Re: LX Questions
Alan Chan posted his reasons: > > I think this is a rather subjective matter. From my point of view, MX was a > simple mechanical camera with very limited features. It is a great camera > which I still use. However, when it was compared to other pro bodies of the > same era from Canon & Nikon, MX was no match to them. LX on the otherhand, > is very much comparable to Canon F-1 & Nikon F3. I realize MX was marketed > by Pentax as a system camera, but I honestly don't think it deserve the > "professional" tag which was set by Nikon & Canon in that era. About the > PZ-1, it is an advance amateur model and that's it. I use the Z-1p too, but > I don't see how it can stand the abuse caused by real commerical > photographers. Pentax simply cut corners on these Z/PZ models. If they were > built as tough as Minolta 9 or Nikon F4, sure I have no problem to call it > professional, but that didn't happen. But then again, these are my very > personal point of view. > Well I can definitely agree with you on the "subjective" and "point of view" aspects (grin) But if I understand you correctly from your posts, then: The MX is *not* a professional camera because it's an all-manual mechanical camera, as are the Leica M-series up to the M6, the Nikon F and F2, most Hasselblads and all large-format cameras. The LX *is* a professional camera because its feature set compares with other makers' "professional" models of the same period. You consider it a professional camera although, in your experience, it is not as reliable as either the Super Program, which has many more features, or the MX, which has fewer -- but neither of which is a professional camera. By the way I disagree with you that the PZ-1 isn't tough enough to be a professional camera. But as you said, it's very much a matter of opinion.
Fw: Favorite 67 Portrait Lens?
- Original Message - From: "Pat White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: Re: Favorite 67 Portrait Lens? > My choice is the 165 f2.8. It's bright, sharp, and easy to focus. For > indoor use, I found the 200 f4 to be dim and very hard to focus. > > Pat White > >
Re: LX Questions
A product that was designed and manufactured to be used heavily or professionally, doesn't mean it must be reliable. Luxury german cars are expensive too, but that doesn't mean they are as reliable as Honda or Toyota. And what a company claimed doesn't neceassily mean it must be true. It is perfectly fine if you don't buy these ideas, but please don't take this personal. regards, Alan Chan Oh. Sorry. By the way I sent my second post on this thread before reading the above. However, it *is* a bit more on-topic than some of the other issues that are fought about here -- f*rea*rms and such) and I am now becoming definitely curious as to why the two people who have stated in this thread that the LX is unreliable are the very same two people who declare that it's the only pro 35mm camera Pentax produced. I'm just wondering what's the reason for their statements. It can't be that these two gentlemen think the LX is the only pro model because it's the most reliable model, since they both consider it unreliable. It also can't be that Pentax claimed to have only made one pro 35mm model -- they didn't. So, why? _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: LX Questions
Pentax made the MX and introduced it to the world as a pro 35mm camera. Subsequently made the LX and introduced it to the world as a pro 35mm camera. Much later also introduced the PZ1 as a pro 35mm camera. I was wondering what Mr Alan Chan's reason was for declaring that the LX was the only true pro 35mm camera Pentax ever produced. I think this is a rather subjective matter. From my point of view, MX was a simple mechanical camera with very limited features. It is a great camera which I still use. However, when it was compared to other pro bodies of the same era from Canon & Nikon, MX was no match to them. LX on the otherhand, is very much comparable to Canon F-1 & Nikon F3. I realize MX was marketed by Pentax as a system camera, but I honestly don't think it deserve the "professional" tag which was set by Nikon & Canon in that era. About the PZ-1, it is an advance amateur model and that's it. I use the Z-1p too, but I don't see how it can stand the abuse caused by real commerical photographers. Pentax simply cut corners on these Z/PZ models. If they were built as tough as Minolta 9 or Nikon F4, sure I have no problem to call it professional, but that didn't happen. But then again, these are my very personal point of view. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Autofocus LX, tough ZX-5n, If wishes were horses ...
At 12:12 AM 1/30/2003 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5n*. I'm not tempted by anything with the ZX-10/ZX-7/ZX-L interface, and I definitely don't want one of those Rebel clones that can't use manual lenses. Amen to that. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: On topic?!
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/30/03 at 12:36 AM, "Otis Wright, Jr." <"rusty."@worldnet.att.net> said: |>Ditto. Communicator 4.79 and it is beginning to have trouble with a |>lot of sites where Explorer works OK. I'm putting in a new system |>next week and will move on to 6.x and if it has problems Netscrape |>is done at this office. |>Otis Wright |>Keith Whaley wrote: |>> Me, too. Netscape Communicator 4.79. |>> Sad. I'd like to know what lies behind the photo! |>> I had not been paying attention to this thread so I am not exactly sure if this is about what I think it is about. If you are talking about the display of text when mousing over an image then the problem is that exploader handles alt tags wrongly rather than netscape not working. this is also the case in how ms handles missing and other incorect tags. the proper code for having text come up on mouse over is title not alt. alt is what should be displayed or read if a text only browser is used or a browser for the blind is reading the page. alt=Yellow flower link to floral pictures and commentary. and title=some yellow flower i found on the beach do you kno what it is? would be not unreasonable uses of the two tags of course MS does not even adhere to the standards it sets itself Bran -- --- It feels great to wake up and not know what day it is, doesn't it? [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Autofocus LX, tough ZX-5n, If wishes were horses ...
Peter Alling posted: > When you come right down to it, we're comparing very different creatures here, > (except for the fact that they all use film). About the only thing they have > in common is their classic user interface. The partial electronic partial > mechanical > shutter arrangement of the LX owe's more to the arrangement in the ES/ESII > than the > ZX-5n owes to the LX. The TTL metering in ZX-5n is more reminiscent of the > system > in the OM-2 with OTF for flash and cells in the prism for normal metering > rather than > the simple and elegant solution in the LX. Now don't take this the wrong > way, your > analysis is perfectly valid. I just see a more rugged body as being only > half measure, > and I would really like to see a battery free film advance and mechanical > shutter speeds > like that will ever happen. Yes, they are different beasts on the inside -- though again what I was saying in the more recent post is that the ZX-5n more closely resembles the LX than it (the ZX-5n) resembles the MX. I was especially thinking about the outside -- interface, handling -- and then as an afterthought the TTL flash. For my part, I like the ZX-5n. I use it a lot. But I wish it was more rugged. Battery independence for film advance and shutter speeds (that's what you were saying at the end there, right?) would be *nice* but I've not been inconvenienced by battery failure on this camera and it's not as important to me as it apparently is to you. This of course is also why camera makers can never please all of their customers at once! I do agree with you that battery free film advance and mechanical shutter speeds are unlikely to appear on an autofocus camera. If Pentax introduced a camera just like the -5n but with a tougher body and interchangeable screens, I would trade in my current -5n so fast, and I'm not sure how much use my LX would get after that ... But I do mean *just like the - 5n*. I'm not tempted by anything with the ZX-10/ZX-7/ZX-L interface, and I definitely don't want one of those Rebel clones that can't use manual lenses.
Re: LX Questions
Last I recall about 3 grand American, but I never did get an exact figure, too rich for my blood. At 09:32 PM 1/29/2003 -0800, you wrote: Does anyone own the Y2K LX version? What does one of those bad boys sell for? --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Peter Alling" > Subject: Re: LX Questions > > > > Forced? > > Well, some came along willingly.. > > William Robb > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: LX Questions
No. Not luck. I own 5 LXi starting from about 4 years ago. As I acquired them, each went (locally) to a Pentax trained technician for complete strip down and CLA, including replacement of all seals whether they needed it or not. I have never had one let me down. I don't doubt the reliability experiences of some others. I just find them... puzzling. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:25 PM Subject: Re: LX Questions > > > William Robb wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Steve Pearson" > > Subject: LX Questions > > > > I have a love/hate relationship with the LX. My three have been just about > > the most unreliable pieces of junk imaginable. > > My single LX has now exposed 1500 rolls of film without a hiccup. It was > well used when I bought it three years ago, and Pentax Colorado serviced > it at that time. Perhaps it's the luck of the draw? > Paul Stenquist > >
Re: LX Questions
Well William should be pleased one of my LX's has suffered a failure. I think it was the fault of the CLA it received shortly before I bought it. At 12:25 AM 1/30/2003 +, Paul wrote: William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Pearson" > Subject: LX Questions > > I have a love/hate relationship with the LX. My three have been just about > the most unreliable pieces of junk imaginable. My single LX has now exposed 1500 rolls of film without a hiccup. It was well used when I bought it three years ago, and Pentax Colorado serviced it at that time. Perhaps it's the luck of the draw? Paul Stenquist Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: LX Questions
Peter Alling posted: > (Let's not get into the what's a professional or professional camera et. > al. again, Please). Oh. Sorry. By the way I sent my second post on this thread before reading the above. However, it *is* a bit more on-topic than some of the other issues that are fought about here -- f*rea*rms and such) and I am now becoming definitely curious as to why the two people who have stated in this thread that the LX is unreliable are the very same two people who declare that it's the only pro 35mm camera Pentax produced. I'm just wondering what's the reason for their statements. It can't be that these two gentlemen think the LX is the only pro model because it's the most reliable model, since they both consider it unreliable. It also can't be that Pentax claimed to have only made one pro 35mm model -- they didn't. So, why?
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
When you come right down to it, we're comparing very different creatures here, (except for the fact that they all use film). About the only thing they have in common is their classic user interface. The partial electronic partial mechanical shutter arrangement of the LX owe's more to the arrangement in the ES/ESII than the ZX-5n owes to the LX. The TTL metering in ZX-5n is more reminiscent of the system in the OM-2 with OTF for flash and cells in the prism for normal metering rather than the simple and elegant solution in the LX. Now don't take this the wrong way, your analysis is perfectly valid. I just see a more rugged body as being only half measure, and I would really like to see a battery free film advance and mechanical shutter speeds like that will ever happen. At 11:10 PM 1/29/2003 +, you wrote: After I said > >I wonder what "LX with AF" means to whatever Pentax source used the term. > >The - > >5n is a similar size and shape with the same control layout, but the build > >quality seems far inferior. And isn't the MZ-S supposed to have "the build > >quality of the LX"? So maybe one of these models was supposed to be > >the "autofocus LX". > > > >If they still mean to make one though, then they can do it by making the > >-5n a > >little tougher and putting user-interchangeable screens in the thing. Peter Alling commented: > Then it begins to look like a MX with electronic shutter and autofocus. Well, the MX, the ZX-5n and the LX have a lot in common. However, since the ZX- 5n resembles the LX more than it resembles the MX; the MX doesn't have any sort of electronic shutter and the LX shutter is partly electronic; the -5n and the LX have TTL flash metering but the MX doesn't -- I still think making the -5n a little tougher would produce a camera that would better described as an autofocus LX than an autofocus MX with an electronic shutter. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: On topic?!
Ditto. Communicator 4.79 and it is beginning to have trouble with a lot of sites where Explorer works OK. I'm putting in a new system next week and will move on to 6.x and if it has problems Netscrape is done at this office. Otis Wright Keith Whaley wrote: > Me, too. Netscape Communicator 4.79. > Sad. I'd like to know what lies behind the photo! > > keith whaley... > > frank theriault wrote: > > > > Hi, Ann, > > > > Thanks for mentioning the distraction of the image overlapping the text - I'd > > meant to mention that, as it does the same for me, but I forgot. > > > > I've only gone to PhotoSIG a few times, and it's done that every time for me. > > I use Netscrape, FWIW. It really bugs me, because I'd like to be able to read > > all the text, but can't. > > > > regards, > > frank > > > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > > > Well, ok - > > > Boris, it is pretty enough, but doesn't really grab one. A nice stock > > > photo shot. It has neither serious > > > flaws or anything that makes one go "oh, wow!" - that is probably why you > > > got few comments. > > > But there is a problem - at least with the browser I was using just now _ > > > The page is extremely distracting. > > > the photo overlaps some of the text. I'll take a look at it later from > > > aol and from explorer to see if it does > > > the same thing. I have my preferences set for a somewhat larger type than > > > usual but that really should > > > not matter. I understand you didnt "design" this (Well, at least I think > > > not!) presentation style but > > > it sure hurts your photo. > > > > > > I'm writing to the list instead of your sight as I don't like to have to > > > SIGN IN to anything on the web > > > that I don't need to. > > > > > > Regards, > > > annsan critique at large > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Boris Liberman
Super-Takumar 1.8/55 VS 2/55
I had read that the Super-Takumar on screw mount 1.8/55 and 2/55 were made of it identical; I received this morning my 2me purchase on e-bay, a Pentax SV with this famous Super-Takumar 2/55. And in fact, one sees well inside before the diaphragm the ring to make one under-model of it!! You can se the pics: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/Images/2-55av.jpg http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/Images/2-55ar.jpg See of the before oneself doesn't notice really that it partially overlooks the full opening (cf 2-55av.jpg) but in rear-view (cf 2-55ar.jpg), one sees distinctly that the "B" bridle (it appears in clear) is closed more that the diaphragm entirely open "D" ! Funny marketing, this 2/55 was therefore dearer (a ring) that the 1.8/55 higher in range. Michel,
Re: LX Questions
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 11:16 PM, Peter Alling wrote: Forced? 'e's well known as a horribly incorrigible bully. Just as likely to give you a wedgie up to your ears as the time o'day. I wouldn't mess with 'im. Dan Scott
Re: LX Questions
Does anyone own the Y2K LX version? What does one of those bad boys sell for? --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Peter Alling" > Subject: Re: LX Questions > > > > Forced? > > Well, some came along willingly.. > > William Robb > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: LX Questions
William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Pearson" > Subject: LX Questions > > I have a love/hate relationship with the LX. My three have been just about > the most unreliable pieces of junk imaginable. My single LX has now exposed 1500 rolls of film without a hiccup. It was well used when I bought it three years ago, and Pentax Colorado serviced it at that time. Perhaps it's the luck of the draw? Paul Stenquist
Re: LX Questions
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: LX Questions I was wondering what > Mr Alan Chan's reason was for declaring that the LX was the only true pro 35mm > camera Pentax ever > produced. Perhaps because it is?? William Robb
Re: LX Questions
- Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" Subject: Re: LX Questions > Forced? Well, some came along willingly.. William Robb
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
The 24 f2.8 K is very nice and only a stop slower. At 09:29 PM 1/29/2003 -0600, you wrote: On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 08:34 AM, Mike Johnston wrote: What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." --Mike The problem is the 50/1.4... by making it a must have lens you pretty much force yourself into the 35mm and 85mm lenseswhich are fine (I have and use the FA35/2). If you were willing to substitute the 43/1.9 for the 50/1.4, then the 77/1.8 and 24mm would make a lot of sense. If you want a 24mm to use with a 43/1.9 and a 77/1.8, the FA 24/2 is nice, but a bit of an elephant thrown in with the gazelles. Perhaps someone could suggest an older, manual focus 24mm with a more modest weight and girth? Dan Scott Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: LX Questions
About the quality of your results will an LX be better? In a word no. Ok, now for the only real exposure difference. The LX measures the exposure while you're taking the photograph. For most practical purposes this is meaningless for shutter speeds above 1/60th of a second. For longer shutter speeds especially time exposures you will get much more accurate exposures on automatic. The LX gives you the option of full manual control using a dial like the MX and mechanical shutter speeds above X (1/75sec). The LX also offers goodies such as interchangeable finders and can use MX LX and the new brighter LX screens without compensation. In the super program's favor it gives you full manual control of all available shutter speeds using it's buttons and LCD display, the LX only gives you manual shutter speeds from 2000/sec to 4sec. The LX is a bit bigger than the MX, which I find to be more comfortable when not using a winder or motor. I believe that the Super Program has TTL flash control which is similar if not identical to the LX. I use both MX and LX and wouldn't part with either. (Unfortunately I have three MXs and each has something wrong with it. Nothing that totally disables each one just a minor annoyance, and Pentax will no longer service them). At 04:48 PM 1/29/2003 -0800, you wrote: Hi all. I'm in the market for an LX. Currently have a Super Program & an MX. Thinking about selling both to acquire the LX, and I have a few questions for current LX owners. Have I read something about the LX having some kind of on board circutry, or computer, that helps with exposure? Is there really any difference between the LX and my Super Program/MX bodies? In other words, if you took the exact same picture with these 3 bodies (assuming the same lens was used), would there be much difference? Is the main factor for the higher prices on the LX the metal body? What else makes this camera so beloved? Thanks! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: On topic?!
I really like the photo, Boris. I love the soft colors, and the way you cropped it makes it look like a panoramic shot. I also like the rays shining through the clouds on the right of the picture. I feel it is a very peaceful scene, and I like it a lot. Kathy - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:35 PM Subject: On topic?! > Hi! > > Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During > two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my > level) but only one of them said a word. > > Here is the link: > http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 > > I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I > really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is > posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... > > Thanks in advance. > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 > www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 > >
Re: LX Questions
Below... Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin - Original Message - From: "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Mail List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:48 PM Subject: LX Questions > Hi all. I'm in the market for an LX. Currently have > a Super Program & an MX. Thinking about selling both > to acquire the LX, and I have a few questions for > current LX owners. I would keep the MX if you can. > Have I read something about the LX having some kind of > on board circutry, or computer, that helps with > exposure? Is there really any difference between the > LX and my Super Program/MX bodies? In other words, if > you took the exact same picture with these 3 bodies > (assuming the same lens was used), would there be much > difference? This depends on the conditions. In bodies other than the LX, the exposure time is measured via the viewfinder and fixed when the shutter is tripped. In the LX, the exposure is measured off the film/shutter curtain starting with the release of the first shutter curtain. When the light reflected off the film integrates to the correct amount, the second curtain trips ending exposure. Maximum shutter time is specified at 125 seconds, but I've run mine for over 30 minutes with no problem. Further, the minimum measured light level for the LX is -6.5 EV, whereas the sensitivity of the Super Program and the MX is 1 EV. That's 7.5 stop difference! > Is the main factor for the higher prices on the LX the > metal body? What else makes this camera so beloved? May I suggest that you visit this site. It should answer all your questions and quite possibly leave you amazed. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/
Re: Joking aside -- PCs, Macs, WAS OT Refurbished Dells
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 12:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cotty: Well, before I set aside joking it must be said -- After your post we'll see whether there's a "Mac police" or not ... I agree with you. Thanks for coming out and admitting that Macs are machines and therefore can break down just like ordinary mortals' PCs do. For nearly a year I've been having a whole lot of trouble with my desktop PC (a homebuilt system that just, as we say in the States, "has issues" and in particular has not done well with Windows XP.) I told my other half I was tempted by all the Apple ads about how Macs are easy, how "they work like they're supposed to" and all this. 'Round about then my mother arrived for a visit and brought her Compaq Notebook (running Win XP) with her. Now my mother is a very intelligent woman, but SHE doesn't think she is, so anything "technical" or "complicated" sends her running for help. However, HER computer works "like it's supposed to." In fact, on Christmas Day I plugged one end of a cable into the digital camera she'd just received as a present and plugged the other end of the cable into her notebook and the pictures were downloaded. This was a Compaq notebook running Windows XP -- no need for an Apple notebook to "save Christmas"! (Ad reference, and true story.) Around then I concluded my problems did not indicate that Win XP is useless. I've bought a Compaq notebook running XP. And "you know what?" (Apple ad quote) Everything those earnest-looking people standing in front of a white background say in the Apple TV spots about their Macs also applies to my notebook. "It works like a dream." Hi Eleanor, That's great! Glad to hear Microsoft has finally shipped an OS that actually works. Will there be free upgrades for the people who bought the previous Windows releases? Dan
Re: LX motor nicad pack
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:51:32 -0600 (CST), Chris Brogden wrote: > > Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? > > AFAIK, you can charge NiCads in a NiMH charger, but not the other way > around. That's probably true if it's a "peak detecting" fast charger. These chargers detect that the battery is "full" by noticing a dropoff in the voltage. The peak voltage dropoff in a NiMH cell is smaller than that in a NiCd cell. So the (NiCd) charger might not notice the peak and keep on pushing current into the cell, eventually destroying it. OTOH, NiMH peak detecting chargers might prematurely terminate the charge of NiCd packs due to a "false peak" on voltage during the charge cycle. Peak detecting chargers with a temperature probe to end the charge cycle if the cell gets too hot should work OK for NiMH and NiCd. And trickle chargers should work with both. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
FS: advance notice of upcoming body and lens sale
I am simplifying and consolidating. I haven't worked out minimum-price, etc. on all of the following, but am slowly working toward an eBay listing this weekend for most of the following. Some I am not quite ready to throw to the wolves on eBay (in part because I am not sure what the approximate market value might be) but would consider selling to a good home (i.e., to the members here.) Everything mentioned below is Pentax except for the last few items. One or two LX bodies: an older one (523 series) and a newer one (535 series). Both have been through CLA by Pentax since I've owned them. (I.e., within the last 3 years.) I'll keep my third for now, also a 535 series. Various finders and screens for the LX. A black ME with a dented finder. 645 body with 120 insert. I'll keep my second one, and will stick with the lenses I have for now, so no lenses for sale. Spotmatic SPII with SMC Tak 55/1.8 also, another SMC Tak 55/1.8 (one is Super-Multi-Coated, the other is SMC.) also, a Super-Tak 200/4 and a bellows-mount 100/4 macro and a bellows and a slide copier. SMC-M 20/4 SMC F 28/2.8 I have never once used this lens! The purchase seemed a good idea at the time. SMC-A 35/2.8 SMC-A 50/2.8 macro (I have two, am not sure why I would need two . . .) SMC-M 50/1.4 SMC-M 40-80/2.8-4.0 SMCP FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 and, speaking of Vivitar VS 1, Vivitar Series 1 VMC Macro Focusing Zoom 70-210/2.8-4.0 Way OT, but also an Exakta Viib with 50/2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena and a 135/3.5 Meyer-Optik Gørlitz. Note that some of the above have been offered in the past to PDML members who have said "maybe later." Those individuals have the right of first refusal before anything is sold here or listed on eBay. Let me know off-list if you want more details about any of these. Stan
Re: On topic?!
Me, too. Netscape Communicator 4.79. Sad. I'd like to know what lies behind the photo! keith whaley... frank theriault wrote: > > Hi, Ann, > > Thanks for mentioning the distraction of the image overlapping the text - I'd > meant to mention that, as it does the same for me, but I forgot. > > I've only gone to PhotoSIG a few times, and it's done that every time for me. > I use Netscrape, FWIW. It really bugs me, because I'd like to be able to read > all the text, but can't. > > regards, > frank > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > Well, ok - > > Boris, it is pretty enough, but doesn't really grab one. A nice stock > > photo shot. It has neither serious > > flaws or anything that makes one go "oh, wow!" - that is probably why you > > got few comments. > > But there is a problem - at least with the browser I was using just now _ > > The page is extremely distracting. > > the photo overlaps some of the text. I'll take a look at it later from > > aol and from explorer to see if it does > > the same thing. I have my preferences set for a somewhat larger type than > > usual but that really should > > not matter. I understand you didnt "design" this (Well, at least I think > > not!) presentation style but > > it sure hurts your photo. > > > > I'm writing to the list instead of your sight as I don't like to have to > > SIGN IN to anything on the web > > that I don't need to. > > > > Regards, > > annsan critique at large > > > > > > > > --- > > > Boris Liberman
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Pål wrote: "> I'm not convinced the "LX with AF" will materialise > at all ever. However, my understanding is that there > is a film sibling to the digital slr. My impression > is that this is a mid-line body perhaps replacing > the MZ-5n." OK so what about this "Flagship" you have been telling us about I know it is a rumour, but??? So you think the outcome & success (or lack of) of this new DSLR will make or break the appearance of this Flagship? I thought this new Pentax "boss" wanted to make a camera that most of us "will take to our graves"??? Peter --- Pål_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > > One possibility for the upcoming show is that > there may be a new FILM body > > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and > it's also possible that > > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one > tier below the MZ-S (which I > > can't afford). > > I'm not convinced the "LX with AF" will materialise > at all ever. However, my understanding is that there > is a film sibling to the digital slr. My impression > is that this is a mid-line body perhaps replacing > the MZ-5n. > > Pål > > > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: The Five VS1 70-210 Versions
Fred - I have an A version of your #3 - i.e., a VS 1 P/K-A R-P/K 70-210/2.8-4.0 As you described for the K version: no change in length when zooming, moving the zoom collar out takes you from 210 to 70. Other details: 62mm filter ring, macro focusing available at the 210 end of things, just under one turn from full macro to infinity. Stan on 1/29/03 1:13 PM, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, I've started taking a few images of all the five Vivitar Series > 1 70-210 zoom lenses. (There are five versions, as far as I can > tell.) I'm also starting to collect factual information about each > of them, to eventually tabulate the similarities and differences. > Sometime soon I'll start taking some comparative photos ~with~ each > of them. Eventually, I'll end up with a web page about 'em, but > that's still coming... > > I've just posted three photos of the five versions. In each case, > the order, from left to right, is - > > 1. VS1 70-210/3.5 V1 > 2. VS1 70-210/3.5 V2 > 3. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 V1 > 4. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 V2 > 5. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 QDOS > > All five versions shown are K-mount versions (well, the last two > versions are actually Ka-mount lenses). > > The first photo shows each lens with its zoom collar extended as far > as possible, to show as much of the barrel markings as possible. > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-1.jpg > > The second photo shows each lens zoomed to 70mm. Note that the > first three versions zoom to 70mm by extending the zoom ring, while > the zooming motion is opposite in the last two versions. > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-2.jpg > > The third photo shows each lens zoomed to 210mm. Note that the > first three versions keep the same length while zooming, but that > the last two versions change length while zooming. > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-3.jpg > > More later... > > Fred > >
LX Questions
Hi all. I'm in the market for an LX. Currently have a Super Program & an MX. Thinking about selling both to acquire the LX, and I have a few questions for current LX owners. Have I read something about the LX having some kind of on board circutry, or computer, that helps with exposure? Is there really any difference between the LX and my Super Program/MX bodies? In other words, if you took the exact same picture with these 3 bodies (assuming the same lens was used), would there be much difference? Is the main factor for the higher prices on the LX the metal body? What else makes this camera so beloved? Thanks! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Mike - I have a few suggestions. Kit # 1: FA24/2, 43, 85/1.4. On the one hand, disadvantages are that the 43 is a slightly different newer era, but I don't have any direct experience with it. For consistency, substitute an FA50/1.4 instead. On the other hand, advantage is that these are all known to be very fine lenses. I have experience with the 24 and 85 and will testify to that conclusion. On the third hand, disadvantage is that the 24 and the 85 are both very large (including hoods); not a neat compact pundle. Again, I can't speak to the 43 or 50 in this regard. Kit # 2: FA20-35/4, FA50/1.4, and FA85/1.4. You didn't say you would use a zoom, but you didn't say not. this is a nice lens, smaller than the 24/2, would handle your occasional wider shot, and would give you some wide-angle leeway if you transition to digital. Kit # 3: FA50/1.4 + F1.7x adapter. As someone else suggested, why not? A good setup for the occasional portrait. Stan on 1/29/03 8:34 AM, Mike Johnston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >... > > I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which > way to go. I could do any of the following... > > --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). > --35/2 and 85/1.4. > --35/2 and 77mm. > --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > > > What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA > kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." > > --Mike
RE: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich
> -Original Message- > From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Dear Tom, > Ha, Ha, Ha, > But seriously I saw it as a valid comment on a way to make money in > photography. I didn't say it was invalid, but the answer to the question "How do you make money in photography?" isn't often answered with the idea of shooting landscapes and writing articles. That might be the answer for people who will only consider shooting landscapes. > I often get asked would I consider shooting a > wedding. No way > in hell, I don't need the money or the aggravation that badly. I have less aggravation and more income than when I had a "real" job (and boss). I run my own business doing the thing I love to do. OTOH, 5 years ago I would have given a response similar to yours. I didn't know anything about it, which, I suspect, is the same for you. tv
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Boris, A wise health therapist in the area was once asked "What is the best exercise?" His reply showed great wisdom "The one that you'll actually do." Thus it is with my daughters taking pictures. With the SLR's (bigger cameras), I would have to take them out to shoot. With the small P&S, they would take them on their own to shoot events they were involved with. With the digital P&S, they take them to events and play around (experiment) at home. The quality of shots is the same or better with digital for them, especially since they immediately review their shots and correct mistakes and failures. They are also willing to try things with no thought about wasting money on film and developing. Bruce Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 9:18:15 AM, you wrote: BL> Hi! BL> Bruce, without disrespect, the aesthetical qualities of the snaps your BL> daughters shot with their DP&S - how good are they? BL> Don't misunderstand me, I am not against Digital. However, I think BL> that instant feedback will have some kind of negative impact of, how to BL> put it, uninspired perhaps, amateur photographer. BL> Let me give an example from my profession - programming. Debugging BL> with trace which I did quite a lot somehow had me thinking much more BL> as to where could be a problem __before__ I'd go to the lab again and BL> have the sucker executed once more to get me more evidence. At the BL> same time, debugging with full of bells and whistles interactive BL> debugger can be very long. The beauty of the beast just kills my will BL> to actually think the problem through - I can have infinitely more BL> runs at the same time I would get one trace from the lab. BL> To translate it to photo-language I'd try. Film photography, BL> especially towards the end of the film cartridge makes you think very BL> well as to why, how and when you're taking the shot. Actually, even BL> when the film is just loaded one is already limited to 36 exposures. BL> Digital photography however is about - keep shooting until you get BL> what you want. Sometimes it is good - say for M Reichmann who recently BL> seemed to have shot some wild birds. Sometimes it is very bad - you BL> just missed the moment that would never come again, and because you BL> have this wondrous alumo-box full of electronics and software - you BL> did not care to set up it quite right. BL> Furthermore, I have MZ-6 which is a smart little camera. To tell you BL> the truth I am in process of buying an ME-Super so that I would be BL> able to learn more of the way things are done, instead of just relying BL> on Pentax programmers and electronics engineers. BL> Again, if you're just shooting for snaps and not in order to study BL> the craft (don't kick me all around because I called photography BL> craft, ok? ), then P&S or DP&S is the way to go. And of course BL> DP&S is way more convenient. BL> Just my cents. BL> --- BL> Boris Liberman BL> www.geocities.com/dunno57 BL> www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
I think that for many who love the old cameras and lenses that's a given. At 01:53 PM 1/29/2003 -0800, you wrote: Q: What kind of wide-angle lens will be prepared? A: We are planning to introduce wide-angle zoom. Details will be announced later. Perhaps it's just me. But for as long as it's not full frame, I won't be considering it. regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail 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 Kind of Medium Format - Holga!
It's a Holga, are we sure it isn't "optional" lens... At 04:51 PM 1/29/2003 -0500, you wrote: I've always preferred "optical" lenses on my cameras. Call me old fashioned... -frank Mark Roberts wrote: > Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Did anyone check out the web page? > > > >http://www.holgamods.com/index.html > > I notice that the Holga uses the same "optical" lens that Juan Buhler > used in his "Limited" lens experiment! > http://jbuhler.com/HLimited/index.html > > What higher recommendation could you want? > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer 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
Dear Tom, Ha, Ha, Ha, But seriously I saw it as a valid comment on a way to make money in photography. I often get asked would I consider shooting a wedding. No way in hell, I don't need the money or the aggravation that badly. Thank You, Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:51 AM Subject: RE: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich > Dear Kenneth, > > That was a joke. > > Thank You, > > Tom > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:55 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich > > > > > > The seminar attendees were mostly outdoor/nature photographers. > > Kenneth Waller > > - Original Message - > > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:56 PM > > Subject: RE: Actually on-topic: writers ain't rich > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > > > > > In a John Shaw seminar last spring in Michigan, he answered > > > > the question > > > > "How do you make money in photography? - by saying you > > need to write > > > > articles that contain your photos. > > > > > > That or maybe shoot weddings. :) > > > > > > tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: The Five VS1 70-210 Versions
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for posting those Fred. I just read the >> third-party lens page section on this les/lenses >> (http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#vivitar) >> Makes me glad I haven't sold my VS1 72-210 > >Which version do you have, Mark? > >Robert Monaghan's site seems to emphasize the first three versions >I've listed. I have the third one (center in your photos): The 70-210 f2.8-4.0 made by Komine. Love the f2.8 aperture at 70mm (portrait mode) and the 1:2.5 macro capability. Makes it a great part of a small kit with the MX and a normal and wide prime. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: The Five VS1 70-210 Versions
> Thanks for posting those Fred. I just read the > third-party lens page section on this les/lenses > (http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#vivitar) > Makes me glad I haven't sold my VS1 72-210 Which version do you have, Mark? Robert Monaghan's site seems to emphasize the first three versions I've listed. Fred
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Hi Mike, I haven't read any of the replys you got, so maybe you'll hear it a thousandth time, but what the hell. My dream kit would be 24/28 + 50/1.4 + 77/85. I'm not sure if the 24 wouldn't be too wide for me, but then again - I rarely use wide angle, so I might as well go really wide. The 50/1.4 - I love "normal" lenses. Actually my dream normal prime would be a 58/1.4 (AF), but I don't think I'll ever see one. If I had such a long normal lens I'd go for the 85 mm for a short tele, but otherwise I think I'd prefer the limited 77 mm (also I guess it's cheaper than the 85). So probably, if I had the opportunity to choose anything I wanted I'd go for the 24/2, 50/1.4, and the 77 mm. Regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > can't afford). > > So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't > currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. > > What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a great fan of > 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 Pentax lens. Generally, what I > need is an all-purpose lens, and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too > long to be my widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few > years: > > --Just a 50mm. > > --a 35mm and an 85mm. > > --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the wider lens is > mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. > > Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for portraits, I'm > leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also has a great reputation and has > a better form-factor. So one obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. A > kit comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. > > But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I were to add that, > I'd want to use it as my "most of the time normal lens." At that point, the > 35/2 becomes rather superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on > the wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with the 24/2 or > 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is rather closer to 50mm than to > 35mm, this thought pushes me more towards the 85mm again. > > The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't have very much > cash. So to think of buying both the very expensive 31mm and the very > expensive 85mm is rather daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm > would be my "most of the time" lens. > > I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which > way to go. I could do any of the following... > > --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). > --35/2 and 85/1.4. > --35/2 and 77mm. > --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > > --something else--? > > My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very good at giving > advice to others, but not very good at choosing things for myself. His > reasoning is that I remain objective and clear-headed when I give advice to > others, but when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and > fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. > > What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA > kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." > > --Mike > > P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious. > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczedzic na kosztach obslugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: OT: The two cultures...
>Discrete Mathematics Ah yes. This is when I'm in the checkout at Waitrose and trying desperately to add up my purchases, my writhing digits - hidden inside a pocket - propelled to full length, each in turn, then alternately coiled with knuckles whitened as I invariably arrive at the figure of 374.32 for a bottle of milk and 3 packets of Wine Gums. LOL Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Joking aside -- PCs, Macs, WAS OT Refurbished Dells
Hi, > Computers by their nature are so very complicated things well, yes and no. --- Bob
No body to call my own ...
out of need I parted with the 5n. Bummer. Now I have no body. (just don't look @ my gut. please. You'll be better for it. I promise.) Anyway, I need something. Preferably mechanical & cheap. I've also got an A50/1.7 for anyone wanting/needing one. Collin
Re: LX motor nicad pack
On 29 Jan 2003 at 11:58, Andre Langevin wrote: >I read somewhere just this week about a DIY replacement for a motor drive >nicad pack. Can someone repost that link? > >Also are new nicad packs available? If so anyone know the cost? I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power packs. They are Ni-MH batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give power for a longer period of time when charged. I could probably do the job myself following this how-do Andre, Have you part numbers for the Ni-MH cells? Any chance of some photos? :-) Cheers, The best deal by far is from buying on eBay. Also their size is fine. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320020&category=2563 Andre --
Re: On topic?!
Hi, Ann, Thanks for mentioning the distraction of the image overlapping the text - I'd meant to mention that, as it does the same for me, but I forgot. I've only gone to PhotoSIG a few times, and it's done that every time for me. I use Netscrape, FWIW. It really bugs me, because I'd like to be able to read all the text, but can't. regards, frank Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Well, ok - > Boris, it is pretty enough, but doesn't really grab one. A nice stock > photo shot. It has neither serious > flaws or anything that makes one go "oh, wow!" - that is probably why you > got few comments. > But there is a problem - at least with the browser I was using just now _ > The page is extremely distracting. > the photo overlaps some of the text. I'll take a look at it later from > aol and from explorer to see if it does > the same thing. I have my preferences set for a somewhat larger type than > usual but that really should > not matter. I understand you didnt "design" this (Well, at least I think > not!) presentation style but > it sure hurts your photo. > > I'm writing to the list instead of your sight as I don't like to have to > SIGN IN to anything on the web > that I don't need to. > > Regards, > annsan critique at large > > > > > --- > > Boris Liberman > > www.geocities.com/dunno57 > > www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: The Five VS1 70-210 Versions
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've just posted three photos of the five versions. In each case, >the order, from left to right, is - > >1. VS1 70-210/3.5 V1 >2. VS1 70-210/3.5 V2 >3. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 V1 >4. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 V2 >5. VS1 70-210/2.8-4 QDOS > >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-1.jpg >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-2.jpg >http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v70210s/vs1-70-210-3.jpg Thanks for posting those Fred. I just read the third-party lens page section on this les/lenses (http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#vivitar) Makes me glad I haven't sold my VS1 72-210 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
> Mike wrote: > > > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body > > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that > > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > > can't afford). > > I'm not convinced the "LX with AF" will materialise at all ever. However, my understanding is that there is a film sibling to the digital slr. My impression is that this is a mid-line body perhaps replacing the MZ-5n. > > Pål I wonder what "LX with AF" means to whatever Pentax source used the term. The - 5n is a similar size and shape with the same control layout, but the build quality seems far inferior. And isn't the MZ-S supposed to have "the build quality of the LX"? So maybe one of these models was supposed to be the "autofocus LX". If they still mean to make one though, then they can do it by making the -5n a little tougher and putting user-interchangeable screens in the thing.
Re: 3rd party 24mm (was Speaking of M series lenses)
Hi John, What features do the Sigma EX lenses not support on the Nikon AFD and Canon EF mounts? > I don't know if there are > any issues with Pentax bodies (do they even make these > lenses in Pentax AF mount?) but they won't provide all the > functions that a Nikon AFD lens has, nor a Canon EF. Regards, Paul
Re: UKPDML 2003
It will be hard to find one week-end that fits all. I suggest you pick the time window that suits the largest number of people. For my part, everything is free yet except 5th to 9th June. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: RE: UKPDML 2003 > OK, lets try and narrow down the dates for this. Would it be > preferable, or make any difference, to do this during term time when > families with kiddies arent on holiday? If so then I guess we are > looking at June. Personally I cant do the weekends of the 14th or 21st. > > For the sake of making a suggestion, how about the weekend of the 7th > June or 28th June? For me, and I believe some others, it would be a 2 > nighter to do bradford or Cleethorpes area. So, does anyone who thinks > likewise prefer fri/sat or sat/sun? > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 27 January 2003 02:39 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: UKPDML 2003 > > > > > > TV, > > > > If we are talking June then the only thing I have going on is > > candid b&w photography for a friend's wedding on the 14th. > > > > Otherwise, we can talk when I get up your way in February. I > > guess this means we need to meet while I am up there . > > > > Cesar > > Panama City, Florida > > > > -- -Original Message- > > -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > -- Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:21 AM > > -- > > -- Pick some dates. > > -- > > -- > -Original Message- > > -- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > -- > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:31 AM > > -- > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Subject: RE: UKPDML 2003 > > -- > > > -- > > > -- > tv, > > -- > > > -- > Maybe a touring DC PDML? > > -- > > > -- > Cesar > > -- > > > -- > -- -Original Message- > > -- > -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > -- > -- Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:06 AM > > -- > -- > > -- > -- > -Original Message- > > -- > -- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > -- > -- > > > -- > -- > > > -- > -- > I would prefer to make it a weekend to get a decent > > amount of > > -- > -- > time at wherever we end up. As to when - when do you want, > > -- > -- > Tom? June will be good for weather but the days > > are long, so > > -- > -- > landscapes tend to mean getting up early for nice > > -- light. There > > -- > -- > is a wealth of opportunities at any of the venues > > suggested so > > -- > -- > far - maybe someone like Tom (or just the furthest travelled > > -- > -- > participant) should decide? > > -- > -- > > -- > -- June is tough for me because it's wedding season here. > > -- > July or August > > -- > -- would be better, but maybe that's not a good time to visit? It > > -- > -- certainly wouldn't be a good time to visit DC... > > -- > -- > > -- > -- You go ahead and decide for yourselves, and if I can fit it > > -- > -- in I will. > > -- > -- Otherwise I might just pop over for a week and couch > > -- > surf across the > > -- > -- UK. :) > > -- > -- > > -- > -- tv > > > > > >
Re: Change of Plans was:TPDML?
I think all us Toronto boys are dealing with this off-list, but ~just in case~ there are any other folks from this area lurking, who want to get in on the fun, it looks like we're going to head out to Oakville before (and maybe instead of - who knows?) Chinatown, and make Aaron's life miserable . He's making a rare Saturday visit to his store, so by coming to visit him, we'll make certain that he doesn't do that again!! Just in case anyone cares... cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ME TOO > > Dave > > > Oh God, > > Standard Fare for me, please. > > > > Jeff. > > > > David Chang-Sang wrote: > > > Awww.. > > > that means no: > > > chicken feet > > > beef tripe > > > squid > > > full bbq duck > > > cuttle fish > > > etc. > > > etc. > > > etc. > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > heh. yer lucky they ain't serving prairie oysters :) > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:36 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: TPDML? > > > > > > > > > This place don't do dim sum. They just bring big plates full of food, and > > > you > > > spoon whatever ya want on your plate or in your bowl, or whatever... > > > > > > -frank > > > > > > David Chang-Sang wrote: > > > > > > > > >>heh.. > > >> > > >>I can hang for an hour or two.. :) > > >>Do we go for standard fare or dim sum? > > >> > > >>Dave > > >> > > >>-Original Message- > > >>From: Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:06 PM > > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Subject: Re: TPDML? > > >> > > >>frank theriault wrote: > > >> > > >>>Guys, guys, guys! > > >>> > > >>>You're clearly not paying attention! I think Jeff mentioned Chinatown, > > >> > > > as > > > > > >>>it's Chinese New Year. I assumed the oldest and largest (at least > > >>>downtown) one, being Spadina between College and Dundas. > > >>> > > >>>I suggested a place to start off with a meal, being a restaurant on > > >>>Spadina called Kom Jug, which is more or less at the corner of about > > >>>D'Arcy or Baldwin (a couple of blocks south of College). It's on the > > >> > > > east > > > > > >>>side of Spadina, and has a green sign. It's tiny, and not impressive to > > >>>look at, but the food is good, plentiful and cheap. Other than Dave > > >> > > > C-C, > > > > > >>>we'll be the only white folks there, in all likelyhood. > > >>> > > >>>That was only a suggestion, so if anyone has any better ideas, feel > > >> > > > free. > > > > > >>>I'd say one or two o'clock on Saturday, an hour earlier for Brendan (so > > >> > > > he > > > > > >>>shows up somewhere ~near~ on time ). > > >> > > >>I second the motion. > > >>Brendan, we're meeting at noon. > > >>For everyone else, I propose 1PM > > >> > > >>Jeff. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > > > fears it is true." -J. Robert > > > Oppenheimer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: 3rd party 24mm (was Speaking of M series lenses)
Rob Brigham wrote: >I think we may be at crossed purposes here. I was not talking about the new f1.8(?) big jobbie, but the old and long discontinued f2.8 version. >From your comment about the 'expensive-looking finish' I guess your comments relate to the new EX DG lens. Sorry Rob, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the 1990s 24mm f/2.8. I haven't seen, touched or used a 24mm f/1.8 EX DG. Some of the 1990s 24mm f/2.8 lenses had the sexy "Zen" finish which, which Sigma used to hide a truly deplorable mechanical build "quality", at least in the versions with mechanical linkage to an in-camera-body AF motor. I have never even *seen* a version in Canon EF mount, let alone handled or used one, so I can't comment on its build quality. >Not that I would denigrate your comments anyway. I must admit that I never used the Sigma to take pictures, I was just basing my opinion on extensive research done before making my 24mm purchase. The whole web consensus is that this is a great lens with poor mechanics. Well, the "whole web consensus" you mention is (in my opinion) dubious at best. Many are swayed by the apparent sharpness of the lens, supported by wonderfully scientific MTF figures that are more misleading than useful. For example, those people will be happy with any Nikon lens, because Nikon lenses are sharp and get good MTF ratings on web sites. Yet we know that there is a gulf of difference between Nikon and Pentax glass, with the exception of a very small number of Nikon lenses that approach the superb optical performance that you get from the majority of Pentax optics. Most "web opinions" are, in any case, expressed either by people who have never touched the equipment concerned, or who judge it on the basis of 4" x 6" machine prints made from own-brand film bought and processed at Wal-Mart (etcetera). >However, if you are talking about the new lens then I am surprised anyway. Your comments regarding distortion fly in the face of specific tests for just that type of thing in Amateur photographer, and is the first time I have heard it. Could you have had a bad sample? Sorry for the confusion! (see above) I have owned and used three 24mm f/2.8 Sigmas. One was a 1975 "Filtermatic" in Olympus OM mount, the next was a 1980s MF version in Nikon AI mount, and the last was a 1990s AF version in Nikon AF (non-D) and with the sexy "Zen" finish. The Filtermatic was a superbly made lens. It was big and heavy and dwarfed my OM-1 body, but it was sharp. I replaced it with an Olympus 24mm f/2.8 which was a lot smaller (the Filtermatic had *dwarfed the camera!) but no sharper but had poor build quality. It let me down badly twice when the stop-down linkage broke twice on one assignment. The second Sigma was also sharp, but with build quality that was inferior to the Filtermatic. The "Zen" was also sharp, with appalling build quality. Many others I know had the same problem, with the gears in the AF linkage stripping after only a few months' use. I tried to repair it myself once on assignment, then found that the lens was assembled with sticky tape and included rusting steel components. Good grief! Steel! There was also some pretty amateurish soldering ... What *all* these Sigma 24mm lenses had was noticeable barrel distortion. None of them could ever be suitable for architectural photography. The 1990s "Zen" was the worst, and I would confidently describe it as a "semi-fisheye". >I do actually feel the EX lenses are well made though, and that their build problems are largely in the past and in the consumer lens segment anyway. I know many people using the macro lenses and the 70-200/100-300 EX lenses and they have no problems with build. Well, they certainly *look* well made and feel good in the hand. But because Sigma don't licence the technology from the camera manufacturers, not all EX lenses support all of the manufacturers' feature sets. I don't know if there are any issues with Pentax bodies (do they even make these lenses in Pentax AF mount?) but they won't provide all the functions that a Nikon AFD lens has, nor a Canon EF. Rob, you made a comment above about "Amateur Photographer" tests of these lenses. A few months ago, before I switched from Nikon to Pentax, I was interested in the Sigma 15-30mm EX DG. I saw the results of the late (and lamented) Dr Stuart Bell's test of this lens in "Amateur Photographer", and this seemed to be "the perfect lens". The resolution was fantastic, both at high and low contrast (far more useful than those ridiculous MTF tests you see selsewhere) and the lens was even sharp at the edges, despite having been designed for digital SLRs with less-than-full-frame CCDs. Distortion was low too. Then I started getting reports from people I know who bought this lens. They were all unhappy because the results they got bore no resemblance to those in Dr Bell's test. Let me say that I have never doubted Stuart Bell's integrity,
Re: On topic?!
Boris Liberman wrote: > Hi! > > Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During > two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my > level) but only one of them said a word. > > Here is the link: > http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 > > I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I > really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is > posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... > > Thanks in advance. > Well, ok - Boris, it is pretty enough, but doesn't really grab one. A nice stock photo shot. It has neither serious flaws or anything that makes one go "oh, wow!" - that is probably why you got few comments. But there is a problem - at least with the browser I was using just now _ The page is extremely distracting. the photo overlaps some of the text. I'll take a look at it later from aol and from explorer to see if it does the same thing. I have my preferences set for a somewhat larger type than usual but that really should not matter. I understand you didnt "design" this (Well, at least I think not!) presentation style but it sure hurts your photo. I'm writing to the list instead of your sight as I don't like to have to SIGN IN to anything on the web that I don't need to. Regards, annsan critique at large > > --- > Boris Liberman > www.geocities.com/dunno57 > www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: On topic?!
Hi, Jeff, I like the foreground. It contrasts nicely against the "layers" of hills as they gradually fade into the haze. Hi, Boris, I guess I'll "damn with faint praise". It's a pretty picture: it would make a nice postcard or calendar. As I said above, I like the strong foreground, and the hills gradually fading into the haze. I like the pattern of the clouds with the sun streaming thruogh. That being said, it doesn't "grab" me. It's just there - nothing wrong with it, but nothing great, either. That's not to say that I could do better; indeed, I have dozens upon dozens of images like that hanging around, and like yours, they are all "just pretty pictures". I think that you did the best you could with what you were presented with. I'd give it a solid (if unspectacular) 6 out of 10. Hope you don't mind me being honest. cheers, frank Jeff wrote: > Shalom Boris, > I love scenes with misty or foggy rolling hills. > Your image has a distracting foreground. Maybe a longer lens would have > compressed it more for my liking. > > Jeff. > > Boris Liberman wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During > > two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my > > level) but only one of them said a word. > > > > Here is the link: > > http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 > > > > I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I > > really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is > > posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > --- > > Boris Liberman > > www.geocities.com/dunno57 > > www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625 > > > > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
>Yes, and lets remember that Pentax never said it would be ready for PMA >(that was just an assumption that has somehow become a fact) but shown in >spring (where I live spring starts the first of May). Where I live, Spring starts when it is sprung. :-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: LX motor nicad pack
I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power packs. They are Ni-MH batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give power for a longer period of time when charged. I could probably do the job myself following this how-do http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxnicdpack.html but I've heard some electronic shops can do it for little money. Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? regards, Alan Chan The small batteries, yes (or does it really?) But I read that the battery pack refurbished with Ni-MH can be charged with the Pentax charger, only that you need longer time than what is said in the instruction booklet because of higher mAh. Andre --
Re: Joking aside -- PCs, Macs, WAS OT Refurbished Dells
>I've bought a Compaq notebook running XP. And "you know what?" (Apple ad >quote) Everything those earnest-looking people standing in front of a white >background say in the Apple TV spots about their Macs also applies to my >notebook. "It works like a dream." Hi Eleanor, Yeah, I think lots of computers work like a dream, PCs and Macs included. And when the dream turns into a nightmare, they can both be as bad to fix or replace. The only thing I would say in the Mac's defence (well I would have to say *something*, wouldn't I :-) is that when the software goes wrong, a lot of things can be done by the user that doesn't mean a complete disk-wipe and system reinstall. I've learned that there's a lot that can be done before the drastic action needs to be taken. OTOH, once it gets serious, levels of knowledge are required that make brand loyalty academic in nature. If it's that bad, it's very bad. The Mac OS hides a lot of the gobbledygook that the user doesn't need to see or know about. The benefit is that it simplifies operation and troubleshooting. The down-side is that it can be too simple for serious infiltration by good-natured help, short of professional aid. It's a reasonable balance though and it has worked well for me. Computers by their nature are so very complicated things, and expecting the user to service and repair them is obviously not on. Like a car: there are those that willingly learn to fix them when they go wrong, and it can pay dividends. The trouble is that they keep moving the goal posts by manufacturing more and more complicated machines that are less and less user-accessible. One if the reasons I am staying put with my 1999 and 2000 computers and OS. I can still make it work, and work well enough for me. Your mom sounds like quite a gal ;-) Best, Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: LX motor nicad pack
yup, but most can switch between them. --- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power > packs. They are Ni-MH > >batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give > power for a longer > >period of time when charged. I could probably do > the job myself following > >this how-do > > > >http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxnicdpack.html > > > >but I've heard some electronic shops can do it for > little money. > > Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months > FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: LX motor nicad pack
On 29 Jan 2003 at 13:47, Alan Chan wrote: > Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? Just an extension of charge time proportional to the increase in capacity over the original cells. Of course old or new cells would benefit from a custom intelligent charger but I've never been bothered enough to design and build one. The beauty of the Ni-MH cells is that they are less prone to "memory" effect than Ni-Cd and they are generally higher capacity. However they do self discharge far more rapidly. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Pentax matrix metering [Was: 31 and 35mm lenses tested inGerman magazine]
Which F lenses have MTF info encoded? Not the F*300/4.5 for certain. It acts like 'A' lenses only. regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: My Kind of Medium Format - Holga!
I've always preferred "optical" lenses on my cameras. Call me old fashioned... -frank Mark Roberts wrote: > Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Did anyone check out the web page? > > > >http://www.holgamods.com/index.html > > I notice that the Holga uses the same "optical" lens that Juan Buhler > used in his "Limited" lens experiment! > http://jbuhler.com/HLimited/index.html > > What higher recommendation could you want? > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
Q: What kind of wide-angle lens will be prepared? A: We are planning to introduce wide-angle zoom. Details will be announced later. Perhaps it's just me. But for as long as it's not full frame, I won't be considering it. regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: LX motor nicad pack
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Alan Chan wrote: > Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? AFAIK, you can charge NiCads in a NiMH charger, but not the other way around. chris
Re: LX motor nicad pack
I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power packs. They are Ni-MH batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give power for a longer period of time when charged. I could probably do the job myself following this how-do http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxnicdpack.html but I've heard some electronic shops can do it for little money. Do NiMH require different charger from NiCad? regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: LX motor nicad pack
On 29 Jan 2003 at 11:58, Andre Langevin wrote: > >I read somewhere just this week about a DIY replacement for a motor drive > >nicad pack. Can someone repost that link? > > > >Also are new nicad packs available? If so anyone know the cost? > > I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power packs. They are > Ni-MH batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give power for a > longer period of time when charged. I could probably do the job > myself following this how-do Andre, Have you part numbers for the Ni-MH cells? Any chance of some photos? :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
I missed the first half of this thread, but I was intending on building a 35mm system of the FA28/2.8, FA50/1.4 and FA105/2.8 macro eventually combined with a 1.4x teleconverter. (now, however, I've changed my plan... 645 A35/2.8, A75/2.8, A150/3.5 with a 645->K adapter and an A50/1.4 will be a fine replacement) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
OT: The two cultures... (was Re: OT: Refurbished Dell Computers,
Hi, > It may be a generational thing with me, too. I took my first computer class > in art school at age 26, using 128k Macs. I was at Dartmouth when John [...] > Little did I know, then, that someday the ancient > darkroom alchemy that I also enjoyed learning about would one day be > transported to the realm of the keyboard, the cathode-ray tube, and the > processor. <*sigh*> I also had a liberal arts background. I took no science or maths classes after the age of 13. I studied French, German and Latin until the age of 18, then went on to college and studied French, Spanish and Linguistics. I failed my Maths O-level at 13 the first time I took it, but scraped by on the re-sit. In the 2nd year at college (1976/7) I was supposed to do a 1-week's computer appreciation course, but I played pool in the pub instead because computers were mathematical and I would have absolutely no need of them in my future. I never saw a computer until I was about 23, when I had to use one at the British Library, where I worked, to access the online service at Ohio University. Since then I've worked for nearly 22 years in software development and my highest qualification is a post-graduate one (with merit!) in Formal Specification & Discrete Mathematics. Weird. Now, how do I set this VCR... --- Bob
Re: Re: : Snow Exposure Clarification
I mixed 5 gallons of the stuff, can't throw it away now can I, I'll stop when it's done, about 3 gallons to go. --- Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't use the hardner! > > Bob > > - Original Message - > From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > agfa 100 isn't to grainy, I just hate the way it > curls > > when it dries after hardner. > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
The 24/2 FA* is one sweet lens. The money only hurts for a while. -- Bob Keefer Keefer Photography www.bkpix.com
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: > I'm not convinced the "LX with AF" will materialise at all ever. > However, my understanding is that there is a film sibling to the > digital slr. My impression is that this is a mid-line body perhaps > replacing the MZ-5n. I've said it before: A digital ZX-5n would be a pretty sharp unit. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
For my part, for snap-shooting a 85mm and 35mmm/2 two lens outfit works great. Besides, I understand that you prefer the "characteristics" of the 50/1.4 (or 50/1.2) over that of the 43/1.9 ltd. So I am almost sure you will like the FA* 85/1.4 (more than the 77mm). Enjoy, Alexander Mike Johnston wrote: > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > can't afford). > > So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't > currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. > > What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a great fan of > 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 Pentax lens. Generally, what I > need is an all-purpose lens, and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too > long to be my widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few > years: > > --Just a 50mm. > > --a 35mm and an 85mm. > > --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the wider lens is > mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. > > Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for portraits, I'm > leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also has a great reputation and has > a better form-factor. So one obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. A > kit comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. > > But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I were to add that, > I'd want to use it as my "most of the time normal lens." At that point, the > 35/2 becomes rather superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on > the wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with the 24/2 or > 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is rather closer to 50mm than to > 35mm, this thought pushes me more towards the 85mm again. > > The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't have very much > cash. So to think of buying both the very expensive 31mm and the very > expensive 85mm is rather daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm > would be my "most of the time" lens. > > I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which > way to go. I could do any of the following... > > --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). > --35/2 and 85/1.4. > --35/2 and 77mm. > --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. > > --something else--? > > My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very good at giving > advice to others, but not very good at choosing things for myself. His > reasoning is that I remain objective and clear-headed when I give advice to > others, but when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and > fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. > > What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA > kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." > > --Mike > > P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious. > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax matrix metering [Was: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in Germanmagazine]
The information that the Sf-10 two segment meter used distance information for exposure evaluation is from the sales brochure. It was also confirmed by a Pentax employee I talked with (I have no experience with the Sf-10). Alexander > It had access to distance information. No one has been able to conclusively prove that it was used prior to the MZ-S. This is in the same category as the MTF program mode that even Pop (we love all gadgets) Photog couldn't detect that it did anything. BR >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> The first Pentax camera that used distance information >> for exposure calculation was the SF-7/Sf-10. It had a >> two segment meter that used the distance information. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
Mike wrote: > It's quite possible we may soon see the shape of the Pentax future, but in > its outlines only. Yes, and lets remember that Pentax never said it would be ready for PMA (that was just an assumption that has somehow become a fact) but shown in spring (where I live spring starts the first of May). Pål
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Mike wrote: > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > can't afford). I'm not convinced the "LX with AF" will materialise at all ever. However, my understanding is that there is a film sibling to the digital slr. My impression is that this is a mid-line body perhaps replacing the MZ-5n. Pål
Re: : Snow Exposure Clarification
Is it BW film? If you're not real concerned about grain, why don't you push it one stop? That would probably make your f8 and f11 exposures quite good. The f16 and f5.6 might be okay as well. Paul David Brooks wrote: > > Thanks Paul. > I had a long think at lunch about what i had set the > ap. at.I think i was doubting the f22 and set somewere in > the f 11 range,with a couple at f 8 and f 5.6. > Darkroom class # 2 startes to night and it will be one > of the first rolls developed tonight.(I only have 10 stock piled) > I'll have my answer in about 9 hours :) > > Dave > Begin Original Message > > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:55:36 + > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Snow Exposure Clarification > > No, the incident meter reading of f5.6 will be close to ideal. If > you're > going to use the camera meter reading of f16, you should open up at > least two stops, perhaps even three if the snow cover is complete. So > if > you consider both the camera reading and the incident meter reading, > you > would want to bracket between 5.6 and 8. > Paul > > David Brooks wrote: > > > > Len. > > The incident meter showed at 1/250, an f stop of 5.6. > > I should have opened up to f 4 at least then??and ignore > > the K1000 of f 22/16. > > > > Dave > > Begin Original Message > > > > From: "Leonard Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > The hand held meter will serve you well as long as you realize that > > you will > > need to open up two stops, or the snow will be registered as middle > > gray on > > the film. > > > > Len > > --- > > > > 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 > > 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
Joking aside -- PCs, Macs, WAS OT Refurbished Dells
Cotty: Well, before I set aside joking it must be said -- After your post we'll see whether there's a "Mac police" or not ... I agree with you. Thanks for coming out and admitting that Macs are machines and therefore can break down just like ordinary mortals' PCs do. For nearly a year I've been having a whole lot of trouble with my desktop PC (a homebuilt system that just, as we say in the States, "has issues" and in particular has not done well with Windows XP.) I told my other half I was tempted by all the Apple ads about how Macs are easy, how "they work like they're supposed to" and all this. 'Round about then my mother arrived for a visit and brought her Compaq Notebook (running Win XP) with her. Now my mother is a very intelligent woman, but SHE doesn't think she is, so anything "technical" or "complicated" sends her running for help. However, HER computer works "like it's supposed to." In fact, on Christmas Day I plugged one end of a cable into the digital camera she'd just received as a present and plugged the other end of the cable into her notebook and the pictures were downloaded. This was a Compaq notebook running Windows XP -- no need for an Apple notebook to "save Christmas"! (Ad reference, and true story.) Around then I concluded my problems did not indicate that Win XP is useless. I've bought a Compaq notebook running XP. And "you know what?" (Apple ad quote) Everything those earnest-looking people standing in front of a white background say in the Apple TV spots about their Macs also applies to my notebook. "It works like a dream."
Re: On topic?!
Shalom Boris, I love scenes with misty or foggy rolling hills. Your image has a distracting foreground. Maybe a longer lens would have compressed it more for my liking. Jeff. Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my level) but only one of them said a word. Here is the link: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: On topic?!
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my level) but only one of them said a word. Here is the link: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... Thanks in advance. My comment: The lone critic who posted would find a negative remark for any image he viewed. The image works. You found a mood; you captured it. I like it. Regards, Ed _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
RE: UKPDML 2003
OK, lets try and narrow down the dates for this. Would it be preferable, or make any difference, to do this during term time when families with kiddies arent on holiday? If so then I guess we are looking at June. Personally I cant do the weekends of the 14th or 21st. For the sake of making a suggestion, how about the weekend of the 7th June or 28th June? For me, and I believe some others, it would be a 2 nighter to do bradford or Cleethorpes area. So, does anyone who thinks likewise prefer fri/sat or sat/sun? > -Original Message- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 27 January 2003 02:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: UKPDML 2003 > > > TV, > > If we are talking June then the only thing I have going on is > candid b&w photography for a friend's wedding on the 14th. > > Otherwise, we can talk when I get up your way in February. I > guess this means we need to meet while I am up there . > > Cesar > Panama City, Florida > > -- -Original Message- > -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > -- Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:21 AM > -- > -- Pick some dates. > -- > -- > -Original Message- > -- > From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > -- > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:31 AM > -- > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > Subject: RE: UKPDML 2003 > -- > > -- > > -- > tv, > -- > > -- > Maybe a touring DC PDML? > -- > > -- > Cesar > -- > > -- > -- -Original Message- > -- > -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > -- > -- Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:06 AM > -- > -- > -- > -- > -Original Message- > -- > -- > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > -- > -- > > -- > -- > > -- > -- > I would prefer to make it a weekend to get a decent > amount of > -- > -- > time at wherever we end up. As to when - when do you want, > -- > -- > Tom? June will be good for weather but the days > are long, so > -- > -- > landscapes tend to mean getting up early for nice > -- light. There > -- > -- > is a wealth of opportunities at any of the venues > suggested so > -- > -- > far - maybe someone like Tom (or just the furthest travelled > -- > -- > participant) should decide? > -- > -- > -- > -- June is tough for me because it's wedding season here. > -- > July or August > -- > -- would be better, but maybe that's not a good time to visit? It > -- > -- certainly wouldn't be a good time to visit DC... > -- > -- > -- > -- You go ahead and decide for yourselves, and if I can fit it > -- > -- in I will. > -- > -- Otherwise I might just pop over for a week and couch > -- > surf across the > -- > -- UK. :) > -- > -- > -- > -- tv > >
RE: OT: Refurbished Dell Computers
Rule #1: NEVER help a friend with their computer setup unless you have a lot of time you don't mind wasting or don't mind losing them as a friend. > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > A family friend was having trouble with her iMac. "I had to > set up a new > email account and so I entered all the details like [the Mac setup > assistant - a sort of setup 'wizard'] asked, and it doesn't > work, can you > help?" > > I quickly find her own phone number as the diallup number > Remote Access > (the software that dials the number for the modem) is trying > to access > the internet with. Sigh. > > It's my first taste if OS X (fancy way of saying OS 10) and I > don't like > it. It runs slow on the iMac, and is not at all user > intuitive like the > earlier classic OSs : 7, 8, 9. I won't be 'upgrading' any of > my machines > to this mess. > > She tells me that she's thinking of getting rid of the iMac > in favour of > a PC - 'cos I thought Macs were supposed to be easier'. I > then find out > that, although they have a normal diallup ISP, they have had > a second, > entirely seperate phone line installed just for net access by > the iMac. > Why not go for Broadband? Not yet available in her area. Okay > - British > Telecom do an ISDN for home users (BT Home Highway) which > gives faster > net access and the use of a voice line while connected to the net, if > needed. I get a blank stare back. > > Oh, the printer isn't responding. 2 hours later, it is. 'Do > your children > (3 primary school tots) have access to this computer by any > chance?' The > reply : "Always". I see. > > I reconsider my advice, and somewhat develishly suggest that > maybe a PC > would be better for them ;-) > > Joking aside, PCs or Macs, it's all down to personal > preference at home, > and custom and practice at work. Neither is better or worse. Like > cameras, they are tools. > > Cotty > > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > > >
Re: AF 280T & battery leak damage.
Hi! Darn, I am not living in States. In Israel it is plain impossible. Consumer is almost always wrong here... Say, I've just recently sent a fax to the phone company. Unfortunately we have only one phone company in Israel. Now, one month later they did not do what they were asked to. So I called to verify. Apparently I had to inquire within 48 hours after I've sent the fax. So now, she told me they did not get any fax from me. On my argument that my computer responded that fax arrived ok and that I did it twice she told me: "You know, sometimes the fax machine says fax is sent but in reality it does not arrive". Darn, I am not living in States. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
On topic?!
Hi! Something unusual happened to my latest submission to PhotoSIG. During two days more than 150 people saw the picture (which is a lot to my level) but only one of them said a word. Here is the link: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=660866 I'd like to know what do you think of it. Please, do criticize. I really hope there is no rule on PDML that every single photo that is posted to PDML should be just praised and applauded to... Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
RE: There's that's better
(My comment top-posted due to length of context) One reason my 90WR doesn't get out much any more is that I now own an LX! Cesar posted: > S, don't let Pentax know - I regularly take my LX and the MZ-S out in > the rain... > > Once while photographing in Union Square in NYC, it was interesting watching > other photographers under umbrellas, cameras under coats, trying to sneak in > a shot or two quickly. They kept looking at me as I was hand-carrying an LX > and took my time composing and taking shots... responding to: > -- > Yes, they do, but the 90WR sure comes in handy when it's > -- pouring rain and I > -- > fear for the health of my MZ-S or 645. > -- > > -- > Bill > -- > -- > -- > -- Point-and-shoots suck except for Bill's 90WR in the rain, > -- you can say that > -- again, point-and-shoots suck except for Bill's 90WR in the rain. > -- > -- --Mike > -- >
Re: Pentax Zoom 90WR
Pat asked: > BTW, does the flash on the 90-WR have the > usual evil red eye issues? I would assume it has "the usual" issues because it is, of course, a built-in flash on a relatively compact camera. The flash can be turned off quite easily (also can be combined with ambient light, by the way) and it also has the "red- eye reduction" pre-flash mode, which I never ever use, but if someone out there finds that mode useful, it's there.
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
Hi! Bruce, without disrespect, the aesthetical qualities of the snaps your daughters shot with their DP&S - how good are they? Don't misunderstand me, I am not against Digital. However, I think that instant feedback will have some kind of negative impact of, how to put it, uninspired perhaps, amateur photographer. Let me give an example from my profession - programming. Debugging with trace which I did quite a lot somehow had me thinking much more as to where could be a problem __before__ I'd go to the lab again and have the sucker executed once more to get me more evidence. At the same time, debugging with full of bells and whistles interactive debugger can be very long. The beauty of the beast just kills my will to actually think the problem through - I can have infinitely more runs at the same time I would get one trace from the lab. To translate it to photo-language I'd try. Film photography, especially towards the end of the film cartridge makes you think very well as to why, how and when you're taking the shot. Actually, even when the film is just loaded one is already limited to 36 exposures. Digital photography however is about - keep shooting until you get what you want. Sometimes it is good - say for M Reichmann who recently seemed to have shot some wild birds. Sometimes it is very bad - you just missed the moment that would never come again, and because you have this wondrous alumo-box full of electronics and software - you did not care to set up it quite right. Furthermore, I have MZ-6 which is a smart little camera. To tell you the truth I am in process of buying an ME-Super so that I would be able to learn more of the way things are done, instead of just relying on Pentax programmers and electronics engineers. Again, if you're just shooting for snaps and not in order to study the craft (don't kick me all around because I called photography craft, ok? ), then P&S or DP&S is the way to go. And of course DP&S is way more convenient. Just my cents. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
RE: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
>I think the first thing you need to do is answer whether or not you want >a 'cropped' DSLR to put the lenses on too. > >IF you get one of these then your 85 becomes a 130, your 50 becomes a 75 >and your 35 becomes a 50. You have no wide angle anymore on this body. >So if you have a DSLR in your future I would push to get the widest wide >angle you can put up with. The 24 at least only becomes a 35, so some >limited WA is retained. Hi Rob, For what it's worth, I have the following lenses on my DSLR (focal length multiplier effect taken into consideration): 22mmf2.8landscapes / street / functions 45-112mmf2.8general / portraiture 135mm f1.8portraiture 112-320mm f2.8sports / small fluffy things that move fast I use the first two the most, although I like the third the best, but the last one is worth it's weight in gold. I will not be going for a full-frame DSLR anytime soon. HTH Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
RE: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
Yeah - they may have to, but will they? > -Original Message- > From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Well, they showed a prototype of MZ-SD two years ago, boosted the >loyalists here and everywhere, and then dumped them. This time >they'll have to do better than that. > >Servus, Alin > > >
Re: LX motor nicad pack
Hi Jeff, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html navigate accordingly. I bought the cells from: http://www.mrnicd-ehyostco.com/newpage3.htm Very do-able, and very satisfying knowing the job is done. Cost me fifty bucks in parts. Good luck. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: LX motor nicad pack
I read somewhere just this week about a DIY replacement for a motor drive nicad pack. Can someone repost that link? Also are new nicad packs available? If so anyone know the cost? I just ordered 36 batteries to refurbish 3 power packs. They are Ni-MH batteries, so don't have any memory effect and give power for a longer period of time when charged. I could probably do the job myself following this how-do http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/lxnicdpack.html but I've heard some electronic shops can do it for little money. Andre --
Re: Pentax matrix metering [Was: 31 and 35mm lenses tested inGerman magazine]
Which F lenses have MTF info encoded? thanks Paul The MTF information is coded into the lens chips of FA lenses, and a few of the F lenses. The PZ-1, PZ-1p, and MZ-S bodies read this information from the lens. There is no analysis of scenes. I have used mtf mode on my 1p often. Joe _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Mike, I couldn't decide what I wanted so I started with the 50/1.4 and when that one didn't fit the shoe I got the 35/2.0, for me the perfect (almost) standard lens. Now I needed o wideangle and picked up the 24/2.0. What about a portrait lens, I found a nice 100mm macro here at PDML and I thought I was done, but now I thinking about the much smaller 77/1.8. My wife doesn't know and she better not find out if I don't want to sleep in the doghouse the next month or so. I know that this is no advice at all, but if I were to choose a two lens set it would be the 35/2.0 and the 77/1.8 and the third part of thet duo would be the 24/2.0. But what do I know??? Paul PS Is there a drug I can take to get rid of my problems? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: OT: Refurbished Dell Computers
>At home we've always had PCs running Windows. I used to work in a newsroom >full of Macs. The PCs at home gave trouble from time to time, the Macs at work >gave trouble from time to time, and in that entire three-year period I found >neither platform to be more reliable than the other. But I have NEVER heard a Mac >owner admit those machines can fail. The only reason I know they do is that I've >seen it happen -- over, and over again. So my JOKING conclusion was that Mac >owners are bound by some kind of gag order. No gag order at all. Sorry, just gotta jump on this one, if only to balance things out a bit. The fact is that *all* computers whether they be Dells, Macs, or whatever do in fact break down. They must do: all the bits inside are made by similar, if not the same manufacturers. Yes, even Apple machines have many many components that are easily found in any PC computer. You want broken Macs? How about PowerBook batteries that catch fire? How about PowerBook hinge mechanisms that conk out after only a year's use? Paint that peels off titanium laptops because they get too hot in normal use? I could go on. I built one of my computers from scratch - a PowerBook - and I fully expect it to break down at some point. This is why I have all the bits from another identical machine at the ready to repair it when it does. I'm not a computer specialist by trade, nor even an electronics technician. I do this because I have to if I want to afford the two main computers I use every day, whereas most people have just one. If I bought new, and didn't fix it myself, I'd have to have just the one, you see. Now, that's the hardware over and done with. As for software, I run very stable with few problems (OS 9.1) as do many Mac users, as do many PC users. It's a lot to do with how you set up your system, what you allow on there, how you maintain it. When was the last time you did even the most basic software maintainence on your hard drive(s) ? Computers need upkeep. If you let them get cluttered up with a load of rubbish, they don't like it. They start to slow down and before you know it you get blue screens of death, sad macs, all sorts. A family friend was having trouble with her iMac. "I had to set up a new email account and so I entered all the details like [the Mac setup assistant - a sort of setup 'wizard'] asked, and it doesn't work, can you help?" I quickly find her own phone number as the diallup number Remote Access (the software that dials the number for the modem) is trying to access the internet with. Sigh. It's my first taste if OS X (fancy way of saying OS 10) and I don't like it. It runs slow on the iMac, and is not at all user intuitive like the earlier classic OSs : 7, 8, 9. I won't be 'upgrading' any of my machines to this mess. She tells me that she's thinking of getting rid of the iMac in favour of a PC - 'cos I thought Macs were supposed to be easier'. I then find out that, although they have a normal diallup ISP, they have had a second, entirely seperate phone line installed just for net access by the iMac. Why not go for Broadband? Not yet available in her area. Okay - British Telecom do an ISDN for home users (BT Home Highway) which gives faster net access and the use of a voice line while connected to the net, if needed. I get a blank stare back. Oh, the printer isn't responding. 2 hours later, it is. 'Do your children (3 primary school tots) have access to this computer by any chance?' The reply : "Always". I see. I reconsider my advice, and somewhat develishly suggest that maybe a PC would be better for them ;-) Joking aside, PCs or Macs, it's all down to personal preference at home, and custom and practice at work. Neither is better or worse. Like cameras, they are tools. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Digital vs Film: Battle is over - digital has already won
>I've never been able to get my 9-year-old son interested in photographing >with his Spotmatic (actually, after four years of disuse--I gave it to him >when he was 5--I sold it), but he loves to take my digital camera and go >fill up a card. He's not attached to the pictures at all; he looks at them >once and then that's that. But he enjoys taking them and seeing them. I think the thing with kids is that they love the bells and whistles. My 9 yr old son had absolutely no interest in taking photographs with an MX. Yet at PDML UK 2002 at Duxford air show, he picked up the (Pentax supplied) MZ-S and instantly latched onto it. He adored it. So, I splashed out on a Z-10 for him. It makes noises, auto-focuses, the flash pops up (endlessly) and more to the point, he uses it! It actually inspires him to photograph, and at the end of the day, that's what matters to me. You could argue that he should be using a K-1000. I would argue that he would rather be upstairs glued to his Gamecube. Kids. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Outlines only--? (Pentax DSLR)
Mike wrote: MJ> It might be worth mentioning that the coming announcement we are all waiting MJ> for with bated breath may be somewhat frustrating to us. It's possible that MJ> Pentax will show a prototype under glass at PMA, but will remain very close MJ> to the vest about specifics. MJ> The reason for this will not be to frustrate loyal consumers, which may be MJ> its effect, but to keep secret from competitors for as long as possible what MJ> they are doing. Well, they showed a prototype of MZ-SD two years ago, boosted the loyalists here and everywhere, and then dumped them. This time they'll have to do better than that. Servus, Alin
Re: Pentax matrix metering [Was: 31 and 35mm lenses tested inGerman magazine]
"In the initial review of the PZ-1, Pop Photo described the MTF program and it did seem to work -- at least they described it as an aperture priority mode with safety shifts. They dispelled early rumors that the MTF program mode somehow "analyzed" the lens and scene for the best quality; the aperture selected really just came from optimal aperture information stored in each lens' electronics. With the zooms, this optimal aperture changes with focal length." The MTF information is coded into the lens chips of FA lenses, and a few of the F lenses. The PZ-1, PZ-1p, and MZ-S bodies read this information from the lens. There is no analysis of scenes. I have used mtf mode on my 1p often. Joe
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
on 29.01.03 15:34, Mike Johnston at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body > from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that > there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I > can't afford). > > So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't > currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. > [...] Mike, I would consider two posiibilities: - "no compromise" - 31/43/77 - "economy" - 35/77 with an option to buy something wider if you ever buy Pentax DSLR Both possibilities are small and portable, and quality will be excellent! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Vs: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
I have not found teleconverters very good - it is a good idea but quality usually suffers - long teles the exception. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Evan Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 29. tammikuuta 2003 16:05 Aihe: Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts >Mike would you consider this combo: >FA 24/2 >FA 50/1.4 (no substitute for speed) >and an 1.7 AF teleconvertor for portraits. > >Evan > > >Mike Johnston kindly wrote: > >> One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body >> from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that >> there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which >I >> can't afford). >> >> So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't >> currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. >> >> What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a great fan of >> 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 Pentax lens. Generally, what I >> need is an all-purpose lens, and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too >> long to be my widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few >> years: >> >> --Just a 50mm. >> >> --a 35mm and an 85mm. >> >> --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the wider lens is >> mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. >> >> Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for portraits, I'm >> leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also has a great reputation and >has >> a better form-factor. So one obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. >A >> kit comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. >> >> But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I were to add >that, >> I'd want to use it as my "most of the time normal lens." At that point, >the >> 35/2 becomes rather superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on >> the wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with the 24/2 >or >> 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is rather closer to 50mm than to >> 35mm, this thought pushes me more towards the 85mm again. >> >> The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't have very much >> cash. So to think of buying both the very expensive 31mm and the very >> expensive 85mm is rather daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm >> would be my "most of the time" lens. >> >> I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which >> way to go. I could do any of the following... >> >> --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). >> --35/2 and 85/1.4. >> --35/2 and 77mm. >> --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. >> --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. >> >> --something else--? >> >> My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very good at >giving >> advice to others, but not very good at choosing things for myself. His >> reasoning is that I remain objective and clear-headed when I give advice >to >> others, but when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and >> fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. >> >> What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA >> kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." >> >> --Mike >> >> P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious. >> >> >
Super-Takumar 1.8/55 VS 2/55
I had read that the Super-Takumar on screw mount 1.8/55 and 2/55 were made of it identical; I received this morning my 2me purchase on e-bay, a Pentax SV with this famous Super-Takumar 2/55. And in fact, one sees well inside before the diaphragm the ring to make one under-model of it!! You can se the pics: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/Images/2-55av.jpg http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/Images/2-55ar.jpg See of the before oneself doesn't notice really that it partially overlooks the full opening (cf 2-55av.jpg) but in rear-view (cf 2-55ar.jpg), one sees distinctly that the "B" bridle (it appears in clear) is closed more that the diaphragm entirely open "D" ! Funny marketing, this 2/55 was therefore dearer (a ring) that the 1.8/55 higher in range. Michel,
Re: OT Photoshop
Cheers guys. >From someone who should not really be allowed to play with toys he does not understand Peter
Re: OT: Folders
But part of the fun of the Holga is that it's just so awful. At 08:50 AM 1/29/2003 -0500, you wrote: I just got done developing & printing some snow shots from my Rolfix folder camera. Scneider Radionar 105 lens, 6x6 or 6x9 format. The results came out very nice. Shooting in 6x6 mode it's pretty sharp at the edges. (Since the lens will cover 6x9 that means that it covers 9x9, so the 6x6 center is reasonably sharp.) For fun and high-quality pocket cameras, don't forget the old folders. There's some really goo dunits out there you can get for bargain prices. (And they're better-built than tha Holga!) Collin Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
Mike, If I were going with a 2 lens kit, the 43/1.9 and 77/1.8 Limiteds would do a great job. The 43 is halfway between the 35 and your beloved 50 and is a great lens in it's own right. As for me, I went with the 35/50/85 route. The 43/50 is just not wide enough sometimes and the 85 is one sweet portrait lens. I base that not on personal taste, but that I always get comments on shots taken with that lens. So there you have it: 2 lens kit - 43/1.9 Limited and 77/1.8 Limited 3 lens kit - 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 all FA. Either kit would be wonderful. Not a weak lens in the bunch. Bruce Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 6:34:09 AM, you wrote: MJ> One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body MJ> from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an "AF LX," and it's also possible that MJ> there may be a new "budget/serious" camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I MJ> can't afford). MJ> So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't MJ> currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. MJ> What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a great fan of MJ> 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 Pentax lens. Generally, what I MJ> need is an all-purpose lens, and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too MJ> long to be my widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few MJ> years: MJ> --Just a 50mm. MJ> --a 35mm and an 85mm. MJ> --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the wider lens is MJ> mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. MJ> Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for portraits, I'm MJ> leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also has a great reputation and has MJ> a better form-factor. So one obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. A MJ> kit comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. MJ> But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I were to add that, MJ> I'd want to use it as my "most of the time normal lens." At that point, the MJ> 35/2 becomes rather superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on MJ> the wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with the 24/2 or MJ> 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is rather closer to 50mm than to MJ> 35mm, this thought pushes me more towards the 85mm again. MJ> The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't have very much MJ> cash. So to think of buying both the very expensive 31mm and the very MJ> expensive 85mm is rather daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm MJ> would be my "most of the time" lens. MJ> I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which MJ> way to go. I could do any of the following... MJ> --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). MJ> --35/2 and 85/1.4. MJ> --35/2 and 77mm. MJ> --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. MJ> --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. MJ> --something else--? MJ> My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very good at giving MJ> advice to others, but not very good at choosing things for myself. His MJ> reasoning is that I remain objective and clear-headed when I give advice to MJ> others, but when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and MJ> fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. MJ> What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA MJ> kit for my uses, not something that will just "get me by." MJ> --Mike MJ> P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious.
Re: RMC Tokina 400mm F5.6 image
Nice enough shot. I've found that birds in Florida to be a bit camera shy, having people chase them with blunderbuss sized lenses wouldn't have something to do with it... At 04:48 AM 1/29/2003 -0500, you wrote: For those curious about the RMC Tokina 400mm F5.6 lens, here's a sample image I shot a coupla days ago: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/bird012703.jpg Looks pretty good to my eye. Not bad for a lens which cost me only $125 This lens has one big advantage over the also excellent SMCT 400, it's got automatic aperture which is essential for quick shooting. The reason you see ripples in the water is that there were 4 other birds resting on the same float but when I approached they dove into the water. I grabbed this shot quick just before this final bird also dove in... TECH: Lens : RMC Tokina 400mm F5.6 (M42) Exposure :1/250 @ F11 Body : Pentax SL Film Tmax 400 Meter : My Brain :) J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
