RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
There are a number of tells. 1.) Half moon shaped shutter lock. 2.) ISO Film speed to 3200. 3.) Shutter curtain missing two white dot's on upper and lower edge. 4.) Second Meter switch built into exposure compensation lock release. Did I miss any? At 11:21 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, you wrote: > I second William's recommendation. Buy a late model used LX (in good > cosmetic condition) and have it CLA'd. The LX is a joy to use and it exudes > quality... Okay, so tell me, how can you tell a "late model" LX? --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: 2x Tele Converters
Peter: Thanks for your response. That's very good to know-I'm LOL! Sorry for your experience. Good thing it (the Soligor) was given to me for free. I think I will send it straight to the garbage can. I don't even want to take a chance on it, especially if it might stick to the body. --- Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm holding in my hand a "Soligor Auto Tele > Converter 2x To Fit Pentax K" > The screw is the lens release button. > > Mechanically it is a piece of crap, The one I have > worked for exactly > one hour, and I think I used it to make one > exposure. The stop down indicator > arm bent out of alignment and is made of such cheep > metal that it will not > hold > it's original shape. Much of the rest of it is made > of such cheep > materials that > they easily bend and deform. I had to partially > disassemble it to remove > it from > the camera it was mounted on when it failed. I > couldn't give you an optical > assessment but my opinion is "how could the Tamron > be worse". > > > > At 07:31 PM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote: > >Today I acquired a "Soligor" auto tele converter 2X > to > >fit Pentax-K. First question-what is the screw on > the > >side for? Maybe to activate some kind of > electrical > >contact? > > > >Second, is it better or worse than, the Tamron-F SP > >tele converter 2X KR BBAR MC7 that I already own? > > > > > > > > > >__ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > >http://shopping.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 > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
Doug you took out my link!!! At 12:14 AM 2/13/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:58:31 -0500, Peter Alling wrote: > But SUV's are compact cars see STFU. :-) > >Maybe we should just post STFU (Shut The Fool Up) back whenever this > >sort of silliness (or guns, abortion, religion, what's a professional > >photog, SUV vs compact car, ...) crops up. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
At the current prices I've been seeing on e-bay 3. At 11:12 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, you wrote: > You can buy a F3hp new from B&H (listed as in stock and also in Nikon's > current catalog) Oh, sure, for FOURTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE DOLLARS. For that price I could have an LX! Maybe two! --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
> I second William's recommendation. Buy a late model used LX (in good > cosmetic condition) and have it CLA'd. The LX is a joy to use and it exudes > quality... Okay, so tell me, how can you tell a "late model" LX? --Mike
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
The sad part is I almost hurt myself holding my tongue, I could have argued on either side or both. Now that would have hurt. At 10:59 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, you wrote: > Weren't you even the least bit tempted? Peter, Are you kidding? I'm like a guy in a bar when it comes to a fight. I'll throw in a chair almost no matter what. Of course now that I'm too old to _actually_ get in fights... --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
> Seriously, I wish I had had the money and contacts to buy an LX2000 or one > of the last LX's sold in Japan. To me (reliability aside, because, knock on > wood, I haven't had any issues with mine) the LX is what a camera should be. > Fingers crossed that they take hints from the FM3a but I'm not holding my > breath HM, how about an MXa? Christian, Now you're talking. An MXa, like the MX but with aperture-priority AE added. And keep it hanging around in the catalog for us dinosaurs. I'd buy two, and be very grateful. --Mike
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: > > You can buy a F3hp new from B&H (listed as in stock and also in Nikon's > > current catalog) > > Oh, sure, for FOURTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE DOLLARS. For that price I > could have an LX! Maybe two! Geez, Mike. You want incredible quality, you want it brand new in the box, and you want it cheap, too? You *have* to be a Pentax user. :) chris
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:08:11 -0600, Dan Scott wrote: > That will be a source of much resentment. One person's fool is > another person's compadre And neither one of them should be talking about stuff like that on the PDML. So they're both fools. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >Even if you factor in the cost of a CLA > > for each body, you can still get at least 5 or 6 ES bodies for the price > > of one FM3a. > > > > chris > > > Do you know someone who CAN CLA the ES & ESII? > The electronics parts are long gone and everybody > I know who does spotties, wont even touch > an ES or ESII. Hmmm... I just assumed that my local place would treat them the same as a Spottie. I should probably check into that. Then again, they can't treat them much worse... chris
Re: While were on tubes and flowers
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:00:16 -0600, Dan Scott wrote: > cheek to jowl in recycled plastic pots, on rough PT lumber, in an aging > and, understandably, mildewy fiberglass green house (which also looked > a lot like some sort of clandestine chemical laboratory). That's why we care about bokeh. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
> You can buy a F3hp new from B&H (listed as in stock and also in Nikon's > current catalog) Oh, sure, for FOURTEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE DOLLARS. For that price I could have an LX! Maybe two! --Mike
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:58:31 -0500, Peter Alling wrote: > But SUV's are compact cars see STFU. :-) > >Maybe we should just post STFU (Shut The Fool Up) back whenever this > >sort of silliness (or guns, abortion, religion, what's a professional > >photog, SUV vs compact car, ...) crops up. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Yup, it depends on your priorities. I love the old Pentax lenses, and the fact that they're often dirt cheap (for some focal lengths, anyway). If Mike likes the idea of buying new, then Nikon definitely sounds like the best choice. chris On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > It will be new, unused, in the box, with a warranty (like Mike wants), > and you can't get that, no matter how many credit cards you have for > screw mount gear that hasn't been made in 30 years. If you want used > there's plenty of not too expensive, non AI 30 year old Nikon stuff > around too. You can buy Nikon MF gear new or used. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >That's a very good point. The flip side is that to buy a new Nikon MF > >setup comparable to what you can get for $500 in Pentax screwmount, you'll > >need several credit cards. > > > >chris > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: 2x Tele Converters
I'm holding in my hand a "Soligor Auto Tele Converter 2x To Fit Pentax K" The screw is the lens release button. Mechanically it is a piece of crap, The one I have worked for exactly one hour, and I think I used it to make one exposure. The stop down indicator arm bent out of alignment and is made of such cheep metal that it will not hold it's original shape. Much of the rest of it is made of such cheep materials that they easily bend and deform. I had to partially disassemble it to remove it from the camera it was mounted on when it failed. I couldn't give you an optical assessment but my opinion is "how could the Tamron be worse". At 07:31 PM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote: Today I acquired a "Soligor" auto tele converter 2X to fit Pentax-K. First question-what is the screw on the side for? Maybe to activate some kind of electrical contact? Second, is it better or worse than, the Tamron-F SP tele converter 2X KR BBAR MC7 that I already own? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.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: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Apologies for listing all those eBay auctions... just didn't think. Guess no one's getting a deal on ES and ESII's tonight. chris
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: > > Huh? Truly MINT ( Like New ) ESII's are extremely hard to find > > and arent cheap when you do. It can take years just to find ONE > > let alone an "awful lot" of them. The ES models ( which I prefer ) > > are just as tuff in top notch condition. Now, worn and even > > worse UGLY ones are a different matter altogether, but who wants those? > > > Yes, I have to agree with this. I bought my near-mint chrome ES II for $150 > on eBay. There probably isn't one of those for sale a year, at least not at > that price. Bought four different 50/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated Takumars to get > just the right one. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006619718 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006396663 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2910782194 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2911097617 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2910916863 You get the idea. chris
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
>> And this is a bad thing in what way? :) You can buy an awful lot of ES >> II's for the price of one FM3a. > > Huh? Truly MINT ( Like New ) ESII's are extremely hard to find > and arent cheap when you do. It can take years just to find ONE > let alone an "awful lot" of them. The ES models ( which I prefer ) > are just as tuff in top notch condition. Now, worn and even > worse UGLY ones are a different matter altogether, but who wants those? Yes, I have to agree with this. I bought my near-mint chrome ES II for $150 on eBay. There probably isn't one of those for sale a year, at least not at that price. Bought four different 50/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated Takumars to get just the right one. "It's not a tool, it's a treasure." --Mike
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
William Robb wrote: Sure, and without wanting to sound homophopic, I wouldn't trade my woman for a member of the other team either. Touche' :-) -- Later, Gary
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Here in Portland, OR, I had Advanced Camera Repair work on my chrome ESII. The mirror would lock up and sometimes one of the shutter curtains would hang up. Camera works fine now. A few years ago I took a black ES to the same shop and they refused to work on it then. Sent it to Essex Camera in N.J. and they worked on it. Still works fine today. Jim A. > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:05:38 -0500 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:06:20 -0500 > >> Even if you factor in the cost of a CLA >> for each body, you can still get at least 5 or 6 ES bodies for the price >> of one FM3a. >> >> chris >> > Do you know someone who CAN CLA the ES & ESII? > The electronics parts are long gone and everybody > I know who does spotties, wont even touch > an ES or ESII. That's the main reason I was willing > to pay bigger bucks for nearly perfect examples... > But it took a LO time to find them, even on ebay. > Plus they are alot prettier :) !!! > JCO > >
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
> Weren't you even the least bit tempted? Peter, Are you kidding? I'm like a guy in a bar when it comes to a fight. I'll throw in a chair almost no matter what. Of course now that I'm too old to _actually_ get in fights... --Mike
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
- Original Message - From: "Gary L. Murphy" Subject: Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... > William Robb wrote: > > >I'd buy an LX. > > > But I've heard those are high maitenance... kinda like woman Sure, and without wanting to sound homophopic, I wouldn't trade my woman for a member of the other team either. William Robb
Re: Favorite "Backpack" style photo bag?
- Original Message - From: "Steve Pearson" Subject: Favorite "Backpack" style photo bag? > I'm in the market for a backpack style photo bag that > can hold say 2 bodies, and about 5-6 lenses. I have > not done any research, so I thought I would ask the > group. I'm sure some of you have had more experience > with these than me. Check out the Lowe Pro Trekker series. I think the Mini (?) Trekker would fit your description. William Robb
RE: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
> As for the 120/2.8, my local "Pentax authorized repair > center" thinks they can get it totally clean. I was > amazed at how much fungus they were able to remove > already. The work will be done by the owner of the > shop, and he is confident that he will be able to > remove it all! O.k., I guess I would defer to the advice of an expert repairperson too. Best of luck. --Mike
RE: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
I know we have commented on this in the past, but you did make me think about my new purchases - Cameras - Super Program Super Program LX ZX-5 MZ-S Lenses - FA* 24/2 FA Limited 31/1.8 FA Limited 77/1.8 A 28-135/4 AF 35-70/4-5.6 A 70-210/4 Reflex 400-600/8-12 Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:24 PM -- -- "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- -- >Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I -- have no right to -- >tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item -- brand-new that bore -- >the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. -- -- Whew, ain't that the truth! I'll bet a great many of us -- hardly ever buy -- *new* Pentax products. At least, all we ever seem to read -- about is the -- old stuff. As for me, the Pentax equipment I've purchased new is: -- -- K1000 (many, many years ago - my first SLR) -- PZ-1p -- MZ-S plus BG-10 -- FA50/1.4 -- FA28/2.8AL -- -- -- -- Mark Roberts -- Photography and writing -- www.robertstech.com --
RE: DC Outing #5 (change of plans)
As stated previously, I will be there. If some cannot make it let me know and maybe we can get together some other time during my trip. Let me know, César Panama City, Florida P.S. TV, thanks for putting directions from Baltimore, I could have used them the first time :-) -- -Original Message- -- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 5:08 PM -- -- me too. -- -- Christian -- -- On Wednesday 12 February 2003 16:53, Ed Mathews wrote: -- > I'm planning on it. -- > -- > Ed -- > -- > > -Original Message- -- > > From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- > > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:08 PM -- > > -- > > We're still on for 2/24 at 7:30, but we've changed the -- location to The -- > > Hard Times Cafe: -- > -- > http://www.hardtimes.com/collegepark.htm -- > -- > It's about 30 seconds from the 495/Rt. 1 interchange. I'll -- try and get -- > a big table in the room to the left as you walk in the door. -- > -- > Those coming from Baltimore need to be careful coming south on 95. -- > Look at a map, follow the signs for Rt. 1 College Park, -- and you should -- > be ok. -- > -- > If you plan on attending, please shoot me an email. -- > -- > tv --
Re: Canon Condescension
Read what I wrote, again. I said attach. That's the mechanical interface. The information interface (meter) requires the prong (the aperture rings are still dimpled for where the screws have to go. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC, current Nikon lenses would require a coupling prong installed in order to function with the non-AI mounts found on pre-1977 Nikon cameras (F, F2, Nikkormats, etc.) Paul In a mechanical sense they do: you can directly attach a 2003 AF-S/D/G/VR Nikkor lens to a 1959 Nikon F without using an adapter, wrench, hammer, milling machine or hammer. You can't do that with a K mount lens and a Spotmatic. BR
Re: Favorite "Backpack" style photo bag?
Herb, It would be used for exactly the same thing, hiking. What would your suggestion be? Thanks, Steve --- Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Message text written by > INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I'm in the market for a backpack style photo bag > that > can hold say 2 bodies, and about 5-6 lenses. I have > not done any research, so I thought I would ask the > group. I'm sure some of you have had more > experience > with these than me. > > Thanks in advance!< > > what are you going to do with it? i use mine for > medium distance > backcountry hiking, sometimes off-trail. that has > far different > requirements than a few hundred yards from your car. > > Herb > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
It will be new, unused, in the box, with a warranty (like Mike wants), and you can't get that, no matter how many credit cards you have for screw mount gear that hasn't been made in 30 years. If you want used there's plenty of not too expensive, non AI 30 year old Nikon stuff around too. You can buy Nikon MF gear new or used. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a very good point. The flip side is that to buy a new Nikon MF setup comparable to what you can get for $500 in Pentax screwmount, you'll need several credit cards. chris
Favorite "Backpack" style photo bag?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >I'm in the market for a backpack style photo bag that can hold say 2 bodies, and about 5-6 lenses. I have not done any research, so I thought I would ask the group. I'm sure some of you have had more experience with these than me. Thanks in advance!< what are you going to do with it? i use mine for medium distance backcountry hiking, sometimes off-trail. that has far different requirements than a few hundred yards from your car. Herb
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
on 2/12/03 8:23 PM, Mark Roberts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to >> tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore >> the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. > > Whew, ain't that the truth! I'll bet a great many of us hardly ever buy > *new* Pentax products. At least, all we ever seem to read about is the > old stuff. As for me, the Pentax equipment I've purchased new is: > > K1000 (many, many years ago - my first SLR) > PZ-1p > MZ-S plus BG-10 > FA50/1.4 > FA28/2.8AL Lets see, Pentax gear bought new (in rough chronological order): 2 @ ME-Super 1 @ M-50/1.7 1 @ M-50/1.4 1 @ M-100/2.8 2 @ PZ-1p 1 @ FA28-105 (version 1) 1 @ FA80-320 1 @ F1.7 Adapter 1 @ MZ-S 1 @ FA20-35 In the era's during which the A and then the F lenses were being sold new, I wasn't in the market. Stan
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Mike, I second William's recommendation. Buy a late model used LX (in good cosmetic condition) and have it CLA'd. The LX is a joy to use and it exudes quality... Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 8:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" Subject: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... > > So tell me what you'd do. Comments, jokes, opinions, sympathy, ridicule, > from anybody, all welcome. I'd buy an LX. William Robb
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
>Even if you factor in the cost of a CLA > for each body, you can still get at least 5 or 6 ES bodies for the price > of one FM3a. > > chris > Do you know someone who CAN CLA the ES & ESII? The electronics parts are long gone and everybody I know who does spotties, wont even touch an ES or ESII. That's the main reason I was willing to pay bigger bucks for nearly perfect examples... But it took a LO time to find them, even on ebay. Plus they are alot prettier :) !!! JCO
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > You can buy a F3hp new from B&H (listed as in stock and also in > Nikon's current catalog). So you don't have to settle for one of those > "cheap-ass" FM3a's. They also list 28 different MF lenses. To get what > you can with Nikon, 5 minutes and a credit card you have to become > Indiana Jones with Pentax. That's a very good point. The flip side is that to buy a new Nikon MF setup comparable to what you can get for $500 in Pentax screwmount, you'll need several credit cards. chris
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Mike Johnston said: > > I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With > > some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least > > find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that > > all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are > > turkeys? > > > This is one of the huge advantages of digital IMHO. For instance, a 300mm > f/2.8 on a Canon D60 is the equivalent of a 480mm f/2.8 on 35mm. You get the > "teleconverter" factor without the f-stop penalty. > > A 400mm lens becomes a 640mm. Even a lowly, inexpensive 200mm becomes a > 320mm. Not too shabby. Actually, I've been doing that with cropping! A little fox starts to look grainy on 1600 film when enlarged to 8x10 equivalent, but it still looks nicer. I've even been wondering at what point I'd come out ahead if I use a shorter lens with wider aperture and slower film. For instance, 500mm f/8 800ASA versus 200mm f/4 200ASA, or 135mm f/2.8 100ASA?
Re: Canon Condescension
IIRC, current Nikon lenses would require a coupling prong installed in order to function with the non-AI mounts found on pre-1977 Nikon cameras (F, F2, Nikkormats, etc.) Paul In a mechanical sense they do: you can directly attach a 2003 AF-S/D/G/VR Nikkor lens to a 1959 Nikon F without using an adapter, wrench, hammer, milling machine or hammer. You can't do that with a K mount lens and a Spotmatic. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can tell you, most photographers think Nikon offers the best backward compatibility.
Favorite "Backpack" style photo bag?
I'm in the market for a backpack style photo bag that can hold say 2 bodies, and about 5-6 lenses. I have not done any research, so I thought I would ask the group. I'm sure some of you have had more experience with these than me. Thanks in advance! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
RE: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > And this is a bad thing in what way? :) You can buy an awful lot of ES > > II's for the price of one FM3a. > > Huh? Truly MINT ( Like New ) ESII's are extremely hard to find and > arent cheap when you do. It can take years just to find ONE let alone > an "awful lot" of them. The ES models ( which I prefer ) are just as > tuff in top notch condition. Now, worn and even worse UGLY ones are a > different matter altogether, but who wants those? Well, there's a huge middle ground between "truly mint" and "ugly." I picked up a very nice chrome ES (which I prefer to the ESII, mainly because of the battery) for very little money. A quick search on eBay turns up *13* ES and ESII's, several of which are advertised as in excellent or better condition. Even if you factor in the cost of a CLA for each body, you can still get at least 5 or 6 ES bodies for the price of one FM3a. chris
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
After all your grumblings about it's reliability? ;-) Seriously, I wish I had had the money and contacts to buy an LX2000 or one of the last LX's sold in Japan. To me (reliability aside, because, knock on wood, I haven't had any issues with mine) the LX is what a camera should be. Fingers crossed that they take hints from the FM3a but I'm not holding my breath HM, how about an MXa? Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:52 PM Subject: Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Johnston" > Subject: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax... > > > > > > > So tell me what you'd do. Comments, jokes, opinions, sympathy, ridicule, > > from anybody, all welcome. > > I'd buy an LX. > > William Robb >
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
That makes it easier to be a fan. I bought about $900 worth of genuine, new Pentax gear in the last 5 years and everything but the battery grip broke within 2 years. A little different than 24 years with a K1000 and no trouble. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A very good point. Some of us, though we are Pentaxians, are not even Pentax customers! I've bought a few things from Pentax in the past ten years, but not too many.
Re: Somebody please congratulate me....
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:25:46 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > ...I'm not even READING the gay florist thread. Maybe we should just post STFU (Shut The Fool Up) back whenever this sort of silliness (or guns, abortion, religion, what's a professional photog, SUV vs compact car, ...) crops up. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
> Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to > tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore > the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. Paul, A very good point. Some of us, though we are Pentaxians, are not even Pentax customers! I've bought a few things from Pentax in the past ten years, but not too many. --Mike
Re: Coating on Filters?
Check those rear elements! When I bought my used SMCP 135/1.8, I was dismayed to find that the rear element had on it what appeared to be "cleaning marks" that looked just like circular scratches. No amount of normal cleaning with commercial lens cleaning fluids removed these "scratches", and I was almost resigned to accepting that the marks truly were scratches. Upon magnified examination though, I could see that what appeared to be scratches were actually deposits of some white encrustation. When I checked with my technician, he suggested I use carbon black - dry, with a soft lens cleaning tissue. After cleaning with carbon black using very small circular motions, the lens was clean and free of these marks and was back in "new" condition. From that day, I have promoted the use of carbon black for cleaning lenses. If you try this, use an exceedingly small amount of carbon black. A one ounce bottle should last you for your entire life and that of your progeny. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I seldom check a lens's rear element for cleanliness. One of my recurring > fears is that in the year 2030, I'll discover that on each of my lenses, the > rear element has a big smudge that has been degrading my results for > decades. > > Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Or, to put it another way, putting any > filter in front of the lens will cause _some_ image degradation (loss of > contrast or sharpness). An SMC filter will cause the least degradation. In > some instances, the difference is hardly visible, but for people to whom it > matters, the few extra dollars are money well spent." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]@verizon.net
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:17:59 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > So tell me what you'd do. Comments, jokes, opinions, sympathy, ridicule, > from anybody, all welcome. The FM3a will only last so long and may not be replaced by anything comparable. You probably should start working on altering your preference, or at least minimizing the agony that it can't be met. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Canon Condescension
> I have never seen any Pentax ad, which stated: "Pentax lenses are all > forward AND BACKWARD compatible too. So a lens bought today can be used on > the each and every K-mount Pentax camera of yesterday, today and tomorrow." > Except of course for the MZ-60/50/30 and already (un)famous FAJ lenses:) > Somebody please tell me why Pentax doesn't publicly emphasize its most > importand advantage... Artur, An excellent, excellent question. I can tell you, most photographers think Nikon offers the best backward compatibility. --Mike
Re: Asahi Pentax Nocta
Cool. At 07:46 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote: Has anybody ever seen or seen or heard of one of these for sale? http://jcoconnell.com/temp/nocta.jpg Not that I would ever want one, but I'm curious as to it's rarity / value. It could be the rarest production Pentax item ever made??? JCO Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Where's Brad Dobo???
Brad Who?
Somebody please congratulate me....
...I'm not even READING the gay florist thread. "You're only young once but you can be immature forever," --Mike
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
"Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to >tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore >the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. Whew, ain't that the truth! I'll bet a great many of us hardly ever buy *new* Pentax products. At least, all we ever seem to read about is the old stuff. As for me, the Pentax equipment I've purchased new is: K1000 (many, many years ago - my first SLR) PZ-1p MZ-S plus BG-10 FA50/1.4 FA28/2.8AL -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
> If one day...I cannot buy a new camera body that > supports my investment, then I will feel betrayed. Boz I hate to say this, but that day is pretty much here for me. Has been for a while now. Here's my big dilemma. I like buying bodies new, simply because I like to know there are no hidden problems, and I like to be able to replace a body immediately and with no hassle in case of loss. Plus, I like to know I have the latest in the basic technology--screens and light meters and such. Finally, I like to be able to find accessories. But the kind of camera I prefer is on life support. I've said it before--I like metal, manual, mechanical cameras. "Classic"-era SLRs. But the only company that's released one in recent years is Nikon. Much as I love my ES II, it's an antique. If it broke, or I dropped it, or it was stolen, it would take a lot of work to find a replacement. It has some peculiarities; it's outdated in some ways. It's o-l-d. I feel it every time I take it out of the house: it's not just a tool, it's a treasure. I keep coming back to the same conclusion: that I should just get an FM3a. If Pentax still made _one_ old-style metal-manual-mechanical SLR...one classic Pentax...but it doesn't. It's not like the FM3a is any great paragon. It's no modern F2 or Spotmatic or anything. It's kind of a cheap-ass, crappy example of the genre, actually. But it's the genre I prefer. And it's what's out there. Tough problem. So tell me what you'd do. Comments, jokes, opinions, sympathy, ridicule, from anybody, all welcome. --Mike
Re: of topic that grew out of Re: While were on tubes and flowers
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/12/03 at 01:01 PM, Matt Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: |>You might have been adult enough or intelligent enough |>to respond differently, and without rancor-but you |>didn't. |>FYI: I have a Gay Grandson and Niece. I saw hate and fear still do. having drifted around the preparations for the gay pride parade with a camera did not seem to make me the target of any unreasonable attention. Athough the 80-310 zoom did fetch some ribald comments. Why not warn people about the straight people it what ever trade that might have interest in someone sometimes maybe if ther may be a camera involved. I recall several cases where nice straight serial rapists/killers used a camera to lure victims. You may not see it my way but I do. Maybe your grandson would not be offended by being portrayed as an uncontroled devient that must hit on straight men with cameras but maybe he would be. I do not think there was any need to make any reference to the sexual pref. of your florists or florists in general. Not only was the tone of the peice homophobic and hateful but n my opinion so was the part of you that felt compelled to post it. You may not be what that post represented to me but if I had failed to comment on what I saw/believed you to be saying i certainly could not have been very happy with living with myself. "first they came for the jews" Bran -- --- Change your thoughts and you change your world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
On 12 Feb 2003 at 20:38, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: > Rob, > It wasn't so much the absence of barrel distortion as the lack of the > familiar "converging vertical lines" effect and elongate faces that you > invariably find at the edges of a wide-angle photo. The faces of people at > the edges looked normal, and you'd be hard-pressed to find vertical lines > that were slanted. Hi Paul, Our local press seem to use two FLs 20mm and 300mm for most shots, the 20mm shots are used for the openings, crowds, etc. When they need a little drama they might shoot up from down low but in most cases distortion is less apparent than the hugh contextual influence due to the inclusion of surrounds in the image. So all I'm saying that when shooting WA lenses and maintaining attention to subject distance and composition and supposing the lens is low in geometric distortions perspective distortion seems not to be a problem. Then again maybe I'm just conditioned to see past it? :-) 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, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
If the lens did have an aperture ring, it still wouldn't function as an AF-S or VR lens, and it would still make more sense to buy the 2 touch AF 80-200/2.8 D lens. It's the price to be paid for modernizing old lens mounts rather than redoing the whole thing from scratch: screw me now or screw me later. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new top-of-the-line AFS80-200/2.8 VR G won't work on F90X and they were forced to upgrade their cameras.
Re: Vs: Coating on Filters?
Alan Chan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, regular Tiffen & B+W filters are uncoated. Regular B+W filters are single-coated. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: of topic that grew out of Re: While were on tubes and flowers
Matt Greene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In this country, famed for its so-called "Freedom of Speech", no innocent statement, no contextural conversation can be held these days wherein certain words, even when used properly and without malice or inference, can be, and often will be taken completely out of context. Matt's point is well-taken. Some time ago, a politician used the adverb "niggardly" in its rightful sense: stingy. Unfortunately, a number of black Americans mistakenly thought he used a form of the N-word, and would accept nothing short of an apology, even when informed of their etymological error. Paul Franklin Stregevsky
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are turkeys? Gregory, By "small aperture," I assume you mean "large aperture number (f/5.6, f/8), since you're savvy enough to know that you won't find any f/4 or f/4.5 in your price range. The short answer is Yes. None of the 500/8s that litter Ebay is distinguished. The better third-party lens makers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) have not put much effort into developing 500mm+ prime lenses that are any good, unless they are reasonably fast and cost an arm and a leg. Sigma makes a fine 500/4.5, but it costs upward of $2,000. Vivitar made a great 450/4.5 mirror lens, but it shows up on the market just a few times a year and will cost upward of $500 (more like $800 to $1000) when you find it. A Tamron SP 400/4 in Adaptall K mount with a 1.4X TC would deliver great results as a 560/5.6. will set you back $1000 to $1400 used. I simply don't know of any The story changes if you are willing to buy a screwmount lens. A Pentax Takumar or Super Takumar 500/4.5 meets your specs for about $400 to $500. Add a K-mount 1.4X TC, and you have a K mount 700/6.3 for about $700. It won't allow open-aperture metering, but neither did the K-mount version of this lens. The German firm of Meyer Optik made a 500/5.6 with interchangeable mounts for Praktina, Praktica, Exakta bayonet, Pentacon Six, and M42 screwmount. Weighing 3500 g, it was sold originally as Pentacon, then Meyer Orestegor. The history is a bit more complicated than this, but basically, look for Meyer or Pentacon. German Ebay is a good place to find old big glass like this. Zoomar and Fuji made some 600/5.6s in M42, but they're hard to find and not cheap. Believe it or not, your best deal would be to get a Tamron, Vivitar, or Soligor telezoom in the range of 120-600 or 130-650. You might also consider the two-touch Tokina 150-500/5.6 zoom, and a Sigma 170-500 f/5.6-6.3, an autofocus lens that sells (sold?) new for about $600. I listed specs for many of these back in December, I think. Search the archives for 120-600. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Your best cheap telephoto that's actually worth owning is likely whatever used Pentax 300 f/4 lens you can turn up for the least money, matched to a Pentax 2x converter. I owned a cheap 500mm mirror lens once. You'd get sharper photos by shooting with a 50 on fine grain film and enlarging. Don't forget, whichever way you go, to allocate a substantial amount of money for a rock-solid tripod. Shooting at 500mm and up is a real adventure in camera shake. -- Bob Keefer Keefer Photography www.bkpix.com
Re: Thoughts on the FA* 28-70 F2.8
Mark, look in your owner's manual at the lenses listed toward the back. See whether it includes some of the more recent lenses, such as the limiteds (and which limiteds). the FA 24-90, the new FA 28-105, etc. When I recently bought a new FA* 24 f2.0, the list of lenses in the manual told me that my lens had probably been manufactured 5 or 6 years ago, then warehoused. We had a little discussion on this on the list a while back. For specialty lenses, it is more economical to produce a bunch and warehouse them, than to start and stop production many times. By looking at the other lenses listed in your manual, you can get an idea of when your lens was manufactured. It may help to consult Boz's site. Let us know what you find. Joe
Lens compatibility - common definitions
With the subject of new lens mounts in the future, a common definition of lens compatibility would be a good thing to avoid all sorts of confusion and half truths. There are 3 types interfaces in a modern lens mount: 1. mechanical - how the lens physically attaches to the body 2. information - how the body knows what kind of lens is present how the lens is set 3. control - how the body controls what the lens does How these interfaces are changed effects body/lens compatibility/functionality. There are 2 basic types of compatibility: forwards and backwards. Forwards is putting an old lens on a new body. Backwards is putting a new lens on an old body. What does this mean in the Pentax realm? Any K mount lens can be physically mounted on any K mount body: this is type 1 physical interface forwards/backwards compatibility. Type 2 and 3 categories depends on body/lens specifics. A K mount lens can't be mounted a a screw mount body, but a screw mount lens can, with an adapter, be mounted on a K mount body. So there is no type 1 backwards compatibility, but there is forwards compatibility. Other brands Minolta and Canon AF and MF lenses/bodies pretty much don't share any interfaces (whatever adapters exist require optical elements, and even then it's only type 1). Nikon can be complicated. Nikon SLRs started with the F mount and still have the F mount, but this is only a type 1 interface. Changes in the type 2 interface has effected the type 1. Short story long: the newest Nikon lenses can be mounted on the oldest bodies, but mounting an old (non AI) lens on a modern (AI) body can damage the body. Type 2 and 3 interfaces have had more changes and variations with Nikon than with Pentax. So, when folks make comments about lens/body compatibility, they have to be specific about what aspect of the interface they are referring to, if the comment is supposed to make any sense. BR
Re: Re: End of K-mount?
On 12 Feb 2003 at 16:31, Alan Chan wrote: > I like the Contax manual focus SLR system too, and my friend has a system > ready to be sold. However, the future of the Contax system certainly doesn't > appear as bright as Pentax imho. If the right products aren't presented at PMA it won't be far behind IMHO. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >BTW, anyone have a good utility that will print 4 4X5s ( w/ 4 different images) on a single 8.5 X11 sheet? JCO< any of the organizer programs can do it. the cheap ones won't do color management. the Contact Sheet plugin in Photoshop and Photoshop Elements only works for one sheet at a time. Herb...
Re: Vs: Coating on Filters?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Ok, regular Tiffen & B+W filters are uncoated. Regular HOYA filters are double-coated, but some of their special effect filters are uncoated, including CPL & PL. regards, Alan Chan< i have a Hoya Multicoated Circular polarizer and am thinking of getting the Super Multicoated one. Herb
Re: End of K-mount?
> Frankly, all I expect for PMA of interest for most PDML's (I exclude the > various P&S; digital or not) are the DSLR, maybe in prototype form, a chap > film SLR, a few new lenses made for the DSLR, maybe one or two that don't > cover full image cycle. Thats about it. Anything else I take as a bonus. Some > seem to have their expectations a bit on the high side Pål, You're probably right. I'm one of those who have high expectations. My expectations are ALWAYS too high for these shows, and I am almost always disappointed. --Mike
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: > Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no > right to tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item > brand-new that bore the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. They have nice cloths, don't they? I recommend them to anyone looking for a good microfiber cloth. At the same time I got my cloth, I also got the MZ-5n, 28-70/4, 80-320, 500FTZ flash, and a AA battery grip. So far I've sold everything except the 80-320, which stopped working after sustaining some sort of impact damage that I never noticed, and the 500FTZ, which I'm looking to sell. chris
Re: End of K-mount?
Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share.
Could that happen in the USA? I thought that only occurred in Ayn Rand's
epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, where Hank Rearden spends years perfecting a
copper-titanium alloy ("Rearden steel") that gives him a competitive edge
over other bridge builders, only to have the Government force him to share
it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: End of K-mount?
Well, to be fair, there were a lot of Nikon users who switched to Canon when Canon began beating Nikon to the punch on too many technologies: USM, IS, and then the leapfrogging DSLR race. I don't think Nikon can count on as much user loyalty now that more and more people are going digital. chris On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Alan Chan wrote: > Except no matter how much complaints there are, Nikon fans still stick with > Nikon no matter what. Many people worship "NIKON", don't think Pentax can > afford that. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > >Sure there is. Just look at the direction Nikon is taking, and look at > >how Nikon users felt when the first G lenses came out. They started out > >by releasing a very few low-end lenses with limited compatibility: their > >28-80, 28-100 and 70-300. No big deal, right? Just a few bottom-of-the > >line lenses to bring the price of their low-end kits down, right? Wrong. > >Now more and more of their high-end lenses are appearing without aperture > >rings; first the 24-85mm AF-S, and now the AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF. > >Claiming that it is "absurd" to worry about Pentax doing the same thing is > >sticking your head in the sand. Nothing's guaranteed, but it's very > >possible. > > _ > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >
Jerry?
Jerry in Houston, are you the same PDMLer who used to sign off as Jerry Houston? When I was building my set of K-mount lenses from 1998 to 2000, there were a handful of PDMLers whose comments influenced me the most. Jerry Houston was one of them. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Pål Jensen wrote: > Huh? This due to a couple of lenses, which are bottom of the barrel? See my previous post re. Nikon. There's no reason to assume that this won't spread. > Pentax have the best backwards compatibility in the industry. The fact remains that Pentax has camera bodies that cannot use K/M series lenses, and that they now have lenses that cannot be used on K/M series bodies. How is this different from Nikon? Sure, you have to spend a bit more with Nikon (F100 body vs. MZ-6), but the basic concept is the same. Before the FAJ lenses, every new lens would work perfectly on any K/M series body. Now this isn't the case. Sure it's just two for now, but who knows whether or not Pentax is going to follow Nikon's lead? > Huh? They have. In fact, I can't think of no other camera manufacturer > who has stated what they want to do mor eclearly than Pentax. Perhaps, but I can think of several who have actually done what they stated. Saying that you want to do something (which Pentax is very good at) and actually accomplishing it are two different things. chris
Re: Coating on Filters?
I seldom check a lens's rear element for cleanliness. One of my recurring fears is that in the year 2030, I'll discover that on each of my lenses, the rear element has a big smudge that has been degrading my results for decades. Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Or, to put it another way, putting any filter in front of the lens will cause _some_ image degradation (loss of contrast or sharpness). An SMC filter will cause the least degradation. In some instances, the difference is hardly visible, but for people to whom it matters, the few extra dollars are money well spent." [EMAIL PROTECTED]@verizon.net
Re: While were on tubes and flowers
In a message dated 2/12/2003 1:34:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Your "observation" was not innocent. It was inflammatory, prejudicial and > informed by your discomfort with your own sexuality. You are, of course, > free to hold such opinions, but if you insist on trying to > peddle them > here, prepare to be challenged. > > Doug Not to mention that it was a male-centric comment. If a florist thought *I* was coming on to him he'd be heterosexual. Or he'd be a she and lesbian. But luckily, as far as know, "Can I photograph your flowers?" is not code for "Wanna quickie?" Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: End of K-mount?
>> But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From >> what I've heard, both those technologies are closely controlled by Canon. >> The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share. Olympus, >> for instance, had a big hit with the digital UZI, but could not make a >> successor because Canon would not let it license the IS technology again. I >> don¹t have any inside track or any great knowledge of this, but personally I >> doubt very much we'll see any Pentax lenses with either of these >> technologies at any time in the foreseeable future. > > I thought the patent protected Canon for seven years, and it's expired > now. Although I could be wrong or simply unsophisticated in the ways of > patents. Gregory, You know as much about them as I do. --Mike
RE: Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!(was:FAJlenses)
>> You ought to buy it now if you can. Bronica is offering a >> $450 rebate until >> March. That makes the RF645 and the 65mm normal lens cost >> about $1150, which >> is a screaming bargain. > > ARGH! As I point out in my column next Sunday, the RF645 kit is less expensive that most medium format normal lenses, and even a couple of top-end 35mm normal lenses. With the camera thrown in for free Argh, indeed. --Mike
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: End of K-mount?
Except no matter how much complaints there are, Nikon fans still stick with Nikon no matter what. Many people worship "NIKON", don't think Pentax can afford that. regards, Alan Chan Sure there is. Just look at the direction Nikon is taking, and look at how Nikon users felt when the first G lenses came out. They started out by releasing a very few low-end lenses with limited compatibility: their 28-80, 28-100 and 70-300. No big deal, right? Just a few bottom-of-the line lenses to bring the price of their low-end kits down, right? Wrong. Now more and more of their high-end lenses are appearing without aperture rings; first the 24-85mm AF-S, and now the AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF. Claiming that it is "absurd" to worry about Pentax doing the same thing is sticking your head in the sand. Nothing's guaranteed, but it's very possible. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Are K mt. Lens Prices Likely to Drop After PMA?
Marnie, The PMA in and of itself, will have no effect on pricing. What will affect it is a major Pentax fumble. If Pentax doesn't show a decent DSLR and some other goodies at PMA, then I think you will see a fire sale of equipment from all those who will jump ship and move to Canon or Nikon. I doubt KEH will change their prices quickly no matter what Pentax does. But it might be worth waiting to see if you can pick up on a fire sale. HTH, Bruce Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 5:16:01 PM, you wrote: eac> Okay, I seem to be able to get through now. eac> Just wondering, for those of you that have been around a while, are K mt. Pentax lenses and others, likely to drop in price after the PMA? (Maybe that's not the right acronym, but the big camera eac> show coming up in two weeks). eac> Got my eye on some zooms at KEH. I'll hold off if prices might drop. I am thinking that since PMA might be decisive for Pentax maybe they might. eac> But it's probably just wishful thinking on my part. eac> TIA, Doe aka Marnie :-)
Re: End of K-mount?
> With all due respect, Sigma has HSM and now OS. Maybe you cant do a > carbon copy of Canon, but no reason why you cant do your own. If Sigma > can do it then damn sure Pentax can! Rob, You may be right. (I wasn't even aware of "HSM and OS.") On the other hand, maybe Canon is willing to license to Sigma but not to Pentax. I dunno. --Mike
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, I wrote: > I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all > Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In > several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 > or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the > edges. That tells me these photos were cropped. Rob Studdert replied: Hi Paul, If images from your wide angle lenses are exhibiting curvature at the edges then they are poor lenses (I'm assuming that this is how you derived your opinion?). Perspective distortion will render straight lines straight wherever they lie in the frame. If a scene is shot wide where all subjects in the frame are a distance away (5 metres plus) perspective distortion isn't very noticeable, only when subjects are up close (a metre or less for 20 or 24mm) does the perspective distortion become really apparent. Rob, It wasn't so much the absence of barrel distortion as the lack of the familiar "converging vertical lines" effect and elongate faces that you invariably find at the edges of a wide-angle photo. The faces of people at the edges looked normal, and you'd be hard-pressed to find vertical lines that were slanted. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: While were on tubes and flowers
Can you just go to your room and not communicate with real people until you can act mature enough to do so? Please? chris On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mafud wrote: [a bunch of homophobic generalizations]
Re: Message from the Great Beyond [beyond PDML]
I've noticed that KEH prices lenses high and as time goes on and the lenses don't sell the price drifts lower. I can't recall this happening specifically after a trade show. At 05:22 PM 2/12/2003 -0600, you wrote: Once again, Marnie says she can read, but cannot post to, the list, so this is from her: >> I have my eye on some zooms at KEH. I was wondering, do K/KA/KF/KAF (I may have the acronyms wrong) lens prices ever drop down after the PMA? Someone must know from past experience if this ever happens. Also because this PMA may be decisive re Pentax. Probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I am curious. Doe aka Marnie ;-) <<< Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Vs: Cheapest k-mount body
Hi! PA> I don't know the Zenit seems to be made with good materials, it's just the PA> result that's bad. PA> At 06:01 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote: >>Zenit >>All the best! >>Raimo > Zenit (though M42 mount) was my first camera, along with Helios 44-2 58/2 lens. So gentlemen, let us be courteous towards this camera. I am getting slowly but surely convinced that I should take my time and restore (digitally of course) some of my photographs from 15 years ago... I will make sure you're informed when it is done... It will be very interesting for me to see what you'd have to say... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
RE: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
On 12 Feb 2003 at 18:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Yeah but what if you only want to print a few? > Who the hell wants to get in the car and drive > somewhere for a print or two. I got my epson > 1280 for only $350 and its been worth every penny > to me A few yes, 140 no. 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, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have this fear that Pentax might decide to >concentrate in the FAJ segment of the SLR market (because like you all >say, "this is where they make money"). That's ridiculous. The same is true for Canon and Nikon, but you don't see them making concentrating on the "FAJ" segment of the market. You have to make high end, prestige products like the F5, EOS-1v and, yes, the Pentax Limited lenses to be able to sell the low end stuff. Top flight equipment provides the image that sells the low end gear which provides the profit to finance the high end stuff which...etc, etc. This "K and M lenses are obsolete" stuff started as irrational paranoia and has descended into pathetic whining. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Where's Brad Dobo???
On 12 Feb 2003 at 13:58, Paul Eriksson wrote: > He's been gone for months He's around, off-list, I spoke with him today. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
Yeah but what if you only want to print a few? Who the hell wants to get in the car and drive somewhere for a print or two. I got my epson 1280 for only $350 and its been worth every penny to me JCO > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 6:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300 > > > On 12 Feb 2003 at 8:26, Matt Greene wrote: > > > My comments were aimed at those who do not utilize > > labs, but depend on their home setups to produce > > "photos". > > Fair enough > > > I failed to say how much of a PITA home printing is, > > even when you have calibrated your monitor/printer. I > > don't even own a printer, not with a KINKO'S just 8 > > drive-time minutes away. > > Exactly, anyone who needs to print volumes of work quickly would > be foolish to > consider home inkjet printing a viable option, I thought that > would be a given. > > 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: Where's Brad Dobo???
Let's just let sleeping Dobo's lie shall we? Cheers Shaun frank theriault wrote: He's in London, Ontario, Canada, I think. About two months ago, I got an off-list e-mail from him, saying that he was leaving the list, but I don't think he sent a "goodbye" to the list. He didn't give any reasons for leaving (and I didn't ask). Haven't heard from him since... cheers, frank Paul Eriksson wrote: He's been gone for months _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
I would never buy nor pay for a repair of any SLR lens with MAJOR fungus problems. Who's to say the technician will get the lens properly precision re-assembled to factory specs? I wouldnt trust it at all...No frickin' wayThe last thing I would ever want to shoot with is a "re-assembled" lens unless MAYBE, just MAYBE, if it was a current model and was repaired at the same factory where they were currently being built and tested. JCO
Message from the Great Beyond [beyond PDML]
Once again, Marnie says she can read, but cannot post to, the list, so this is from her: >> I have my eye on some zooms at KEH. I was wondering, do K/KA/KF/KAF (I may have the acronyms wrong) lens prices ever drop down after the PMA? Someone must know from past experience if this ever happens. Also because this PMA may be decisive re Pentax. Probably just wishful thinking on my part, but I am curious. Doe aka Marnie ;-) <<<
Re: Cheapest k-mount body
frank theriault wrote: And, what are they like in terms of sturdiness, etc.? Pretty much like the last few years of K1000's? To quote Bob Segar, "Like a Rock".:-) --- Later, Gary
Re: Canon Condescension
I cannot, however on reflection I can see that Canon may be responding to just that. At 12:08 AM 2/13/2003 +0100, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Canon Condescension > [cannon lenses are] "all forward compatible too. So a lens bought today > can be used on > the EOS camera of tomorrow." I have never seen any Pentax ad, which stated: "Pentax lenses are all forward AND BACKWARD compatible too. So a lens bought today can be used on the each and every K-mount Pentax camera of yesterday, today and tomorrow." Except of course for the MZ-60/50/30 and already (un)famous FAJ lenses:) Somebody please tell me why Pentax doesn't publicly emphasize its most importand advantage... Regards Artur --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Cheapest k-mount body
Mark Roberts wrote: Probably he's just in a bad mood because of being hit on by a gay florist. And because Pentax is about to switch to a totally-non-backwards-compatible lens mount and send special agents into all our homes to confiscate all our old-style k-mount gear. Yeah, and they just left with all of mine! -- Later, Gary
Re: Cheapest k-mount body
Lasse Karlsson wrote: One thing that keeps puzzling me is how some people seem to be in such a total lack of selfrespect that they don't hesitatet to, or obviously don't care if they even show the whole world what an extraordinary asshole they are. Why thank you, Lasse. Of course, you have never made a mistake... -- Later, Gary
Re: Canon Condescension
- Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Canon Condescension > [cannon lenses are] "all forward compatible too. So a lens bought today > can be used on > the EOS camera of tomorrow." I have never seen any Pentax ad, which stated: "Pentax lenses are all forward AND BACKWARD compatible too. So a lens bought today can be used on the each and every K-mount Pentax camera of yesterday, today and tomorrow." Except of course for the MZ-60/50/30 and already (un)famous FAJ lenses:) Somebody please tell me why Pentax doesn't publicly emphasize its most importand advantage... Regards Artur --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: Cheapest k-mount body
Hi, Gary, And, what are they like in terms of sturdiness, etc.? Pretty much like the last few years of K1000's? thanks, frank "Gary L. Murphy" wrote: > Still own one of the Mingca's... Works exactly like a K1000... The main difference >is the Mingca has LED's for the meter rather then > the match needle of the Pentax K1000 > > I picked it up of eBay about two years ago and only paid $55 US for it. > > Later, > Gary -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Where's Brad Dobo???
He's in London, Ontario, Canada, I think. About two months ago, I got an off-list e-mail from him, saying that he was leaving the list, but I don't think he sent a "goodbye" to the list. He didn't give any reasons for leaving (and I didn't ask). Haven't heard from him since... cheers, frank Paul Eriksson wrote: > He's been gone for months > > _ > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
On 12 Feb 2003 at 11:45, Keith Whaley wrote: > May I humbly suggest, all fungii care about is something to grow ON? > So long as they can find a growth base, and are able to spread out, > they are then free to take nutrients from the air, lens cement or > whatever else they eat >From what I've read I understand that the majority of damage to lens coatings (which are only wave-lengths of light thick) is mainly due to the effects from the excreta of the resident fungi. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Coating on Filters?
On 12 Feb 2003 at 9:09, Matt Greene wrote: > Pure (Clear) optical grade glass has no color and is > Gamma neutral. And will if not coated reflect approximately 5% of the light hitting it's surface, a single coated piece of glass will reduce this reflection to 1-2%, SMC will reduce it to a mere 0.2%. You can test this by reflecting the sun off coated and uncoated filters towards a target under shade. Your meter measures 1/3 stops so has not sufficient resolution to measure these differences. Just because your meter can't discern the difference doesn't mean that ghost images due to reflections from uncoated glass won't affect your images. 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: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
On 12 Feb 2003 at 8:26, Matt Greene wrote: > My comments were aimed at those who do not utilize > labs, but depend on their home setups to produce > "photos". Fair enough > I failed to say how much of a PITA home printing is, > even when you have calibrated your monitor/printer. I > don't even own a printer, not with a KINKO'S just 8 > drive-time minutes away. Exactly, anyone who needs to print volumes of work quickly would be foolish to consider home inkjet printing a viable option, I thought that would be a given. 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: End of K-mount?
On 12 Feb 2003 at 14:38, gfen wrote: > As for USM? Perhaps I'm missing the point of just what makes USM > special..I was under the impression that the biggest difference was that > there was a motor in each lens to focus, and not a motor in the body with > a screw... While there may be a patent for the Canon way of doing this, I > can't imagine it would be that difficult to come up with the same concept > in another manner and avoid the patent law? USM has many advantages including; compact and light, shape allows it to be fitted exactly where it is required to limit need for geared coupling, near silent operation, huge torque, easy to control, few moving parts, high reliability and low expense to manufacture. That's all, ie they were a very good idea. 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: of topic that grew out of Re: While were on tubes and flowers
My guess would be that what was offensive was not your observation that there may be many gay florists (although I fail to see how that was relevent to the thread). It was your "caution" (whether tongue-in-cheek or not) that a straight man should be careful entering a flower shop or flower warehouse, lest he be seduced. That was simply uncalled for. It's a clear implication that gay men are sex-crazed maniacs who can't control their base urges (unlike the straight population) - and that, to me, is offensive. Having gay relatives, and saying you don't hate gays is also irrelevent. In and of itself, it gives you no expertise on the matter, and it certainly doesn't give you carte blanche to make homophobic comments. And make no mistake, I'm not calling you homophobic, I'm saying your comments were homophobic - there's a difference. I don't understand what "Freedom of Speech" has to do with this issue. You are certainly are "Free" to say what you did, just as you are "Free" to be absolutely wrong. Since we, too, have freedom of speech, we have the freedom to respond to your comment... regards, frank Matt Greene wrote: > Instead of asking me, or not knowing how I feel about > Gays, you laid into me, labeling me a homophobia > hater. > How is that so many see and detect hate where none > exists? If a person uses *any* word or phrase (you > don't like) in context, are they always automatically > "haters"? If I spoke out against Bush would that make > me a "Liberal"? If I spoke out for women's rights > would you then call me a "Baby killer"? > Had I said Gays saturate the > high fashion/Ballet/dance/art world, (and they do), > would you have still said what you did? > If (when) a person doesn't toe *your* particular > political line, whatever that might be, are they > idiots... or worse? > My observation of Gays in the flower trade is > nevertheless still valid, no matter how you, in > particular, meant to denigrate me or my statement. > > In this country, famed for its so-called "Freedom of > Speech", no innocent statement, no contextural > conversation can be held these days wherein certain > words, even when used properly and without malice or > inference, can be, and often will be taken completely > out of context; > as you did mine. > > You might have been adult enough or intelligent enough > to respond differently, and without rancor-but you > didn't. > FYI: I have a Gay Grandson and Niece. > > Matt > I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! > > = > > Matt Greene > > I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
Boz wrote: > I believe that a company should have a strategic vision for the future. But they do > I see lenses as way more important that bodies. Some of us have > thousands (some have tens of thousands) of $ invested in K-mount glass, > and they hope to use it as long as they breathe. If one day (and I do > hope to live a few decades more) I cannot buy a new camera body that > supports my investment, then I will feel betrayed. Huh? This due to a couple of lenses, which are bottom of the barrel? Pentax have the best backwards compatibility in the industry and in spite of the fact that Pentax have constantly signalized that new cameras can use old lenses, some continue to whine for no reason in particular. > We live in fast and uncertain times, and I wish that Pentax would come > out and say if they want to play and where they will take the game. Huh? They have. In fact, I can't think of no other camera manufacturer who has stated what they want to do mor eclearly than Pentax. > I hope you are right. But I have this fear that Pentax might decide to > concentrate in the FAJ segment of the SLR market (because like you all > say, "this is where they make money"). But surely not more so than Canon does. They make even more money in this segment. > Canon earns its name with pro foto equipment and makes money with office > equipment. Pentax does not have a big partner to cover up the bills, so > they need to make money with each camera and lens that they release. > Now, guess which camera has a higher return on investment, the MZ-30 or > the MZ-S? Or an LX-AF? I don't think Canon subsidize their photo division with copy machines. If so, they must be an incredibly badly run business. They invest they money where they think they can get return. So does Pentax. > I have a dream! The dream was good
