PDML's newest star

[Mike Johnston]

> Then he said, "My first available slot is September."

YOWZZUH! Congratulations, Glenn, that's fantastic! Oh, man, you'll have fun.


> Advice and pointers from those of you who already know how to
> play the fine-art game Extremely Welcome.

Alert _all_ the local papers well in advance, and send them reminders. Do
_all_ your own publicity yourself, and do _lots_ of it. Contact the TV
stations (can it hurt?). Send press releases to Baltimore magazine, and to
all the local schools, Maryland Institute, UMBC, whatever. Remember that you
don't get through to people until the sixth contact.

Then get everyone you know to show up at the opening. For four whole weeks
before the opening, tell everyone three times that they don't have to buy
anything, but you'd love it of they would. When they do buy, give every
single friend a whispered, conspiratorial 20% discount just because they're
such a good friend, and make each of 'em promise not to tell anyone else.

Finally, remember Brett Favre.

How come? Well, our Brett, bless 'im, always tries just a little bit too
hard to squeeze the ball into tight places. What this means is that opposing
cornerbacks _know_ that sooner or later, he will throw the ball right to
them. All they have to do is be ready to catch it.

If you do all the above, something else good WILL come of it, Glenn. It
will. You just have to keep waiting for it, and then be ready for it when it
happens. And then jump on it. So keep alert. When the good follow-on thing
comes along--intercept!

You'll see. This is good, and something _else_ good will follow from this!

Congrats again. Where can we see the prints you will be exhibiting?? We want
an online preview!

--Mike

Re: Digital RF Body??

[Alan Chan]

Is Leica ( or anyone else for that matter)
developing a digital 35mm RANGEFINDER camera?
I dont see why it couldnt be done.


Perhaps there won't be much reason to produce RF since the actual image 
could be viewed on the LCD. And nothing is going to be quieter than a 
digial, so the advantage of RF against SLR is over.

regards,
Alan Chan

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Alan Chan]

Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality,
the WAR is overAnd I think that time may have already
arrived.


Would that be the end of Pentax since they would lose both 135 & 120 
systems?

regards,
Alan Chan

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

Will digital SLRs extend to "dead" lens systems?

[J. C. O'Connell]

Do you all think they will ever develop DSLRS
that use "dead" lens systems such as:

M42
Minolta MD
Canon FD
Olympus OM
Etc. Etc.

JCO

Digital RF Body??

[J. C. O'Connell]

Is Leica ( or anyone else for that matter)
developing a digital 35mm RANGEFINDER camera?
I dont see why it couldnt be done.
JCO

RE: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[J. C. O'Connell]

Based on the JPEG ( not even a tiff ) from kodaks
14Mpixel SLR, it CERTAINLY beats even the best
35mm film image, and to my eye, equals or even exceeds
my best P67 images.

Even if it just equals P67, that gives the 35mm DSLR
a huge enuff advantage to be the winner. Why?
Think about the variety, size, cost & speed of 35mm lenses.

There are no medium format F1.4 lenses, 28-85
zoom equivilents, 17mm equivilents, 1000mm equivilents,
etc. etc. etc. The size and weight of medium format
lenses is a BIG (no pun) liability, let alone their
cost. Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality,
the WAR is overAnd I think that time may have already
arrived.

JCO

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Mike Johnston]

> We don't have to admit that at all.
> 
> If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
> digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
> And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
> is quite a lot better.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but _nobody_ is making
extra-large chemical prints from 4x5 any more. It's _all_ digital from
scanned originals, because the prints are so much better. You need a place
to go see some really good digital prints. Hell, some labs won't even make
prints larger than _11 x 14_ unless they're digital. Much less 40 x 60".

Look, I'm still shooting 35mm B&W. I'm going to keep doing so. But EOS 1Ds
color prints are better than 35mm color prints by every single conceivable
qualitative measure except the cost of the camera. (Try to name one other if
you want to.) This is just not in dispute out where this question matters,
or with ANYBODY who has tried both. (Try to name one person who has tried a
1Ds who is willing to say 35mm is better. Find me one person, anywhere on
planet Earth. I'm willing to bet that person doesn't exist.)


>In some ways I get very tired of this argument.

That can happen in arguments when you're on the wrong side. 

--Mike

RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!

[J. C. O'Connell]

I guess they overdid it when they downsized it
to a "M" lens huh? I have the 105 SMCT which I
believe is the same design as the k105. I agree
with you as to it's sharpness. The SMCT 120
is just as good too, same design as the 105 just scaled up.
JCO

> -Original Message-
> From: William Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 1:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Check here:
> http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_tele.html
>
> From these tests, its obviously not as sharp as the K105/2.8.  I have the
> K105 and it is a very nice, sharp contrasty lens with pleasing colors that
> also handles well.  However, the bokeh can be pretty gruesome at times.
>
> William in Utah
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:21 PM
> Subject: RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
>
>
> > Sorry guys, but I have been stockpiling K mounts
> > in anticipation of a K mount DSLR. I have about
> > a dozen so far and I dont use them (yet). I still
> > prefer my cherished screwmounts for day to day usage.
> > I will admit that I do like my KX but seldom use it.
> >
> > BTW, I've heard the m100 2.8 isnt is good as the k105
> > 2.8.  What's the difference? They are both 5 element
> > designsAny online reviews of these?
> >
> > JCO
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: David Chang-Sang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:55 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
> > >
> > >
> > > Awww..
> > > come on..
> > > JCO's got enough gear already ;-)
> > >
> > > What a deal though.. if only I hadn't been snapping nudes at
> the time..
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:34 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
> > >
> > >
> > > Ok I don't usually do this but here's a bargain alert.  I don't think
> this
> > > is breaking any rules
> > > so to speak since it's a buy it now auction and I think the price
> > > more than
> > > reasonable.
> > >
> > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003518645&cate
> > > gory=15240
> > >
> > > I already have one of these little gems and I paid somewhat
> more for the
> > > one I have.
> > >
> > > Just a disclaimer it's not my auction.
> > >
> > >
> > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> > >  Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: My Exciting Evening

[T Rittenhouse]

Congradulations, Glenn

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

Re: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Dan Scott related:
> On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 01:28  PM, Mike Johnston wrote:
>> Re photography, some of you might be surprised to learn a) how many 
>> famous photographers were actually independently wealthy, and b) how 
>> many famous, important, or widely-known photographers were, or are, 
>> either poor, or suffer periods of poverty, or barely scrape by.
> John Shaw started his recent Austin workshop by innocently asking "How 
> many people here think I make money from my photographs?" ;-)

It's a lot like the "real musicians have day jobs" bumper stickers
I've seen.  (Come to think of it, one of those recently appeared 
on the bumper of the car belonging to the leader of The Homespun
Ceilidh Band (he's a lawyer).)

I don't expect photography to make me rich, but it'd be really
cool if it could someday pay for itself.  (I'm not counting on
it.)

-- Glenn

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[T Rittenhouse]

Yah, well, I know a of couple of fine art photographers who do digital
prints. Why? Because it is cheaper. One of them still does his own
Ilfordchromes he gets a premium for them. The other never did his own
printing. As I said there are economic reasons to use digital commercially.
YMV. And since you took part of my post out of context, folks reading this
should look at the subject line above.

I will, however, restate. I downloaded a couple of the dcs-14n tiff files
from the Kodak site. Printed them and compared the prints to D&P prints from
6x7s I had. The digital prints didn't make it in comparison.

And as I said, I am tired of this argument. I have consistently tried to
point out both sides of this issue. Being in the middle just gets me snarled
at by both sides. The hell with it.

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


- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67


> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
> digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
> And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
> is quite a lot better.<
>
> a couple of people i know who shoot 4x5 and make large exhibition prints
> would disagree with you. the digital print from a scan of the 4x5 is
almost
> invariably better, in their opinion. the most recent example i have met is
> a professional fine art landscape photographer who makes most of his money
> from print sales. he's the guy i took the workshop from recently. have you
> had an exhibition print professionally made from a 4x5 via traditional
> enlarger and then by scanning recently?
>
> everyone of the people i have talked to didn't switch to scans and digital
> prints because of control, although they like that aspect of it. they did
> it because of quality and durability. i see what the professionals around
> me who have "made it" (they derive all their income from their
photography)
> in the fine art landscape photography business are doing and no matter
what
> film they shoot, they do digital prints.
>
> Herb
>

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Mike Johnston]

> I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm.



I said a 1Ds, not a 1D.

--Mike

Re: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 03:43  PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:




Peter Alling wrote:





I just checked the cost of subscrbing to the OED online, and it's 
$550
PER ANNUM!
Ok if you're a professional writer.


No, not OK.



It's completely free over at the library—which is my preference.

Dan Scott

Re: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich

[Dan Scott]

On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 01:28  PM, Mike Johnston wrote:


Re photography, some of you might be surprised to learn a) how many 
famous
photographers were actually independently wealthy, and b) how many 
famous,
important, or widely-known photographers were, or are, either poor, or
suffer periods of poverty, or barely scrape by.

--Mike


John Shaw started his recent Austin workshop by innocently asking "How 
many people here think I make money from my photographs?" ;-)

Dan Scott

Re: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!

[William Johnson]

Hi,

Check here:
http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_tele.html

>From these tests, its obviously not as sharp as the K105/2.8.  I have the
K105 and it is a very nice, sharp contrasty lens with pleasing colors that
also handles well.  However, the bokeh can be pretty gruesome at times.

William in Utah

- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!


> Sorry guys, but I have been stockpiling K mounts
> in anticipation of a K mount DSLR. I have about
> a dozen so far and I dont use them (yet). I still
> prefer my cherished screwmounts for day to day usage.
> I will admit that I do like my KX but seldom use it.
>
> BTW, I've heard the m100 2.8 isnt is good as the k105
> 2.8.  What's the difference? They are both 5 element
> designsAny online reviews of these?
>
> JCO
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Chang-Sang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:55 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
> >
> >
> > Awww..
> > come on..
> > JCO's got enough gear already ;-)
> >
> > What a deal though.. if only I hadn't been snapping nudes at the time..
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:34 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
> >
> >
> > Ok I don't usually do this but here's a bargain alert.  I don't think
this
> > is breaking any rules
> > so to speak since it's a buy it now auction and I think the price
> > more than
> > reasonable.
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003518645&cate
> > gory=15240
> >
> > I already have one of these little gems and I paid somewhat more for the
> > one I have.
> >
> > Just a disclaimer it's not my auction.
> >
> >
> > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
> >  Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!

[J. C. O'Connell]

Sorry guys, but I have been stockpiling K mounts
in anticipation of a K mount DSLR. I have about
a dozen so far and I dont use them (yet). I still
prefer my cherished screwmounts for day to day usage.
I will admit that I do like my KX but seldom use it.

BTW, I've heard the m100 2.8 isnt is good as the k105
2.8.  What's the difference? They are both 5 element
designsAny online reviews of these?

JCO

> -Original Message-
> From: David Chang-Sang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
>
>
> Awww..
> come on..
> JCO's got enough gear already ;-)
>
> What a deal though.. if only I hadn't been snapping nudes at the time..
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!
>
>
> Ok I don't usually do this but here's a bargain alert.  I don't think this
> is breaking any rules
> so to speak since it's a buy it now auction and I think the price
> more than
> reasonable.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003518645&cate
> gory=15240
>
> I already have one of these little gems and I paid somewhat more for the
> one I have.
>
> Just a disclaimer it's not my auction.
>
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
>  Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx
>
>
>
>

OT: Odds and Ends

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Bad stuff:

Yesterday a lens fell off my camera while I was standing in the
checkout line at Wal-Mart.  It was the 50/1.4 that came attached
to a bellows, and it fell off an H1a.  Something must've gotten
bent inside -- focussing is much stiffer than before, and it takes
a lot of force to change the aperture (though both can be done).
I'm upset.  (It was technically broken when I got it; it acts as
though the auto/manual switch is always on manual.  But that wasn't
a show-stopper.  It's harder to use now that I have to take it off
the camera to choose a smaller aperture ... *sigh*)

Two teleconverters fell apart yesterday -- the front mounting ring
of one and the rear threads of the other (both are screwmount).
This is more of an inconvenience than anything else:  as soon as I
find my set of teeny screwdrivers, I can put them both back together.

Good stuff:

The geeking-with-friends and upcoming exhibition mentioned in my
last two messages.

Amusing stuff:

Remember when the police detained me for allegedly photographing 
a building in November, in the fog?  (I was standing near the 
building, photographing a pedestrian bridge.)  The Homespun Ceilidh 
Band will be performing in that building (the Baltimore World Trade
Center) on St. Patrick's Day.

-- Glenn

My Exciting Evening

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

When I and the friends mentioned in my previous message went into
a coffee shop, I noticed local-artist art on the walls with prices
next to each piece.  So I asked our waitress whom I'd ask about
getting my photos on their walls, and she said that their art
director wasn't in, but she'd give him my contact info.

When she brought our order, she told me the art director had come
in and was upstairs, so one of my friend and I went to fetch my
portfolio out of my car a few blocks away (which I'd tossed into
the car on a random whim), and I asked him to look at it.

Now I've had "show my portfolio to a gallery or a restaurant"
on my to-do list for about two years, but I'm _shy_[1].  I'm also
insecure.

You see, I know that I've made some photos I can feel proud of,
and I'm used to hearing my friends tell me in impressed-sounding
voices that I've got great photos, and I've started getting
accustomed to strangers and vague acquaintances saying, "Hey,
these are pretty good!" when I show off my work (but never buying
anything).  But an art director, or a gallery-owner, or someone
like that?  Whole different level of ego-issues; whole different
bundle of stress and insecurities; and complete lack of confidence
regarding how to _approach_ someone like that (which is where the
shyness comes in).


The art director at Xando (31st & Charles, for folks who know
Baltimore) looked at my photos.  He made the expected noises
that I interpreted as, "Yeah, that's okay," and "That's nice
enough," but didn't seem _impressed_ at first.  Then he got 
to a photo that he reacted to by changing his body language.
(It's one that I consider _pretty_ but kind of cliche -- the
Baltimore Aquarium on a sunny day.)  Then a few more that 
seemed merely ok, and another that he looked at a little longer
and said, "That's nice," a few where he asked where they were
shot, and another that seemed to get a reaction from him ...
and so on to the end of the binder.

Then he said, "My first available slot is September."

I was expecting, "I'll keep you in mind."  No, he was telling
me my photos would go up in September and asking whether I
wanted the whole restuarant or only part of it (I opted for 
just downstairs).  He also said that if I wanted to hold a
reception, that'd be cool.

#blink#

*pause*

>>BOUNCE<<

Looks like I've got my first public showing lined up several
months from now!  Big step for me.  The art director said that
the photographer who has nine photos grouped together downstairs
now is making a lot of sales; I hope I manage to sell a few this
Fall.  Now I get to:  drive myself and my friends crazy trying to
decide which photos to show at what sizes and changing my mind
every time I start to second-guess my own judgement; come up with
money to frame enough prints and get a few printed at larger 
sizes than what I've got; and try to figure out how I should
price my work.

WHEE!


Advice and pointers from those of you who already know how to
play the fine-art game Extremely Welcome.  This is water I've
been trying to work up the nerve to dip my toe into for a long
time, but it's all unfamiliar territory.  (Now to go dig through
my archived mail for what folks said when I first said I was
interested in going in this direction...)

September.  Looks like a long time from now, but it's probably
a good thing I have that long to prepare.

-- Glenn


[1] Yeah, yeah, I know, I hear it a lot:  "How can somebody with 
the guts to wear a skirt and heels with a beard in public be shy?"  
I am; I just managed to conceptualize that as a Different Matter 
than my shyness -- it doesn't involve _approaching_ people, or 
calling them on the telephone.  In fact, since folks sometimes 
approach me to talk to me because of how I dress, it even helps 
to _compensate_ for my shyness a little.  I talk easily to 
strangers if they start the conversation or if there's a BIG 
conversation-starter to comment on, and I do fine in the spotlight 
(including public-speaking), so most folks think that's the whole 
story and don't see where I have trouble; but I'm not making this 
up -- I really am shy about approaching people.  Less so than a 
dozen years ago, thank God, but it's still a problem.

RE: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!

[David Chang-Sang]

Awww..
come on..
JCO's got enough gear already ;-)

What a deal though.. if only I hadn't been snapping nudes at the time..

Cheers,
Dave

-Original Message-
From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!


Ok I don't usually do this but here's a bargain alert.  I don't think this
is breaking any rules
so to speak since it's a buy it now auction and I think the price more than
reasonable.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003518645&category=15240

I already have one of these little gems and I paid somewhat more for the
one I have.

Just a disclaimer it's not my auction.


Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
 Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

Re: Makinon 300mm f4

[Bob Rapp]

Yep, perfect paper weight. How much would you pay for a polished stone.

Bob
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Jesser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Makinon 300mm f4


>
> Has anyone had any hands on experience with the Makinon 300mm f4? What
would
> one in good condition be worth ($US)?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> _
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>

Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8 (was: Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar)

[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]

I'm not at the same computer that contains the PDML Digest in which someone
asked me to document my statement that the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80/1.8
is similar to the Pentax Super Takumar 85/1.8. My source is a series of
postings and private mailings in 2001 and 2002 by PDML's sadly missed CZJ
expert, Frantisek Vlcek of the Czech Republic. Here's all I have on the
Pancolar, which weighs 310 g, takes a 58mm filter, and has 6 elements in 5
groups (like the Super Takumar and Pentax SMC 85/1.8s):

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:39:53 +0100 From: Frantisek Vlcek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: favorite non-Pentax K mount lens? That's
easy. It's the 1.8/80mm Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar. Superb lens. ( M42 only)
... The 1.8/80 CZJ Pancolar is a gaussian design, probably very similar or
same as Planar design. I do have this lens, and while the Multicoating on my
sample is not as good as modern SMC (needs a lens hood still ), in normal
light it is about as sharp as my SMC F 1.4/50 or just slightly less (at
relatively same apertures - 1.4=1.8; 5.6=5.6). It's good wide open, and
excellent even moderately stopped down. It should be as sharp or even better
 than all the portrait 80mm' Pentax made (xcept the new ones, A & FA
1.4/85 of course). AFAIK it's same or very similar design to Pentax  SMC-K
1.8/85 (most those 1.8/80 lenses are of same, planar-derived design).  Only
drawback my sample is prone to flare from strong light sources."

>From http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1999/msg01582.html: Hi Zuiko
amateurs, This week I bought a new (used) lens, and while it's not a Zuiko,
I just wanted to say what an amazing lens it seems to be. It's a
Carl-Zeiss-Jena (east) Pancolar 80mm 1:1,8 with M42 mount. Because of a
small dint at the front thread it costed only 200 DM (120 US dollar) instead
390 DM. First
slides taken with an aperture of 1:5,6 were great. Because there are no OM -
M42 adaptors, which goes to infinity without an auxiliary lens, this message
is somewhat off topic, but I think there aren't any M42 or Carl-Zeiss-Jena
(east) discussion lists around where I could share this experience. Regards,
Matthias.

"Some of CZJ's lenses such as the "Pancolar" and "Flektagon" have their
roots in pre-WWII designs ("Biotar" and "Distagon") for which CZJ could use
the designs, but not the original trademark names due to court rulings about
intellectual property rights." -- John

http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/spe2/hresol.htm: The Pancolor 80_1.8 lens
has a pupil diameter of 44.4 mm, which implies that there is no risk of
vignetting in any part of the spectrum. 

A user of 80_1.8 and other CZJ primes wrote: "Superb. I know everyone says
Pentax made the best M42 lenses but I disagree."

>From the Contax discussion list: "By the way I have bayonet mount practica
lenses, Flektogon 20/f2.8 which is a very good lens Mayer 28/F2.8 not a bad
lens at all Flektogon 35/f2.4 very very nice lens Pancolor 50/f1.8 very nice
Pancolor 80/f1.8 ditto! Sonnar 135/f3.5 extremly nice lens Sonnar 300/f4 I
do not use much, though good one and mayer 50/f1.8 CZJ 55/f2.8 MACRO lens
(good lens) I would say these lenses have almost the same colour redention,
which is very pleasing, and very small distortion. So I like them a lot, but
cameras (B200 and BX20) are different story all together. I wish Penatcon
servived and produced a better camera body! "

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

FA31 question

[Alan Chan]

I was wondering if all FA31 cases came with the round plastic lock instead 
of the retangular one came with 43 & 77?

http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/31-77.jpg

regards,
Alan Chan


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

Re: eos d60 with fa85mm

[adphoto]

my Japanese is aweful, is that a home made adaptor? or is it an extension
tube with eos mount on one side and k mount on the other? That would take
out infinity focus wouldn't it? I was told an k mount to eos mount adaptor
would not work becuase of the placement of the pentax apeture springs

100mm/2.8 M on E-bay Buy it now!

[Peter Alling]

Ok I don't usually do this but here's a bargain alert.  I don't think this 
is breaking any rules
so to speak since it's a buy it now auction and I think the price more than 
reasonable.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003518645&category=15240

I already have one of these little gems and I paid somewhat more for the 
one I have.

Just a disclaimer it's not my auction.


Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

FA*85/1.4 mounting on EOS-D60,

[Bob Keefer]

 My only question: How'd he do it? Maybe I could enjoy Pentax lenses on my
Canon A2E

Bob Keefer
---

Keefer Photography
Fine art hand-painted photos
www.bkpix.com

On and Off Topic: Phenix, Camera geeking with Friends, H1a feel

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

(This is the camera-geeking-enhanced version of half of the 
LiveJournal post I just made about my day.)

Got some face-to-face time with friends today.  Among them was one
who's currently an English teacher in China but came home for a
holiday.  After using PHD cameras ("Push Here, Dummy") for however
long, she recently picked up her first "real camera" (her words).
It's a Phenix body that had been described to me earlier as "a K1000
clone".  She wanted some pointers, though looking at her snapshots
I'd have to say she was doing pretty well despite not having a working
meter and just _guessing_ at the exposures!  As expected from, well,
travel snapshots, some of her photos looked like snapshots.  Others
were obviously more carefully composed -- she considers herself a
complete novice, but she revealed that she's been _paying_attention_
to photos-as-art for a long time.  She seems to have a special knack
for mountain landscapes.

She said her meter didn't work because she drained the batteries
before she even found out the camera _had_ a meter -- she lost her 
lens cap and the meter was active whenever light entered the camera -- 
which sounded familiar.  We put the batteries from my K2 into it 
briefly to make sure the meter actually did work.  (Fortunately I
had dragged the K2 along to use _as_ a meter ... I nearly left it
home because I was already carrying my two working H1a bodies to
use up the ends of the rolls of film loaded in them.[1])

I'm hoping to get a chance to sit with her in a less distracting
environment to answer questions before she goes back to China.
I did find her a National Geographic quick-reference booklet that
looked like it might be helpful, at the Baltimore Book Thing (free
books every weekend!!!).

I expected a K1000 with a few metal parts replaced by plastic, but
it's not really quite a K1000.  It's got a DOF preview button
(on the "wrong" side) and a self timer, it lacks a PC socket, and
it has over/under/ok LEDs instead of a match-needle.  Looking at
her photos, I suggested she get a wide-angle lens to go with her
normal lens.  Unlike me, her eye seems to be drawn mostly to subjects
that would benefit from a wider angle of view most of the time.
(I'm more of a telephoto shooter, though I wished I had a wide
angle with me in the coffeeshop tonight!)  

Curious thing ... she has a completely manual flash -- no sensor,
no auto-mode, she has to check the distance and look up the 
aperture on the chart on the back of the flash -- but it's fancy
enough to have a tilt _and_swivel_ head!  It looks new.  I had
no idea anyone was still making flash strobes without at least a
basic auto mode.  (Then again, maybe it was ancient but just never
used until now.)

Another longtime Pentax user was there, and he complained that
he really wished his camera (uh, an ME Super, I think) had DOF 
preview.  Later, he was handling an H1a, was startled by the lack 
of a flash shoe (I fetched the other H1a from the car and showed
him the clip-on shoe), even more startled by how little mirror-slap 
he felt when he fired it (I'd finished the roll and unloaded it by 
then), and wasn't sure he liked the butter-smooth feel of the film 
advance as much as I do (though he did agree that it's unusually 
smooth -- it's just that he felt it was _too_ smooth).  Once again 
I failed to resist the impulse to point out that those old pre-Spotmatic 
Pentax bodies are a real pleasure to operate, a joy to the hands, 
and fun.  Ifwhen I get a chance to replace my handheld meter, I'll 
use them a lot more often.

And then came the really exciting bit of the evening (next message)...

-- Glenn


[1] I thought it might be amusing to shoot the first few rolls of
2003 using each of my reliable-enough-to-go-shooting-with bodies
in order from oldest-model to newest.  If I go on a shoot where I 
need a feature that's missing from whatever body is next in line, 
I'll abandon this plan, but so far I'm getting away with it.  Next
up is the K2, since I've already put a roll through each of two
H1a bodies and the Spotmatic.

Something for the pentaxian who has everything.

[Peter Alling]

A box to put it in.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3002060368&category=15240



Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Herb Chong]

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
is quite a lot better.<

a couple of people i know who shoot 4x5 and make large exhibition prints
would disagree with you. the digital print from a scan of the 4x5 is almost
invariably better, in their opinion. the most recent example i have met is
a professional fine art landscape photographer who makes most of his money
from print sales. he's the guy i took the workshop from recently. have you
had an exhibition print professionally made from a 4x5 via traditional
enlarger and then by scanning recently?

everyone of the people i have talked to didn't switch to scans and digital
prints because of control, although they like that aspect of it. they did
it because of quality and durability. i see what the professionals around
me who have "made it" (they derive all their income from their photography)
in the fine art landscape photography business are doing and no matter what
film they shoot, they do digital prints.

Herb

Re: FA*85/1.4 mounting on EOS-D60

[Fred]

>  Very nice!

The images surely do look like they have typical FA* 85/1.4 bokeh.

Fred

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Herb Chong]

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I'm not at all willing to say EOS 1D surpasses 35mm.<

have you personally done a comparison yet?

Herb

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[T Rittenhouse]

We don't have to admit that at all.

In some ways I get very tired of this argument. High end digital is good
enough for most commercial use now. That is not the same thing as it is
better than film. First comparing a digitalised film image to digital
imaging is kind of stupid unless you need a digital image. Guess what? When
you need a digital image, like for the internet, you don't need much of an
image. If you compare a high quality photographic print from film to a
digital print from a digital image the photographic print is still better.
And if you compare a large format photographic print to a digital print it
is quite a lot better.

If your ultimate use is for publication, then the digital work flow is
quicker and easier to use and makes a lot of economic sense. If you want to
compare a 6x6 slide on a screen to a projected digital image maybe not.
Image quality is not everything. If it were no one would be using 35mm in
the first place. 35mm became good enough 25-30 years ago, digital is rapidly
becoming good enough now. Neither is anywhere near great. In some instances
quality is important and film is still ahead there. Furthermore chemical
process and digital process are entirely different in appearance and one can
no more be said to be better than the other than oil can be said to be
better than water color in painting.

In many ways those few folks who are saying digital is just another format
that is available to us are the smart ones because that is exactly what it
is.

What digital whether direct digital or scanned film does do is return
control of his images to the photographer. Once again he can produce his own
final image and not be at the mercy of some lab that does not give a damn
about anything but making money.  That especially applies to amateur
photographers like most of those on this list, because they can not afford
the very expensive pro processing and even if they could they do not  have
the knowledge to supervise the lab in order to get the best possible image.

Film is not dead, and will not be dead soon. But digital has economics in
its favor and for many uses will become the format of choice. Especially for
commercial use.

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


- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film.

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Peter Alling]

Sometimes you can be too cute.

At 11:34 AM 1/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:

Many years ago--late 1980s, I think--in a comparison test, Consumer Reports
or maybe Popular Science severely downrated the Mac because their testers
couldn't figure out how to turn it on.


[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

Re: FA*85/1.4 mounting on EOS-D60

[Keith Whaley]

 Very nice!

keith whaley

Iren & Henry Chu wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This Japanese folk has tired of all the Pentax D-SLR speculations and
> tortures from waiting. He instead bought a EOS-D60 for his FA*85/1.4 lens:
> 
> http://www-esl2.isc.chubu.ac.jp/mun/camera/pentax/penta-eos.html
> 
> Nice idea!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henry Chu
> 26/1/2003

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Peter Alling]

Sorry, check out the comparison in Pop Photography this month.  I can't say 
that
the detail comparison is more flattering but print from the ISO 100 color 
print
film obviously carries more information than the print from the 9 megapixel 
dslr
(see Digital Directions, Got Enough Pixel Power? Popular Photography page 
40 February
2003).

At 08:43 PM 1/25/2003 -0600, you wrote:







One thing we must readily admit--the EOS 1Ds surpasses 35mm film.

So I think we must at least admit that "digital has surpassed film."

After all, it might be argued that yet another way to make the comparison
more fair would be to compare film vs. the _same-sized_ digital sensor. So
we would compare the EOS 1Ds to 35mm, and against the Pentax 6x7 we would
have to pit a digital medium-format camera back.






--Mike


Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

Re: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich

[Keith Whaley]

Oh. My error.

keith

Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 
> Peter Alling wrote:
> >
> 
> > > > I just checked the cost of subscrbing to the OED online, and it's $550
> > > > PER ANNUM!
> > > > Ok if you're a professional writer.
> 
> No, not OK.

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Peter Alling]

More actually.

At 05:56 PM 1/25/2003 -0600, you wrote:


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67


> > You missed the fact that he didn't compare the originals.
>
> Har, maybe he should output the D1s digifile to a 8000line slide printer
and
> compare it to the 67 chromes :-)

That would make as much sense as what he is doing.

William Robb


Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  --Groucho Marx

Re: anyone know about the tamron 70-350 f4.5 adaptall

[Keith Whaley]

In my most humble opinion, f/4.5 is not particularly fast. In fact,
while it's not uncommon with zooms that go all the way to 350 mm, it's
considered "fast" simply by comparison to other 350 mm lenses!
Use fast film and don't particularly worry about it.

It might be more difficult to focus with an aperture that slow, but if
you don't have problems with the focus at f/4.5, then there's no
problem at all!  

keith whaley

KANGA wrote:
> 
> there is one on ebay
> is it a good zoom
> i notice it is fast 4.5 that is good?

RE: The Best Dictionaries [should be singular]

[Simon King]

The OED (Second edition) is indeed available on CD and can be loaded to your
Hard Drive. 
If you're going to use a dictionary, why not use _the_ authoritative source.
I'm a bit of a lexicophile, but can't really afford to get the full 20
volume printed set. 
I copied the CD version to my HDD, and have found the electronic version
just as easy to browse in wonder for hours.
Cheers,
Simon

PS 
I do have an American Heritage Dictionary, in addition to a hefty Webster's,
Chambers and a couple of our local Macquarie dictionaries. However any
suggestion that the OED is not the superlative dictionary will be met with
dismissive derision. :-)




-Original Message-
From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Sunday, 26 January 2003 2:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: The Best Dictionaries


> Great info!
> 
> I've been saving this post to be answered, but haven't got around to
> it for some reason. Too danged busy, I think.
> 
> I've almost always been of the opinion that a dictionary should
> reflect current usage (descriptive.)
> I think a teacher told me that once, a long time ago, and it made
> sense. Still does, with caveats.
> 
> After reading the site info you supplied, I just wonder...I probably
> ought to have two. One descriptive for my working dictionary, used to
> help me put down words in an reasonable fashion, to be understood by
> most readers.
> The other should be my valued reference work, a prescriptive
> dictionary of respectful heritage.
> 
> I currently use "The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College
> Edition" for everyday use, and a big "2nd Unabridged Edition of The
> Random House Dictionary of the English Language," as my fallback
> source. The final reference. The law.
> 
> I don't think I have room in my little house for a proper reference
> work, as they are huge and take up a lot of space.
> They belong on their own podium (or whatever you call it) with a
> light, so you can leave it ready for use. I even hate to drag out the
> Random House Dictionary often, as it's upright in a bookcase (one of
> our 8!) and putting it back is a pain!
> 
> Anyhow, good post/URL and I'll keep it for a while, for more leisurely
> reading.

Keith,
Glad you enjoyed it. Lexicography is actually a much more interesting
subject than it appears to be at first glance.

The reason I can never bring myself to bring the big Webster's Second home
from our summer house is that it lives there on a special stand that was
built especially for it. It seems a shame to part the two.

I keep meaning to buy a Second for the house here, but have never gotten
around to it. I should.

--Mike

P.S. AHED is a great dictionary for everyday use, especially since you can
get a highly convenient version of it for loading on your hard drive. I
don't have that any more either, which is also a situation I should rectify.

Re: Snow Photo

[Jostein]

Correction;
Otto Sinding of course came to Northern Norway.
Jostein
- Original Message - 
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> However, I doubt that any of them ever came to Northern Norway. 

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Keith Whaley]

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> Keith wrote:
> 
> > > But a test whose parameters are in constant flux...
> >
> > What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means,
> > but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement.
> 
> I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpret as what is 
>"better" of camera "A" or "B", and the outcome of this test is dependent on other 
>subjects (which are not supposedly tested)... 

Huh?

>...whose quality are changing at six months intervals. 

I missed something. Where did "6 month intervals" come from? I saw two
cameras hoisted upon two tripods, side by side, presumably for
exposing all at essentially the same time. Not so?

> If youre chaning the scanner or the printer (or even the film) in this test they 
>outcome will change. What then are you really testing?
> 
> It is also weird that some rave about images (originals) with less than 50 lines per 
>mm as being great.

This is the second "where did this come from?" Who/which has
resolution like that? The lens on the Canon?
Beter think on that one. I perceived the Canon as presenting shots
with DEFINITELY better resolution than the Pentax. Not to say, better
shodow detail.
 
> Pål

keith

OT Plea for urgent Windows help

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi,

I am about to partition and format a harddisk I got from a friend.
I am looking at a fdisk window, not knowing what alternatives to pick.
All advice I have deals with preparing a C drive. I don't want to do
that.
The disk is supposed to be a 10 gig:er. For some reason it has been
partitioned into only 2gigs (or 4 - I get conflicting reports on
available size) and a failed C Windows installation.

If any of you guys on line tonight knows all about fdisk etc. and feel
like helping me out, please drop me a line off list, will you.

Many thanks in advance,
Lasse

Re: Snow Photo

[Jostein]

Mike,

Could that have been the Skagen painters, from the northernmost part
of Denmark?

http://www.danacup.pp.se/Usa/Skagen.htm
http://www.skagen-tourist.dk/side4.htm
http://www.aarhuskunstmuseum.dk/html_uk/retro_html/dk_kunstner_uk.html
#skagen

There were many Norwegian painters in contact with that circle too:
Kitty Kielland, Christian Skredsvik, Erik Werenskiold, Harriet Backer,
to name a few.
One italian site that have some thumbnails of pictures from many of
them is:
http://www.comune.fe.it/diamanti/mostra_dahl/opere_realismo.html

However, I doubt that any of them ever came to Northern Norway. The
light up there is a whole different story. One of my little dreams is
to go to Finnmark or even to Spitsbergen one April to experience the
Light. Got to be damn lucky with the weather, though...:-)

Jostein

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Snow Photo


> > Don't envy you the storm, Pål.
> > But the light you have on clear days... 
>
> One of the best museum shows I ever saw was of Scandinavian painting
between
> 1890 and 1910. I sure wish I had gotten the catalog. Although almost
all of
> the paintings were representational, some of them showed almost
literally
> nothing except _light_.
>
> Amazing show.
>
> --Mike
>
>

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Keith Whaley]

Illogical and incorrectly presented supposition, just this side of irrational.

keith  

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> Bruce wrote:
> 
> > Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
> > different purposes.  You want to test how good a screwdriver is for
> > hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better
> > as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there
> > are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its
> > own advantages.
> 
> Absolutely. The problem start when some are claiming that tool A is better than tool 
>B when they are really testing the quality of tool C compared to B.
> 
> Pål

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Keith Whaley]

No, no, Bruce lad...
I said I prefer the results of one over the other, AS PRESENTED by Michael.
I did NOT say one IS better than the other.  How would I know?
Mucho difference.

keith whaley

Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> 
> Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for
> different purposes.  You want to test how good a screwdriver is for
> hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better
> as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there
> are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its
> own advantages.
> 
> BR

[...]

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Pål Jensen]

Bruce wrote:

> The same could be said for the PC's.  What he is comparing is what he
> has and uses.  I don't see much, if any difference.  Only that you
> like Macs and I like 67's.  Both made a real world test that measured
> the things that they do and use.  As such, both are valid tests.
> Neither test is necessarily indicative of the best that can be
> offered.  That is the weakness to tests - they can be devised to show
> just about whatever you want.


The first thing one should do before performing a test is to formulate what you want 
to find out. Then figure out how to best design a test that gets you the answer. The 
weakness with many tests are that they don't do this.
The test in question starts with two mediums. Medium A has significantly higer 
resolution, more visible noise and lower accutance than B. The first step in this test 
is to take medium A through a process that reduces its resolution to the level of 
medium B while retaining the original medium negative aspects. Then both medium goes 
through another bottleneck which reduce resolution further and still keeping medium A 
weak sides, but don't do much with the accutance; medium Bs force. 
What this test tells us is that the process is better suited for medium B than A. 
Hower, for most of us this is nothing new; we did, after all, suspect that dgitial was 
better suited for digital processes and manipulation.

Pål

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "Rüdiger Neumann"
Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67


> Hallo
> here an interesting test
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

Mr Reichmann seems to be making a career out of proving that digital image
capture is superior to film.
The $64,000 question, for me is who the hell cares?
I know I don't.
Also, that was a rhetorical question. I also don't really care about who
cares. The entire exercise is pointless, IMHO.

William Robb

anyone know about the tamron 70-350 f4.5 adaptall

[KANGA]

there is one on ebay
is it a good zoom
i notice it is fast 4.5 that is good?

Makinon 300mm f4

[Peter Jesser]

Has anyone had any hands on experience with the Makinon 300mm f4? What would 
one in good condition be worth ($US)?

Peter




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

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Pål Jensen]

Bruce wrote:


> Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for 
> different purposes.  You want to test how good a screwdriver is for 
> hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better 
> as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there 
> are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its 
> own advantages.


Absolutely. The problem start when some are claiming that tool A is better than tool B 
when they are really testing the quality of tool C compared to B.

Pål

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Pål Jensen]

Keith wrote:

> > But a test whose parameters are in constant flux... 
> 
> What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means,
> but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement.


I mean that when you are making a test that most people interpret as what is "better" 
of camera "A" or "B", and the outcome of this test is dependent on other subjects 
(which are not supposedly tested) whose quality are changing at six months intervals. 
If youre chaning the scanner or the printer (or even the film) in this test they 
outcome will change. What then are you really testing?

It is also weird that some rave about images (originals) with less than 50 lines per 
mm as being great. 


Pål

Re: Re: The little world of Dominga

[David Brooks]

My mistake Albano.I just checked the negatives and it 
was the OptimaII 400,not 200
Sorry.
 Begin Original Message 

From: Albano Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 13:16:43 -0800 (PST)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The little world of Dominga


I've used the 200 just once, but colors seems similar
to the 100 specimen. I have a roll of 400 to use too.
The largest I printed the 200 was 8x8 inches. No grain
at all. An example:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=844047
Regards

Albano



--- Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> David Brooks wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I have tried several rolls of the 200.Worked well
> in that 
> > harsh summer sun.ighlights not burnt and good
> contrast.I plan
> > to use it more this summer.
> 
> Haven't tried the 200 yet. Still have 16 rolls of
> the NHP 220 to go trough.
> 
> At the next TOPDML I'm planning on using a roll of
> 35mm Optima II 100 I bought 
> for my wife's ESPIO last fall. She couldn't keep up
> with me.
> 
> Jeff.
> 


=
Albano Garcia
"El Pibe Asahi"

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



 End Original Message 




Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
"Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art 
stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail 

Re: Unique bargain? Read the desciption!!

[John Whicker]

frank theriault wrote:


> That's the second auction that someone's pasted the url
for today that's
> come up invalid (at least for me).  Coincidence?


Hi Frank (and everyone),

My apologies.  The item either completed or was removed.  It
had only about an hour to go when I posted the URL.

It was a Helios 44 58mm f/2, and was advertised with a
starting price of something like $200 as a collector's item,
but the funniest bit was that the advertiser has found the
aperture stop-down ring of this pre-set lens and said
something like "it operates an internal shutter - fisheye or
something?

I think I've just proved the veracity of the statement that
an attempt at humor can't be a success if you have to
explain it!

;-)

John

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Of course it's different from person to person. They are tools used for 
different purposes.  You want to test how good a screwdriver is for 
hammering nails. This is why it is as stupid saying that one is better 
as the other, as blue is better than red. There are reasons why there 
are more than one film format. Digital is just one more format with its 
own advantages.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

But a test whose parameters are in constant flux and whose parametres are also different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test. 

Pål

 

any heard of or used elicar 3x macro convertor

[adphoto]

just wondering cos connected to a macro 1:1 lens i belive that this would
give 3:1 magnification which is great for capturing ant smiles and facial
expressions. However i belive there would be a great 3 stop loss of light

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Bruce Dayton]

Mike,

The same could be said for the PC's.  What he is comparing is what he
has and uses.  I don't see much, if any difference.  Only that you
like Macs and I like 67's.  Both made a real world test that measured
the things that they do and use.  As such, both are valid tests.
Neither test is necessarily indicative of the best that can be
offered.  That is the weakness to tests - they can be devised to show
just about whatever you want.

Simple example - I repeatedly hear people compare their 35mm blowups
11X14+ to Medium Format favorably.  I shoot both and they don't
compare.  But one could make that comparison by stacking the deck so
to speak.  The same holds true with digital vs MF and PC's vs Mac.


Bruce



Saturday, January 25, 2003, 11:58:45 AM, you wrote:

>> Almost sounds like the comparison Michael made between the Canon 1DS
>> and the Pentax 67 - no?


MJ> Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference:
MJ> Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't.

MJ> That is, if Rob had said, "Many of these tests are of actions that are
MJ> limited by the speed of the hard drive. We are comparing the Apple with the
MJ> stock hard drives; Apple also makes faster hard drives available as an
MJ> option," then who could object?

MJ> But I see no mention of this. That's why I think it ends up being
MJ> misleading.

MJ> If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's
MJ> conclusions. But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation
MJ> of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different
MJ> conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible
MJ> shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test.

MJ> --Mike

Re: vivitar 90mm 2.5 vs 105mm 2.5 vs105mm2.8 kiron vs tamron 90mm

[Fred]

Randy:

> I bought a 105mm 2.5 Series One some years ago and at the time
> noticed that its publihed test performance seemed generally
> superior to the much older 90mm 2.5 Series One.

I haven't (yet) seen any test of the VS1 105/2.5.  Do you have the
details?  Or, do you at least have the publication issue
information?

> That's to be expected with a design some 10+ years newer, a more
> complex optical design and internal "zoom" type mechanics which
> alter the element/group spacings as the lens is focussed to
> maximize optical performance over the entire focus range, unlike
> the 90mm 2.5.

It would seem that Vivitar could improve on an old design from the
1970's, right?However, I should point out that, in the VS1
90/2.5 Macro, the "internal "zoom" type mechanics which [also] alter
the element/group spacings as the lens is focused to maximize
optical performance over the entire focus range".  I do have to
admit that I don't know as much about the VS1 105/2.5 Macro's
internal details (although I did own one for a time), and I can't
say whether it does or does not have "a more complex optical
design".  In a sense, the inconvenience of the 90/2.5's 1:1 adapter
might even be considered as an example of its own design complexity
- .

> My 105mm Vivitar has performance sufficient for me to make 16x20
> inch prints from most of a full 35mm frame which compare favorably
> against similar prints made from medium format negatives.

I do have some scans of some macro test shots taken with the VS1
105/2.5 and the VS1 90/2.5 (and the AT-X 90/2.5, and the A 100/2.8,
and the A 100/4, and the A* 200/4, and...].  While I have never
blown any macro shots up to 16x20 (whew!), I have to say that all of
these lenses do perform both really quite well and surprisingly also
quite similarly.  Comparing the prints side-by-side, I can
occasionally find one lens may be just slightly better in one corner
than another lens in that corner, but then I can often find the
situation reversed in another corner (which probably shows more
about my technique than it probably does about anything else - ).

In any event, while I've recently put the scans of the VS1 and AT-X
90/2.5 "twins" on-line (with the URL's provided in another thread),
I suppose I should get them all on-line...]

Fred

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Keith Whaley]

Uh huh... Well, his was a test: I liked the 1Ds much better than the
Pentax 67, for a lot of reasons, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd much
rather have the Canon. Period!

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> But a test whose parameters are in constant flux... 

What does THAT mean? Oh, I know what a 'constant state of flux' means,
but I don't know what YOU mean by the statement.

>...and whose parametres are also different from person to person
isn't worthy to be called a test.
> 
> Pål

keith whaley

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Ryan K. Brooks]

Pretty much matches my experience of owning both cameras.   I've been
trying to convince myself that the 67II should be kept just for those
situations that need film, but it's getting harder.  I do wish that the
Canon 50/1.4 "felt" better- it's a bit cheap in construction.

I still stand by my assessment that APX25 on the 67 is better than my 1Ds-
but I can't find a color option that is this good.

-Ryan


On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Rüdiger Neumann wrote:

> Hallo
> here an interesting test
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
> 
> regards
> Rüdiger
> 
> 
> 

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Pål Jensen]

But a test whose parameters are in constant flux and whose parametres are also 
different from person to person isn't worthy to be called a test. 

Pål



- Original Message - 
From: "Bojidar Dimitrov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67


> Pål Jensen wrote:
> > 
> > So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
> > the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
> > can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits
> > your preconceived ideas on how things should be.
> 
> If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300
> a frame, then I do not consider that "real world".
> 
> FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is:
> 
> a) 35 mm slide film, projected
> b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink
> jet
> c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet
> 
> So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me.  Neither is chemical
> processing of medium format film.  YOUR reality may differ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Boz
> 

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Pål Jensen]

Mike wrote:


> Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference:
> Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't.

He is testing his scanner compared to digital capture whereas he conclusions are 
significantly more far reaching. 


> If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's
> conclusions. 

We are objecting to his concusion because he is concluding something very different 
from what he is testing. 

>But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation
> of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different
> conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible
> shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test.


An fundament for a good test is that you're testing what you claim to be testing. 
The problem with the test in question is that with the same digital camera and the 
same film camera you can get wildly different results, say, in two years from now with 
different paraphernalia.


Pål


Pål

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Y'all can also jump in on this topic here: 
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004QKe

Them thar Hatfields and McCoys is everywhere.

BR

RE: What, no bidders?

[Steve Desjardins]

And this makes you feel good because . . .?  Better call Homeland
Security . . 8^)


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

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/24/03 07:16PM >>>
I love lenses that come with their own metal case...
makes you feel like you're carrying around a thermonuclear device :)

Dave

-

Vs: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar

[Raimo Korhonen]

What makes you think that East-German Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar (the correct spelling) 
is similar to a Pentax lens? Is it a copy or what?
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Paul Franklin Stregevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: 'Pentax-Discuss' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 25. tammikuuta 2003 17:33
Aihe: Re: 85mm F:1.8 Auto Takumar


>It's not at all the same as the Super Tak or SMC Tak 1.9 or 1.8. Not in the
>same league. Avoid it. Do consider the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolor 80/1.8,
>which is virtually the same as the Pentax, right down to the diaphragm
>design.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>
>

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Bojidar Dimitrov]

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to
> the film is considered "real world". With such test procedures you
> can prove anything by simply putting up test procedures that fits
> your preconceived ideas on how things should be.

If the only possibility to do justice to the film is to scan it at $300
a frame, then I do not consider that "real world".

FOR ME and MY WALLET, real world is:

a) 35 mm slide film, projected
b) 35 mm slide film, scanned on a $1000 scanner, printed on a $300 ink
jet
c) digital image, printed on the $300 ink jet

So, no, a drum scan is not real-world for me.  Neither is chemical
processing of medium format film.  YOUR reality may differ...

Cheers,
Boz

Re: What, no bidders?

[Fred]

>> I love lenses that come with their own metal case... makes you
>> feel like you're carrying around a thermonuclear device :)

> Yeah but as an outdoor photographer the cases are totally useless
> until it comes time to sell the lens. I had to buy a backpack to
> haul around my 600.

A nice solution for a really big lens (a 600/4, for example) is to
use the Lowepro Street and Field Lens Trekker 600 AW.  It's a really
clever design, which I picked up to try carrying my A* 600/5.6
around in (instead of its rectangular metal trunk case).
Unfortunately, the "slim" A* 600/5.6 seems a little lost in the
Trekker - it sort of "swims around in it" (the terminology that my
mother used on me when describing how I looked in my latest
"hand-me-down" clothing - ).  (I guess I should put the Trekker
on eBay.)  In any event, the Trekker would work really nicely with a
600/4 lens, or with the "no bidders" lens that KEH has been listing
on eBay for weeks already now...

Fred

Re: Vivitar 90-180mm/4.5 and MZ-S?

[Fred]

> A PDMLer wishes to buy my Vivitar 90-180/4.5 Macro Zoom. He wishes
> to know: Can the 90-180/4.5 be used "safely" on an MZ-S without
> filing down the lens's unusually long rear extension?

My personal opinion is that the potential problem (of the excess
baffle material on the "original" line of K-mount VS1 lenses) is not
too difficult to fix (takes perhaps a half hour) and therefore
should be considered to be a mandatory routine procedure before
using any of these old gems on a newer body.

> I once had to have my Super Program's aperture mechanism repaired
> when the 90-180 got stuck on it. I may have inserted the lens
> carelessly, the same way I damaged my Rikenon 50/1.4P: by trying
> to wiggle it onto the body "blind" while the body was mounted on a
> tripod, too high for me to see the red alignment dot.

I have used several of the first generation VS1 lenses (with their
"extra-generous" baffle extension on the K-mount flange) on several
different bodies (including a Super Program) without any trouble.
The clearance when inserting one of these into an LX, however, is
quite small, and I think that any of these lenses should be modified
before using on an LX.

As for the newer autofocus bodies, I think that it is simply not
worth "playing games" here - the "operation" should be performed
without even trying to judge how the lens and body will fit
together.

[from another thread]  Here are some image links illustrating the
removal of this flange:

First, here are two VS1 35-85/2.8's, the left one of which shows the
extra baffle, while the right one has been modified -
 .

Lacking access to a bench grinder, I resort to simply cutting of the
excess baffle material with a hacksaw (but leaving the protective
"hump" near the coupling lever, as in jen-you-wine Pentax K-mounts).
(Another PDML-er reported using a thin file for this procedure.)  I
don't try to remove the baffle entirely, but I leave about a mm or
two of it still sticking out (since trying to remove all of it would
tend to scar up the face of the K-mount flange, and removing it
entirely is not really necessary, anyway).  I then smooth off the
remaining edge of the baffle with a fine-toothed file and finally I
touch up the exposed (shiny) metal edge of the remaining baffle area
with a black "magic marker" (for a little flare prevention).

It is important, of course, to mask off completely the rest of the
lens when the extra baffle is being removed from the lens (since you
don't want any little aluminum filings "adding" to the lens' innards
- ) -  .

It is also possible to ~carefully~ remove the K-mount flange from
the lens and then remove the extra baffle after masking off only the
flange -  .

I guess I really should put a write-up of this procedure on a web
page... ;-)

Fred

Re: Snow Photo

[Mike Johnston]

> Don't envy you the storm, Pål.
> But the light you have on clear days... 

One of the best museum shows I ever saw was of Scandinavian painting between
1890 and 1910. I sure wish I had gotten the catalog. Although almost all of
the paintings were representational, some of them showed almost literally
nothing except _light_.

Amazing show.

--Mike

Re: vivitar 90mm 2.5 vs 105mm 2.5 vs105mm2.8 kiron vs tamron 90mm

[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]

I used to own the Kiron 105/2.8PK; I now own the Tokina AT-X 90/2.5PK. The
Kiron didn't deliver sharp results until about f/5.6. That's why I sold it;
I use my portrait-length lens for general purpose, including shooting indoor
events under available light.

The Tokina is very sharp, even at f/2.5. I get such sharp results at f/2.5,
I almost feel as though I'm cheating. Its colors are noticeably snappier and
more saturated, too.

Note that the Tokina 90/2.5 focuses in the same direction as Pentax; the
Vivitar 90/2.5 does not. However, the Vivitar's 1:1 macro adapter has a
built-in tripod ring, unlike the other macros discussed in this thread. Of
course, you could match the Vivitar's adapter with the Tokina lens.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Mike Johnston]

> Almost sounds like the comparison Michael made between the Canon 1DS
> and the Pentax 67 - no?


Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference:
Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't.

That is, if Rob had said, "Many of these tests are of actions that are
limited by the speed of the hard drive. We are comparing the Apple with the
stock hard drives; Apple also makes faster hard drives available as an
option," then who could object?

But I see no mention of this. That's why I think it ends up being
misleading.

If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's
conclusions. But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation
of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different
conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible
shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test.

--Mike

Re: Unique bargain? Read the desciption!!

[frank theriault]

That's the second auction that someone's pasted the url for today that's
come up invalid (at least for me).  Coincidence?

-frank

Malcolm Smith wrote:

> John Whicker wrote:
>
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300277363
>
> John,
>
> It's listed as an invalid item to me, what was it?
>
> Malcolm

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

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Pål Jensen]

Boz wrote:
 
> Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world
> results.

So putting the image through a scanner that cannot do justice to the film is 
considered "real world". With such test procedures you can prove anything by simply 
putting up test procedures that fits your preconceived ideas on how things should be.
I think I'm going to put shots from the EOS-1DS on piece of provia F and them proclaim 
loudly whats best of film or digital(note this was sarcasm)


Pål

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Pål Jensen]

Mike wrote:

> Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually
> uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the
> film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain.

Well, I wonder why someone who obviously is a fan of high accutance at the expense of 
sheer resolution chooses a low accutance - high resolution film. He would have been 
significantly more happy with Kodachrome. 


Pål

Re: Storing and using D76 1+1

[Mike Johnston]

> I'm working on gathering the stuff I need to develope B&W films

Rod,
Good man.


> Anyway, since it's what I've always used, I'll go for D76 1+1 [...] I've heard
> the dark brownish glass flasks are the way to go, only opening it
> when you use it. How many times can D76 1+1 be re-used with good results?

None. 

That is, it cannot be re-used. Once it is diluted to 1+1 it should be used
one time and then discarded.


> And 
> how much should development time be extended after how many times of usage?
> How long can you keep the developer good in terms of months, on the condition
> of good storing?

Packaged D-76 is somewhat different from the classic published formula, in
that it has some preservatives in it, and is more stable in regards to pH. I
keeps quite well as a stock solution.

Here's what I do. I buy packaged D-76 in half-gallon sizes. I mix a half
gallon at a time and decant it into brown-glass pint (16 oz.) bottles. I got
my brown glass bottles at an ordinary pharmacy, for a few dollars; however,
I've been told that most pharmacies no longer stock these, having switched
over almost entirely to plastic. On the good side, I've been re-using the
same brown-glass pint bottles for twenty years.

Then I simply mix the 16-oz. bottle of stock solution with 16 oz. of water
before use. Since I use a quart-sized developing tank, it makes the correct
amount. 

It's a neat and efficient system.

--Mike

P.S. If you haven't used all four pint bottles of developer within a
several-month period, SHOOT MORE. 

Re: Snow Photo

[Jostein]

Don't envy you the storm, Pål.
But the light you have on clear days... 
Just saw a slide show by Bjarne Riesto on Wednesday.

For the list; Bjarne has a site at http://www.riesto.no/. He's got
quite a large online archive, and it's well worth a look.

Going to Tromsø and back on Monday, btw. No time for photo, I think,
but I'll bring a camera anyway.

Jostein



- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Right now we have northwesterly storm. It was raining earlier today
on the top of 1,5 meters of snow. Now it starts to snow again and the
building is shaking from the wind. Half an hour ago I was seeing weird
lights in the air outside the window followed by loud sounds. It
turned out to be a Sea King rescue helicopter landing taking on board
dogs (not squirrels) from a police car. I'll assume somone have been
buried in an avalance :o(
>
> BTW  I've been digging out my car every day the last week.
>
> Pål
>
>
>

Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich

[Mike Johnston]

> I just checked the cost of subscrbing to the OED online, and it's $550
> PER ANNUM!
> Ok if you're a professional writer.


Whoa! If you're laboring under the delusion that most "professional writers"
can afford such a thing, disabuse thyself!

Writing is a particularly poor choice for making a decent living. It's kind
of like being a musician (or, for that matter, a photographer): the very top
of the profession is very well paid indeed (cf. J.K. Rowling, a former
impoverished single parent who is now second only to Her Majesty Elizabeth
II as the richest woman in England). But for the vast majority, adequate
recompense is hard to come by.

Did anyone happen to see the PBS special on Thomas Hart Benton that aired
last night (well, aired here, anyway)? Although he was one of the best-known
American painters of the 1930s and of the so-called "regional style," he
spent the latter half of his life struggling.

Re photography, some of you might be surprised to learn a) how many famous
photographers were actually independently wealthy, and b) how many famous,
important, or widely-known photographers were, or are, either poor, or
suffer periods of poverty, or barely scrape by.

--Mike

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Bruce Dayton]

Mike,

Almost sounds like the comparison Michael made between the Canon 1DS
and the Pentax 67 - no?


Bruce



Saturday, January 25, 2003, 9:58:30 AM, you wrote:

>> The speed of a system is the sum of the speed of it's parts.  If the hard
>> drive
>> is to the specifications of the manufacture, and in a Mac you certainly don't
>> roll your own so to speak, then the analysis is valid.  I don't think I'd be
>> very happy to buy a machine crippled by the manufacturer using substandard
>> components.  He may have attributed the difference in speed to the processors
>> but that hardly changes the bottom line.


MJ> He _chose_ the slower ATA hard drives. At the Apple online store you can
MJ> choose the faster Ultra 160 SCSI drives with a simple pull-down menu.

MJ> http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/43/wo/ON3ozP
MJ> C8IMBr3y0JCUA1isVkGEU/1.3.0.3.27.21.1.3.19.3.1.1.0?35,12

MJ> Apple makes it clear right there on the page:

MJ> "Hard Drive: The Power Mac G4 has four drive bays in which you can add up to
MJ> nearly half a terabyte of storage. Choose Ultra ATA hard drives for lower
MJ> cost and excellent performance or Ultra160 SCSI drives which offer maximum
MJ> performance for demanding applications, such as RAID and drive striping."

MJ> Subtract the sales-speak and what this says, very clearly, is: choose Ulta
MJ> ATA for lower cost or 160 SCSI for maximum performance.

MJ> The choice is plain, obvious, and up front.

MJ> What he did was like comparing two competing automobiles, one with the base
MJ> engine and one with the optional more powerful engine. It predetermined the
MJ> result. Not a fair or a good test IMHO.

MJ> --Mike

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Mike Johnston]

> - he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain

Yes and no. He starts out by saying that he's comparing the film he actually
uses. For instance, he may need the speed or the color reproduction of the
film he choses. From there, it's reasonable to talk about the grain.

If he were starting out specifically stating that he were comparing the most
grainless film to digital, it would be another story. But he isn't, and so
he doesn't.

This does not seem inconsistent or flawed to me.

--Mike

Re: Unique bargain? Read the desciption!!

[Keith Whaley]

I got:

* * * *
Invalid Item 

The item you requested ( 300277363 ) is invalid, still pending, or no
longer in our database. Please check the number and try again. If this
message persists, the item has either not started and is not yet
available for viewing, or has expired and is no longer available.

* * * *

John Whicker wrote:
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300277363


keith whaley

Re: vivitar 90mm 2.5 vs 105mm 2.5 vs105mm2.8 kiron vs tamron 90mm

[Randy Stewart]

I'm not in a position to offer much reply on comparison between these
lenses.  I bought a 105mm 2.5 Series One some years ago and at the time
noticed that its publihed test performance seemed generally superior to the
much older 90mm 2.5 Series One.  That's to be expected with a design some
10+ years newer, a more complex optical design and internal "zoom" type
mechanics which alter the element/group spacings as the lens is focussed to
maximize optical performance over the entire focus range, unlike the 90mm
2.5.

My 105mm Vivitar has performance sufficient for me to make 16x20 inch prints
from most of a full 35mm frame which compare favorably against similar
prints made from medium format negatives.  Modern Photo did a test
comparison of this lens against the 105mm 2.8 Micro Nikkor - performance
virtually the same overall.

My one big knock the 105mm Series One - weight.  It's big; It's heavy.  You
can get tired of hefting it around. I do not know how it compares in this to
the other lenses you are considering.

One final consideration - the 105mm Series One doesn't come along that
often, so one in nice condition might be a little hard to find in your
choice of lens mount.

The Tamron has a very good reputation, but I suspect that with a little
inquiry, you already know more about it than I do.  The maunual version of
this lens does, or at least did, use the Tamron interchargeable mount
system, so if you can find a good deal on th lens in any mount, fitting it
to your camera is not a problem.  I do or have used three different Tamrom
lenses with this interchangeable mount.  It works fine. Once you fit the
mount adapter to the lens, you wouldn't notice that it is interchangeable.

Randy Stewart


- Original Message -
From: "adphoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:36 PM
Subject: vivitar 90mm 2.5 vs 105mm 2.5 vs105mm2.8 kiron vs tamron 90mm


> Of the 4 which is the better macro?
> is the 105mm 2.5 S1 vivitar the same as the 105mm 2.8 kiron?
> Is the series 1 vivitar 90mm as good as its cult status ?
>
>
>
>

RE: Storing and using D76 1+1

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rodelion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> G'day folks,
>
> I'm working on gathering the stuff I need to develope B&W
> films, mostly Tri-X and HP5, perhaps Delta (does it matter?)

Yes. No. Maybe.

>
> Anyway, since it's what I've always used, I'll go for D76
> 1+1 and I'm having a hard time deciding what to store it
> in, how often and long to use it before I get rid of it...

This isn't anything worth worrying about.

>
> I've heard the dark brownish glass flasks are the way to
> go, only opening it when you use it. How many times can D76
> 1+1 be re-used with good results?

Zero. Don't reuse diluted developer. You'll get dirt in the solution,
the activity will change by some unknown amount. D-76 is cheap, use it
diluted then throw it out.

> How long can you keep the developer good in terms of
> months, on the condition of good storing?

The side of the D-76 package and Kodak.com will tell you this info. If
you want to be conservative, cut this time in 1/2.

tv

Re: That darned handstrap

[Feroze Kistan]

Hi,
I suppose it depends on your preferred format, 90% percent of my shots are
portrait. As to risks, check out Pal's departure from the MF world or Dougs
tarmac lens tests or Franks fav lens demise. Its not worth it. Didn't know
the canon straps came with release clips. Which model is it for, all the
canon
video cameras I had had one point attached inside the body or is a camera
strap. If the logo is just silkscreened you can remove with alcohol or if
you live in the US I've heard everclear works wonders.

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "hyperfocal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: That darned handstrap


> Hi,
>
> I will check out that strap.  As for shooting portraits, I'd hold my
camera
> the same way I always do.  In fact, with the Canon strap, it will not
dangle
> or impede me at all.  The standard Pentax one does get in the way.  I
> suppose they all do, unless you get some with release snaps.  I know it
will
> not be attached to my body, a risk I'm willing to take.  While portraits
are
> few and far between, I do try and vary formats, but alas, while no
amateur,
> I do tend to shoot mostly in landscape, as I do landscapes or wildlife.
To
> be free of a long strap, while having some security in a hand strap would
be
> great. (I've been known to tangle myself in it, or trip when shooting low
on
> a tripod)  Besides, they are supposed to be tough! Not that I want to test
> that..
>
> Perhaps I'll get the Canon strap, it's very comfortable, wide and padded.
I
> could always burn off the Canon stamp if it is real leather! 
>
> Thanks for the tip on the other strap Feroze, before ordering the Canon,
> I'll make sure to give it a hard look.
>
>  ---
> From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: That darned handstrap
>
> Hi,
> There is a grip strap that fits on the IQZoom70. Download
> the PDF from www.pentax.com, the file is called Grip_Strap.pdf.
> It should work for what you have in mind. How are you going to hold the
> camera
> if you are shooting in portrait mode? Because you now have the strap
> dangling from the top and you are not attaching it to any other part of
you.
> Feroze
>  --
>
> Cheers,
>
> EvilRegis
>
>

Re: damaged negs/artwork

[Feroze Kistan]

When they state that a CD can last 100 years its the transparent plastic
layer they talkin about not
the coating that the data is burned into. Its very easy to remove it, almost
childs play. Please excuse me now I have to go find all my jewel cases.

Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: damaged negs/artwork


> > That's really too bad.  Most people aren't aware that unlabeled CDs have
no
> > real physical protection on their backs.  The substrate that stores the
data
> > is held in place by a relatively thin and fragile layer of resin.  I
always
> > put
> > a label on any data CD I'm going to be handling a lot.  (I've also
managed
> > to rip
> > the resin right off a CD trying to reposition a label that was partially
> > adhered
> > to a CD (luckily I hadn't deleted the data from my hard drive).  When
> > handled with
> > enough care CD's can maintain data for a very long time but I've found
they
> > need to
> > be given care somewhere between the way you'd handle an Vinyl LP and a
book
> > you wished
> > to keep in good condition.
>
>
> Peter,
> I'm going to try to pay attention to this good advice. I'm afraid I'm one
of
> those people who treat CDs as though they were indestructible. Not a good
> habit, I'm coming to realize.
>
> --Mike
>
>

Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor

[Doug Franklin]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:24:23 -0800, Keith Whaley wrote:

> > There used to be a compact version of the OED.  It was one volume with
> > very thin paper.  The print was so small it came with a magnifier so
> > you could actually read it.
> 
> Sheeet, man, I do that NOW!  

:-)

Seriously, though, here are a couple on ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2907550190&category=11435
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2907609549&category=11435
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2907850684&category=11435





TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: ebay bargains

[Mike Johnston]

> with half the internet DDoS'ed with Microsofts SQL server


What in the world does this mean?

--Mike

Sorry, but SMC is not a myth

[Mike Johnston]

> This related link should also be read: Single versus Multi-coated
> Lenses  http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/flare.html

These are very hoary old arguments left over from decades ago. While there
is much more difference between single coating and no coating at all than
there is between single coating and multi-coating, there is no doubt that,
if you're looking for the last increments of best quality, multi-coating is
useful.

Of course, certain manufacturers make liberal use of single coating. What do
you think Nikon's "IC" stands for? Integrated Coating. Why "integrated"?
Because it's applied in a single layer. In other words, some Nikkors are
single-coated or partially single-coated...to this day. Some Canon lenses
are too. In fact, many cheap lenses are single coated, and most of then are
indeed "good enough." On Nikon's and Canon's _better_ lenses, however, they
use multi-coating where they can't get away with single layers.

And yet, as we've seen recently, when _Popular Photography_ wants to do an
article on shooting into the sun, what do they use? Old SMC Taks.

Note also that lenses are not "single coated" or "multi-coated." We refer to
them as thought they're one or the other. Many lenses, in fact, employ both
techniques simultaneously in the same lens (and in many cheaper lenses,
certain surfaces may not be coated at all). When the lens maker Angenieux
(the French Panavision, essentially) made a few "carriage trade" 35mm lenses
in the 1970s and '80s, they took the innovative step of multi-coating every
single surface. This was unusual enough at the time to be remarkable.

What makes Zeiss lenses special? Zeiss has been using some of the same basic
block designs for decades now. It's its T* coatings (still very similar to
SMC) that make the difference.

You can make great pictures with any lens at all, including single-coated
ones. However, I know people who've done direct comparison tests between
Pentax, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon lenses directly into the sun, and the
multi-coated lenses handle these extreme situations better, no question.

Overall, flare is not a huge problem with lenses these days. Whether one
should care whether one's lenses are multi-coated or not is an individual
matter. But one thing's for sure: with the very best lenses, you won't see
the makers trying to get by with single coating, or with multi-coating only
on a few surfaces.

--Mike

 

Pentax Service

[Joseph Tainter]

On January 9 I sent a body and two lenses to Pentax for warranty 
service. I expected to wait six weeks. Well, the lenses came back on 
January 23. The body is still out.

I guess lens and body repair are different shops, and lens repair is 
less busy. I'm seriously impressed to get the lenses back so quickly.

Joe

Re: damaged negs/artwork

[Keith Whaley]

William Robb wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Feroze Kistan"
> Subject: damaged negs/artwork
> 
> I however have just managed to get a CD stuck to
> > my desktop, on the printed side. So when I lifted it up I got the CD back
> > the the silver layer is still firmly attached to my desk. I don't label
> most
> > of my CD's so I don't even know whats on it.
> 
> The CD file by pile system. It's the one I use. Sometimes, I find myself
> using a CD as a coaster, and not knowing if it was a good one or not...

You don't! Tell us you don't!

I had too many, and I don't yet have any of my music re-recorded on
DVD or even CD, but I decided I'd buy a small batch of double-sided
'crystal' cases, to put all my computer software CDs in. Idiot! I cut
the stack height by 2. Not enough by far, but it helps.

keith whaley
> 
> William Robb

Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor

[Keith Whaley]

Doug Franklin wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:15:30 -0800, Keith Whaley wrote:
> 
> > I don't think I have room in my little house for a proper reference
> > work, as they are huge and take up a lot of space.
> 
> There used to be a compact version of the OED.  It was one volume with
> very thin paper.  The print was so small it came with a magnifier so
> you could actually read it.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Sheeet, man, I do that NOW!  

keith

Storing and using D76 1+1

[Rodelion]

G'day folks,

I'm working on gathering the stuff I need to develope B&W films, mostly Tri-X and HP5, 
perhaps Delta (does it matter?)

Anyway, since it's what I've always used, I'll go for D76 1+1 and I'm having a hard 
time deciding what to store it in, how often and long to use it before I get rid of 
it...

I've heard the dark brownish glass flasks are the way to go, only opening it when you 
use it. How many times can D76 1+1 be re-used with good results? And how much should 
development time be extended after how many times of usage? How long can you keep the 
developer good in terms of months, on the condition of good storing?

Any comments and experiences are very much appreciated.

All the best and greetings from a happy Pentax user,

Rod.

P.S. I am on no-mail, so you can either write to the list, or mail directly.

Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor

[Keith Whaley]

Mark Roberts wrote:
> 
> Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I don't think I have room in my little house for a proper reference
> >work, as they are huge and take up a lot of space.
 
> Aren't they available on CD-ROM or DVD? I think you can get the OED on
> CD-ROM, at least.

Considering the price they must charge for it (and no, I don't have a
clue ~ not one!) and you can't turn pages by hand, and touch the paper?
Just don't know. Seems somehow disagreeable. Cold and distant. 
That's just a first blush feeling. I suppose when I find out what it
costs, the feeling gets worse?  

I just checked the cost of subscrbing to the OED online, and it's $550
PER ANNUM!
Ok if you're a professional writer.

For the cost of 14.5 years of a subscription, I could instead have a
Canon 1Ds, right now!  

Ah well, the joys of being born with a wooden spoon in my mouth!

keith whaley
 
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com

Re: PC vs. Mac comparison was flawed, if not rigged

[Nicholas Wright]

On Saturday, January 25, 2003, at 08:42 AM, Peter Alling wrote:


and in a Mac you certainly don't
roll your own so to speak, then the analysis is valid.


What makes you think this? It's the same with virtually any product out 
there. You buy a "base" model with "standard" features. And if you need 
extra speed, space, power, whathaveyou, then you buy the "upgrades." 
This holds true for cars, homes, cameras, and Macs.

Nick Wright
http://www.sportsshooter.com/nickwright/

Re: lens coatings

[Mike Johnston]

> Mike,
> Where would Konica be in your ranking of 'best lens coatings'?

Marcello,
Right up there. I've never had any problems with Konica lenses. In fact,
I've always liked them, and the Konica Hexar RF's KM lenses are first rate.

--Mike

Re: Thanks & what is the best baby pictures gear? (Poll?)

[Mike Johnston]

> However, I do have a question which is on topic, and we can even make
> it some kind of poll:
> I really would like to know everybody's favourite photo gear for
> taking pictures of new born babys.
> So: What camera(s) and lens(es) and (slide/b&w/colour) film(s) would
> you use for taking pictures of a baby just a few days old?
 

Arnold,
I'd say the real imperative is to get very, very comfortable with your
camera.

Your task is very easy at first. There are few more amenable subjects that a
placid, immobile baby in its swaddles, its bassinet, or its mother's arms.

However, as soon as the little tyke discovers his built-in locomotion, the
photographic challenges rise to a whole 'nuther order.   You had better
hone your camera-handling skills towards that day.

Your clock is ticking!   :-)

--Mike

P.S. Seriously, photographing small children is actually one of the more
demanding of shooting skills, even for pros.

Re: damaged negs/artwork

[William Robb]

- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan"
Subject: damaged negs/artwork


I however have just managed to get a CD stuck to
> my desktop, on the printed side. So when I lifted it up I got the CD back
> the the silver layer is still firmly attached to my desk. I don't label
most
> of my CD's so I don't even know whats on it.

The CD file by pile system. It's the one I use. Sometimes, I find myself
using a CD as a coaster, and not knowing if it was a good one or not...

William Robb

Re: what a great place! - Can we help Brother Francis?

[Mike Johnston]

>> I suggest you try yours with an open mind and believe your eyes above my
>> words
>> 
>> --Mike
> 
> Thanks. I will, and I'll soon find out how it works out, and report
> back. 



Good! I'll look forward to your report.

--Mike

P.S. No offense taken at anything in this thread, really. In fact, I was
feeling a bit rueful myself. I tend sometimes to "slam" things that other
people like or are using, which is not a constructive thing to do. Since my
main mission is to help engender enthusiasm for the photography hobby and
enable people to enjoy it, insulting their choice of tools is not what I'm
about.

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Keith Whaley]

Indeed it is!
However, just as my juices start really flowing, I remind myself that
Canon 1Ds costs $8000!
An absolutely amazing machine.

keith whaley

Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
> 
> Hallo
> here an interesting test
> 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
> 
> regards
> Rüdiger

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Bob Zwarick]

Based on those comparisons, I concluded film was best rather than the
authors contention. The trouble I see with my digital pics is color. It
simply does not capture color as well as film does and this comparison shows
that its the same for the Canon.


- Original Message -
From: "Rüdiger Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:35 AM
Subject: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67


> Hallo
> here an interesting test
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
>
> regards
> Rüdiger
>
>
>

Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67

[Bojidar Dimitrov]

Hi Heiko,

Just a few quick notes...

> I've just read it.

I just read all of it too.

> I think, that Michael is right, when he says that the digital
> workflow is better for him. It is faster and the results are
> perfect to a certain paper size.

These are my thoughts too.

> BUT - this comparisons has some inconsistencies:

Keep in mind, and he says it a few times, he is comparing real-world
results.

> - he chooses not the finest grained film but complains about grain
> - he compares about dust - but wirh ICE on a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED
> dust is no longer a problem

Still, the difference is so dramatic, that I imagine choosing the
"right" film will still have very little effect in the comparisson.  As
to the ICE technology, I have not kept my knowledge current, but
articles about 6 months old were suggesting that while dust is gone, so
is sharpness and contrast...

> - the same picture is compared to a 67 picture at a different
> magnification
> - most important (for me): the drum scan shows, that the 67 picture
> is much better than the Imacon scans that he uses for his comparison.

Both of these points have to so with the "real world" thesis.  Are you
willing to pay EUR 200 for a drum scan?  Will you often make
enlargements over 1 meter?

> Again: I'm impressed of the digital results and I would probably
> prefer the digital system because of its easier workflow. But the
> framework of this comparison is determined by digital technologies
> and it tells nothing about the capabilities of a Pentax 67.

Actually, it does, to a big extent.  Pure resolution is not the whole
story.  Getting the picture on paper or to your editor is the key, and
overall digital seems to win.  Just look at the shelves of most "pro"
photo stores.  What you see is medium-format equipment (new or used) at
record low prices.  And this seems to tell the story.

Now, I myself am not going away from film, not soon.  Even if I can get
great 50x75 digital prints, I can still not see my slides lighting up a
large white wall...  And until my computer monitor scales up to that
size, I will likely still use print film (along with digital).

Cheers,
Boz

Re: What, no bidders?

[Kenneth Waller]

Yeah but as an outdoor photographer the cases are totally useless until it
comes time to sell the lens.
I had to buy a backpack to haul around my 600.

- Original Message -
From: "David Chang-Sang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I love lenses that come with their own metal case...
> makes you feel like you're carrying around a thermonuclear device :)
>
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=3001377071&;
> rd=1


 Kenneth Waller

Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor

[Doug Franklin]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:15:30 -0800, Keith Whaley wrote:

> I don't think I have room in my little house for a proper reference
> work, as they are huge and take up a lot of space.

There used to be a compact version of the OED.  It was one volume with
very thin paper.  The print was so small it came with a magnifier so
you could actually read it.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ