguments were part of the "rules of composition" discussion. In any event, 'tis better to be thought a fool than to be esteemed an ass. --Mike
Re: Wha--?
Hi, Mike, Nope. I'm a 46 year old bike messenger. I just rounded off for the sake of convenience... regards, frank Mike Johnston wrote: > > Wait a minute! You mean to tell me youre a ~45-YEAR-OLD~ bike messenger > > Good Lord, I'm 45 and I can hardly get to the convenience store on my bike! > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Chapter 2?
> The next part of the story is harrowing and not > fit for setting down here besides having nothing to do with photography or > Pentax. Oh, c'mon, you have to tell us now. Can't leave THAT hanging. --Mike
I'm #2
> I ask because back in the > early 90's I took the Johnson O'Connor series of aptitude tests. One of the > interesting tie ins was that people with high musical aptitude often > gravitate to photography and there seems to be a lot of musically inclined > people on the list. Butch, WHOA! I took those same tests back in the 1970s! Fascinating stuff. Still have the Johnson O'Connor vocabulary builders around here somewhere. --Mike
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
- Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: What toys you have in 2002? > That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're hungry again a > half hour after you've eaten. Since I've switch to a "stick to the ribs" > brand, all I bought last year was a used 50mm lens, a flash bracket and > a off camera flash cord. Quite so. I was never able to afford that much Nikon equipment either. William Robb
Well come on in
> I just subscribed to this list Welcome Pierre-- --Mike
Wha--?
> I've never taken a photography > class in my life (except when I was about 15 - 30 years ago Wait a minute! You mean to tell me youre a ~45-YEAR-OLD~ bike messenger Good Lord, I'm 45 and I can hardly get to the convenience store on my bike! --Mike
Re: 645 vs 35mm
When I was printing optical/chemical color prints before the last year my 645 16X20s were strikingly superior ot 35mm at that size. Now I scan 35 on a Nikon4000 to 67Mb files but I scan 645 on a 1640 SU Epson flatbed. The 27Mb files I get on the 1640 are inferior to the 67Mb files from 35mm even accounting for the difference in negative sizes. The only option for getting back that former "Medium Format Advantage" is drum scans at 80 dollars each. They are truely stunning, but too expensive for most of my uses. IMO, what is needed to save 645 and other MF sizes is an affordable MF scanner that will output files good for 300 dpi at 16X20 and 20X24, at least. Epson is rumored to have a 3200 flatbed in the wings now. Bill Lawlor
Re: Wildly OT: Philosophy Majors out of the closet
Mike Johnston wrote: > Well, I majored in Philosophy for a year at Reed before I dropped out...not > sure that counts, though. Why, Mike, 'Cause you dropped out, or because you were at Reed? Seriously, I'm flexible. I think that counts. I bet you're relieved now, eh? -frank > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Wildly OT: Philosophy Majors out of the closet
> Dan Scott, Tom Van Veen, Steve Desjardins and I have so far innocently > mentioned that we were philosophy majors in university or college. > > Anyone else out there? Well, I majored in Philosophy for a year at Reed before I dropped out...not sure that counts, though. --Mike
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Especially when you can buy one off ebay in Excellent condition like I did recently for $13.09+ s&h. On Thursday 02 January 2003 03:48 am, Fred wrote: > The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most > dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I > would tend to suggest the A 50/2 as a very cost effective and (as > gfen has suggested) very portable little normal lens. (If I wrote > for Consumer Reports - , I'd make the A 50/2 a "Best Buy"...) -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: Pish-posh and balderdash
> Artistic composition is something that is learned. There are rules to follow > that would immediately improve many images. Vic, What are they? What rules do you follow? --Mike
Least exspensive 4000-4800 dpi scanner
Anybody know what is the least expensive 35mm film scanner that has 4000-4800 dpi resolution? I'm happy with my epson 2450 for medium format but I'd like to get something better for 35mm film use. JCO
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
> What does a Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro go for these days? I'm not sure exactly, Steve, but my own best indication would be the one I sold through eBay a couple of months ago. I had three of these critters (http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/a100f28m6.jpg), and I sold the one that was of "USER" quality (it was optically and mechanically just fine, but it had enough minor rubs and snubs to make it cosmetically less pretty than the other two) for $350 USD. Fred
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
> I'm with you Fred. [Zoom] Convenience often wins out... Perhaps, Vic, although for me it is not always just laziness: I think that a good zoom is a useful substitute for prime lenses under some conditions. It's not always laziness that keeps me from "zooming with my feet" for framing: Sometimes the speed of zooming (as opposed to having to move my whole body around) to cope with fast framing changes can make the difference in getting a good shot at just the right instant. Or, switching, say, from an 85 to a 135 can take agonizingly long seconds at times. Also, a lot of the informal portraits I shoot sometimes have to be done in somewhat crowded rooms, where moving around too much can be counterproductive to getting ~candid~ shots. I find that people can often get used to (or, at least, resigned to) having someone taking a series of photos (even flash photos) once the first 2 or 3 are taken, just as long as the shooter isn't constantly blundering around like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Of course, sometimes it ~is~ just laziness... Fred
Re: Diffusion options for 280T flash
> I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the flash from > the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit made for it. Would the > universal model fit? Are there other options that aren't bulky? Something that I do that's probably a little unorthodox (actually, I may do a lot of things that are unorthodox, but I digress...), is this: Since I do a lot of flash shooting of individual people, often at, say, 75mm to 135mm telephoto FL's, I often equip an AF280T with a somewhat modified AFT1 telephoto adapter. The modification? I pop off the fresnel lens from the front of the AFT1, stick a piece of tissue paper (I recommend Kleenex brand) () across the opening in the AFT1, snap the fresnel lens back in place, and then tear off the excess tissue sticking out the edges of the fresnel lens on the front of the AFT1. (I don't generally have to perform this modification on the spot, since I usually carry an extra AFT1 with tissue already "installed" in the ol' kit bag.) Doing this cuts the effective flash output somewhat, of course, but it does make the flash output less of an almost-point-source and a little more of a diffuse light source. (Since I use TTL flash almost all of the time, I don't have to know about the exact amount of light soaked up by the tissue paper.) I use the AF280T this way quite a bit, both for informal portraits and occasionally for macro. This modification is not as diffuse, of course, as are some of the "official" methods, but I find that it does reduce the harshness of flash portraits a useful amount. I keep saying that I've got to come up with something better than a piece of tissue paper for the diffuser, but I never seem to follow through. Also, in a pinch, when I don't happen to have the modified AFT1 handy, I've been known to throw a layer of a white handkerchief over the output of an AF280T or an AF400T. I suppose that one could fasten a piece of tissue or something similar to the outside front of the AF280T itself, when not using any adapter, or to the front of the AFW1 wide-angle adapter, too. (???) I should probably also try this someday on the AF400T's AFT2 adapter, also. Maybe... Fred
Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:33:34 -0500, you wrote: >Were you in the next county when you made those shots? > >They ARE good. > Thanks everyone for the nice comments. The distance was not exactly in the next county - maybe 40 feet for the Spoon photo, and 60 feet for the freckled lady. Speaking of long focal lengths, here's an interesting shoot, taken at effective focal length of 450mm. My wife and I were at the pond looking for bird photo opportunities when we were approached by a guy who asked me if I would take some photos of his friend about to propose marriage to a girl. So I agreed to take a photo or two, no promises on the outcome. It actually worked out pretty good. http://www.photolin.com/special/index.htm -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
> Fred, tell me more about the SMC, K, 55 f1.8 lens-do you have this > exact lens? If so, how do you like it? Does a price of $39 sound > about right for this lens (in good condition)? Yes, Steve, I have a K 55/1.8, although I don't end up using it as often as I should. I do like using it, as long as I can set it at f/8 or smaller, where it does really shine. $39 (USD) seems to be a pretty fair price for one, although NM specimens would probably go for a bit more than that perhaps. While they're not overly common, I would certainly not say that they are rare, but the prices for them still remain quite reasonable anyway. Ya gotta love dem ol' SMC K lenses... Fred
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
> I alsoo had the A50/2. I preferred this one to the M1.7 for both > the A setting and the fact that it was incredibly small and light. The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I would tend to suggest the A 50/2 as a very cost effective and (as gfen has suggested) very portable little normal lens. (If I wrote for Consumer Reports - , I'd make the A 50/2 a "Best Buy"...) Fred
Re: toys you have in 2002?
It would be if you didn't need another hardware bon-bon to tide you over. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmmm ... picked up a 6x7, 105mm & 150mm sometime early spring, would that be "meat & potatoes" enough ???
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
What does a Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro go for these days? --- Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, > but Vivitar's > > Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of > equipment. It's a great > > combination of quality, price and utility and can > be found for > > about $75 on eBay. > > The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X TC is indeed a very > nice little piece > of gear. It's a premium 2X TC right out of the bag > (I'd say it's > nearly the equal of the T6-2X and A 2X-S TC's), and > when racked out > a ways it does make many a lens into a nice close(r) > focusing tool. > > > However, I would get the more expensive dedicated > macro lens if I > > could afford it, especially the Vivitar Series 1 > 90/2.5 Macro or > > the Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro. > > I have to agree with this, of course (and with the > mention of those > two lenses, as well), but I do think that Timothy's > mention of the > Viv macro TC was a good contribution to this thread > - it's a good > gadget for the occasional macro shooter, or for > tucking in the bag > just in case you might sometimes forget to bring a > proper macro at > the appropriate time. > > Fred > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Marvelous little Icelander imp
What was the movie? I've dumped all the answers, unfortunately. Maybe I'll order it out from my DVD source... keith whaley Mike Johnston wrote: > > > Or that absolutely marvellous little imp from Iceland? > > Bjork. By the way, if you haven't seen her recent movie, it's really > stunning. I was very disturbed by it when I saw it, but it stuck with me > like few other films ever have, and certainly more than the trite fare > Hollywood has given us in recent years. It's a MUSICAL (!) about a luckless > woman who is victimized by a series of circumstances. > > But since I've already made my contribution to the collective memory with > Bjork's name, I'll have to depend on someone else to supply the title of the > movie...I can't remember it :-( > > --Mike
Re: flash suggestion for a pz-1p?
don't bother with the AF330 Rob. It's a good enough flash unit, but doesn't bounce, tilt, or swivel. Spend some extra bucks and buy an AF500. They are infinately better. I use one on a z-1p with great results. Cheers Shaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: pdml folks: a happy '03 to all. i've been using a pz-1p for about a year. (bought it from another pdml-er. i'm still saying thank u). frankly, i love this camera. but it has taken me almost a year to really feel comfortable w/it. my goal this year is to increase my flash work. i have never really used anything beside the on camera flash. so i'm now looking for suggestions for a reasonably priced flash that i can mount on the pz-1p. i would think my needs are simple: -tilt/swivel so i can bounce the light when necessary -ttl flash -let me easily dial flash compensation anything else i'm missing? lastly, a pentax brand would be fine (af330ftz) but what about a sunpak (pz-5000)? by the way, this is my 1st post on this list in about 9 mos. it's nice to be back. be well rob . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Diffusion options for 280T flash
If all else fails, the bottom part of a 25 oz. Agree hair conditioner bottle works just as good as my Stofen diffuser. ;-) On Thursday 02 January 2003 02:34 am, Mark D. wrote: > I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the > flash from the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit > made for it. Would the universal model fit? Are there > other options that aren't bulky? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re:toys you have in 2002?
Bruce wrote: > That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're > hungry again a half hour after you've eaten. Since I've > switch to a "stick to the ribs" brand, all I bought last > year was a used 50mm lens, a flash bracket and a off camera > flash cord. hmmm ... picked up a 6x7, 105mm & 150mm sometime early spring, would that be "meat & potatoes" enough ??? Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Diffusion options for 280T flash
Hey Folks, I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the flash from the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit made for it. Would the universal model fit? Are there other options that aren't bulky? Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's > Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great > combination of quality, price and utility and can be found for > about $75 on eBay. The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X TC is indeed a very nice little piece of gear. It's a premium 2X TC right out of the bag (I'd say it's nearly the equal of the T6-2X and A 2X-S TC's), and when racked out a ways it does make many a lens into a nice close(r) focusing tool. > However, I would get the more expensive dedicated macro lens if I > could afford it, especially the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro or > the Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro. I have to agree with this, of course (and with the mention of those two lenses, as well), but I do think that Timothy's mention of the Viv macro TC was a good contribution to this thread - it's a good gadget for the occasional macro shooter, or for tucking in the bag just in case you might sometimes forget to bring a proper macro at the appropriate time. Fred
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
> Don`t know if I`ve taken more pictures than you, but I lean > towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180 > is sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh > effect, and built like tanks. [and] > Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. It's the early metal version with the 1:1 > adapter lens. A wonderfully sharp lens with great color and bokeh. > You can see a sample image here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=645134&size=lg [and] > I second Steve's two candidates. I own both, although my 90/2.5 is > the Vivitar's Tokina AT-X twin. Since closeups of flowers deserve > a tripod, the 90-180 zoom gets my nod for its easy framing. After the A 100/2.8 Macro, I would take the VS1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Zoom, and either the VS1 90/2.5 Macro with i:1 Macro Adapter or its optical twin, the AT-X 90/2.5 Macro with 1:1 Macro Extender, for my #2 and #3 choices. (I am not sure whether I'd take the 90-180/4.5 before or after the 90/2.5 "twins separated at birth", since they are designed for somewhat different macro purposes - it's a bit of "apples and oranges".) All of these lenses are optically and mechanically superb, and a whole lot of fun to use. Conspicuous by its absence in my mention is the A* 200/4 Macro - it's a beautiful lens, but I just never found it quite as useful or as frequently used as the others I've mentioned here (which is why I passed along to another list member who has given it a good home, where it gets all the pampering that it deserves, rather than the shameful neglect that it suffered at my own hands - .) Fred
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have taken a >> lot more pictures than I have, what is your favorite manual >> focus, K mount, macro lens for flower close ups? > > 1) A 100mm f/2.8 macro. [and] > The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life. Yes, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my own personal numero uno favorite for a macro lens (for flowers or otherwise). I won't quite say that it's changed my life, though, Bob (), but it surely has made many a macro shooting session quite enjoyable. Fred
Re: W32.Yaha.K@mm Worm
I've heard of these virus thingies but have never seen one . . . Stan (from his Mac) - on 12/31/02 5:01 AM, Ken Archer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's times like these that make me glad I use Linux. ;-) > > On Tuesday 31 December 2002 04:13 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Please verify that your AntiVirus definitions are up to date. >> >> I've recently (i.e. today) gotten 3 emails containing this virus - >> Norton covers it off fine so I'm protected - but I'm sure that >> everyone isn't in the same position. >> >> The virus info can be found here: >> http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.yaha.k@mm >> .html
Re: OT: God Is the Machine (relates to all the math posts)
Having gone there, and finding even more interesting venues, look at this: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set= Very, very interesting... left me nodding my head in wonder. keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: > > Hi Team, > > I hope everyone is in for a great new year. > > I haven't contributed on-list to the recent great debates but I was alerted to > an interesting (don't blame me) article which (if you agree) binds all the > philosophies together, enjoy :-) > > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html > > 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: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have taken a >> lot more pictures than I have, what is your favorite manual >> focus, K mount, macro lens for flower close ups? > > 1) A 100mm f/2.8 macro. [and] > The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life. Yes, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my own personal numero uno favorite for a macro lens (for flowers or otherwise). I won't quite say that it's changed my life, though, Bob (), but it surely has made many a macro shooting session quite enjoyable. Fred
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
> Don`t know if I`ve taken more pictures than you, but I lean > towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180 > is sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh > effect, and built like tanks. [and] > Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. It's the early metal version with the 1:1 > adapter lens. A wonderfully sharp lens with great color and bokeh. > You can see a sample image here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=645134&size=lg [and] > I second Steve's two candidates. I own both, although my 90/2.5 is > the Vivitar's Tokina AT-X twin. Since closeups of flowers deserve > a tripod, the 90-180 zoom gets my nod for its easy framing. After the A 100/2.8 Macro, I would take the VS1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Zoom, and either the VS1 90/2.5 Macro with i:1 Macro Adapter or its optical twin, the AT-X 90/2.5 Macro with 1:1 Macro Extender, for my #2 and #3 choices. (I am not sure whether I'd take the 90-180/4.5 before or after the 90/2.5 "twins separated at birth", since they are designed for somewhat different macro purposes - it's a bit of "apples and oranges".) All of these lenses are optically and mechanically superb, and a whole lot of fun to use. Conspicuous by its absence in my mention is the A* 200/4 Macro - it's a beautiful lens, but I just never found it quite as useful or as frequently used as the others I've mentioned here (which is why I passed along to another list member who has given it a good home, where it gets all the pampering that it deserves, rather than the shameful neglect that it suffered at my own hands - .) Fred
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's > Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great > combination of quality, price and utility and can be found for > about $75 on eBay. The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X TC is indeed a very nice little piece of gear. It's a premium 2X TC right out of the bag (I'd say it's nearly the equal of the T6-2X and A 2X-S TC's), and when racked out a ways it does make many a lens into a nice close(r) focusing tool. > However, I would get the more expensive dedicated macro lens if I > could afford it, especially the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro or > the Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro. I have to agree with this, of course (and with the mention of those two lenses, as well), but I do think that Timothy's mention of the Viv macro TC was a good contribution to this thread - it's a good gadget for the occasional macro shooter, or for tucking in the bag just in case you might sometimes forget to bring a proper macro at the appropriate time. Fred
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
William... I use the TC with my A50/1.4. By good results, I mean sharp 4x6s and 5x7s; I haven't tried too many 8x10s or larger. I don't use it very often for non-macro work, but it's been fine the couple of times I have used it. t On 1/1/03 11:04 AM, William Johnson wrote: > I have one of these on the way that I got off ebay. What lenses do you use it > with? Is the 50 the best for macro work or do moderate wides and tele's work > well also? > What is your experience with it as a normal teleconverter? > > Thanks, > > William in Utah. > > 1/1/2003 11:39:56 AM, "Timothy Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's Macro >> Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great combination of >> quality, price and utility and can be found for about $75 on eBay. However, >> I would get the more expensive dedicated macro lens if I could afford it, >> especially the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro or the Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro. >> >> t >> >> On 1/1/03 10:07 AM, Steve Pearson wrote: >> >>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have >>> taken a lot more pictures than I have, what is your >>> favorite manual focus, K mount, macro lens for flower >>> close ups? >>> >>> Thanks again! >>> >>> __ >>> Do you Yahoo!? >>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >>> http://mailplus.yahoo.com >>> >> >> >> > > >
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
It'll change your bank account, too! Har! t On 1/1/03 12:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life. Regards, Bob S. >
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
Perhaps using a 200mm macro would cut down on the "busy" background a bit? t On 1/1/03 5:05 PM, Fred wrote: >> My Vivitar S1 105/2.5 Macro is awesome. It focuses 1:1 without >> extension tubes or accessories, is Tak sharp, and has wonderful >> bokeh. example: http://pug.komkon.org/02feb/iris01a.html > > I apologize for being a bit critical, but I don't find the bokeh in > that shot to be quite "wonderful", but rather a little too "busy", > almost bordering on being just a little bit harsh. It would seem to > have about the same bokeh as similar shots with many (but not all) > macro lenses (many of which are a little on the harsh side). (My > favorite macro lens, the A 100/2.8, I'm sorry to say has somewhat > similar bokeh.) (But I also love it anyway - .) > > Fred > >
Re: Bribing someone to allow a great shot (was: Re: Favorite f/stop)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] inquired, after sharing a cool story: > > Has anyone else ever bribed a friend or relative to allow you to get "the > perfect shot"? I think I've been brainwashed too much with NPPA Journalistic Ethics to even consider bribery -- however, during a visit from my father last year I managed to get him to sit, and cooperate beautifully, for the best portrait of him I have ever seen (much less taken)! My father is the type who always strikes up a facing-the-firing-squad pose when about to be photographed, but this time he was very eager to be photographed well. The reason? He assumed when I suggested the portrait session that I would be using my Rollei, and he really, really likes my Rollei. (See his Jan. PUG submission for evidence of this interest.) Still can't get him to behave for a Pentax portrait, though ... :( (so I guess the implicit but understood bribe was "I'll use the Ro-o-o-ll-ei!") ERNR
RE: Sharp B&W Film
Delta 100 or Acros in XTOL. tv
MZ-M owners/users opinions?
"David Chang-Sang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks... I've been considering getting a body to use with my beautiful 50mm f1.4 SMC-M. I was looking at the MZ-M used. What do you all have to say for this baby compared to the older MX/K1000/K2 etc. bodies? any experiences for those who own an MZ-M? David, The M's viewfinder is noticeably smaller than the 0.84X magnification of the Super Program, 0.89X of the KX, or 0.97X of the ME Super. (These numbers are close, if not dead on.) If you have an urge to match an old normal lens with a modern manual-focus body, the MZ-M would be happier with a 55/1.8K or a 40-45mm pancake lens (for a 15-oz. total package). Or consider the discontinued Ricoh XRX-3PF (0.88X). If you still want the MZ-M, just remember that it has no TTL flash. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're hungry again a half hour after you've eaten. Since I've switch to a "stick to the ribs" brand, all I bought last year was a used 50mm lens, a flash bracket and a off camera flash cord. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I used to be happy with my LX, 2 K-1000s a half dozen lenses, my 6x7 and a few lenses, and the 4x5 and a few lenses. Then, I decided to buy a computer, so as to learn a bit about digital photography, since that is where my industry is headed. One day, while surfing the web, I came across the Pentax USA website. Spotted a link saying Click here to join the Pentax Discuss Mailing list. Joined this mailing list. That was 4 years ago. Since then, I have nearly retired from active photography. Not withstanding that fact, I now own 3 LXs, a couple of ME-Supers, a Program Plus and a few other bodies. I have bought a couple of dozen more lenses for the 35mm, 3 more lenses for the 6x7, and a nice wide angle lens for the 4x5. A 6x7 bellows (SHEESH!!), and a couple of bellows for the 35mm system, a microscope adaptor which I will likely never use because I just don't find that stuff all that interesting, and a bunch of LX viewfinders, one of which I will likely never use. Two fisheye lenses (one is never enough) and 5 teleconverters, including two Pentax 2x-S. 2 of my camera bodies have never had a roll of film put into them by me, my 300mm f/4 for the 6x7 has not had a shot taken with it yet, and at least 3 of my 35mm camera lens purchases have not been mounted on a camera since being purchased, and one has not been on a camera at all, I just picked it up off a shelf, gave it a cursory inspection and bought it. This list is a very bad place. William Robb
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
Hi; K28/3.5 M135/3.5 M200/4.0 All to replace a lousy Vivitar 28-210 3.5-5.6 Then my ME Super died and I bought a; K-1000 with a M50/2.0 M100/4.0 macro My one great E-Bay deal BUTCH "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: Favorite f/stop?
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:25:56 -0500, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: > Does anyone have a favorite f/stop? Or, since an f/stop's "look" varies with > focal length, a favorite f/stop for a given focal length? I seem to shoot mostly either wide open in low light or stopped down to f/8-22 in broad daylight. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: scanner choice
Hi Tom, On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:56:09 -0500, Tom Reese wrote: > Anyway, could you elaborate on your comment about scanning > artifacts? What are they? How do you deal with them? First off, there's the unavoidable softening of the scanned image compared to the original piece of film. Secondly, there's the "speckles" and "fringes". They generally get called grain aliasing (GA). GA is caused by the way that scanned pixels line up with the color-producing grains (or dye clouds) in the film. A scanned pixel could "see" the edge of one or more grains, producing some intermediate color that can be different from the one your visual system would produce for that spot on the film. It can also happen that adjacent scanned pixels "see" two different grains of different colors. Each could produce a nearly pure rendition of the color of that grain, even though it was only one component of the color at that spot on the film. The scanned pixel just didn't "see" the other grains in the other color layers that made up the color at that spot on the film because they weren't lined up vertically. GA can appear in any part of the scanned image. There's also scanner system noise. This has causes ranging from dust in the scanner's optical path to the signal-to-noise ratio of the optical sensor in the scanner. It typically appears as speckles in the parts of the scan that are very dense on film. So, dark areas on slides and light areas on negatives. There are probably other causes I'm ignoring, too. Basically, most scanned film images seem to want at least a little shot of sharpening. To combat the speckles, you can drop to 2000 dpi. This changes the relationship of the size of the film grains (dye clouds) and the size of the scanned pixels and eliminates almost all of the speckles, though fringing can still occur. Searching Google for grain aliasing and/or Nyquist should bring up some gory details, if you want to go that far. If you really need 4000 dpi for the size of print you want to make, then look into the software at http://www.neatimage.com/. If an image has a large enough featureless rectangular area, you can use their software to "subtract" the average noise, smoothing the image. You can also use your photo editing software (Photoshop, etc.) to add a little Gaussian blur to the image. That will knock the "edge" off the speckles and fringes, so sharpening won't make them stand out in the final image. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Sharp B&W Film
Kodak TMAX 100, damn sharp! JCO
Re: Macro Pics of B&W flowers
>I'm interested in looking at sample photos of flowers, >close ups (i.e. w/ macro lens), shot in B&W. Anyone >have any personal favorites, or a web site to refer me >to? Funny you should ask that Steve, there are a few here (http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/new.html) I came across them only a few minutes ago and thought it strange to use b&w for flowers but the more I looked the more I liked and then decided to try some myself. Shortly after that I read your post! Regards Anton __ Freeserve AnyTime - Go online whenever you want for just £6.99 a month for your first 3 months, that's HALF PRICE! And then it's just £13.99 a month after that. For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Wildly OT: Philosophy Majors out of the closet
Hi Frank, On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:24:21 -0500, frank theriault wrote: > The million dollar question was > very simple, something like "who said Cogito Ergo Sum" (really, it was > that easy!). Before he answered it, he said, "This is for all my > friends who went into engineering and computer science, who laughed at > me for majoring in philosophy!" I could have gotten that one, but not from being a philosophy major (I wasn't). Instead I would have remembered Rene Descartes was a beery old fart, "I drink therefore I am". :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Lovely pictures
>It's so cute how pentax-fan has attempted to black out the "Contax" engraving >on the 135mm hood :-) Oh, is that what it is? I did think the 135 hood looked a bit tatty. But the Pentax 135 A* hood is no good (it's actually for a 645 zoom). I have constructed a hood for mine out of a 77mm straight Heliopan hood that's not long enough, but handily has a thread on its front end into which I have screwed a beat up Nikon hood and together they do a good job of shading the big front element. Sadly they're different colours and finshes and the whole set-up looks a bit odd. I have had on order for two months now, a B+W 77mm tele hood which should do the business and look okay... whether it will ever turn up is another matter. AB __ Freeserve AnyTime - Go online whenever you want for just £6.99 a month for your first 3 months, that's HALF PRICE! And then it's just £13.99 a month after that. For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Pentax-wielding bike messenger
Hi, Steve, I might make my fortune yet! Anyone on this list who ever writes a comic book with such a character will be hearing from my lawyer. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. -frank Steve Desjardins wrote: > This has the makings of an Internet comic book character . . . . > > Thanks. Sometimes it takes a Pentax-wielding bike messenger to cut > through > all the crap! > > --Mike -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: PUG down?
Hi, Gary, You must stop. You must stop now... "Gary L. Murphy" wrote: > How fowl, Ann :-) > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Jan PUG
Funny, I have no idea what the "rule of thirds" is! I think Mike referred to it in a post, but to be honest, it made no sense (but then I didn't try too hard to figure it out - I probably could have had I ~really~ tried). What's that tell ya? -frank Mark Roberts wrote: > Frank Theriault's "Crooning", too! > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
I think that was supposed to be "condemnation". On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:53 pm, Paul Stenquist wrote: > William Robb wrote: > > I blame Mike Johnson, Bob Sullivan, Paul Stenquist, and Bruce > > Dayton most of all. > > Thanks, Bill. I didn't know that I was an effective enabler. But I > appreciate the commendation :-). > Paul Stenquist -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: Out with the Spottie
Hi, Jeff, I was a good boy last night (unfortunately). Stayed home. Didn't have so much as a beer. Not to sound like a grouch, but New Years Eve just means that my favourite bars are full, and everything costs more. I did stay up 'til about 2am, but the cat let me sleep in until almost 9! Nice and fresh, I was. Only took about 4 or 5 shots on my walkabout, but I think one or two may be keepers - we'll see. ciao, frank Jeff wrote: > January 1st, at 11:00 am. > Are your hands steady enough to avoid camera shake? even at 1/500th? ;-) > > Jeff. > > frank theriault wrote: > > It's 11:00 am. > > > > I have to make something of this day. I'd normally walk around with my > > Leica CL, but as many of you have read, it's down for the count right > > now. > > > > This is a great opportunity to do something I've not done enough of > > lately, and take the old SP500/Super Tak 1.4 50mm out for a spin. We'll > > see what's out there! > > > > Trying to start the New Year off on a positive note... > > > > regards, > > frank > > > > -- > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > > Oppenheimer > > > > > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Sharp B&W Film
--- Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have recently tried Ilfor FP4 (ISO 125). I liked > the grain at 5x7, but at 8x10, I did not. I'm > giving > some thought to: I'm partial to Delta 100. It develops very well in ID-11. I've also developed it in PMK Pyro and the results were fantastic. Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Out with the Spottie
I wanna see if the CL is reparable, and if so, how much. You may be hearing from me, though! cheers, frank Keith Whaley wrote: > Wanna buy a new, one-owner, two rolls Leica C1? I know it won't > replace a CL, but... > > keith whaley > > frank theriault wrote: > > > > It's 11:00 am. > > > > I have to make something of this day. I'd normally walk around with my > > Leica CL, but as many of you have read, it's down for the count right > > now. > > > > This is a great opportunity to do something I've not done enough of > > lately, and take the old SP500/Super Tak 1.4 50mm out for a spin. We'll > > see what's out there! > > > > Trying to start the New Year off on a positive note... > > > > regards, > > frank -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
Hi Paul, Glad you`re back, but the wife has got to go. ;) Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky Nowadays, I > just want to get off before my wife finds out I'm back on the list.
Re: MZ-M owners/users opinions?
At 05:38 PM 01/01/2003 -0500, Dave wrote: Folks... I've been considering getting a body to use with my beautiful 50mm f1.4 SMC-M. I was looking at the MZ-M used. What do you all have to say for this baby compared to the older MX/K1000/K2 etc. bodies? Yuk? I had an MZ-M for about two weeks. Ran a couple of films through it and couldn't think of any reason to keep it when I had a couple of perfectly good MXes at home. It was so light, I had to weight it down with an A35-105 before it felt like a "real" camera. I bought it second hand and the numbers had started to wear off the shutter speed dial. I wasn't terribly impressed with it. You need an LX, you do ;-) W. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: What are the rules?
Most people take snap shots (this is the entire universe of people with cameras). The vast majority produce a visual effect like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. A handful of guidelines would help immeasurably. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Of course, I can certainly think of a set of rules that will help tyro snapshooters from messing up everyone of his snaps. But they would in no way make him a sophisticated visual artist.
Re: Sharp B&W Film
Steve Pearson wrote: > > Which is your favorite for large (8x10 & up) prints, > in 35mm format? Kodak Plus-X Paul Stenquist
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
William Robb wrote: > I blame Mike Johnson, Bob Sullivan, Paul Stenquist, and Bruce > Dayton most of all. Thanks, Bill. I didn't know that I was an effective enabler. But I appreciate the commendation :-). Paul Stenquist
Macro Pics of B&W flowers?
I'm interested in looking at sample photos of flowers, close ups (i.e. w/ macro lens), shot in B&W. Anyone have any personal favorites, or a web site to refer me to? Thanks all! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: MZ-M owners/users opinions?
Amen, Brother Robb. On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:03 pm, William Robb wrote: > The m 50mm f/1.4 is very nice on the ME-Super. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas "Business Is Going To The Dogs"
Re: Lovely pictures
On 1 Jan 2003 at 22:37, Anton Browne wrote: > Happy new year to all. > > I've got to hand it to some folk and their websites, take a look at > http://www.pentax-fan.jp/LENS/KT/AS135_18.html be sure to scroll all the way > down for the full thrust. Shame my machine can't display the fonts... but then I > wouldn't be able to read it anyway. It's so cute how pentax-fan has attempted to black out the "Contax" engraving on the 135mm hood :-) 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: Are the "rules" simply instinctive?
There was an article in the NY Times several years ago about a study done by some art historians. A large number of portraits were analyzed and it was discovered that a vast majority of them painted with one of the subjects eye's on, or near, the vertical centerline of the picture. It wasn't a composition rule, because it was never even consciously known. Some things just look "right" to people, and it can vary by culture and conditioning. BR
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, Paul, How's that Tokina 9- ? Must be great as a fisheye. ;-) Jeff, Er, make that a Tokina 90/2.5. When I used to write to PDML from work, I claimed that I shouldn't be using company time to proofread. Nowadays, I just want to get off before my wife finds out I'm back on the list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pish-posh and balderdash
Music and scales were brought up by Mike: his bogus point. If you're going to manually follow focus a football player (their's or our's) with a long lens, you need some real well honed motor skills. Any skill can be improved with practice. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know, I see a lot of difference between developing motor skills, and developing visual skills. With a couple of years of tutoring by an excellent music tutor, and a couple of hours a day practice, people who didn't even know me could reconise the tune I was trying to play, barely. But I don't think any amount of making photos by rules is going to improve you vision one bit, it does not take extreme motor skills to work a camera. Conclusion: bogus argument. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
RE: OT: Contax G1 and G2
On 1 Jan 2003 at 13:52, David Chang-Sang wrote: > Comparing the Contax glass to Leica glass.. some Leica-philes will call me a > blasphemer but I didn't note any big difference that warranted the extra price > for the Leica glass. This was a comparison (non-scientific mind you) between > the 50mm f2 Summicron (latest version with extended lens hood) and the Contax > 45mm f2. Having owned both systems I'd say that the significant advantage of the Leica M over the G system is that you can actually focus the lenses. The G2 is hit and miss, it's very difficult to maintain consistent results using the G lenses wide open, nice glass though. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Lovely pictures
Happy new year to all. I've got to hand it to some folk and their websites, take a look at http://www.pentax-fan.jp/LENS/KT/AS135_18.html be sure to scroll all the way down for the full thrust. Shame my machine can't display the fonts... but then I wouldn't be able to read it anyway. Anton __ Freeserve AnyTime - Go online whenever you want for just £6.99 a month for your first 3 months, that's HALF PRICE! And then it's just £13.99 a month after that. For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
Were you in the next county when you made those shots? They ARE good. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm?? > No. I mena like this one, with the FA* 600/4: > http://www.photolin.com/john/lost1.JPG > > or this > http://www.photolin.com/john/folks/spoon.JPG > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com >
Re: Digital backs for 645
On 1 Jan 2003 at 15:19, Pål Jensen wrote: > Rob wrote: > > > This point combined with technical issues is the basis for my prediction that > > the 645 format will hit the dust far earlier than larger 120 film formats. > > > What technical issues are you thinking of? Apart from the likelihood that the quality of then coming 14MP sensors should be comparable to scanned 645 film I was thinking mainly about the cost impracticalities of implementing sensors larger than 14Mpix that will provide coverage of the full frame. Lets face it there is nil advantage using a 36x24mm sensor in a 645 body when there are a wider range of 35mm lenses available. And secondly sensors aren't going to become much more dense than those in the new top end 35mm offerings so unless densities are maintained as the sensor size grows there is no advantage. Also I don't believe that it's practical (due to yield rates per silicon wafer) to produce really large sensors so I'd guess that most affordable MF digital systems would employ a matrix of sensors (which introduces its own problems) then there are the potential on camera storage system requirements and limitations to consider. > I would have agreed with you but for one thing only: some major manufacturers > have invested seriously into ultramodern auto focus 645 cameras at the moment > the MF film market is collapsing. It might be a case of bad timing but I'm > fairly conficent that neither, say, Contax or Hassleblad would have invested > incredible amount of money in brand new systems destined to die in couple of > years. You're kidding, look at the stupid things that Kyocera/Contax have just done? Introduced several new cameras with a new mount and only a handful of lenses, flopped big time with their (very expensive) 35mm digital camera. Sure these companies make mistakes. > I'm sure there must be viable digital solution in plans for these cameras > in the near future. I'm not then thinking of the $10 000 - 15 000 digital back > solution that never will achieve anything resembling volume particularly when > other digital solutions, like full frame 35mm based DSLR's, are getting more > affordable - something they certainly will. I'm sure that something will come along but it will have to be cost effective and an improvement over the top end 35mm digital cameras to make an impact IMHO. 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]: What are the rules?
Hi, Wednesday, January 1, 2003, 9:20:19 PM, you wrote: >>> Fine. You think there are rules of composition? Okay, tell me what they are. >>> List them. I'd like to know what they are. >> >> Disingenuous indeed. You might just as well ask somebody to list the >> laws of science in an email. > But dear Heavens, Bob, do you mean to say these rules are so esoteric and > sophisticated that they can't be enunciated and listed?? Then how in the > world does the beginning photographer remember them in order to APPLY them > when he or she is out photographing?!? They can only be written in hieroglyphics, and can only be pronounced by high priests of the Akhnaten cult. What I meant by the reply is that nobody is going to go to the effort of writing it all out in an email. In addition, the issue of whether a knowledge of composition is useful or not doesn't depend on any given individual's ability to write them down. Requests like yours are often a rhetorical tactic used by the unscrupulous (not including you, of course, Mike!). When the person challenged doesn't accept the challenge, the challenger goes "Aha! so you were talking rubbish all along! I win!", whereas in fact the challenge is a red herring using its little fins to clutch at straws (which have probably fallen out of the famously knocked-about straw man). > Thank you for your list of books, however. I will arm myself with it for my > next weekly library visit. My pleasure. I've found them very useful, although at least one of them could benefit from following a few rules of literal literacy. [...] > I think someday I should do a little chapbook of photography which pair each > of the many "rules" I've read over the years with great photographs which > egregiously violate that rule. That would be very interesting. How is your current book coming along? I'm exhausted with this thread and propose to bow out now, but it's been very interesting and enjoyable, more so for having remained civilised. Thanks. Bob
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
From: "Steve Larson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I lean towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180 is sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh effect, and built like tanks. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California I second Steve's two candidates. I own both, although my 90/2.5 is the Vivitar's Tokina AT-X twin. Since closeups of flowers deserve a tripod, the 90-180 zoom gets my nod for its easy framing. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens?
My Vivitar S1 105/2.5 Macro is awesome. It focuses 1:1 without extension tubes or accessories, is Tak sharp, and has wonderful bokeh. example: http://pug.komkon.org/02feb/iris01a.html Also, lately I've been shooting with the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro. It does 1:3 on it's own, is very sharp and also has great bokeh. It is AF but I don't own an AF camera. I use it on the LX and MX most often. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 1:07 PM Subject: Favorite MF, K Mount, Macro Lens? > I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have > taken a lot more pictures than I have, what is your > favorite manual focus, K mount, macro lens for flower > close ups? > > Thanks again! > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com >
Bribing someone to allow a great shot (was: Re: Favorite f/stop)
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use a tripod for about 90% of my pictures and I'm working on my laziness to eliminate that other 10%. Tom, You put me to shame! Using a tripod more often is a New Year's resolution I'd be sure to break; I simply shoot too many stealth shots of people. Last night (Dec. 31) I wanted to finish a roll of film; it drives me crazy when one roll straddles two years; I can't decide how to file the negatives and the index print. So I went around shooting my daughters as they chatted on the phone or what-not. Alexa, my 12-year-old refused to cooperate; she would dodge me or hold up a hand. With two shots to go, I decided to get a shot of me lying on the couch, so my descendants could see how I spend New Year's Eve. :) Alexa was lying down on the adjacent couch and saw me aiming the Tokina 90 from the next room and said, "No!" I assured her I had no intention of shooting her or her mother. "If you do shoot me or Mom, will you give me ten dollars?" I had taught her to ask "If it turns out you've just lied will you give me xxx dollars?" whenever she suspected someone is lying. "Yes," I replied. She had me. I set up the tripod, set the timer, lay down, and got my self-portrait. Several minutes later, Alexa was lying with her head in her grandmother's lap as her grandmother gently stroked her hair. What a great Frame 36 shot! I asked if could take the shot? She finally agreed to let me take the shot...for $10. I counter-offered $5, and we settled on $6. As part of the settlement, I got to set up the shot on a tripod. Has anyone else ever bribed a friend or relative to allow you to get "the perfect shot"? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are the "rules" simply instinctive?
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I guess it depends on how good an "eye" one has. Some people have an >innate ability to design beautiful images. Others struggle. For the >latter, the rules can help. And sometimes they can lead to a realization >of innate abilities. Cameras tend to confuse new photographers. The >focusing fresnel or split screen is in the center of the viewfinder. >When shooting a portrait, newbies tend to place the center of the >viewfinder at the model's eyes. It's a mindless response to the way the >equipment was constructed, but the application of a simple rule can help >resolve that. Ultimately, that photographer might find that they have an >innate vision that will express itself. But a few simple rules can help >them find it. This is my feeling, too. Child prodigies or geniuses don't need rules for music or photography, though they often "follow" them without knowing they're doing so, but the rest of us mortals can benefit from knowing them if we approach them with open minds. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Marvelous little Icelander imp
At 04:28 PM 01/01/2003 -0500, you wrote: But since I've already made my contribution to the collective memory with Bjork's name, I'll have to depend on someone else to supply the title of the movie...I can't remember it :-( --Mike Dancer in the Dark? Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? (plastic vs. metal aperture rings)
I have only seen A50/f1.4s with plastic aperture rings. However, I have seen A135/f2.8s both with plastic and metal aperture rings, so I can well imagine that there are different versions of the A50/f1.4, too. Arnold Peter Spiro schrieb: I agree with Mark that lenses with metal aperture rings hold up better and generally offer smoother turning. However, regarding the 50 f/1.4 A, I got hold of one a while ago which had a plastic aperture ring, rather than metal. Pentax seems to have gone back and forth on this as the whim took them. For example, most 50 f/2 M lenses have plastic rings, but I recently came across one (made in Taiwan, not Japan) that was metal. Every 50mm A f/1.7 and f/2 lens I have seen had a plastic aperture ring, but I think other focal lengths were metal in the A series. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Sharp B&W Film
Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Which is your favorite for large (8x10 & up) prints, >in 35mm format? Mine is Ilford Pan-F+, developed in Microdol-X and printed on Ilford paper. It's a pain to work with because it's slow and the grain isn't as fine as some faster films like Dela 100, but I *love* the tonal range. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
All Pentax equipment acquired in 2002: ZX-L FA 50mm f/1.4 FA 35mm f/2.0 AF360FGZ Flash AF220T Flash For 2003, maybe a telephoto lens? Or a digital camera? What is everyone else thinking of buying in 2003? Happy New Year! Michael Cross Chico, CA Frankie Lee wrote: Happy new year all of you! Just looked at plastic boxes containing my photographic gear. Recalled that I bought a long-time-ago Spotmatic SPII, SMCT 55/1.8 and SMCT 135/2.5 (2nd version) in 2002. Although not having any newly released product, I use them with other gear to catch many unforgettable images in 2002. What gear (Pentax or not) you have added in 2002? _ 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: Pish-posh and balderdash
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > IMHO, learning to see better is a technique and when it comes to graphic arts and >photography, it is *the* technique. > Exactly. And there are some guidelines that can help one learn to see better. Some do it instinctively; some have to learn. Paul Stenquist
Re: 2003 PUG Calendary
I'm honored to have my image chosen by you for your 2003 PUG Calendar. HOO HAA! Never tried it myself, I'm fortunate if I have enough time to just view each PUG. Thanks again. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:32 AM Subject: 2003 PUG Calendary I picked one picture from each Gallery during this year, and now I have my 2003 PUG Calendary. Has anyone else tried to do this? Its a hard task, there are too many wonderful pics to choose from Happy New Year! Ciao Fabio Snip, snip, snip... April: Rod's Reeds by Ken Waller, http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/img0041.html Snip, Snip, Snip...
Re: Nuns & priests (was Re[2]: Pish-posh and balderdash
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: > > Most of what I know about Catholics and Catholocism I think we should stay away from this. It's a lot like guns. Paul Stenquist
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Yep, that's the one. I think that you will love it. William in Utah 1/1/2003 2:04:27 PM, "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Well, > >I could not hold back making the first purchase of the >new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so >I think: > >http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=4302990&SKID=PK0699900172906&SID=newused&BID=PK&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=76.0 > > >Thanks again for all the input. Looking forward to >putting it to use! > > >--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Ken Archer wrote: >> > >> > Yes, that is the pre-M "K" model built between >> 1975-77. >> >> Knew the years, just guessing on it being a pre-M >> model, plus, it has >> 7 elements in 6 groups, for those who are >> counting... >> >> keith >> >> > On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:57 pm, Keith >> Whaley wrote: >> > > Just says "SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50" followed by the >> ser. no. 1,043,xxx. >> > > It has the red/orange IR mark outboard of the >> left hand f/4.0 mark on >> > > the barrel. >> > > Sports 8 aperture leaves. F/22.0 - 1.4. >> > > Would that be a pre-M? >> > >> > -- >> > Ken Archer Canine Photography >> > San Antonio, Texas >> > "Business Is Going To The Dogs" >> > > >__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > >
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
William Robb wrote: > > my 300mm f/4 for the 6x7 has not had a shot taken > with it yet, Bill, Bill, You've gotta go out and shoot some stuff with that 300/4. Remember it's like a 150 35mm lens. It's great for shooting people without them knowing that you're shooting them. It's a lot of fun. USE IT! Paul Stenquist
Re: Pish-posh and balderdash
I don't know, I see a lot of difference between developing motor skills, and developing visual skills. With a couple of years of tutoring by an excellent music tutor, and a couple of hours a day practice, people who didn't even know me could reconise the tune I was trying to play, barely. But I don't think any amount of making photos by rules is going to improve you vision one bit, it does not take extreme motor skills to work a camera. Conclusion: bogus argument. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Pish-posh and balderdash > > > Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > > > I come from a family with several musicians. You don't play classical > > music without solid technique. > > True enough. My daughter started taking violin lessons at the age of 9. > At the time we had hoped that she would study with Mrs. Kim, a Korean > string musician who teaches Suzuki method and has trained some excellent > violinists. Unfortunately, there was a waiting list, so we hired someone > else. After three years, we got to the top of the waiting list. Mrs. Kim > interviewed my daughter and agreed to take her on. But, although my > daughter had progressed through the first five books of Suzuki with the > other teacher, Mrs. Kim insisted that she start over again with Suzuki > book one and lessons in basic technique. She said that my daughter had > developed some minor flaws in her technique that would limit her down > the road. That was six years ago. Today my daughter is an excellent > violinist, who has won numerous honors in solo competitions and is a > member of the Michigan State University orchestra. She still practices > scales and position exercises, and occassionally visits Mrs. Kim for a > critique of her technique. > Paul Stenquist >
Re: Child prodigies
Mike Johnston wrote: >I interviewed one of them in Washington, a young > black boy from the projects who was given a camera and some basic > instructions Are you sure those basic instructions didn't violate the whole concept of shooting without rules? :-) Paul Stenquist
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Yes, that is the K, or pre M. William in Utah 1/1/2003 12:57:15 PM, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Steve Pearson wrote: >> >> Keith: >> >> Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm >> filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or >> other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of >> these confusing options! > >Just says "SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50" followed by the ser. no. 1,043,xxx. >It has the red/orange IR mark outboard of the left hand f/4.0 mark on >the barrel. >Sports 8 aperture leaves. F/22.0 - 1.4. >Would that be a pre-M? > >keith whaley > >> --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I have one 52mm filter ring 50 f/1.4, and it felt so >> > much cleaner than all my other 50 f/1.4s, I put it >> > on my newly acquired MX, where it will stay for a >> > while... good combo, IMHO. >> > >> > keith whaley >> > >> > Mark Roberts wrote: >> > > >> > > Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > It appears that Pentax makes both a 50 F1.4 SMC >> > > > (52mmfilter) and a 50 F1.4 SMC-M (49mm filter). Which >> > > > one is better optically, build, etc.? > >> > > They're identical optically (although the coatings >> > > *may* have been improved in the M version). The SMC 50 >> > > f1.4 (52mm filter) has better build quality. >> > > -- >> > > Mark Roberts > > >
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
K50/1.4. The M, A, F, FA 50/1.4's are all 49mm thread. William in Utah 1/1/2003 12:44:00 PM, "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >William: > >When you say the "K" lens (w/ the 52mm filter), is >this a 50mm or a 55mm lens? I assume this is not an A >lens? > > >--- William Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have both, the K feels a little bit better (and >> that's saying something, the M feels very nice >> indeed) and I prefer the slightly greater "girth" of >> the focusing ring to >> accomadate the 52mm filter thread (also one of the >> reasons I like my K30 and K105 as well). Optically, >> I haven't done any newspaper to the wall tests, but >> I am quite >> certain that the K is better than the M wide open. >> However, that difference seem to vanish by f/2 and I >> think that the M may even be a little better @ f/2.8 >> and f/4, >> but I will happily admit to not being so sure on >> that. I rarely shoot below f/4 but I wouldn't >> imagine any discernable differences at, say 5.6 or >> below. They are certainly >> both very nice lenses, with the K being rather >> scarce compared to the M so tends to go for more >> $$$ when found. However, you can be lucky, I think >> I paid $30 >> bucks for mine. >> >> If I could only have one, I'd keep the K. >> >> Hope that helps, >> >> William in Utah. >> >> 1/1/2003 11:46:17 AM, "Steve Pearson" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >It appears that Pentax makes both a 50 F1.4 SMC >> (52mm >> >filter) and a 50 F1.4 SMC-M (49mm filter). Which >> one >> >is better optically, build, etc.? >> > >> > >> > >> >--- William Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I have both the M and A 50/1.7's and a couple of >> >> M50/1.4's. It is my impression that the 1.4's >> are >> >> better at apetures that I tend to use fast 50's >> for, >> >> i.e. wide open to >> >> about f/4.5. I certainly prefer the bokeh of >> the >> >> 1.4's. >> >> >> >> I sought out the M50/1.4's because my experience >> >> with the build quality of "A" series lenses >> hasn't >> >> been overly positive. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> William in Utah. >> >> >> >> 12/31/2002 9:58:54 PM, "Steve Pearson" >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Hi again, >> >> >I own the 50mm-A 1.7 lens. Seems that most >> think >> >> the >> >> >1.4 is a better lens? Do you agree? Has anyone >> >> ever >> >> >done a side by side comparison? >> >> > >> >> >I would like to pick up a 1.4, and also wonder >> if >> >> >there is much difference between the A version >> Vs. >> >> the >> >> >M version. This would be in the K mount, for a >> >> Super >> >> >Program, MX, etc. >> >> > >> >> >Thanks for your suggestions. >> >> > >> >> >> >__ >> >> >Do you Yahoo!? >> >> >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up >> >> now. >> >> >http://mailplus.yahoo.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >__ >> >Do you Yahoo!? >> >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up >> now. >> >http://mailplus.yahoo.com >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > >__ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > >
Re: Nuns & priests (was Re[2]: Pish-posh and balderdash
Most of what I know about Catholics and Catholocism comes from novels. There were John Powers's trilogy about growing up Catholic in Chicago, starting with "Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" Later I read a couple Irish novels: Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and Angela's Ashes. Most of what I know about Jesuits comes from a joke: Q: What's the difference between a Catholic and a Jesuit? A: A Catholic will ask, "Father, is it OK if I smoke when I pray?" A Jesuit will ask, "Father, is it OK if I pray while I smoke?" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Yup. That be the one... Price is sure up there, tho'. Can't comment on that. I paid $50 for mine, at a camera repair shop. keith Steve Pearson wrote: > > Well, > > I could not hold back making the first purchase of the > new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so > I think: > > >http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=4302990&SKID=PK0699900172906&SID=newused&BID=PK&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=76.0 > > Thanks again for all the input. Looking forward to > putting it to use! * * * * > --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Ken Archer wrote: > > > > > > Yes, that is the pre-M "K" model built between > > 1975-77. > > > > Knew the years, just guessing on it being a pre-M > > model, plus, it has > > 7 elements in 6 groups, for those who are > > counting... > > > > keith > > > > > On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:57 pm, Keith > > Whaley wrote: > > > > Just says "SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50" followed by the > > ser. no. 1,043,xxx. > > > > It has the red/orange IR mark outboard of the > > left hand f/4.0 mark on > > > > the barrel. > > > > Sports 8 aperture leaves. F/22.0 - 1.4. > > > > Would that be a pre-M? > > > > > > -- > > > Ken Archer Canine Photography
Re: What are the rules?
>> Fine. You think there are rules of composition? Okay, tell me what they are. >> List them. I'd like to know what they are. > > Disingenuous indeed. You might just as well ask somebody to list the > laws of science in an email. But dear Heavens, Bob, do you mean to say these rules are so esoteric and sophisticated that they can't be enunciated and listed?? Then how in the world does the beginning photographer remember them in order to APPLY them when he or she is out photographing?!? *** Thank you for your list of books, however. I will arm myself with it for my next weekly library visit. I always suspect when I dispute with you that you and I are not truly adversarial. A sophisticated study of composition can certainly be rewarding, and certainly some great critics have talked about composition when discussing specific photographs--one I just read is John Szarkowski's essay on plate 59 of _A Maritime Album_, "Raising _Lord Dufferin_." Of course that picture has an exceedingly odd "composition" that would never pass muster at a camera club. But what we're discussing here are not sophisticated analyses of composition, but rather simple "rules of thumb" meant to help neophytes make "better pictures" _while they are out taking pictures_. In other words, a series of aphoristic admonitions meant to be memorized and carried about in one's head, in order to apply them to what is seen through the viewfinder, hopefully to correct the neophyte's incipient mistakes. These surely must be things much like Tom Reese mentions in his post. Tom names these: >never place an out of focus object in the foreground (especially a bright >one) >never place your subject in the center of the frame >out of focus highlights in the background should be avoided >never take landscape pictures at noon during the summer Of course, what happens in MY mind when I read a list of "rules" like the examples Tom uses is that my mind IMMEDIATELY moves to pictures that directly violate the rule stated. I think someday I should do a little chapbook of photography which pair each of the many "rules" I've read over the years with great photographs which egregiously violate that rule. --Mike
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
- Original Message - From: Steve Pearson Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4? > Keith: > > Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm > filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or > other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of > these confusing options! A 50mm f/1.4 lens with a 52mm filter is a K. The M and A lenses were 49mm front. The K and M 50mm f/1.4s are quite different lenses. I think you need one of each. William Robb
Re: Digital backs for 645
EOS1Ds. No it is not two small sensors glued together, at least that I have heard. Most of these ICs have leads coming out all four edges so it would be hard to do that (we are talking the chip now, not the package). Big chips have low yields (that is a higher percent of defective chips per wafer) that is what makes them so expensive. Some of the wafers are big enough to get a 4x5 sensor out of, but the yield would be something like one usable chip per 10-12 wafers, and a 6 inch diameter wafer costs many thousands of dollars. The biggest sensors that I have heard of being available in a back are about twice the 35mm frame. The digital back that uses it is over $100,000, way over I have heard. There are larger scaning backs for studio still life use, but those take forever to make and save an exposure, and in the past needed to be tethered to a computer. The newest ones have onboard computers and save on a portable hard drive. By all reports the Fovean sensor Sigma has more problems with artifacting and moire than the convention sensor cameras do. Whether that turns out to be a insurmountable problem or just a glitch that will be solved in the next generation Fovean cameras is still up in the air. The new Kodak, DCS14n, is supposed to be out this month, but I have as yet not found any posts of images from it. That does not bode well for its timely introduction either. The Canon is apparently shipping and in the hands of users. Only, since the wisdom on this list is that no one would pay $7K for a digital camera, how come nobody can keep the EOS1Ds in stock at $8K? And, 14mp is about equal to 35mm color negative film. What the digital does for a professional photographer is make him more money quicker and 6mp and up gives adequate resolution for many pro markets. I have been looking into it, and have concuded that at todays prices you have to use 300+ rolls of 35mm per year to break even on the higher cost of the $2000 6mp cameas over the same basic film camera. So that savings every digital maven talks about is not going to affect most ameteur photographers, but they don't really have to justify the price of a new toy if they can afford it. I wonder if Pentax is going to anounce a pro-DSLR at PMA. I suspect it will be a prosumer camera though maybe with interchangable lenses. Well, I can hope can't I? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "gfen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In regards to 645 dying before other 120 formats because of cheap FF 35mm > digital cameras... > Isn't thenew Canon FF (EOS1D? Whatever its called) simply two of the APS > sized sensors stuck together? Wouldn't one of the next logical steps be > for someone to put four of them together to get a 645 sized sensor? Of > course they'll do the same with more in the future for larger formats, as > well, but shouldn't 645 be the next one to get this massive upgrade? By > that right, if Canon can make a 14mp camera from twoAPS sized sensors, > wouldn't a 28mp 645 be next? And if people are already saying that 14mp is > better than current MF in some situations, who knows if we'll really need > anything bigger than the 28mp 645 sized sensors? > In other words, when that happens, everyone will change their tunes AGAIN. > Until, of course, they glue eight toegheter to make a 56mp 67 sensor. :) > Of course, as I've sdaid before.. I'm no digital guru, and I don't really > know any of the science and theories behind it..
Re: What toys you have in 2002?
- Original Message - From: Marnie > I wish someone had warned me that reading this list can really pull one into buying more stuff. Unsubscribe. Do it now. Righ now. I used to be happy with my LX, 2 K-1000s a half dozen lenses, my 6x7 and a few lenses, and the 4x5 and a few lenses. Then, I decided to buy a computer, so as to learn a bit about digital photography, since that is where my industry is headed. One day, while surfing the web, I came across the Pentax USA website. Spotted a link saying Click here to join the Pentax Discuss Mailing list. Joined this mailing list. That was 4 years ago. Since then, I have nearly retired from active photography. Not withstanding that fact, I now own 3 LXs, a couple of ME-Supers, a Program Plus and a few other bodies. I have bought a couple of dozen more lenses for the 35mm, 3 more lenses for the 6x7, and a nice wide angle lens for the 4x5. A 6x7 bellows (SHEESH!!), and a couple of bellows for the 35mm system, a microscope adaptor which I will likely never use because I just don't find that stuff all that interesting, and a bunch of LX viewfinders, one of which I will likely never use. Two fisheye lenses (one is never enough) and 5 teleconverters, including two Pentax 2x-S. 2 of my camera bodies have never had a roll of film put into them by me, my 300mm f/4 for the 6x7 has not had a shot taken with it yet, and at least 3 of my 35mm camera lens purchases have not been mounted on a camera since being purchased, and one has not been on a camera at all, I just picked it up off a shelf, gave it a cursory inspection and bought it. This list is a very bad place. William Robb
RE: scanner choice
Nikon rebate was supposed to end on 31Dec but has got extended to March 31. In next PMA, camera makers may announce few more DSlrs. This may further bring down the scanner prices. I feel it's better to wait till PMA. I am also aiming for Nikon 4000 but waiting Thanks Ramesh -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: scanner choice FWIW, N***N currently has a $100 to $200 rebate on their Super Coolscan film scanners. Still not exactly cheap, but the Super Coolscan 4000 ED is probably as good as is needed for 35mm scanning. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: "David Chang-Sang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 7:01 PM Subject: RE: scanner choice > Minolta Scan Elite II > or > Nikon Coolscan IV > or > Epson 2450 > > If you need to have mf scans done.. then the 2450 is it without braking the > bank > The other two are about equal although Nikon fans would think otherwise :) > > Cheers, > Dave > > -Original Message- > From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 4:44 PM > To: Pentax > Subject: scanner choice > > > Well it's time to get a film scanner since it should > save me lots vs photo cds, just debating on weather to > get a flatbed with adaptor like the epson 2400 or a > dedicated film scanner ( at x2 the cost ), only need > to go up to 11x14 . > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > >
Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
Well, I could not hold back making the first purchase of the new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so I think: http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=4302990&SKID=PK0699900172906&SID=newused&BID=PK&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=76.0 Thanks again for all the input. Looking forward to putting it to use! --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ken Archer wrote: > > > > Yes, that is the pre-M "K" model built between > 1975-77. > > Knew the years, just guessing on it being a pre-M > model, plus, it has > 7 elements in 6 groups, for those who are > counting... > > keith > > > On Wednesday 01 January 2003 07:57 pm, Keith > Whaley wrote: > > > Just says "SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50" followed by the > ser. no. 1,043,xxx. > > > It has the red/orange IR mark outboard of the > left hand f/4.0 mark on > > > the barrel. > > > Sports 8 aperture leaves. F/22.0 - 1.4. > > > Would that be a pre-M? > > > > -- > > Ken Archer Canine Photography > > San Antonio, Texas > > "Business Is Going To The Dogs" > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
I'm very fond of the second one (the girl eating ice cream). The long lens does give you an element of surprise and anonymity that can't be accomplished with normal portrait lenses. Nice work. Paul Stenquist John Mustarde wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:43:25 -0500, you wrote: > > >>Since I never take portraits, except for > >>the occasional one at 400-600mm... > >>-- > >>John Mustarde > >>www.photolin.com > > > >You mean the Pentax Mirror Zoom 400-600mm? Portraits of donuts? > > > >Andre > > No. I mena like this one, with the FA* 600/4: > http://www.photolin.com/john/lost1.JPG > > or this > http://www.photolin.com/john/folks/spoon.JPG > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com
Re[2]: Jan PUG
Hi, Wednesday, January 1, 2003, 8:23:19 PM, you wrote: >>Given the "rules" thread I couldn't resist looking for images conforming to >>the "rule of thirds". I found a few that were kinda sorta there, but nothing >>that struck me as a strong use of the "rule of thirds". For what it's >>worth. > I think Albano Garcia's "Bored..." makes realy strong (and really good) use > of the rule of thirds. I hate to do this to Mike J., but so does his! It's a beautiful photograph, and the baby's face is on an intersection of thirds. In addition, the baby is lying on a very nice diagonal with respect to the frame. Maybe he was born with it! . --- Bob
