date:20030323

- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
> accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate
as
> an ambient light meter.

Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an
incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I
must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use
spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using
the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to
maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more
accurate...
Regards
Artur

RE: photo stores in Lyon

2003-03-23 Thread Cyril MARION

Lukasz,
Phox is large shop, lots of new equipment; but when I was there last time
they had only 2 Pentax bodies (MZ3 and MZ5n) and no used Pentax equipment.
For used equipment it depends on arrivals... FNAC is very large shop.
My suggestion is that your friend, if he likes that,  takes a map of Lyon
and checks where alle the shops are; then he takes one of these nice spring
afternoons to visit  4 or 5 shops; one is never protected against good
surprises !
Cheers,
Cyril

> -Message d'origine-
> De : Lukasz Kacperczyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : samedi 22 mars 2003 18:20
> A : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: photo stores in Lyon
>
>
> Merci beaucoup, CYril :-)
>
> > It depends if your friend looks for used Pentax gear, or
> new equipment.
>
> And which stores are best for used and which for new equipment?
>
> > Here's a list
> > Bertorello's store is kind; they gave me a pentax poster
> during my last tr
> ip
> > to Lyon last october...
>
> Once again, thanks.
>
> Lukasz
>
> ---
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003
>

---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003

Re: Pentax<-->Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Camdir



I remember that one, Bruce. A manual focus EOS 1000, or Rebel in the US. Not entirely 
dissimilar in concept to the MZM - what is it that you folks call that one?

Peter


-- 
CAMERA DIRECT
8 DORSET STREET
BRIGHTON
EAST SUSSEX
BN2 1WA
UK
TEL 44 1273 681129
FAX 44 1273 681135
http://www.camera-direct.com

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

- Original Message -
From: "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

> >Btw, it's f4-5.6 which is slow, when everyone else has been offering
> >f3.3-4.5 for years.
>
> Oh dear 1/2 EV difference. Not enough to difference to complain about.
> I personally have never seen one switching systems because of 1/2 EV
> difference on one particular zoom. This is getting silly...

Not that I'm against Pentax (actually it's just the opposite and I consider
myself to be one of the strongest Pentax supporters), but I also don't
follow the Pentax path blindly and I'm aware of its (numerous) weaknesses.
The 1/2EV IS actually quite a difference. The speed of f/4-5,6 has always
been considered to be the sign of the amateur segment. The speed of f/2,8
has always been the sign of the pro segment (I'm reffering to the standard
zoom lenses now, of course) and the difference between both segments is ONLY
1EV. So the lenses 1/2EV slower from the pro ones are considered by many
users to be "semipro" or something. It is the big difference in terms of
psychology, marketing etc. Prices of those "middle-way" lenses also reflect
their superiority to the f/4-5,6 lenses - they are considerably more
expensive. Not to mention, that they are often equipped with IF, AL and
bayonet-mount hoods - three things the SMC FA 28-105/4-5,6 lacked. Yes, the
SMC FA 28-105/4-5,6 IF has IF and a hood, but remember that this is actually
the Tamron lens and, according to the KMP, it was introduced in 1999, i.e.
the same year the former lens was discontinued - which means it's a sort of
its successor.

> >Just remove the top & front cover and see for yourself. The metal mount
was
> >mounted onto a plastic structure. Don't be fooled by the metal mount.
>
> So you mean that Pentax is lying when they claim that the MZ-5n is based
> upon a stabilizing plattform of plastic? I can see metal in the film
> chamber, I can feel it too. I'm probably dreaming or maybe I have a very
> strange MZ-5n body...

I had never disassembled my MZ-5n... Is the camera's SKELETON made of
plastic or of metal? If it's made of plastic then the metal mount doesn't
make any serious advantage, because the whole SKELETON is unable to carry a
really heavy lens...
Regards
Artur

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Alan Chan

I had never disassembled my MZ-5n... Is the camera's SKELETON made of
plastic or of metal? If it's made of plastic then the metal mount doesn't
make any serious advantage, because the whole SKELETON is unable to carry a
really heavy lens...
Plastic, and some of us may still remember someone actually had a 
non-repairable MZ-5n because of that. What happened was that the camera was 
dropping from the tripod, but didn't hit the ground thanks to the strap 
which hang to the tripod. However, the weight of the lens (400/5.6?) pulled 
the mount off. The MZ-5n was certified dead by Pentax. The same would never 
happen to metal bodies.

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

SV: It's started!

For a moment, I thought you said: ist *D'ed !
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Steve Larson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:32
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: It's started!


We know it wasn`t meant in any detrimental way Bill.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message -
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: It's started!


> Thanks again, Bob.  My apologies to those who took my original message as
a
> political statement.  It CERTAINLY was not sent as such, only an attempt
to
> give a "heads up".
>
> Bill
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:29 AM
> Subject: Re: It's started!
>
>
> > Well, Ed, none of us were briefed on exactly when things would happen -
> > except possibly you of course. Now, Ed, some of us have jobs (you know,
> that
> > activity that some folks engage in so that they can eat, have roof over
> > their head, etc.), and many of us with jobs work in places where media
is
> > not continuously available on premises. This means that (believe it or
> not)
> > many would not have known that a major world event was taking place and
> > broadcast live. Thanks to Bill, we were alerted as to what was happening
> and
> > turned on a TV in our briefing/conference room to observe a little of
what
> > was happening. Thank you, Bill.
> >
> > I hope this helps, Ed.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob...
> > 
> > "Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying
> > the object which is abused.  Men can go wrong with wine
> > and women.  Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
> > -Martin Luther
> >
> > From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > > And whose head is so far in the sand that a 'heads up' is needed?
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> > > >From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > >Don't get your knickers ripped. He's just giving a "heads up" as to a
> > major
> > > >world event taking place now.
> > > >
> > > >From: "dick graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > > This is a very intense, emotional time for most of us, no matter
> which
> > > >side
> > > > > of this conflict we fall on.  Let's keep the war out of our
threads
> > and
> > > > > stick to the main subject that finds all of us inside this
"family".
> > > >That
> > > > > would be photography and in particular, Pentax photography.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 08:19 PM 3/21/03 +0200, some fool wrote:
> > > > > >piss off
> > > > > >From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone with access to CNN, go there now.  Baghdad is getting
> > > >creamed.
> >
>
>
>

SV: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

Right Arthur.
Offcource if you sue a tele lens, the caera meter will often do a better
job.
I once saw a broadcast about a project, where street children were
photographing with a
K1000 and an incident light meter. The shots were brilliant. Since then I
usen my Lunasix a lot.
Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. marts 2003 10:03
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon


- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon


These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
> accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate
as
> an ambient light meter.

Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an
incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I
must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use
spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using
the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to
maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more
accurate...
Regards
Artur

RE: mount q + 1000mm/f10 vs 600mm/f8

2003-03-23 Thread E. van Ginkel

The mount on the russian lens is sort of fixed T-2 adapter, if your are
talking about a MTO (The Rubinar has a fixed mount and can be bought in
K-mount, but has a lesser build quality). So you can change the mount with
some precision screwdrivers. Be aware the a 600 and a 1000mm are completely
different lenses and can't be compared with each other.
Making nice pictures with a 600mm is difficult. Making pictures with a
1000mm depends on the weatherconditions, when its hot you get trouble with
turbulence in the air. For a 600mm you need a sturdy tripod. For a 1000mm
you need an enormously heavy tripod(and therefor expensive), thats why
Pentax delivers the 1000mm takumar complete with a big and very expensive
tripod. Handholding a 1000mm is only for transportation not for
picturetaking.
Also you can't use camera's with prismahouses like the MZ-5n on a lot of
these lenses because of the size if the lens. An MTO is more forgiving than
a Rubinar which is a lot flatter. I couldn't fit a MZ5n to a Rubinar 1000
but could fit it to a MTO 1000mm
The tripodcollar on the rubinar 1000mm seems a nice feature, compared to the
fixed onces on the MTO, but there is to much play in it to be any good as a
tripodmount.
Another good option is a 5.6/500 rubinar, that one has a nice tripodcollar.
And can be used with a monopod.
Don't glue the adaptor to one of these lenses for mounting speed. Mounting
them on your camera will still be a slow and heavy job. You mount the camera
on the lens instead of the lens to the camera.
If this is your first extreme telelens than buy something in the 500/600
region and use a 2X convertor if you need the reach of the 1000.
I have the 8/500 and 10/1000 MTO and the 5.6/500 rubinar. They all have
there own purposes.
One other thing you need a camera with a good groundglass, because your
finder will be dark and there is no real depth of field with these
focalpoints.

René van Ginkel

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Levente -Levi- Littvay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zondag 23 maart 2003 7:09
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: mount q + 1000mm/f10 vs 600mm/f8


Which mirror lens would you get?

The Russian (Zenitar, MC or whatever...) 1000mm/f10 in M42 mount or the
Sigma 600mm/f8

I head that this 600mm Sigma is really more like an f11.  If that is
true I am better off with the f10 one.  But it is possible that the f10
is more like f16.

Also.  You think I could just simply superglue a K mount converter on
this?  I really want to put one on permanently, not having to deal with
taking the converter out all the time...

L

clever design

2003-03-23 Thread Alan Chan

I thought the latest Pentax hood with a hole for PL filter was an ok design, 
but this is way better.
http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/new/b01release.htm

Translate here:
http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Release Date for *ist D???

2003-03-23 Thread Thomas Stach



Mark Roberts schrieb:
> 
> Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >I've been away from the list for awhile.  Any news on
> >when the *ist D might be available to purchase?  Did I
> >see someone mention a July date?
> 
> First shipments are expected to arrive in the U.S. in late July or early
> August.
> 


Here,
in a shop in Germany they told me yesterday it would be august.


Thomas

Re: Complaints

From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:01:02 -0600 (CST)
There's more to a camera's AF system than speed and sensitivity, >though.
But speed and sensitivity are very important factors if we talk about AF 
*performance*. Low light sensitivity is a major drawback of the Canon 
system, because it must light the AF assist beam earlier and this drains 
batteries. Pentax can still focus when the Canon needs assist.

Pentax has the noisiest AF of the Big 4, and when the lens has trouble
locking on a subject the noise becomes very noticeable in quiet
situations.
The noise depends on the lenses.
My Sigma AF 24 f/2.8 is more noisy than the smooth sound of my FA 50 f/1.7. 
My 135 f/2.8 seems to be least noisy. If you are in a quiet situation and 
don't like the noise, then you can always focus manually. The shutter noise 
of my MZ-5n is low and smooth.

Also, until the MZ-6, entry-level Pentax bodies
"bodies"? Only the MZ-7 had 3-point, all others had a single point.

didn't even give you control over which focusing point was being >used.  
Even the MZ-6 (like the MZ-5n) only lets you select the center >point if 
you want control, otherwise the camera will choose one of the >three points 
for you.
Pro-photographers prefers center AF, because the AF gets more speedy this 
way. Multiple focusing points slows down AF operation. I finds a center 
sensor easier to operate. You forget that the MZ-5 entered the market at the 
same time as Dynax 606 Classic. This one had also only a 3-point AF system, 
just as Dynax 808. It was very well received in it's days. The MZ-5/5n is 
the oldest body in it's category, but it's also the most unique one. It's 
the only one left with a retro approach, and this alone makes it an 
excellent buy. The MZ-3 was awarded "top class" by the swedish magazine 
FOTO. Now "top class" means that the camera is one of the best on the 
market, regardless of the selling price. They liked the AF performance a 
lot.

When Practical Photography tested the MZ-3 against F80, Dynax 808 and EOS 
30/33 (february 2002), they didn't found the AF to be inferior to the 
competition.

Canon's focusing may be slightly slower than Pentax (though their USM
lenses are quite fast)
The USM lenses isn't fast on Canon's entry level bodies. And the difference 
is more than "slightly".

Personally, I can't see how the option of having several AF sensors is about 
AF performance. Performance is how the AF system *performs*, not how easy it 
is to select different AF sensors.

Anyway, I guess that you're thrilled by the fact that Pentax has developed 
an even faster AF system with 11 sensors, all of them can be user 
selectable. And Pentax uses more cross sensors than the competition. Now, 
isn't this *nice*?

Instead of complaining about what Pentax hadn't done in the past, can we 
focus on what they're doing? Obviously, Pentax has listened to you and 
tailor made an AF system - just for you. Isn't this fantastic? Shouldn't 
they be praised for this?

Best wishes,
Roland
_
Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp & Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:08:17 -0500
BTW, Mr. Spock is a fictional character. Your grasp on reality seems to be 
a bit tenuous.
Is he? I thought you were.

:-)

Best wishes,
Roland
_
Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Bojidar Dimitrov

Hi Alin,

In general you are correct, and these are my biggest gripes with Canon
too, along with the crummy viewfinders (theoretically, in practice they
work at least as well as the 5n).

>   - everything from lenses to bodies is almost twice as big and heavy
> than equivalent Pentax (entry level aside);

Herally yes.  But the 70-200/4 is only 15 gam heavier and 9 mm longer
than the A70-210/4.  And the A zoom is the one that I've been carrying
around in the pastfew years.  So the weight and size difference was
worth it to me, at least in this case.  The new EOS 300V (Revel Ti) is
smaller than the 5n, and has a few extra features that I like.

>   - EF zooms and even L lenses flare like hell (truly I can't
> understand how a company technologically committed can effectively
> disdain quality MC);

I have read this, and I believe it (sad for Canon).  The only lenses
that I have compared side by side are the 24-85 and 24-90 as well as the
K85/1.8 with the 85/1.8 USM.  In the first case I saw no real
differences, in the second case Canon was better.  But I consider the
K85/1.8 to have the worst coating of any SMC lens.

In general you are probably right...

>   - no spot meter on mid level bodies (to me spot is crucial, and much
> as I like the EOS-30, the lack of true spot cut my appeal for it)

Yes, you are right, but I personally use the spot meter relatively
rarely.  If I'm not sure, I take an extra shot.  And I will probably be
OK with 9.5% "partial meter".

Thank you for the way in which you participate in this discussion!

Cheers,
Boz

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Bojidar Dimitrov

Hi,

> Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb:
> 
>  >I hope that Arnold will tell you a story about his FA 135/2.8.

Arnold Stark wrote:
> 
> It IS built like a tank. Execpt for two unfortunate details: The
> lens is easily scratched on the barrel, and the focusing ring is
> much more loose than on other FA primes.

Actually, the story I was hoping for is:

Arnold puts an FA135/2.8 for sale on eBay.  They buyer returns it
because it is "loose like hell".  Arnold shows me the lens and asks for
my honest opinion.  We both agree that it has the same look and feel
like a new FA 135/2.8.

Cheers,
Boz

PS: I have owned an FA 100/2.8 Macro, and it felt the same way.  The FA
24-90/3.5-4.5 and FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 feel thes ame, but they are plastic,
so altogether they are even worse...

WTB: Black MG rewind knob

2003-03-23 Thread Ken Archer

The subject says it all.  Thanks.
-- 
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
"Business Is Going To The Dogs"

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

- Original Message -
From: "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

> Pentax lenses are, by tradition, small and compact.
> It's expensive to make small lenses with large apertures, but Pentax has
> done better here than the competiton. Pentax 28 to 50mm lenses has a 49mm
> filter thread (Nikon has 52mm). The Pentax 28-105 f/4-5.6 used 58mm and
the
> 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 uses 58mm also (and it has IF and a hood).

Have you seen the new Minolta 24-105/3,5-4,5 AL IF D? That's quite a compact
lens, has very useful focal range and excellent sharpness. Mount it on a
Dynax 7 and you'll get a very light and capable kit, smaller and more
ergonomical than many Pentax kits... Actually the only Pentax kit that
matches it in terms of combination of weight, ergonomy and features is IMHO
the MZ-S + SMC FA 24-90/3,5-4,5 (I mean only AF bodies of course). And while
both lenses are made of plastic, the Minolta zoom is IMHO more solid than
both FA 28-105 and 24-90 (at least that's my impression)

 I guess it took
> time for Pentax to make the most compact 28-105 on the market with such a
> wide aperture. Nikon's 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 uses a 65mm filter thread, the "el
> cheapo and plastique le chic" 28-100 'G' uses 62mm. Nikon's 28-70 f/2.8
uses
> 77mm filter thread, Pentax 28-70 f/2.8 uses 67mm.

C'mon, don't tell me it takes years to make a 1/2EV faster lens while
maintaining the same filter thread. If so, that's either because of
inability to maintain competitive production level or because of poor
analysis of the market demands.

Now, it is important for
> Pentax to make compact lenses with small filter threads. It's hard to make
> them with a wide aperture too, but - again - Pentax has done this better
> than the competition. Nikon and Canon doesn't care about making compact
> lenses, but Pentax do. Small size and low weight are key values for
Pentax,
> and also by many Pentax photographers.

I agree that small size is one of the important values. However, it's much
more about the weight of a lens than of its filter thread diameter - the
latter has never been a factor of any importance for me, as well as any
person I know (not just Pentaxians), when deciding what lenses to buy...
Weight, on the other hand, has been such a factor, although the most
decisive one is always the price-to-sharpness ratio.

> How do you know that? Have you ever heard of a MZ-5n breaking into pieces
> because of the lens in use? I have not. I haven't even heard such a thing
> about Canon's all-plastic entry level bodies...

No I haven't, although I remember my fear of it, when I mounted an old m42
300/4 lens (Sonnar, I guess...) on my MZ-5n

> Anyway, according to Pentax - the bottom plattern of the MZ-5n is metal
> (underneath the plastic cover). Pentax refers the skeleton has a "hybrid"
of
> plastic and metal. That is - both metal and plastic is used, but metal is
> used in the most important places.

A chain is as strong as its weakest link...
Regards
Artur

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Mark Cassino

Yes - when you watch the camera meter move the setting all over the place, 
and then realize that you are just looking at different things in the same 
light, it becomes apparent that evaluative metering systems really can't do 
it.  Aside from an incident meter (I should of used the correct term) just 
carrying a gray card and metering off it does fine.

That's not to say that I don't use evaluative metering - one of the things 
I really like about the Mz-S is that with a quick flick of a switch you can 
see the exposures as set by evaluative, spot, and center weighted metering, 
and you can better understand what's going on.  While one metering system 
may be more accurate in some circumstances than another, the degree of 
difference is pretty negligible.  The whole idea of marketing is to

What really impressed me was when I learned about the zone system in a 
class last year - not only in terms of determining exposure, but also in 
terms of integrating over or under development of the film into the 
exposure system.  The fullness and accuracy of the system was a real eye 
opener - so far beyond something that one could expect a camera and a 
computer chip to do.

- MCC

At 10:03 AM 3/23/2003 +0100, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
> accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate
as
> an ambient light meter.
Absolutely! This is what I'm going to do in the nearest future - get an
incident light meter, exactly due to the reason you've stated. Actually I
must say, that I tend to use matrix metering less and less. I prefer to use
spot metering+ML button (with my Z-1p) and I'm perfectly happy when using
the SuperA with its c/w metering. But the incident light meter allows me to
maintain total control over exposure and its readings are incomparably more
accurate...
Regards
Artur
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread brooksdj

Mark. This is one thing i never really had a handle on,up until 2 years or so ago. 
Having
read many 
posts on the subject in those 2 years, made me realize how much i did NOT know about
taking good 
pictures.Now that i understand light/metering better,i am taking better 
pictures(IMHO)
I too carry 
an ambient meter and now a spot as well.However now i seem to spend more time looking
through 
meters than the camera. LOL
Having proved to myself the metering differences in the camera and ambient i can now 
carry
on 
trusting these readings and my own judgments.(I did this over the winter by taking one
shot metered 
by camera and one by external meter.The difference is quite visibile)
Thanks to all who have helped in this matter over the years.

Dave 

> Mark Cassino wrote:(snipped)
> 
> > I take a lot of photos.  Most of them suck.  Some are OK and once or twice
> > a year I take one that seems to be good.
> >
> > Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5.  We were
> > heading out to a lighthouse that was covered in ice - black steel, white
> > ice, overcast sky.  When we arrived I made some comments - mostly thinking
> > out loud - about how to best meter for the situation.  My friend just
> > laughed and told me that his F5's metering was so great that he did not
> > need to worry about stuff like that.  I wound up taking a spot meter
> > reading off of a surface that looked to be 18% grey, and based my overall
> > meter readings on that.  My friend did not have to worry about that - he
> > was free to just shoot away and trust his camera to get it right.  But at
> > the end of the day, his shots were totally screwed up, mine were right
> > on.  Reflecting on it, I realize that the idea that not thinking about the
> > correct exposure somehow liberates one to focus on composition is
> > absolutely absurd.  I mean, as a photographer, if you are not thinking
> > about light, what *are* you thinking about?  These days I carry an ambient
> > light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
> > accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate as
> > an ambient light meter.  Understanding light - a goal I hope to achieve
> > some day - would be a far greater advantage than anything you can  buy in a
> > camera system.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > Mark Cassino
> > Kalamazoo, MI
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> > Photos:
> > http://www.markcassino.com
> > - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> --
> "Honour - that virtue of the unjust!"
> -Albert Camus
> 
>

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Butch Black

Paul wrote:
Excellent post, Mark. I enjoyed it thoroughly. But one of your
statements is an absolute falsehood. You wrote:

>
> I take a lot of photos.  Most of them suck.  Some are OK and once or twice
> a year I take one that seems to be good.

I agree with Paul. I think your post explains why you often times come up
with these breathtaking photos. You are always looking to improve both your
work and your knowledge of photography.

Your F-5 story reminds me of a boss I had at Ritz camera. He had the F-5 and
the expensive lenses. By his own admission he knew little if anything of the
mechanics of photography, and his work showed it, but he bought the f-5 for
the superior metering.

Your post has one other positive effect. I think I'm going to start using my
handheld meter more often.

BUTCH

Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.

Hermann Hess (Damien)

Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread David R Spaulding

Here's a little one-question quiz -

What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far as I know, 
no other brand of film SLR has?

Hint: It has to do with exposure

Hope this isn't too easy! :)

---
David Spaulding
Photographer








_
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]

David R Spaulding asked:
> Here's a little one-question quiz -
>
> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have 
> that, as far as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure

Is it the "hyper" modes, or do other brands have something
similar?  That's all I can think of, though I haven't used
anything more recent than the Super Program myself.

The only other thing that leaps immediately to mind as uncommon 
is the during-the-exposure metering of the Pentax LX and the 
Olympus OM series.  But that doesn't meet either condition of
your quiz.

-- Glenn

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Arnold Stark

Bojidar Dimitrov schrieb:

Actually, the story I was hoping for is:

Arnold puts an FA135/2.8 for sale on eBay. They buyer returns it because it is "loose like hell". Arnold shows me the lens and asks for my honest opinion. We both agree that it has the same look and feel like a new FA 135/2.8.

This all refers to the focusing ring, only. I agree with the buyer that
the looseness of the focusing ring is surprising, but the lens is built
in this way toachieve fast AF speed. I have no doubt that this lens
focuses faster than any Canon 135mm lens ;-)

PS: I have owned an FA 100/2.8 Macro, and it felt the same way.

I have had such a lens, too, and it felt definietly much less loose than
the FA135/f2.8. However, both the focusing rings of the F100/f2.8 and of
the F135/f2.8 are not loose - that is why I prefer these lenses. The
F100/f2.8 has now clamp screw beacuse it does not need one!

The FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 and FA 80-320/4.5-5.6 feel thes ame, but they are plastic, so altogether they are even worse...

I was particularly suprised by the mediocre build quality of the FA24-90
- a lans that expensive shoud have better built. At half the price, the
build quality of the FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 is forgivable. The build quallity
of zooms like the F28-80/f3.5-4.5, F35-105/f4-5.6 and F70-210/f4-5.6 is
much better, so if you want such quality, there are still options to
choose from - though the F28-80/f3.5-4.5 is hard to get. Obviously the
people who own it stick to it

Arnold

Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon

- Original Message -
From: "Greene"
Subject: Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon

> But then, that should not matter in actaul strength of
> the bodies in question, because the Army's Abrams Main
> Battle Tank,  is literally filled with, and
made partly of,
> plastics!

By applying by the same standard, my Tachihara should be as strong as a
house, since both are made from wood, or that my LX should be as tough as a
bank vault because they are both built from metal.
How a tank is built has nothing to do with how a camera is built.

William Robb

Vs: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Raimo Korhonen

Thank you Cotty (and Mark) for reminding us what this is all about.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 23. maaliskuuta 2003 14:47
Aihe: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon


>Okay, now that I've calmed down, and read past the first paragraph (and
>commented thereupon in another post ), I have to congratulate you, Mark, for
>an excellent post.
>
>In a much more modest way, taking far fewer shots than I'm sure you do (I
>shoot, on average a roll or two a week), I try to improve what I do each time
>out.  I try to learn from my mistakes, often re-shoot subjects when the
>opportunity presents itself, try to improve my compositiion, learn what the
>light's doing, and how I should react to it.  It's been a long, slow process,
>but it's a large part of the fun (and frustration ) of this hobby of mine -
>and I know I have a long way to go.
>
>As many know here, my equipment is much more modest than yours (and many on
>this list);  as much as I might like to have a few more things, I must say that
>I'm more or less satisfied with what I have in terms of satisfying my present
>needs.  I use exclusively manual focus, mechanical shuttered gear (except for
>my Yashica Electro 35 and Minolta HiMatic F - both very old cameras).  There
>are ~very few~ times that I'll critique one of my shots, and say, "If I had
>another piece of gear, I'd have been able to nail that one!".  Invariably, it's
>"I didn't catch the light just right", or "I didn't notice those shadows", or
>"A slightly different angle/perspective would have worked better".  Never, "A
>N with auto-focus would have gotten a better result".
>
>I have a few friends who have much newer, more expensive equipment.  They use
>their auto-focus gear as point and shoots.  They take snapshots, and their work
>shows it.
>
>I could probably take pretty much the same stuff I do now with many other
>systems.  As much as I love my Pentaxes, it really is the photographer behind
>the viewfinder that takes the shot.
>
>That's not to say that I take issue with those who say that C or N have
>better auto-focus, or quieter bodies, or better exposure systems - that may or
>may not be true.  I just wonder if switching systems will make anyone a better
>photographer, or improve their images significantly.
>
>Again, Mark, thanks for a wonderful, well thought out commentary.
>
>cheers,
>frank
>
>Mark Cassino wrote:
>
>> I take a lot of photos.  Most of them suck.  Some are OK and once or twice
>> a year I take one that seems to be good.
>>
>> The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this
>> equation strikes me as utterly absurd.  The failure is always within me - I
>> don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the
>> presence of mind to make the obvious decisions.  To me, each and every
>> unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and
>> learn more.  So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I
>> scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what
>> shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be
>> achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this
>> lens or that, would just be a distraction.  It would be easier and less
>> challenging - but it would accomplish nothing.
>>
>> My Pentax system has served me very well. I have lenses to cover 14mm to
>> 800mm**, and everything in between. I can count the items I bought new on
>> my fingers and had no problem finding or buying things off ebay,
>> KEH,  Cameta, or other used photo outlets.
>>
>> ** (The 800mm is an A* 400 f2.8 and matching Smc-2x-L teleconverter.)
>>
>> I use my gear in pretty demanding circumstances and aside from my used LX,
>> nothing has had any problems.  Just to put that in perspective - I carry
>> three bodies in my standard kit, another when I take the birding /
>> telephoto kit, and have 4 more k mount bodies in reserve. I shoot in rain,
>> fog, snow, mud, - it's not like I'm in a war zone but I give the cameras a
>> good workout. They have nicks and scratches, but have held up just fine.
>>
>> I have no problems with the Pentax system.  The only feature that I would
>> like to see is image stabilization, which might be useful for a few shots.
>> Otherwise, the AF in the Mz-S is spot on. USM would be nice and quiet, but
>> doesn't seem to be that significant.  (If you really need quiet, use a
>> rangefinder.)  With the Pentax system I have mirror lock up in the bodies I
>> use most often (Mz-S, Pz-1p, LX), a low light metering system that simply
>> cannot be beat (LX), and cool lenses that offer great creative
>> opportunities (F-17-28 fisheye, Rikenon 55mm f1.2, Kiron 104 f2.8, and
>> Takumar 500 f4.5).  Pentax AF bodies also offer trap focus, which I find to

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Evan Hanson

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:58:27 +0100, Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
I recently bought one of these for my sister-in-law.  It's a super-sharp 
super-cheap lens.  I would say it's a least as sharp as my 50M 1.7.  If you 
have an EOS you can do lots worse than this lens.

Evan


This would be the version II of the 50/1.8.  Same optics, new mechanics,
and much cheaper, from what I hear.  I have version I (metal mount,
focusing ring in the middle), and it feels more solid than an A-series
Pentax lens.

Well, yes and no.  Version II weighs only 130 gram, so it probybly does
not require a metal mount.  Futhermore, it seems that Canon wanted to
boast with the low weight, so they used plastic.  The idea seems similar
to Pentax's idea to make the *ist the world's smalest and lightest SLR,
so they left the aperture mechanics out.
Cheers,
Boz





--
Evan Hanson

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Bruce Dayton

Same here.  I have owned and used Practica (first SLR), Canon,
Olympus, Nikon and Pentax.  Price is not the issue.  Feel, size,
interface and SMC glass are issues.  There are a few situations where
more technology is helpful, but for what I do, not many.  Pentax
technology has been adequate in those situations for me.  I have
ridden out the dissatisfaction storms on the list many times.  During
a storm, I get a little worked up and start to question a bit, but
find that once I calm down and really examine what I am doing and
need, that Pentax is just fine.

Presently I am shooting an MX and 67II - having recently sold my 2
MZ-S bodies.  All my glass is FA for 35mm so I don't have the issue
with the *is that many do.  I had planned on picking one up when it is
released and will look closely at doing so.

I am probably not typical because I have purchased most of my
equipment new and have used both old and new bodies with enjoyment
from both styles.

Bruce

Saturday, March 22, 2003, 12:36:04 PM, you wrote:

SH> I know that is not true for me Bruce. When I started using Pentax I had used
SH> and given up on Nikon and then Olympus (inconsistent metering, frequent
SH> expensive repairs to recalibrate), Canon seemed gimmicky, Minolta seemed
SH> primitive, Pentax seemed easy to use and had a good reputation. When I
SH> resumed photography after a few years lapse, I bought an AF body and stuck
SH> with Pentax because I remembered my Nikon experience, Canon seemed gimmicky
SH> and complicated, Minolta seemed primitive, and the PZ-1p not only looked
SH> nice and felt good but also allowed me to use my old lenses. A minor bonus,
SH> but still important. I never asked the price on any of the cameras along the
SH> way, it just was not a factor.

SH> Stan

SH> on 3/22/03 1:52 PM, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> For all but a handful of people here, cost is the first 3 reasons for
>> Pentax.
>> 
>> BR
>> 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> For me it is cost at the moment.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>

Vs: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Raimo Korhonen

Well, I am quite sure that the Canon EOS 1v is strong enough to merit to be called 
built like a tank. I think that it actually is stronger than the all metal Nikon F5.
As to the lenses I think that Canon has been working quite hard to improve their very 
top of the line lenses. I just got the latest newsletter from the renowned Leica 
expert Erwin Puts and in it he compared the Canon and Leica lens lines and found out 
that many lenses are indeed of comparable quality. This can also be seen in the 
PopPhoto lens tests as well, 1.4/35 mm lenses from Canon and Leica are for all 
practical purposes equal.
This is something that Nikon has not been doing.
What about Pentax, then? I think Pentax is not competing in this game, excluding 
perhaps the Limiteds. Pentax makes very good lenses in the category just below the 
very top - Nikon level, that is.
I would really like to see a wooden SLR from Tachihara - built like a house ;-)
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Päivä: 23. maaliskuuta 2003 18:53
Aihe: Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon


>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Greene"
>Subject: Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon
>
>> But then, that should not matter in actaul strength of
>> the bodies in question, because the Army's Abrams Main
>> Battle Tank,  is literally filled with, and
>made partly of,
>> plastics!
>
>By applying by the same standard, my Tachihara should be as strong as a
>house, since both are made from wood, or that my LX should be as tough as a
>bank vault because they are both built from metal.
>How a tank is built has nothing to do with how a camera is built.
>
>William Robb
>

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread Taz

Well me thinks it must either be the hyper adjustment button from manual
modes or the ability to change the EV adjustment to different rates of
adjustment(ie .3 or .5)  But then I have had a canon or nikon so I'm
probably wrong.


> Here's a little one-question quiz -
>
> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure
>
> Hope this isn't too easy! :)
>
> ---
> David Spaulding
> Photographer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
> http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
>
>

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread Taz

Whoopsmeant to say I have NEVER has a canon or nikon.


> Well me thinks it must either be the hyper adjustment button from manual
> modes or the ability to change the EV adjustment to different rates of
> adjustment(ie .3 or .5)  But then I have had a canon or nikon so I'm
> probably wrong.
>
>
> > Here's a little one-question quiz -
> >
> > What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as
far
> as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
> >
> > Hint: It has to do with exposure
> >
> > Hope this isn't too easy! :)
> >
> > ---
> > David Spaulding
> > Photographer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
> > http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus
> >
> >
>
>
>

RE: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Malcolm Smith

William Robb wrote:

> How a tank is built has nothing to do with how a camera is built.

Just as well! We have had special edition LXs and nice snakeskin covered
LXs. If they made them like tanks, who would want a 55kg camera around your
neck?

Malcolm - constructional comment only

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Bruce Dayton

Alan,

Having owned both the FA 135 and FA 100 macro - I agree with the
focusing ring on the 135, but not on the 100.  I think there are
multiple aspects to nice manual focus with an AF lens.  One is
sloppiness/loosness, another is tactile feel (dampening) and the other
is the throw or amount of turn to focus.  On the FA 135, the ring is a
bit loose and there is little dampening and there is very little throw
amount.  This makes for a clumsy manual focusing lens.

The FA 100/2.8 macro is quite different.  The ring is wider, there is
much less looseness, the dampening can be adjusted and the amount of
throw is much greater.  I wouldn't classify these two lenses together.

I have since sold my FA 135 but kept my FA 100 macro in my thinning
down process.

Bruce

Saturday, March 22, 2003, 3:23:09 PM, you wrote:

>>It IS built like a tank. Execpt for two unfortunate details: The lens is 
>>easily scratched on the barrel, and the focusing ring is much more loose 
>>than on other FA primes. I like the F135/f2.8 better. The optical quality, 
>>however, is superb.

AC> Unfortunately, Pentax "cheated" on the mechanical design of the FA135/2.8 in 
AC> order to achieve faster AF speed. So to the FA100/2.8.

AC> regards,
AC> Alan Chan

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

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Kenneth Waller

Well stated Mark.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Snip, snip, snip

> I take a lot of photos.  Most of them suck.  Some are OK and once or twice
> a year I take one that seems to be good.
>
> The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this
> equation strikes me as utterly absurd.  The failure is always within me -
I
> don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have the
> presence of mind to make the obvious decisions.  To me, each and every
> unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into myself and
> learn more.  So I spend time in the library learning about my subject, I
> scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I try to imagine what
> shot will actually express what a want to say and how that could be
> achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new camera system, or this
> lens or that, would just be a distraction.  It would be easier and less
> challenging - but it would accomplish nothing.
>
> My Pentax system has served me very well. I have lenses to cover 14mm to
> 800mm**, and everything in between. I can count the items I bought new on
> my fingers and had no problem finding or buying things off ebay,
> KEH,  Cameta, or other used photo outlets.
>
> ** (The 800mm is an A* 400 f2.8 and matching Smc-2x-L teleconverter.)
>
> I use my gear in pretty demanding circumstances and aside from my used LX,
> nothing has had any problems.  Just to put that in perspective - I carry
> three bodies in my standard kit, another when I take the birding /
> telephoto kit, and have 4 more k mount bodies in reserve. I shoot in rain,
> fog, snow, mud, - it's not like I'm in a war zone but I give the cameras a
> good workout. They have nicks and scratches, but have held up just fine.
>
> I have no problems with the Pentax system.  The only feature that I would
> like to see is image stabilization, which might be useful for a few shots.
> Otherwise, the AF in the Mz-S is spot on. USM would be nice and quiet, but
> doesn't seem to be that significant.  (If you really need quiet, use a
> rangefinder.)  With the Pentax system I have mirror lock up in the bodies
I
> use most often (Mz-S, Pz-1p, LX), a low light metering system that simply
> cannot be beat (LX), and cool lenses that offer great creative
> opportunities (F-17-28 fisheye, Rikenon 55mm f1.2, Kiron 104 f2.8, and
> Takumar 500 f4.5).  Pentax AF bodies also offer trap focus, which I find
to
> be an invaluable tool.
>
> Some time ago I went shooting with a friend who uses a Nikon F5.  We were
> heading out to a lighthouse that was covered in ice - black steel, white
> ice, overcast sky.  When we arrived I made some comments - mostly thinking
> out loud - about how to best meter for the situation.  My friend just
> laughed and told me that his F5's metering was so great that he did not
> need to worry about stuff like that.  I wound up taking a spot meter
> reading off of a surface that looked to be 18% grey, and based my overall
> meter readings on that.  My friend did not have to worry about that - he
> was free to just shoot away and trust his camera to get it right.  But at
> the end of the day, his shots were totally screwed up, mine were right
> on.  Reflecting on it, I realize that the idea that not thinking about the
> correct exposure somehow liberates one to focus on composition is
> absolutely absurd.  I mean, as a photographer, if you are not thinking
> about light, what *are* you thinking about?  These days I carry an ambient
> light meter with me at all times.  That's not because Pentax can't meter
> accurately. That's because no reflective light meter will be as accurate
as
> an ambient light meter.  Understanding light - a goal I hope to achieve
> some day - would be a far greater advantage than anything you can  buy in
a
> camera system.
>
> One of the things I really value about Pentax is that they never mislead
> me.  My Pentax cameras are quality products with the essential features I
> needed, but I was never conned into the shallow thought that the camera
was
> somehow going to do it for me.
>
> So I think your plan is right on.  Look into yourself and stretch your
> understanding and your vision. Spend your money on film and trips to the
> locations you want to shoot. Develop your own style, get unique shots, and
> do it with your Pentax gear.  If you understand light, if you have vision,
> if you have a relationship with your subject, then camera brand is
> irrelevant.
>
> If you lack understanding, then dickering around about camera specs is as
> good a diversion as any other.  Snapshots taken with the latest and
> greasiest camera system would probably be really good (for snapshots.)
>
> - MCC
>
>
> PS: In the digital realm, while I love digital photography and figure that
> film will die before I do, today's high end camera remind me of the 286
and
> 386 computers of the mid 80's.  They seemed real impressive at the t

SV: Little Pentax quiz

Hi David
Probably the Panorama Function - cutting top an buttom off the picture while
focusing.
Or - it could be: The Power Zoom (Minolta had it for a while, though) and
functions related to Power Zoom.
Regards
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: David R Spaulding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. marts 2003 18:16
Til: pentax
Emne: Little Pentax quiz


Here's a little one-question quiz -

What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far as
I know, no other brand of film SLR has?

Hint: It has to do with exposure

Hope this isn't too easy! :)

---
David Spaulding
Photographer








_
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Boris Liberman

HI!

PJ> From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland & Alan,
PJ> why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
PJ> good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
PJ> are making arguements against it.

PJ> For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
PJ> my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
PJ> in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new
PJ> system that may not improve my photography hugely
PJ> (though this will change I'm sure).

PJ> Any thoughts?

It wasn't cost for me. I had my budget and one way or another I was
going to spend it. It was partially backwards compatibility and
partially (laugh and/or point you fingers at me all you want) it was
the comparison of PDF booklets for MZ-5n/MZ-6/Nikon F-80. My wife and
I really liked Pentax ergonomics versus that of Nikon. Also my friend
who convinced me to buy 50 mm lens (thanks, thanks, thanks to him) has
Nikon N-70 - very unusual camera to operate.

In my position the choice hasd little meaning - anything I'd buy would
take pictures way better than I was taking ever before.

In fact, I find all this talk about Pentax vs Canon because Bojidar
decided to make Canon his main tool rather strange. Everyone has their
needs and buys equipment accordingly.

Later I "met" penta-club forums (Russian spoken) and PDML. Naturally
being able to talk with fellow Pentax users is great. Though I am
certain there're Canon and Nikon forums of one design or another.

Anyway, it boils down to this: my choice was pretty much random but
really don't regret it. Furthermore, if I had to do it all over again
with the experience I have at the moment, I'd buy couple of ME Supers,
one 50 mm, one 28 mm, and one 135 mm prime lenses of any reasonable
flavor. Then I'd add some regular zoom just for some flexibility in
weight. The rest would have been spent on film and practice.

Now you have my cents.

---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625

Re: Little Pentax quiz

- Original Message -
From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Little Pentax quiz


> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure

Snap-in Focus?
Regards
Artur

SV: Little Pentax quiz

Maybe it's the feature I love the best: The HYP function (PZ1 and PZ1p) and
AFAIR the *ist. It makes you shoift form Av (or program) to Tv in split
second - brilliant, isn't it?

Regards
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 23. marts 2003 19:59
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Little Pentax quiz


- Original Message -
From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Little Pentax quiz


> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure

Snap-in Focus?
Regards
Artur

Russian tilt/shift 35mm

2003-03-23 Thread Clive Evans

Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><

These are listed on ebay just put tilt/shift and photography into search
and you'll get one that says nikon/minolta mount, he does it in K too!
About  USD 400 i think, therew's also a shift version aroundcat about USD
220.
OK?
Clive
Antibes

Is this what you want for Christmas?

2003-03-23 Thread collinb

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2915345991&category=30063

Not that I'd turn it down, mind you...

Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Gregory L. Hansen

Roland Mabo said:

> >From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:19:41 -0500
> >
> >So your friend doesn't know how to use the camera, and you blame the camera
> >for not working right.
>
> Canon has an over-complicated user interface which badly affects the
> creativity of the photographer.

I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and Apple's Macintosh
computer.  Mac has the low market share, Pentax has the low market share.
Mac users sometimes fret about availability of software, Pentax users
sometimes fret about availability of lenses, third-party flash units with
all the whistles and bells (e.g. high speed synch on something besides
the 360).  Windows proponents brag about higher clock speeds of x86
chips, Canon proponents brag about IS and USM.  An arguing point among
Mac users is the user interface, an arguing point among Pentax proponents
is the user interface.  Windows users come to Mac groups trying to
convince the remaining 3% of the computing population to switch to
Windows, Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and tries to convince Pentax
users to switch to Canon.

Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Dag T

På søndag, 23. mars 2003, kl. 06:36, skrev Mark Cassino:

At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new
system that may not improve my photography hugely
(though this will change I'm sure).
Any thoughts?
I take a lot of photos.  Most of them suck.  Some are OK and once or 
twice a year I take one that seems to be good.

The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow change this 
equation strikes me as utterly absurd.  The failure is always within 
me - I don't SEE, I look at the object but not the light, I don't have 
the presence of mind to make the obvious decisions.  To me, each and 
every unsatisfactory photo is a kick in that ass to dig deeper into 
myself and learn more.  So I spend time in the library learning about 
my subject, I scout out locations and plan shots more vigorously, I 
try to imagine what shot will actually express what a want to say and 
how that could be achieved. Putting my energies into getting a new 
camera system, or this lens or that, would just be a distraction.  It 
would be easier and less challenging - but it would accomplish > nothing.

I find several good points here, the camera system is, after all, just 
a tool.  I don´t think the trademark on the camera has much influence 
over a good photographer.  Most of the worlds greatest photographs have 
been made using cameras without any automatic features.

Why we use Pentax is a difficult question.  For my part, it simply 
because my father had this nice screw mount Pentax 135mm 2.5 with a K 
adapter, and I could borrow it if I bought a Pentax.  I´ve continued 
using it because they never failed, though rain or snow, in rain 
forests or during week-long expeditions tenting in the Norwegian 
mountains with temperatures down to -20 C.  Also, after more than 20 
years I guess I´ve adapted to their way of thinking.  It´s convenient, 
I don´t have to think much to get the pictures I want.  As a result I 
like the equipment they make.

Why should anybody want to change?  Maybe Pentax have their 
disadvantages, but I´m lazy, I think the others have different problems 
and I don´t want to have to think to much about technical things when 
taking pictures.

I stick to the devil I know.

Also, I guess I should say Hello!

I´m new here, although I´ve been watching the archives for some time.  
Jostein Øksne convinced me last week that I should subscribe.  So I 
guess you´ve got one more Norwegian here :-)

Dag Thrane

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Brendan

Yup sounds familiar

 --- "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Mabo said:
> 
> > >From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:19:41 -0500
> > >
> > >So your friend doesn't know how to use the
> camera, and you blame the camera
> > >for not working right.
> >
> > Canon has an over-complicated user interface which
> badly affects the
> > creativity of the photographer.
> 
> I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and
> Apple's Macintosh
> computer.  Mac has the low market share, Pentax has
> the low market share.
> Mac users sometimes fret about availability of
> software, Pentax users
> sometimes fret about availability of lenses,
> third-party flash units with
> all the whistles and bells (e.g. high speed synch on
> something besides
> the 360).  Windows proponents brag about higher
> clock speeds of x86
> chips, Canon proponents brag about IS and USM.  An
> arguing point among
> Mac users is the user interface, an arguing point
> among Pentax proponents
> is the user interface.  Windows users come to Mac
> groups trying to
> convince the remaining 3% of the computing
> population to switch to
> Windows, Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and
> tries to convince Pentax
> users to switch to Canon.
>  

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

Re: SV: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread ernreed2

> - Original Message -
> From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Little Pentax quiz
> 
> 
> > What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
> as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
> >
> > Hint: It has to do with exposure

I think perhaps you mean the HyperMANUAL program, as found on the PZ-1 and PZ-
1p. (Hyper Program, mentioned by others, is pretty much "shiftable program", 
which I believe is not unique.) In Hyper Manual you can set the program 
exposure with the push of a single (IF) button without *leaving* Manual mode. 
It is also, effectively, an autoexposure memory lock with no time limit as well 
as the fastest way I know of to get from full manual to full program-
autoexposure.

Re: SV: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread ernreed2

> - Original Message -
> From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Little Pentax quiz
> 
> 
> > What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
> as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
> >
> > Hint: It has to do with exposure

I think perhaps you mean the HyperMANUAL program, as found on the PZ-1 and PZ-
1p. (Hyper Program, mentioned by others, is pretty much "shiftable program", 
which I believe is not unique.) In Hyper Manual you can set the program 
exposure with the push of a single (IF) button without *leaving* Manual mode. 
It is also, effectively, an autoexposure memory lock with no time limit as well 
as the fastest way I know of to get from full manual to full program-
autoexposure.

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread Paul Jones

The Konica Hexar AF, has an equivalent of Hyper Manual.

Paul
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:08 AM
Subject: SV: Little Pentax quiz


> Maybe it's the feature I love the best: The HYP function (PZ1 and PZ1p)
and
> AFAIR the *ist. It makes you shoift form Av (or program) to Tv in split
> second - brilliant, isn't it?
>
> Regards
> Jens
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Artur Ledóchowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 23. marts 2003 19:59
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Re: Little Pentax quiz
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Little Pentax quiz
>
>
> > What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as
far
> as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
> >
> > Hint: It has to do with exposure
>
> Snap-in Focus?
> Regards
> Artur
>
>

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

From: Artur Ledóchowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:55:33 +0100
Have you seen the new Minolta 24-105/3,5-4,5 AL IF D? That's quite a 
>compact lens, has very useful focal range and excellent sharpness.
It's not an interesting lens for me, I don't believe in 24-nnn zooms.
The 24 end usually has distorsions. I prefer a 28-nnn zoom partnered with a 
prime 24. The FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) is as compact as the FA 28-70 f/4.

Mount it on a Dynax 7 and you'll get a very light and capable kit, >smaller 
and more ergonomical than many Pentax kits...
I wouldn't call the dynax 7 small. It's the same size as my MZ-5n with 
battery grip attached. Ergonomical? It has large dials and knobs, but it 
still has a menu system - not direct access to aperture and shutter. It's 
not to my liking.

C'mon, don't tell me it takes years to make a 1/2EV faster lens while
maintaining the same filter thread.
They wanted it to be compact too. And the 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 is very compact. 
I've had a Tokina AF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 AL (IF). It has a 62mm filter thread, 
and it was twice as long as my FA 28-105 at the shortest position. It was 
twice as heavy too. And the optics, while perfectly OK, wasn't in the same 
class. It was a full metal construction, but I don't rate the build quality 
as higher than my FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF). My FA 28-105 is well put 
together. Nothing rattles, nothing is loose, the manual focusing feel is 
much better than on the Tokina, the aperture ring is much smoother to turn 
and more pleasant. The 'A'-pin is easier to press. And when I compare the 
lens mounts, the Pentax has the best mechanical precision. And the edges of 
the metal parts are smooth too. On the Tokina, they were sharp as knifes!

I agree that small size is one of the important values. However, it's >much 
more about the weight of a lens than of its filter thread >diameter - the 
latter has never been a factor of any importance for >me, as well as any 
person I know (not just Pentaxians), when deciding >what lenses to buy...
The compact size, low weight and 58 mm filter thread was the main reason for 
me to switch from the Tokina to the Pentax 28-105. My FA 135 f/2.8 has 58mm 
filter thread too. 62mm isn't used by Pentax. Pentax uses 49 - 52 - 58 and 
67. I have a 58mm Pentax SMC Skylight filter.

A chain is as strong as its weakest link...
Then you probably would do better with another brand, since it can't be 
healthy to feel fear when using Pentax products. You feel fear, Bojidar has 
expressed that he felt cold shivers around his back. Come on, what's the 
problem? Is this a kind of virus or something that spreading among 
Pentaxians? :-)

Best wishes,
Roland
_

Re: Little Pentax quiz

From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 12:44:32 -0500
Is it the "hyper" modes, or do other brands have something
similar?  That's all I can think of, though I haven't used
anything more recent than the Super Program myself.
Canon, Nikon and Minolta has "shiftable program".
It's a program mode where you can alter the combination of the suggested 
aperture and shutter to suit your liking. It's not the same as HyperMode, 
since HyperMode is automatic shifting between aperture- and shutter 
priority. To my knowledge, the shiftable programs goes back to standard 
program mode when the shot has been taken, while HyperMode stays in the mode 
that was last selected.

Best wishes,
Roland
_
Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp & Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Fred

> I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and Apple's
> Macintosh computer.

Puh-leeez...  

Fred

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

From: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:48:30 +0100
At half the  price, the build quality of the FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 is 
>forgivable.
I don't understand this.
Sure, the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 is plastic and the manual focus has low 
friction (but it's rather nice to use anyway). But it's solid and well put 
together. Nothing wobbles, nothing rattles. When I zoom out to the 105 
length and shakes the lens up and down, I have absolutely no play in the 
zoom barrel. It's rock solid. I can't move it sideways even if I use the 
strength of my hands... I did have a little play in the 28-70 f/4, but not 
so with the 28-105. I think this is very impressive. I also enjoy the zoom 
feel. Much better than on my F 100-300 which has an unpleasant feel.

Apart from the use of plastic, it's no difference in build quality between 
the FA 28-105 and the Tokina 28-105 - I actually rates the FA higher, 
because it's more smooth and pleasant to use. On the Tokina, I had to use 
The Force to move the lens from A to a an aperture value. And the manual 
focus feel was, well, it was no feel at all.

Best wishes,
Roland


_
Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/

Re: SV: Little Pentax quiz

From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:50:22 +0100
Or - it could be: The Power Zoom (Minolta had it for a while, though) >and 
functions related to Power Zoom.
Yashica 270 AF and two zooms. I believe it was a 28-80 and a 80-200.
Yes, power zoom. It even had "zoom clip" function.
Quite a nice design.
Best wishes,
Roland
_
Hitta rätt köpare på MSN Köp & Sälj http://www.msn.se/koposalj

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Rüdiger Neumann

Hi Boz,
I'm sad to hear your decision but I'm glad that you will stay at the PDML
and that you will keep the wonderful the K-mount page.

You wrote:
>-- the second-hand market is VERY small: the good stuff is difficult to
>find, there are lots of people who want it, and it is expensive
>

That is not right for me, I'm using Pentax because of the cheap and very
good second hand market. I have bought in Germany in the last year the
following exellent stuff second hand (ebay, dealers, newspaper) .
Near all lenses were in perfect condition with orginal catonage.
FA* 2/24  200 Euro
FA* 1.4/85  400 Euro
FA* 2.8/80-200 550 Euro (in the last three month there were three for ca.
1000 Euro on Ebay)
FA* 4.5/300 450 Euro
FA 1.9/43  300 Euro (there is every month for 300 Euro one in Ebay)
FA 1.8/77  500 Euro
FA 2/35 160 Euro (a very good lens)
F 17-28 Fisheye zoom 300 Euro
FA 3.5-4.5 24-85 350 Euro
FA 2.8/100 300 Euro

I find it very easy to buy very good Pentax stuff second hand at a low
price, as you can see from the above list (that is not all), but now I have
to stop it, otherwise I'm in trouble with my wife.

regards
Rüdiger

Re: Lens tests (was: Pentax <--> Canon)

2003-03-23 Thread Alan Chan

To get an idea of how meaningless most lens tests are, read Mike
Johnston's excellent article on lens contrast and MTF on the Luminous
Landscape web site:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml
I agree that lens tests don't mean much in practice. I just tried to show 
that when someone said Pentax scored well in tests, everyone's happy. When 
someone said the opposite, everyone started to defend how good Pentax lenses 
are, or even better than Canon or Nikon. I know SMC is excellent on flare 
control. But I just wonder, where is the hard evidence to prove SMC lenses 
are superior in general (at least not in test results I have read so far)?

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

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

Well, I'd like to see some Linux jumping in the camera business. Free 
lenses ! Any size, any mount ! ;-)

cheers,
caveman
I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and Apple's
Macintosh computer.

Re: Lens tests (was: Pentax <--> Canon)

From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 14:00:20 -0800
When someone said the opposite, everyone started to defend how good Pentax 
lenses are, or even better than Canon or Nikon. I know SMC is excellent on 
flare control. But I just wonder, where is the hard evidence to prove SMC 
lenses are superior in general (at least not in test results I have read so 
far)?
Where is the hard evidence that SMC lenses are *not* superior?
There are those on this list who insist that Nikon and Canon has the edge on 
lens performance. (very strange, because - what are they doing here then?) 
I've read lens tests for the last 14 years  (Aktuell Fotografi, FOTO, 
Practical Photography, Popular Photography, Buying Camera (they merged with 
Practical Photography for some years ago)), and the general conclusion I can 
get from them is that Pentax usually is at the very top (often with Leica 
and Zeiss) when it comes to the prime lenses and the FA* zooms. The consumer 
zooms are more average, but Pentax are getting better and better here.

Some magazines actually uses the lenses, not only measures them. Sadly, this 
is still very unusual. Any way, Pentax is the leader of the pack when it 
comes to flare control (according to those field tests). Colour rendition 
and contrast is not easy to say something about, since this comes down to 
personal preferencies. Those who prefer Nikon, does it because of the lenses 
special optical characteristics, those who prefer Pentax does it because of 
the lenses special optical characteristics. And so on. Some says that Nikon 
are "neutral" and Pentax "warm", some says that Nikon are "cold" and Pentax 
"neutral". What can be said that Nikon lenses has, in general, a more narrow 
contrast range than Pentax lenses. Some likes this, some does not. Just like 
some likes Velvia, some likes Agfa.

Best wishes,
Roland
_
Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:58:27 +0100
The idea seems similar
to Pentax's idea to make the *ist the world's smalest and lightest SLR,
so they left the aperture mechanics out.
I believe that the main reason for Pentax to introduce the FA J lenses, and 
to leave out the aperture mechanics - is price. Not size and weight. Why buy 
a Pentax 28-80 with aperture ring when you can get a Nikon 28-100 without 
aperture ring for less? Nikon faced the same dilemma when they saw the cheap 
Canon and Minolta zooms.

I like the idea of the FAJ's. Good starter lenses for first time buyers. 
Pentax can now concentrate more on optical performance in the entry level 
segment. (the FAJ 28-80 AL is the first entry zoom from Pentax with an 
aspherical lens element. Previously, AL was for the more expensive lenses. 
Even the FAJ 75-300 has an AL lens. This is something I don't understand, AL 
in a telezoom?).

What Pentax needs now is to make nice mid market lenses. I believe they will 
concentrate more on this in the near future, because there's a gap between 
the entry level and the pro-line. We need a good mid-market telezoom. Pentax 
has nothing between the FA 80-320 and the FA* 80-200 f/2.8. I'm sure that 
this gap will be filled soon. It will come with the release of the more 
upmarket *ist models. In the meantime, Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX is a good 
solution.

Best wishes,
Roland
_
Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread Frits Wüthrich

On Sunday 23 March 2003 17:15, David R Spaulding wrote:
> Here's a little one-question quiz -
>
> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that, as far
> as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure
>
> Hope this isn't too easy! :)
>
> ---
> David Spaulding
> Photographer

That is an easy one: the amount of exposure these cameras get on this list.

-- 
Frits Wüthrich
Pentaxianado

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Frits Wüthrich

On Sunday 23 March 2003 12:05, Nick Zentena wrote:
> On March 22, 2003 09:44 pm, Caveman wrote:
> > Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> > > Oh yes, this is a scream. Professional photographers are blind, stupid
> > > and prefer to use second rate lenses.
> >
> > Cut the c**p, Bruce. This is what professionals use:
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2918350504&category=300
> >20
>
>   Damn I thought the lens I got yesterday off Ebay qualified for too heavy.
>
> Nick
So 3mp is professional. What will the *ist D be then?
-- 
Frits Wüthrich
Pentaxianado

Re: Little Pentax quiz

2003-03-23 Thread Lasse Karlsson

- Original Message -
From: "David R Spaulding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: Little Pentax quiz


> Here's a little one-question quiz -
>
> What is the one feature that a couple of Pentax cameras have that,
as far as I know, no other brand of film SLR has?
>
> Hint: It has to do with exposure

Now I got it!

Some of them are so stripped of all kinds of bells and whistles that
they risk getting busted for indecent exposure

No?

Lasse

Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Greene

--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greene"
> Subject: Re: Vs: Pentax <--> Canon
> 
> 
> 
> > But then, that should not matter in actaul
> strength of
> > the bodies in question, because the Army's Abrams
> Main
> > Battle Tank,  is
> literally filled with, and
> made partly of,
> > plastics!
> 
> By applying by the same standard, my Tachihara
> should be as strong as a
> house, since both are made from wood, or that my LX
> should be as tough as a
> bank vault because they are both built from metal.
> How a tank is built has nothing to do with how a
> camera is built.
> 
> William Robb___  But
Tanks, at least the Abrams, (and some modern cameras),
utilize reinforced, injection molded "plastic" in
their construction. A significant amount of the Abrams
armor and crew cab is "plastic". Thus, some camera
makers have taken to "armoring" their camera bodies,
utilizing some of the same principles and construction
techniques as found in the Abrams. But you knew that,
right?You can't expect (I most certainly
would not) expect wood, not for wood's sake, to be
able to perform the same function in one or another
creation if the manufacturing techniques and purposes
for its use weren't somewhat similar; or would
you?Raimo's pejorative reference to plastic is
what I responded to and had to do with the use of the
word itself: "plastic." My comment thus was intended
to make note of how effective modern plastics are and
how they are being, and can be, utilized. Here's an
even more oblique reference to the use of "plastic":
one of the world's most sought after handguns is a
Glock, itself almost entirely made of "plastic."
The word "plastic" has and too frequently is used
to denote "cheap" or "not strong" or "frangible", even
tacky or soft. I assure you, the "plastic" in the
Abrams, Glock, Canon, Nikon, even some Pentax bodies,
refute the too often negative use of the word.
*Some of todays youth wear T-shirts that say: "You
say the word "B***h" as if that's a bad thing." The
same goes for people using the word "plastic" as if
all things plastic are bad, weak or suspect.
Im wondering what puritanical values you adhere
to if you could find something offensive in my
words: the most lethal most ruggrd(sp) tank in the
world,? Is it because the phrase and reference
is true, or because you personally dislike machines of
war... or what?


=

 Ed

  I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Peter Jansen

Yeah it's a fair comparison. Also a very loyal
customer base as well for both.



--- "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roland Mabo said:
> 
> > >From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:19:41 -0500
> > >
> > >So your friend doesn't know how to use the
> camera, and you blame the camera
> > >for not working right.
> >
> > Canon has an over-complicated user interface which
> badly affects the
> > creativity of the photographer.
> 
> I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and
> Apple's Macintosh
> computer.  Mac has the low market share, Pentax has
> the low market share.
> Mac users sometimes fret about availability of
> software, Pentax users
> sometimes fret about availability of lenses,
> third-party flash units with
> all the whistles and bells (e.g. high speed synch on
> something besides
> the 360).  Windows proponents brag about higher
> clock speeds of x86
> chips, Canon proponents brag about IS and USM.  An
> arguing point among
> Mac users is the user interface, an arguing point
> among Pentax proponents
> is the user interface.  Windows users come to Mac
> groups trying to
> convince the remaining 3% of the computing
> population to switch to
> Windows, Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and
> tries to convince Pentax
> users to switch to Canon.
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread Peter Jansen

Roland wrote:

" believe that the main reason for Pentax to introduce
the FA J lenses, and to leave out the aperture
mechanics - is price. Not size and weight."

True. The new FAJ 18-35mm uses a 67mm filter while the
FA 20-35mm uses a 58mm filter. Mind you the extra wide
angle may have something to do with it, but Pentax
have been making very small, light lenses for a long
time, and often the smallest in their class (except
for some of the FA* lenses like the 80-200mm & 600mm
f4).



--- Roland Mabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Bojidar Dimitrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 07:58:27 +0100
> >
> >The idea seems similar
> >to Pentax's idea to make the *ist the world's
> smalest and lightest SLR,
> >so they left the aperture mechanics out.
> 
> I believe that the main reason for Pentax to
> introduce the FA J lenses, and 
> to leave out the aperture mechanics - is price. Not
> size and weight. Why buy 
> a Pentax 28-80 with aperture ring when you can get a
> Nikon 28-100 without 
> aperture ring for less? Nikon faced the same dilemma
> when they saw the cheap 
> Canon and Minolta zooms.
> 
> I like the idea of the FAJ's. Good starter lenses
> for first time buyers. 
> Pentax can now concentrate more on optical
> performance in the entry level 
> segment. (the FAJ 28-80 AL is the first entry zoom
> from Pentax with an 
> aspherical lens element. Previously, AL was for the
> more expensive lenses. 
> Even the FAJ 75-300 has an AL lens. This is
> something I don't understand, AL 
> in a telezoom?).
> 
> What Pentax needs now is to make nice mid market
> lenses. I believe they will 
> concentrate more on this in the near future, because
> there's a gap between 
> the entry level and the pro-line. We need a good
> mid-market telezoom. Pentax 
> has nothing between the FA 80-320 and the FA* 80-200
> f/2.8. I'm sure that 
> this gap will be filled soon. It will come with the
> release of the more 
> upmarket *ist models. In the meantime, Sigma 100-300
> f/4 EX is a good 
> solution.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Roland
> 
> 
>
_
> Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor
> http://www.msn.se/resor/
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

2003-03-23 Thread KT Takeshita

On 3/23/03 7:43 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is it Nikon, Canon or Minolta that pays you to be a Pentax spokesman?

Well, my colleagues in Japan have long been seriously suspecting that you
must have been paid by somebody to stay in Pentax List and keep farting with
no class.  Is that one of those cheap NYC camera dealers from where you are
getting info from?
Behave and govern yourself, BR.


Ken

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Bob Blakely

Why are you here? I mean it's ok, and all, but why are you here?

Regards,
Bob...

"Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying
the object which is abused.  Men can go wrong with wine
and women.  Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
-Martin Luther
 
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> [skipped...] 
I use Nikon.

Re: Pentax <--> Canon


- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Whaley" 
Subject: Re: Pentax <--> Canon


> Did you run out of your meds again, Bruce? You've been slamming
> everyone here today! Take no prisoners!

I haven't laughed this hard in years!!!

William Robb

Re: Pentax <--> Canon

Hardly everyone. Do you feel left out?

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Did you run out of your meds again, Bruce? You've been slamming
everyone here today! Take no prisoners!

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

I like reading gun nut posts on photography lists.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Why are you here? I mean it's ok, and all, but why are you here?

Regards,
Bob...

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Bob Blakely

Explains a lot. Thank you for your honest, forthright answer.

Regards,
Bob...

"Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying
the object which is abused.  Men can go wrong with wine
and women.  Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
-Martin Luther
 
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I like reading gun nut posts on photography lists.
> 
> BR
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >Why are you here? I mean it's ok, and all, but why are you here?

Way OT - Nikonos

Totally OT - my husband has a Nikonos II. It's old, but has new seals and is
in good working order - he just needs a strobe, and I'd like to get him one
for his birthday. Do any of you know what sort of strobe this camera takes?

Re: Way OT - Nikonos

- Original Message -
From: "Treena"
Subject: Way OT - Nikonos

> Totally OT - my husband has a Nikonos II. It's old, but has new seals and
is
> in good working order - he just needs a strobe, and I'd like to get him
one
> for his birthday. Do any of you know what sort of strobe this camera
takes?

A Nikonos strobe.
There are a few on eBay right now.
I can't give you any information on any compatability issues with the older
camera, newer flash. Probably that info is out there on the net as well.
Google game up with over 29000 hits for Nikonos.

William Robb

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread John Mustarde

He loves reindeer.

JM


>Bob wrote:

>Why are you here? I mean it's ok, and all, but why are you here?
>
>Regards,
>Bob...

Re: Way OT - Nikonos

Check these guys out:

http://www.southern-nikonos.com/

And have a look at this page before buying anything.

http://www.southern-nikonos.com/partsUsed.htm


William Robb

Did anyone notice this one?

2003-03-23 Thread Steve Pearson

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29971&item=2919002548&rd=1

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Way OT - Nikonos

Thanks for the quick reply - that helps.

- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Way OT - Nikonos


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Treena"
> Subject: Way OT - Nikonos
>
>
> > Totally OT - my husband has a Nikonos II. It's old, but has new seals
and
> is
> > in good working order - he just needs a strobe, and I'd like to get him
> one
> > for his birthday. Do any of you know what sort of strobe this camera
> takes?
>
> A Nikonos strobe.
> There are a few on eBay right now.
> I can't give you any information on any compatability issues with the
older
> camera, newer flash. Probably that info is out there on the net as well.
> Google game up with over 29000 hits for Nikonos.
>
> William Robb
>

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras


- Original Message - 
From: "John Mustarde" 
Subject: Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras


> He loves reindeer.

Non, c'est l'arome du poop de renne 
WW

Re: Did anyone notice this one?

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Pearson"
Subject: Did anyone notice this one?

>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29971&item=2919002548
&rd=1

Thats why we don't like putting running auctions on the list. That guy got
an incredible deal, which he most likely wouldn't have if that one had been
advertised here.

William Robb

Re: Did anyone notice this one?

Why am I never the winner in auctions like this?
Sigh.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29971&item=2919002548&rd=1

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Way OT - Nikonos

My husband's reply: "SWEET!!"

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Way OT - Nikonos


> Check these guys out:
> 
> http://www.southern-nikonos.com/
> 
> And have a look at this page before buying anything.
> 
> http://www.southern-nikonos.com/partsUsed.htm

Re: Did anyone notice this one?

- Original Message -
From: "Lon Williamson"
Subject: Re: Did anyone notice this one?

> Why am I never the winner in auctions like this?

Just keep telling yourself that it probably has fungus.
Eventually, you will be glad you missed it.
With a BIN of 35 bucks, its surprising it lasted the hour and a half that it
was up for.

William Robb

Re: Way OT - Nikonos


- Original Message - 
From: "Treena" 
Subject: Re: Way OT - Nikonos


> My husband's reply: "SWEET!!"

Thought you'd like that. They are not to far from home, no?

William Robb

Re: Way OT - Nikonos

Not too far at all, which is nicer for shipping. I think we're going for the
conversion option.

- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Way OT - Nikonos


>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Treena"
> Subject: Re: Way OT - Nikonos
>
>
> > My husband's reply: "SWEET!!"
>
> Thought you'd like that. They are not to far from home, no?
>
> William Robb
>

Re: Did anyone notice this one?

Steve Pearson wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29971&item=2919002548&rd=1
Nice price. It's older brother just went for much more:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=2918820877&rd=1

cheers,
caveman

Re: Did anyone notice this one?

Yep, listing a lens under:
Electronics & Computers:Cameras & Photo:Camera Body 
Parts/Accessories:For 35mm SLR:Other 35mm SLR Items 

will get you a lot of buyers.
Or the price was too high for the average Pentax owner.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=29971&item=2919002548&rd=1

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

Yeah! Reminds me of dinner at mom's.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

- Original Message - 
From: "John Mustarde" 
Subject: Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

 

He loves reindeer.
   

Non, c'est l'arome du poop de renne 
WW

In the cute but useless category.....

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1048106892.html

Hey I resemble that subject line!!
William Robb

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras


- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" 
Subject: Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras


> Yeah! Reminds me of dinner at mom's.

Now, to see how many others can break the secret code
WW

Color codes on lenses?

2003-03-23 Thread Steve Pearson

I have recently acquired a few SMC primes and noticed
that the f8 setting is colored in orange.  Also, there
is a similiar color of orange marked on one of the
distance settings.  Is this some kind of hyper-focal
setting?  Is this the marking for the best apperature,
in Pentax's mind, for the given lens?  Do the colored
markings vary with different lenses, or are all the
f8's this color?

Stupid question I know,  just curious...

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

OT: Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter

What is a "Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter" and what does it do ?

Thanks,
caveman

Re: Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter


- Original Message - 
From: "Caveman" 
Subject: OT: Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter


> What is a "Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter" and what does it do ?

Its a teleconverter with a built in focusing helicoid. 

William Robb

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

2003-03-23 Thread Peter Jansen

Bruce R. wrote:

"Lets hope Mac users have more on the ball than Pentax
users: I use Nikon."

Good for you Bruce! Get on the Nikon list instead
please

Man alive...where's Pål when you need him? Pål? Pål???

--- Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lets hope Mac users have more on the ball than
> Pentax users: I use Nikon.
> 
> BR
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and tries to
> convince Pentax
> >users to switch to Canon.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Color codes on lenses?

AFAIK, that is Pentax's method of showing you which F-stop
is the minimum recommended for a hyperfocal setting.  Other
manufacturers do that too (My Olympus XA has a similar color
difference at f8).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have recently acquired a few SMC primes and noticed
that the f8 setting is colored in orange.  Also, there
is a similiar color of orange marked on one of the
distance settings.  Is this some kind of hyper-focal
setting?  Is this the marking for the best apperature,
in Pentax's mind, for the given lens?  Do the colored
markings vary with different lenses, or are all the
f8's this color?
Stupid question I know,  just curious...

Re: Color codes on lenses?

2003-03-23 Thread Jim Apilado

Hyper focal.

Jim A.

> From: Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:37:57 -0800 (PST)
> To: Pentax Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Color codes on lenses?
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:37:59 -0500
> 
> I have recently acquired a few SMC primes and noticed
> that the f8 setting is colored in orange.  Also, there
> is a similiar color of orange marked on one of the
> distance settings.  Is this some kind of hyper-focal
> setting?  Is this the marking for the best apperature,
> in Pentax's mind, for the given lens?  Do the colored
> markings vary with different lenses, or are all the
> f8's this color?
> 
> Stupid question I know,  just curious...
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> 
>

Re: Color codes on lenses?

2003-03-23 Thread Sid Barras

Some of the wide angle lenses have a setting to where if you line up the
color coded f stop with the same color coded  distance mark, you get the
assurance that everything from (something like) 3 feet or so to infinity
will be in focus. 
I think it was a feature to allow manual focus lenses to be "left alone" and
the photographer would be reasonable assured most of his photos would be in
focus.
Sid

> From: Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:37:57 -0800 (PST)
> To: Pentax Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Color codes on lenses?
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:37:59 -0500
> 
> I have recently acquired a few SMC primes and noticed
> that the f8 setting is colored in orange.  Also, there
> is a similiar color of orange marked on one of the
> distance settings.  Is this some kind of hyper-focal
> setting?  Is this the marking for the best apperature,
> in Pentax's mind, for the given lens?  Do the colored
> markings vary with different lenses, or are all the
> f8's this color?
> 
> Stupid question I know,  just curious...
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
>

Re: OT: Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter

It's a 6 element TC optimized for shorter focal lengths that _also_
has a built-in helical extension mechanism.  It is still currently
being produced, but I think the ones folks rave about here are the
older metal A-series ones from the 80's.  I have one of these older
ones, and I've used it on 100 Macros and a K 135 f2.5 with what I
regard as good results.
Does anyone know if the currently shipping Viv MacroConverters are
as good as the old ones?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a "Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter" and what does it do ?

Thanks,
caveman

Re: Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter

William Robb wrote:
What is a "Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter" and what does it do ?
Its a teleconverter with a built in focusing helicoid. 
So, if I break the glass inside, I get a helicoid extension tube ? 
Sounds cool, I'll get one.

thanks,
caveman

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

Of course, a sharp smart photographer like Bruce has to be
ready for all contingencies.  This entails buying every lens
and accessory a manufacture makes and hauling it all along
on every shoot.  I mean, you never know what you _might_ need,
right?
I actually started attempting to do this with Pentax, realized
I could not afford nor carry it all, and am seriously contemplating
the purchase of the first 17-500mm lens that anyone cares to ship.
Grin.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce R. wrote:

"Lets hope Mac users have more on the ball than Pentax
users: I use Nikon."
Good for you Bruce! Get on the Nikon list instead
please
Man alive...where's Pål when you need him? Pål? Pål???



--- Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Lets hope Mac users have more on the ball than
Pentax users: I use Nikon.
BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and tries to
convince Pentax

users to switch to Canon.







__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

Re: Little Pentax quiz (Keep Guessing!)

2003-03-23 Thread David R Spaulding

OOH!

I wasn't sure if I could stump some of you or not. :)

The answers are great! Hyper functions are good, but some other cameras have similar 
features - I think Pentax does the best job, though.

My personal favorites so far are Frits and Lasse...points for ceativity.

Let me up the ante...I have a sample roll of Kodak E100G that I have been meaning to 
shoot, but not until this weekend...I'll sent it to whomever gets this answer, but you 
have to promise to let me know how it compares to Provia 100F!

Another hint: I've never been able to find this feature in the brochures or 
instruction manuals. You may have to take a close look at your cameras to find it. 
Only two(or three) Pentax models have this feature.

Good luck!

David
---
David Spaulding
Photographer



_
Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year.
http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus

Re: Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras

Lon Williamson wrote:

I actually started attempting to do this with Pentax, realized
I could not afford nor carry it all, and am seriously contemplating
the purchase of the first 17-500mm lens that anyone cares to ship.
But you'll still have to switch to Canon, since only theirs will have IS 
and USM. Bwahahahahaha 

cheers,
caveman ;-)

Re: Little Pentax quiz (Keep Guessing!)