Re: Happy Pentax to me
24 I bought a black ME in 1979, but I had used fathers Spotmatic before that... DagT På søndag, 22. juni 2003, kl. 03:10, skrev Shaun Canning: This year is my 21st...I got my first Pentax (a K1000) in 1982 at the tender age of 14. took me all the first year to figure out how to use the damn thing, but I ended up keeping it for 11 years before moving on to a Z-10. Cheers Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Vic, 3658 Mob: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Happy Pentax to me Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. cheers, caveman --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/06/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/06/2003
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Hmmm... why not just learn to use the equipment you have? If you don't understand the technical issues involved, switching to another brand won't help. On Saturday, June 21, 2003, at 02:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Removed newbie from subject line; guess I've been around long enough now not to be a rank newbie. :-) Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). But I probably should hold off until the *ist D materializes (and I am among the group that think it will materialize). I do have three zooms: Pentax FA 28-70, F 70-210, Tamron AF 70-300. These, as far as I understand, would all work on the *ist D just fine. (But I am not sure about the aperture priority stuff, whether I can set aperture myself on the *ist D.) The one thing I truly do not understand, even though I've read some threads about this -- is how would these alter regarding focal length on the *ist D? As far as I understand it (which isn't very far), it involves something about it not having a full sensor, so previous lens lengths have to be refigured and basically they come out shorter or something. Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? Thanks, Marnie aka Doe
Re: Magnifier FB
Feroze Kistan a écrit: Hi Michel, Just translated your page via Babelfish. Correct me if I'm wrong, the FB will work problem free with the MZS but I would have to file the rails of the K1000 slightly thinner to fit the FB on it? Your saying I have to actually remove part of my camera and do a Macgyver on in??? Sure, I'm not McGyver ! I have disassembled the claw on the magnifier, not the MZ-S. Michel
Vs: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Yeah, I have been thinking about getting a Canon, too. I would like to have the F-1n, the first version. That is a quality camera. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 22. kesäkuuta 2003 0:54 Aihe: Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D? >>Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon >>(mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will >>probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan >>7e). > >If I were to dump the Pentax, I would choose Canon too (assume I would stay >with 135). However, I believe the strength of Canon is USM & IS, and a >complete array of fully integrated lenses and bodies, unlike Nikon. If you >want viewfinder quality, I think Minolta 9 is the best. > >>Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? > >Switch to Canon when you are still not too deep with Pentax gears, >seriousely. > >regards, >Alan Chan > >_ >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 >
Vs: My new toy found a first use
Great stuff! All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Maciej Marchlewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: PDML <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 21. kesäkuuta 2003 22:45 Aihe: My new toy found a first use >OK. I thought that I won't make a "I have a new toy" statement but to make >this story full it would be necessary. >I have a new toy. Or even two. Four days ago I finally got mine MZ-S with >FA24-90. It took me almost two months to buy it in Poland. I needed Polish >invoice so I had to go through a path of pain caused by current Polish >Pentax distributor. But enough about that - I finally have it and I'm really >happy. >At thursday we had a holiday in Poland and I went to my parents for dinner >taking my new camera with me (it's strange that I didn't took to bed with me >). After that a friend invited me to a Apocalyptica concert. Apocalyptica >are couple of cello players from Finland, along with a drummer right now, >that play heavy metal (they started with cello Metallica covers). >I'm not their big fan but I got a free ticket so decided to go. Took the >camera with me as I didn't want to leave it in car and figured out that I >can find some semi-peacefull place that it would be safe in my bag. At the >entrance however there was an unpleasant surprice - I coudn't take the >camera inside and had to leave it at the desk. Fortunatelly my friend was >sitting there so I had someone I could trust the MZ-S. >But soon after the concert started my friend called me and handed me a PHOTO >pass. And there I was from a guy that couldn't bring the camera inside to >someone that had official permission to shot. Having that decided to give a >camera a try. I only had HP5+ 400 with me but on the package there was the >development time for 1600ASA in ID-11 so that's what I had to use. >Universal Music Poland insisted that no photos were taken during the show >except for authorised people and only during the last three songs. I could >enter the space between audience and scene and exposed whole roll from there >which almoust used all my time. How it all turned out can be checked here: >http://www.kajko.wdb.pl/apocalyptica/ >All shots taken with MZ-S + FA24-90, mostly spot metered from face. >The film was developed in ID-11(1+0), 9:30min, 25C. I had to use the high >temperature as it was hot here for almoust the month and that what the room >(or rather bathroom) temperature was and didn't had the idea how to cool the >dev down since it wasn't to be mixed with water. Unfortunatelly it further >boosted the contrast. I scanned everything at work at a bit crappy Agfa >Duoscan but I quite like the result. > >After all it was a really nice experience. > >Thanks for reading, >Maciej >
Two of my nice old lenses on eBay
All the chatter here about the *istD has convinced me to sell two of my very nice, very sharp older lenses which I don't use much nowadays: a 28mm M Type 2 (which means the A optical design in an M body) and a 35mm f/3.5 K, just about as sharp as any Pentax lens ever in Yoshihiko's tests. (If it turns out that the rumours being spread here about the *istD not accepting these lenses are false, I may have to sue the perpetrators.) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2936485791 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=2936485077 _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
On 21 Jun 2003 at 23:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I completely disagree. The MZ-S is an outstanding camera, very much in the same > class as the LX. Understated, features photographers can use, and very well > built. If you have never used one you wouldn't know just how good they are. I > got one today and can't believe how outstanding it is. It is much more intuitive > than the PZ1. Vic The MZ-S certainly is a camera that any pro could use to earn his/her daily bread however it would be superb if it also came fitted with a digital image sensor :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Limited looks...
Cesar, No, I think you should get a Canon instead - all the women are going for them! Bruce Saturday, June 21, 2003, 6:53:31 PM, you wrote: CMI> Being so far behind on this list I am just going to interject... forget the CMI> latest threads - please! CMI> I was at a Bluegrass and BBQ festival this past Sunday. I was hanging out CMI> enjoying the music with some friends who happened to be there. We spotted a CMI> photographer from the local newspaper. My friend commented on the size of CMI> the lens she was using. She uses the paper's Canon-based Kodak DSLR with CMI> appropriate fast zoom lenses. CMI> Anyhow, she came over upon seeing me and we chatted for a bit. My friend CMI> commented on her lens. I was carrying the MZ-S with, at the moment, the CMI> silver-colored Limited 31mm f1.8. She stated that she really liked the look CMI> of the MZ-S/Limited combination. She had seen it recently at the pre-race CMI> dinner at a triathlon - then it was the MZ-S/Limited 77/1.8 combo. She CMI> commented that she had told me she liked that combo then... CMI> So women like the look of the snake-skinned LXen I have and the MZ-S/Limited CMI> combo - maybe I should take advantage of this... regardless of what TV says CMI> :-) CMI> César CMI> Panama City, Florida
Re: Agfa competition
Such a brilliant scholar should then have heard of an institution named The Library Of Congress, which, amongst other things, is in the business of organizing and maintaining a huge collection of graphic materials. They have to classify even such arcane things as kallitypes, megalethoscope prints, crystoleum photographs and bromoil prints. They obviously must have some method in their classification, which I suspect is far more complete in scope than Joe Blow's one. But this is PDML, where a word means whatever the poster wanted it to mean. And more recently they started to do that to numbers too. cheers, caveman Bob Walkden wrote: > I've been there, done that. I studied linguistics at college, along with > French, Spanish and the history of Art, after spending the previous 7 years > studying French, German and Latin. Subsequently I worked for the British Library, > who sponsored me to learn Russian so I could work in their Russian technical > section. Later I qualified to teach English, although I never actually > taught. > > All this leads me to believe that I know a bit about language in my > own right. Probably rather more than most of the people who've engaged > in this thread. > > I have a couple of post-grad qualifications as well, including > one in discrete mathematics. This is essentially symbolic logic, so I > can tell the difference between shit and shinola when it comes to > arguments; especially arguments about words.
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
I completely disagree. The MZ-S is an outstanding camera, very much in the same class as the LX. Understated, features photographers can use, and very well built. If you have never used one you wouldn't know just how good they are. I got one today and can't believe how outstanding it is. It is much more intuitive than the PZ1. Vic In a message dated 6/21/03 10:53:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Pentax certainly scored an "own goal" when they priced the >MZ-S >against the Nikon F100. Wishful thinking? > >Now it still sells (in the UK at least) at typically twice >the price of a >Nikon F80/N80, but for 30% less than the F100. >Realistically, the >MZ-S is more comparable to the F80 than to any other Nikon. > >When it came to satisfying professional 35mm users, Pentax >lost the >plot many years ago. The LX was a fine achievement. I'm >happy with >mine. There has been nothing adequate for pro use since >then.
Re: Happy Pentax to me
And I -- more than twenty before that. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 6:11 AM Subject: Re: Happy Pentax to me > Feroze Kistan wrote: > > >Now I feel like a baby, I was born in 1971. > > > > You are a baby... I graduated high school the year before you were > born! ;-) > > > -- > Later, > Gary > >
Re: Happy Pentax to me
Feroze Kistan wrote: Now I feel like a baby, I was born in 1971. You are a baby... I graduated high school the year before you were born! ;-) -- Later, Gary
Re: My new toy found a first use
Congrats. Great pics of a cool band. My favorites are 07, 27, 10 (in this order). Did you see how hard is to photograph a drummer? Regards Albano --- Maciej Marchlewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. I thought that I won't make a "I have a new toy" > statement but to make > this story full it would be necessary. > I have a new toy. Or even two. Four days ago I > finally got mine MZ-S with > FA24-90. It took me almost two months to buy it in > Poland. I needed Polish > invoice so I had to go through a path of pain caused > by current Polish > Pentax distributor. But enough about that - I > finally have it and I'm really > happy. > At thursday we had a holiday in Poland and I went to > my parents for dinner > taking my new camera with me (it's strange that I > didn't took to bed with me > ). After that a friend invited me to a > Apocalyptica concert. Apocalyptica > are couple of cello players from Finland, along with > a drummer right now, > that play heavy metal (they started with cello > Metallica covers). > I'm not their big fan but I got a free ticket so > decided to go. Took the > camera with me as I didn't want to leave it in car > and figured out that I > can find some semi-peacefull place that it would be > safe in my bag. At the > entrance however there was an unpleasant surprice - > I coudn't take the > camera inside and had to leave it at the desk. > Fortunatelly my friend was > sitting there so I had someone I could trust the > MZ-S. > But soon after the concert started my friend called > me and handed me a PHOTO > pass. And there I was from a guy that couldn't bring > the camera inside to > someone that had official permission to shot. Having > that decided to give a > camera a try. I only had HP5+ 400 with me but on the > package there was the > development time for 1600ASA in ID-11 so that's what > I had to use. > Universal Music Poland insisted that no photos were > taken during the show > except for authorised people and only during the > last three songs. I could > enter the space between audience and scene and > exposed whole roll from there > which almoust used all my time. How it all turned > out can be checked here: > http://www.kajko.wdb.pl/apocalyptica/ > All shots taken with MZ-S + FA24-90, mostly spot > metered from face. > The film was developed in ID-11(1+0), 9:30min, 25C. > I had to use the high > temperature as it was hot here for almoust the month > and that what the room > (or rather bathroom) temperature was and didn't had > the idea how to cool the > dev down since it wasn't to be mixed with water. > Unfortunatelly it further > boosted the contrast. I scanned everything at work > at a bit crappy Agfa > Duoscan but I quite like the result. > > After all it was a really nice experience. > > Thanks for reading, > Maciej > = Albano Garcia "El Pibe Asahi" __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Marnie - in the way I understand it, a digital sensor uses only the central 2/3rds of the lens coverage, compared with film. So of your 50mm lens coverage, designed for a 40mm diameter circle, only a roughly 25mm circle is used. That's approximately the same angle of view as an 80mm lens - i.e. the focal length is magnified 1.6 times. No more worries about edge to edge sharpness here, nor light fall-off at larger apertures! Rather than moving to Canon for (debatably) better AF, have you thought of trading your current Pentax body for an MZ-S or later Pentax? My view, which is shared by most MZ-S owners here, is that this is a very competent and well-built camera, far better than an Elan, with one of the fastest AF systems around. Alternatively, unless you have a really pressing need to go digital, why not wait a few months to see what Pentax does come up with, either with the *ist-D or a more mid-level *ist film body than currently announced? Economically, the cost of brand change is far worse when you have to switch lenses as well as bodies, and the three lenses you mention all seem pretty good quality to me. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:18 AM Subject: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D? > Removed newbie from subject line; guess I've been around long enough now not to be a rank newbie. :-) > > Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). > > But I probably should hold off until the *ist D materializes (and I am among the group that think it will materialize). I do have three zooms: Pentax FA 28-70, F 70-210, Tamron AF 70-300. These, as far as I understand, would all work on the *ist D just fine. (But I am not sure about the aperture priority stuff, whether I can set aperture myself on the *ist D.) > > The one thing I truly do not understand, even though I've read some threads about this -- is how would these alter regarding focal length on the *ist D? As far as I understand it (which isn't very far), it involves something about it not having a full sensor, so previous lens lengths have to be refigured and basically they come out shorter or something. > > Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? > > Thanks, Marnie aka Doe > >
Re: Great site
Erxcellent. THANKS for sharing, keep the heresy going Regards Albano --- Butch Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know it's bordering on heresy on the list but I > found a great site > "Through the eyes of children" . A bunch of > pre-teens at an orphanage in > Rwanda were given disposable cameras and the images > are the ones used for > the exhibit. the link is; > www.rwandaproject.org/index.html > > well worth a look. > > BUTCH > > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the > way to himself. > > Hermann Hess (Demian) > > = Albano Garcia "El Pibe Asahi" __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Limited looks...
Being so far behind on this list I am just going to interject... forget the latest threads - please! I was at a Bluegrass and BBQ festival this past Sunday. I was hanging out enjoying the music with some friends who happened to be there. We spotted a photographer from the local newspaper. My friend commented on the size of the lens she was using. She uses the paper's Canon-based Kodak DSLR with appropriate fast zoom lenses. Anyhow, she came over upon seeing me and we chatted for a bit. My friend commented on her lens. I was carrying the MZ-S with, at the moment, the silver-colored Limited 31mm f1.8. She stated that she really liked the look of the MZ-S/Limited combination. She had seen it recently at the pre-race dinner at a triathlon - then it was the MZ-S/Limited 77/1.8 combo. She commented that she had told me she liked that combo then... So women like the look of the snake-skinned LXen I have and the MZ-S/Limited combo - maybe I should take advantage of this... regardless of what TV says :-) César Panama City, Florida
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
What body are you currently using? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:18 PM Subject: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D? > Removed newbie from subject line; guess I've been around long enough now not to be a rank newbie. :-) > > Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). > > But I probably should hold off until the *ist D materializes (and I am among the group that think it will materialize). I do have three zooms: Pentax FA 28-70, F 70-210, Tamron AF 70-300. These, as far as I understand, would all work on the *ist D just fine. (But I am not sure about the aperture priority stuff, whether I can set aperture myself on the *ist D.) > > The one thing I truly do not understand, even though I've read some threads about this -- is how would these alter regarding focal length on the *ist D? As far as I understand it (which isn't very far), it involves something about it not having a full sensor, so previous lens lengths have to be refigured and basically they come out shorter or something. > > Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? > > Thanks, Marnie aka Doe > >
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
On 21 Jun 2003 at 14:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly > for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent > one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). Since your kit isn't too extensive my advice would be switch to Canon now if you can off-load you current gear without it being too great a burden, particularly if you wish to expand your system in the future. The Canon path is brighter, wider and unfortunately probably a lot longer. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Shutters (WAS: Re: Lens Mount Progress)
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 21 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Pål Jensen wrote: > Since then Pentax strategy in DSLR has changed: now they > target the entry level DSLR segment with the *ist D and will make medium format > digital solutions for the professional segment. Brilliant strategy, Pentax marketing strikes again :-( Rob Studdert And... they will use a 24X36mm sensor Bob Rapp
Re: Shutters (WAS: Re: Lens Mount Progress)
On 21 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Pål Jensen wrote: > Since then Pentax strategy in DSLR has changed: now they > target the entry level DSLR segment with the *ist D and will make medium format > digital solutions for the professional segment. Brilliant strategy, Pentax marketing strikes again :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Happy Pentax to me
This year is my 21st...I got my first Pentax (a K1000) in 1982 at the tender age of 14. took me all the first year to figure out how to use the damn thing, but I ended up keeping it for 11 years before moving on to a Z-10. Cheers Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Vic, 3658 Mob: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 20 June 2003 6:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Happy Pentax to me Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. cheers, caveman --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/06/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/06/2003
Re: Lens Mount Progress
You can't test one camera to determine the designed MTBF of the shutter. For a manufacturer, a shutter designed for 100,000 cycles means that very few would fail before 100,000 cycles. It would all depend on how similar one shutter would be in terms of manufacturing/process tolerance and what percentage of failures before 100,000 cycles was deemed acceptable. Figure that mode of the failure distribution curve was closer to 125,000 cycles. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How difficult would it be to test the mean time of a shutter, it either survives 100 000 cycles or it dosn't.
Re: What were the 1st and 2nd tier bodies from K to start of autofocus?
The top K body was probably the K2DMD. The MX and ME are very different types of cameras, but similar in terms of material and quality. I think that they sold for around the same price, so I wouldn't rank one above the other. Although the SP wasn't the theoretical top of the line, it was probably the "practical" top of the line, because not many stores carried the LX. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm kind of confused about that. I know that the K-series was ranked K2 KX KM K1000. The M series was next, with MX leading the list. I assume ME-Super was second tier here, although both have advantages the other lacks. Was the LX introduced before or after the Program bodies? Was the Super Program, at one time, the high end Pentax body?
Re: Happy Pentax to me
LOL.That was first year of college. Dave > Now I feel like a baby, I was born in 1971. > > Feroze > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: Happy Pentax to me > > > > Double gasp Bought my first Pentax in 1971,SP500, which i still own. I > don't remember > > how much,but it was the same amount as a car i was looking at.lol > > > > Dave > > > > > Gasp! I've been a Pentax user since 1963 - Honeywell > > H3. Still have the > > > camera. > > > > > > Jim A. > > > > > > > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:09:42 -0400 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Happy Pentax to me > > > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:07:58 -0400 > > > > > > > > Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that > > > > this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > caveman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Well, the first thing is, it does nothing to the focal length of your lens. What happens is the sensor is smaller than a 35mm negative so you are only using the center of the lenses' covering power. To make a print you need more magnification (sort of like as if you made an 8x10 and then cropped a 5x7 out of it). This is exactly the same thing that would happen if you used a lens from the 645 on your 35mm body. Where the crap about the lenses changing focal length comes from is the idea (and it is only an idea) that it is now the equivalent of a lens that only could cover the smaller image. Back before the 35mm became the standard camera and there were all kinds of formats in common use no one would have even thought of this confusing nonsense. So what does change is the angle of view of the image, but that change would be exactly the same if you cropped the image as I mentioned above. But then, most of the people playing with digital cameras have no idea what angle of view is. As for switching to Canon, WHY? In the same price range the cameras are pretty similar performance wise, the only reason to change is if the Canon offered some feature you really need and can not get with Pentax. BEWARE, however, that most of the stuff people argue about performance wise is a few percentage points difference that would not be noticeable in normal usage at all. People will nit pick things to death. To give you an idea, my 50 year old Graphic press camera has a lens that has maybe 1/2 the performance of a new large format lens, you would not be able to see that difference in a 16x20 print, though I would probable have to use a 1/2 grade higher multi-contrast filter to make equivalent prints (the new lenses are noticeably more contrasty, in other words). Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:18 PM Subject: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D? > Removed newbie from subject line; guess I've been around long enough now not to be a rank newbie. :-) > > Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). > > But I probably should hold off until the *ist D materializes (and I am among the group that think it will materialize). I do have three zooms: Pentax FA 28-70, F 70-210, Tamron AF 70-300. These, as far as I understand, would all work on the *ist D just fine. (But I am not sure about the aperture priority stuff, whether I can set aperture myself on the *ist D.) > > The one thing I truly do not understand, even though I've read some threads about this -- is how would these alter regarding focal length on the *ist D? As far as I understand it (which isn't very far), it involves something about it not having a full sensor, so previous lens lengths have to be refigured and basically they come out shorter or something. > > Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? > > Thanks, Marnie aka Doe >
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Hi Marnie; The other thing to remember is that if all you have are autofocus lenses then all will work fine on the new bodies including the *ist D as all AF lenses have electrical contacts on them. Admittedly, I have used few AF bodies but I have not had any complaints with the AF on the Z-1P (PZ-1p) including the action shot I submitted for July's PUG. I'm still waiting for my Brightscreen 2020 for it to see if that helps focusing with MF lenses. So I wouldn't rush to change based on those criteria. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: My new toy found a first use
Very nice work! I didn't notice your images as being contrasty so the film/developer combo worked OK. I must admit when reading your post explaining the band the first thing that popped into my head was an old Bud light beer commercial featuring a fictitious band called Burnt Toast. The commercial was done in typical rockumentary style but the punch line was that they were a classical band playing classical instruments. You know TV *Hoovers* when what you remember is the beer commercials. :) BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Magnifier FB
Thank You, at least the designation now makes sense. I'll go look for an M Feroze - Original Message - From: "Bob Rapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:44 AM Subject: Re: Magnifier FB > One last comment on magnifiers. The Magnifier-M was introduced with the M > series bodies and fits all later cameras. The primary difference between > Magnifiers M-F and FB is that the "M" is metal as the others are plastic. > All the those magnifiers can be used in M series and later bodies. > Maginifer -M is a more desirable magnifier to own. > > Bob Rapp > > >
Re: Dumb Q - Pentax FA/F Lenses on *ist D?
Okay, I am thinking about selling my Pentax gear and switching to Canon (mainly for the auto focus and maybe a bigger view finder -- yes, I will probably rent one first, if I can, before I decide -- probably the Elan 7e). If I were to dump the Pentax, I would choose Canon too (assume I would stay with 135). However, I believe the strength of Canon is USM & IS, and a complete array of fully integrated lenses and bodies, unlike Nikon. If you want viewfinder quality, I think Minolta 9 is the best. Could someone explain this to me in very simple language? Switch to Canon when you are still not too deep with Pentax gears, seriousely. regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Happy Pentax to me
Now I feel like a baby, I was born in 1971. Feroze - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Happy Pentax to me > Double gasp Bought my first Pentax in 1971,SP500, which i still own. I don't remember > how much,but it was the same amount as a car i was looking at.lol > > Dave > > > Gasp! I've been a Pentax user since 1963 - Honeywell > H3. Still have the > > camera. > > > > Jim A. > > > > > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:09:42 -0400 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Happy Pentax to me > > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:07:58 -0400 > > > > > > Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that > > > this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. > > > > > > cheers, > > > caveman > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Lens Mount Progress
I saw this show on Oprah recently where they showed how they test equipment. The sound room they had was pretty impressive. I understand that you cant make Sony surround sound speakers sound like B&W 610's. But IIRC the durability of the MZS's shutter was the question put forward. How difficult would it be to test the mean time of a shutter, it either survives 100 000 cycles or it dosn't. I wouldn't put much faith in to it if they were testing the 43mm against the Nikon pancake for sharpness OTOH. Feroze - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress > I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece of > photographic equipment. > > I recall many years ago, they tested stereo turntables. They basically said, > for each model: "They turn the record around and around. When it's hooked up > to an amp, and you put the stylus to the record, music comes out of the > speakers. It appears very durable and well made." > > By their test methods, a Panasonic direct drive deck tested about the same "with > no significant sonic differences" to a Linn Sondek (I don't actually think they > tested a Linn, but you get my drift). > > CR may be great for testing refrigerators or pickup trucks, but I don't think > they'd provide a report on photographic equipment that would satisfy the needs > of an enthusiast. > > cheers, > frank > > > > Feroze Kistan wrote: > > > Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they > > did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the > > bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got > > tested. > > > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > > >
Re: Magnifier FB
One last comment on magnifiers. The Magnifier-M was introduced with the M series bodies and fits all later cameras. The primary difference between Magnifiers M-F and FB is that the "M" is metal as the others are plastic. All the those magnifiers can be used in M series and later bodies. Maginifer -M is a more desirable magnifier to own. Bob Rapp
Re: Magnifier FB
Hi Michel, Just translated your page via Babelfish. Correct me if I'm wrong, the FB will work problem free with the MZS but I would have to file the rails of the K1000 slightly thinner to fit the FB on it? Your saying I have to actually remove part of my camera and do a Macgyver on in??? Regards Feroze
Re: Magnifier FB
Thank You - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Magnifier FB > Feroze, > > F magnifier was introduced for SF1/SFX cameras, > FB magnifier was introduced afterwards > I believe them to be identical. > > The magnifiers that fit on the K-1000 are the older type. > They work with KM, KX, K2, and the old Spotmatics. > They are abundant on ebay. > > I've used the FB magnifier and refconverter A or M on > ME, ME Super, Super Program/Super A, and PZ-1/PZ-1p. > The eyepieces are all identical mounts and they work fine. > > The magnifier that fits the K-1000 doesn't work for the later cameras. > The dimensions of the eyepiece are different, slightly smaller I think. > Folks have talked about grinding a bit off of the mount on the old ones. > > Other comments are added below... > > Regards, Bob S. >
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress > In terms of features, no doubt Minolta 7 wins the game. But in terms of > built quality, I have yet to strip down a MZ-S to be certain. You can't > judge the quality from the "shell" only. Of course. My point is that the MZ-S is overpriced - that's all. Regards Artur
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
- Original Message - From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress > DMF (Direct Manual Focus) Mode (Custom 22-2) - Also the excellent, bright viewfinder, DOF value display, last-4-films exposure data storage (with the option to plug in an external data bank), better shutter parameters and fps value (all within the body of a comparable size and weight), built-in flash exposure compensation, quieter AF etc... Dynax 7 body is built of plastic but of a very good quality. All of the above and more are packed into the body that is significantly cheaper than the MZ-S... Regards Artur
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
Valley??? Sinkhole, maybe Ed Been a long time in this valley. When do we get to climb the next mountain? Otis Wright T Rittenhouse wrote: Well, I submit that each handmade custom photographic print is distinct, that an expert can tell if it was printed by the photographer or by someone else, that even two prints by the same photographer from the same negative in the same printing session can be distinguished from one another. Whereas, an inkjet or other photo-mechanical reproduction can be made by anyone and is indistinguishable no matter who prints them. Uniqueness does enhance value. I guess it is just a case of being annoyed by people who use words to mean what they want, rather than using words that say what they mean. When I choose the wrong word, it is because I chose the wrong word. I resent it when someone else chooses the wrong word then argues that I am stupid because I didn't understand him. Sometimes I think it is a wonder that humans can communicate at all. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think you're being too narrow in your view, Tom. The best quality photographs may well be prints made from negatives directly on to photographic paper (although I've seen some pretty damned good ink-jet prints - some done by Aaron come to mind), but that doesn't render everything else a "non-photograph", imho. _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Optio S observations
I will Lon. So far it seems to be a great alternative to a P&S film camera for a carry with you all the time snapshot camera. At yesterday's picnic, all I wanted was snapshots to record the event with and it worked great for that. 4x6 prints are nearly impossible to see any difference between the Optio S and the typical minilab print. Bill - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:41 PM Subject: Re: Optio S observations > Bill, keep us informed about how the Optio S does for you. > I'm interested in buying it. > > Bill Owens wrote: > > > >>>I had a chance to give my Optio S a fairly good workout yesterday > >>>evening and thought I'd share some of my opinions with y'all. > >> > >>Does it offer a TIFF or RAW option? > > > > > > No, just jpg, which I download and save as a tif or psd > > > > Bill > > > > > > >
What were the 1st and 2nd tier bodies from K to start of autofocus?
I'm kind of confused about that. I know that the K-series was ranked K2 KX KM K1000. The M series was next, with MX leading the list. I assume ME-Super was second tier here, although both have advantages the other lacks. Was the LX introduced before or after the Program bodies? Was the Super Program, at one time, the high end Pentax body?
Re: Optio S observations
Bill, keep us informed about how the Optio S does for you. I'm interested in buying it. Bill Owens wrote: I had a chance to give my Optio S a fairly good workout yesterday evening and thought I'd share some of my opinions with y'all. Does it offer a TIFF or RAW option? No, just jpg, which I download and save as a tif or psd Bill
Re: Optio S observations
> > I had a chance to give my Optio S a fairly good workout yesterday > > evening and thought I'd share some of my opinions with y'all. > > Does it offer a TIFF or RAW option? No, just jpg, which I download and save as a tif or psd Bill
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
This thread reminds me of discussions I had back in the 70's when I was just getting seriously into photography. Only then it was; is available (existing) light B&W photography the only true photography? Any time there is a major change there will be those who question the inclusion of the change into the old definition. I personally have no problem calling an image that I shot on film, had the negative scanned, and printed on my ink jet, a photograph. It is also an ink jet print, a print, and an image. I also have no problem with the above definition if the capture method is a digital camera, and would define a photograph in its broadest terms as an image captured by a camera. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: The Myth of the *ist is entry level
Don't say the last three words too quickly };-)> ROTFL! Cheers, Heiko>> What, the *ist is aimed at winkers? 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: Lens Mount Progress
John wrote: But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems constantly to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is reporting fact, he is clear and concise and almost always right. But he would do well to realise that his opinions are just that; his opinions. I must admit to envy; I do wish I possessed his ability to expose film with 100% accuracy, all of the time. Bracketing costs me money. REPLY: I make a very big distinction between fact and my opinion. The problem I can see is that some people don't do the same with my opinions or facts. The info about the MZ-S shutter was not my opinion but a fact learned from camera engineers. YOUR statement about the very same issue was your opinion presented as fact. Don't make assumptions of what I've said based on the statements of those who didn't understand it in the first place. Theres no point in mixing up metering, metering accuracy, exposure accuracy, and correct exposure. They are all different concepts, as I'm sure you know, and just because some constantly mix them up it doesn't mean they are the same thing. I never said I didn't bracket. However, I don't bracket blindly but whithin 1/3s from what I want and thats perfectly doable with consistency, as you probably already know. I've said previously that I very often expose Velvia at 0, the calibrated 0 value of my meter, and +1/3; particularly if there are no highlights in danger of being burned out. Pål
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Caveman wrote: There's no meter with 100% accuracy. If you didn't know that, you're entitled to ask for a refund for your physics courses. It might allow for buying a new lens or something. REPLY: As usual this is one of your anal retentive (did anyone use the word measurbator?), wild goose chase arguments. Of course nothing is 100%. It may be 99%. A 100% meter is a meter that give the same result consistently from time to time. We are talking about precision levels that are way within what is visible on film. In other words, what is relevant. Not your irrelevant goose chase of what constitutes 100%. A meter that gives the same result everytime is common language 100%, dead on...whatever. Oh... and shutters are also usually 100% these days but I'm sure you'll let us all know that they are probably only 99,99% and thereby try to set the discussion in a totally irrelevant direction about some quarrel of semantics. The last shutter test I saw they had error margin of 1%. Still, the errors were smaller. Hence, it was claimed to be 100%. But I guess their physics courses sucked. Pål
Re: Optio S observations
> I had a chance to give my Optio S a fairly good workout yesterday > evening and thought I'd share some of my opinions with y'all. Does it offer a TIFF or RAW option? z -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Le offerte migliori per il tuo giardino... vieni a scoprirle da Peraga! Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1476&d=21-6
Re: Vs: Which 300 zoom should I buy?
I have the Sigma APO Macro 70-300 f4-5.6. Consumer lenses in this class tend to be weak somewhere, usually at the long end. This Sigma is perhaps the best in class, but weaker at 300 mm. At 300 mm. you have to go to f16 to get truly sharp images (which usually means a tripod). Otherwise images are weak laterally. I've mostly retired it (in favor of the Sigma AF 70-200 f2.8), but keep it for its macro capability. Still, it is overall a very sharp lens, and a bargain for the price. I've shot some images with it at 300 mm. that I liked much, and others that I found disappointing due to the lateral softness. Here's an example of one I like: http://pug.komkon.org/03mar/djnmsqsn.html Here's one using 300 mm. in macro mode: http://pug.komkon.org/03may/buttrfly.html Some on the list like the FA 80-320. Joe
Re: Magnifier FB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: Feroze, F magnifier was introduced for SF1/SFX cameras, FB magnifier was introduced afterwards I believe them to be identical. The magnifiers that fit on the K-1000 are the older type. They work with KM, KX, K2, and the old Spotmatics. They are abundant on ebay. I've used the FB magnifier and refconverter A or M on ME, ME Super, Super Program/Super A, and PZ-1/PZ-1p. The eyepieces are all identical mounts and they work fine. The magnifier that fits the K-1000 doesn't work for the later cameras. The dimensions of the eyepiece are different, slightly smaller I think. Folks have talked about grinding a bit off of the mount on the old ones. You can use on the news bodies (Z, MZ serie) older accessories (K, M serie): The width of the ocular is compatible, but small wings that enter in grooves of installation are merely too large. A good stroke of file is sufficient to adapt them: Attention: - disassemble the claw beforehand not to damage the optic part. - file what is necessary to keep compatibility with the old cases rightly http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/bricolage.htm#Vis%E9e
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Alan Chan wrote: > > I know this will make a lot of people "not happy", but the latest Japan CAPA > June magazine didn't compared the MZ-S to any F5/EOS1v/9 (1st group), or > F100/EOS3/N1 (2nd group). And you know what? They compared it to other mid > end bodies F80/EOS7/7/NX (3rd group), yet still scored the worst. Pentax certainly scored an "own goal" when they priced the MZ-S against the Nikon F100. Wishful thinking? Now it still sells (in the UK at least) at typically twice the price of a Nikon F80/N80, but for 30% less than the F100. Realistically, the MZ-S is more comparable to the F80 than to any other Nikon. When it came to satisfying professional 35mm users, Pentax lost the plot many years ago. The LX was a fine achievement. I'm happy with mine. There has been nothing adequate for pro use since then. Of course, the move to DSLR may work well for Pentax. The pro market has mostly moved to digital now. I realise that the *ist D has no pretensions towards being a pro camera, but I still expect Pentax to make a "high-end" DSLR before too long ...
Re: Lens Mount Progress
mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would like in the corners, but it is not bad. Herb... - Original Message - From: "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 11:34 Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress > I coveted the Sigma 15-30mm EX lens after reading a review > in "Amateur > Photographer" which praised it to the heavens. However two > friends bought > them and were extremely disappointed. One got a refund, the > other got a new > lens and *then* got a refund, because it was even worse than > the first. > > John
RE: MZ-S discount UK price
John wrote: > Thanks again Cotty. I find AP classifieds a bit of a waste > of time as > the stuff is normally long before sold to subscribers, who > must get > their issue a day earlier. I just buy a copy now and then > at the > supermarket. Subscribers normally get theirs a week early. Malcolm --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.490 / Virus Database: 289 - Release Date: 16/06/2003
Re: New Pentax Price list (End of MZ-3)
Rüdiger Neumann wrote: > >The FAJ lenses are very cheep in comparision to the former cheapest lenses >FAJ 28-8099 Euro (FA 28-80 179 Euro) >FAJ 75-300...149 Euro (FA 80-200 239 Euro) Hi Rüdiger, I have heard that the FAJ lenses are of the same generic Tamron design that is sold cheaply under the Nikon brand name as "G Series" lenses. If so, they will be very bad, both optically and in build quality. :-( John
Re: Lens Mount Progress
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Caveman wrote: > It also mentions impossible things like "Absolute accuracy in focusing > and metering" and "The flexibility to suit any purpose and any > photographer". For the shutter they just say "the high performance > shutter puts the emphasis on reliability and accuracy in real > situations" (which could also be read as "it performs bad in lab tests, > so we'll limit talk to "real situations" only"). No figures mentioned > like MTBF in shutter cycles. Just marketing talk (that also inspired > Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). I would rather say, that Canon is good in marketing talk. Pentax is well known for not providing detaled information about their products. Have you ever found in any information material about MZ-6 (ZX-L) information that it uses P-TTL with AF360FGZ, or that all Pentax AF lenses (since eightees) provide distance to subject information (something that has been present in Minolta and Nikon as "D" lenses since nineties)? There is still no information about even one cross shaped AF sensor in *ist, while there are nine of them. The text about shutter in MZ-S brochure doesn't say much, but when you combine it with Pal's and other's informations, there are no indications why MZ-S shouldn't have more reliable shutter. -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Alan Chan wrote: > > You will never get the full story from consumer report because it takes time > to show the weakness of certain products. For instances, some Sigma lenses > scored well in test reports but degrade quickly mechanically. Alan, I don't know anyone who has bought a Sigma lens that ever lived up to the wonderful optical performance of those samples made available to magazine reviewers. I'm told that one reason Sigma glass gets good reviews is that the reviewer always gets to keep the lens ... I coveted the Sigma 15-30mm EX lens after reading a review in "Amateur Photographer" which praised it to the heavens. However two friends bought them and were extremely disappointed. One got a refund, the other got a new lens and *then* got a refund, because it was even worse than the first. John
RE: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
> -Original Message- > From: Dag T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I still think he´s just making fun of us, but as long as > we´re playing > his game: > > As I´ve said before the demand that the print should be made using > light gives us some nice counter examples. Recorded CD-Rs > have been > mentioned, they´re made using light, but another great > example would be > the skin of a sun tanned girl (OK, boys too). The white > and brown skin > depending on the presence of the bikini is the result of > both light and > chemical processes making a contact print of the bikini (I > do like the > negative spaces of that photograph). Wouldn't that be closer to a photogram? I think a camera is required for a photograph. tv
Re: MZ-S discount UK price
Cotty wrote: > >Also, in this week's AP there is: > >PENTAX MZS BODY mint £430, > >It was in last week as well so maybe long gone Thanks again Cotty. I find AP classifieds a bit of a waste of time as the stuff is normally long before sold to subscribers, who must get their issue a day earlier. I just buy a copy now and then at the supermarket. John
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Caveman wrote: > >Just marketing talk (that also inspired >Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). Exactly. I've learnt a lot from many people on here, including Pål. But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems constantly to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is reporting fact, he is clear and concise and almost always right. But he would do well to realise that his opinions are just that; his opinions. I must admit to envy; I do wish I possessed his ability to expose film with 100% accuracy, all of the time. Bracketing costs me money. John
Re: Definition of photography - a serious question
At 03:59 AM 6/21/2003 -0400, you wrote: It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the current dictionary definition of the word "photography". It appears that they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light". You need to update your dictionary. From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.: \Pho*tog"ra*phy\, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F. photographie.] 1. The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like. They keep updating these things because the world changes and words change with them. I have an old dictionary here somewhere that defines the atom as the smallest, indivisible, particle of matter. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
Been a long time in this valley. When do we get to climb the next mountain? Otis Wright T Rittenhouse wrote: Well, I submit that each handmade custom photographic print is distinct, that an expert can tell if it was printed by the photographer or by someone else, that even two prints by the same photographer from the same negative in the same printing session can be distinguished from one another. Whereas, an inkjet or other photo-mechanical reproduction can be made by anyone and is indistinguishable no matter who prints them. Uniqueness does enhance value. I guess it is just a case of being annoyed by people who use words to mean what they want, rather than using words that say what they mean. When I choose the wrong word, it is because I chose the wrong word. I resent it when someone else chooses the wrong word then argues that I am stupid because I didn't understand him. Sometimes I think it is a wonder that humans can communicate at all. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think you're being too narrow in your view, Tom. The best quality photographs may well be prints made from negatives directly on to photographic paper (although I've seen some pretty damned good ink-jet prints - some done by Aaron come to mind), but that doesn't render everything else a "non-photograph", imho.
Re: Great site
thanks for sharing this site. those are really amazing pictures. it once again confirms that it is a the photographer that makes the picture not the camera and there is lot of photographic talent which doesn't get even published - forget recognized. again, thanks for sharing this site. From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Great site Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 02:29:55 -0400 I know it's bordering on heresy on the list but I found a great site "Through the eyes of children" . A bunch of pre-teens at an orphanage in Rwanda were given disposable cameras and the images are the ones used for the exhibit. the link is; www.rwandaproject.org/index.html well worth a look. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian) _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Lens Mount Progress
My experience is decidedly different over quite a long period and a wide variety of products. In the main, their valuing factors may have been different from mine, but I don't recall and instance were my experience differed significantly with their findings (I sure it happened but on the average...). Guess P.T. and I would have done OK. Otis Wright T Rittenhouse wrote: CR caters to P. T. Barnum's favorite customers. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece of photographic equipment. I recall many years ago, they tested stereo turntables. They basically said, for each model: "They turn the record around and around. When it's hooked up to an amp, and you put the stylus to the record, music comes out of the speakers. It appears very durable and well made." By their test methods, a Panasonic direct drive deck tested about the same "with no significant sonic differences" to a Linn Sondek (I don't actually think they tested a Linn, but you get my drift). CR may be great for testing refrigerators or pickup trucks, but I don't think they'd provide a report on photographic equipment that would satisfy the needs of an enthusiast. cheers, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got tested. -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Happy Pentax to me
Same here. Bought an SP500 in 1974. Still works fine. As a matter of fact, when I ran a roll through it recently my daughter saw the prints and asked me why I had bought the new one. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/21/03 08:47AM >>> Double gasp Bought my first Pentax in 1971,SP500, which i still own. I don't remember how much,but it was the same amount as a car i was looking at.lol Dave > Gasp! I've been a Pentax user since 1963 - Honeywell H3. Still have the > camera. > > Jim A. > > > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:09:42 -0400 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Happy Pentax to me > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:07:58 -0400 > > > > Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that > > this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. > > > > cheers, > > caveman > > >
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
"All I know about opossums is that they're ugly son of a bitches and they're good to eat." The correct plural is "sons of bitches". I team teach a course with a colleague of mine, and I always remind students of this before they fill out the course evaluations. 8^) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lens Mount Progress
CR caters to P. T. Barnum's favorite customers. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress > I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece of > photographic equipment. > > I recall many years ago, they tested stereo turntables. They basically said, > for each model: "They turn the record around and around. When it's hooked up > to an amp, and you put the stylus to the record, music comes out of the > speakers. It appears very durable and well made." > > By their test methods, a Panasonic direct drive deck tested about the same "with > no significant sonic differences" to a Linn Sondek (I don't actually think they > tested a Linn, but you get my drift). > > CR may be great for testing refrigerators or pickup trucks, but I don't think > they'd provide a report on photographic equipment that would satisfy the needs > of an enthusiast. > > cheers, > frank > > > > Feroze Kistan wrote: > > > Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they > > did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the > > bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got > > tested. > > > > -- > "What a senseless waste of human life" > -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch > >
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
Well, I submit that each handmade custom photographic print is distinct, that an expert can tell if it was printed by the photographer or by someone else, that even two prints by the same photographer from the same negative in the same printing session can be distinguished from one another. Whereas, an inkjet or other photo-mechanical reproduction can be made by anyone and is indistinguishable no matter who prints them. Uniqueness does enhance value. I guess it is just a case of being annoyed by people who use words to mean what they want, rather than using words that say what they mean. When I choose the wrong word, it is because I chose the wrong word. I resent it when someone else chooses the wrong word then argues that I am stupid because I didn't understand him. Sometimes I think it is a wonder that humans can communicate at all. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think you're being too narrow in your view, Tom. The best quality photographs may well be prints made from negatives directly on to photographic paper (although I've seen some pretty damned good ink-jet prints - some done by Aaron come to mind), but that doesn't render everything else a "non-photograph", imho.
Re: Definition of photography - a serious question
I think the easy way to check out the usage is to use the word as an adverb and see if it still works. That is, is a silver-halide print a photographic print, is an inkjet print a photographic print? Then use it as a adverb. Is a silver-halide print photographically produced? Is an inkjet print photographically produced? I think the answer is obvious when you do that. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:59 AM Subject: Definition of photography - a serious question > It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the > current dictionary definition of the word "photography". It appears that > they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained > "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light". > > So, here is a serious question. If *you* had to write a contemporary > dictionary definition for "photography", what would it be ? There's only > one rule to it (as for any definition): it has to be at the same time > inclusive (i.e. include everything that should be called photograph) and > exclusive (i.e. exclude everything that should not be called so). > > Any takes ? > > cheers, > caveman >
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
There's no meter with 100% accuracy. If you didn't know that, you're entitled to ask for a refund for your physics courses. It might allow for buying a new lens or something. cheers, caveman Pål Jensen wrote: Caveman wrote: Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). REPLY: It is based on experience as usual not marketing talk. Meters that are 100% for what they are calibrated for is something thats taken for granted these days. Your insistence on this issue really only tells that you're unable to nail exposure consistently and that tells something about your ablities as a photographer and nothing about the rest of us or metering accuracy. Pål
Re: Happy Pentax to me
Double gasp Bought my first Pentax in 1971,SP500, which i still own. I don't remember how much,but it was the same amount as a car i was looking at.lol Dave > Gasp! I've been a Pentax user since 1963 - Honeywell H3. Still have the > camera. > > Jim A. > > > From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:09:42 -0400 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Happy Pentax to me > > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 04:07:58 -0400 > > > > Writing the previous message with "10 years ago.." I just noticed that > > this year I should celebrate 10 years since I got my first Pentax. > > > > cheers, > > caveman > > >
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
On 03.6.21 5:29 AM, "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources in the > Pentax circles in Japan. Wasn't Pål the one who correctly predicted that the name of the new series was *ist when none of us had the faintest clue? Cheers, Ken
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Caveman wrote: Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). REPLY: It is based on experience as usual not marketing talk. Meters that are 100% for what they are calibrated for is something thats taken for granted these days. Your insistence on this issue really only tells that you're unable to nail exposure consistently and that tells something about your ablities as a photographer and nothing about the rest of us or metering accuracy. Pål
Re: MZ-S discount UK price
>>Had a good look through AP: >> >>Cameraworld £549 inc VAT >> >>mail order tel 0207 636 5003 and 0207 436 2553 >>14 Wells Street (off Oxford St) > > > >Many, many thanks! An excuse for a trip to Oxford Street! > >West Base Electronics (Regent Street) are usually >competitive for Pentax gear but on this occasion their price >for the MZ-S is way off. I'm going to a camera fair next >weekend so I'll see what crops up used before going to >Oxford Street. > >Thanks again for your help. Also, in this week's AP there is: PENTAX MZS BODY mint £430, 31mm 1.9 ltd edition mint £490, Sigma 24-70mm 2.8ex + filter £230 other accessories flash/tripod etc. Phoen Frank 0208 922 6474 (Londo) aftr 7pm It was in last week as well so maybe long gone HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Lens Mount Progress
I wouldn't put much stock in what CR says about slr's, or any other piece of photographic equipment. I recall many years ago, they tested stereo turntables. They basically said, for each model: "They turn the record around and around. When it's hooked up to an amp, and you put the stylus to the record, music comes out of the speakers. It appears very durable and well made." By their test methods, a Panasonic direct drive deck tested about the same "with no significant sonic differences" to a Linn Sondek (I don't actually think they tested a Linn, but you get my drift). CR may be great for testing refrigerators or pickup trucks, but I don't think they'd provide a report on photographic equipment that would satisfy the needs of an enthusiast. cheers, frank Feroze Kistan wrote: > Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they > did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the > bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got > tested. > -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Magnifier FB
Feroze, F magnifier was introduced for SF1/SFX cameras, FB magnifier was introduced afterwards I believe them to be identical. The magnifiers that fit on the K-1000 are the older type. They work with KM, KX, K2, and the old Spotmatics. They are abundant on ebay. I've used the FB magnifier and refconverter A or M on ME, ME Super, Super Program/Super A, and PZ-1/PZ-1p. The eyepieces are all identical mounts and they work fine. The magnifier that fits the K-1000 doesn't work for the later cameras. The dimensions of the eyepiece are different, slightly smaller I think. Folks have talked about grinding a bit off of the mount on the old ones. Other comments are added below... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I have the 'F' which looks identical to the FB. As far as I know, they are > > identical (but can't be since they have different names?). > > --Thats what is says on Boz's site, but I can't tell either F came with the 'F' series cameras & lenses (SF1/SFX) FB came later... > > It fits any bodies since the M series. I don't think it will fit K or > > earlier series, just like Refconverter M/A. It covers more than the splite > > image & microprisms, but I cannot provide any figure. However, I have > > found the magnification of the Refconverter A seems to provide > > clearer and slightly higher magnification at 2X setting. > > --The eyepiece cover of my MZS fits perfectly on my K1000. The only contact > it needs to make to work is to able to slide down the rails. Yes/No/Maybe? I don't know about the MZS, the rails of the KM, KX, K2 & K-1000 are of a different dimension than the PZ-1p or ME Super. > > >2] Can you use it in portrait format, using your right eye, the pictures > > >dont really show you how far back it bends? > > > > Why not? > > --Well I downloaded the manual for the magnifier F (Theres no FB on the US > site) and it shows how far the tube bends back, dosn't it get in the way > when you turn the camera into portrait mode? Magnifier is a straignt thru thing. Snap it down & get a 2X view of the center of the viewfinder. Snap it up and you'll look thru the original finder window, not thru it. If it gets in the way, dismount it. > > >3] Is it of metal construction or a cheap and nasty plastic thingy? > > > > Plastic and rubber body, coated glasses. But the whole thing don't feel > > cheap. You can even flip it up (but might get in the way depends on the > > bodies. I can flip it up completely with MX, but not Z-1p. Perhaps the FB > > fixed this problem? If you want metal, looks for the M, but I have seen it > > once only on eBay, and it wasn't cheap (even rarer than Refconverter A). > > --I would prefer metal, I'm rather strange that way, the more delicate an > item, the more likely I'm to break it. I've seen one refconverter at $400- I > rather buy a limited lens for that kind of money.
This weekend's shoot
Our youngest is getting married tomorrow evening so it looks like the Pentax gear will get a real workout. I've loaded the 645 with NPC, with 3 rolls of that left, and one pro pack each of 160VC and 160NC. The MZ-S is loaded with Delta 100, the wife's ZX-L will be loaded with Superia 400, the Optio S has 2 batteries charged and the 128 Mb SD card ready to go. I'm even considering taking the P30t and loading it with E100SW. Looks like I'll be spending most of next week culling and printing. Bill
Optio S observations
I had a chance to give my Optio S a fairly good workout yesterday evening and thought I'd share some of my opinions with y'all. The auto white balance tends to go a bit on the blue side, but it's easily fixed by going to manual. Like most DDC's (damned digital cameras), the LCD is difficult to see in bright light. On the plus side, using photoshop and genuine fractals, 8x10 snapshots are, IMNHO, are excellent. Using either an Altoids tin or the Pentax leather case, it easily fits in a shirt pocket, but is more comfortable in a pants pocket. With a 128 Mb SD card, there are approximately 61 images available on the card, and the available feature of transferring about 5 images from the SD card to the 11 Mb internal memory. This is with the camera set on max resolution and minimum compression. Most impressive though, is battery life. It uses a proprieatary battery that is not much larger than a postage stamp. Yesterday evening I shot 37 images, most of them with flash, and used only about 1/2 of the charge in the battery. Overall, for use as a take anywhere snapshot camera, it is ideal. Bill
Shutters (WAS: Re: Lens Mount Progress)
Ken wrote: I believe Pål is right on this account. I remember reading a Japanese magazine article where Pentax designers were discussing the process of designing the MZ-S, wherein they said that one of the most difficult tasks was to keep the power consumption within a limit (it's still a battery eater :-). Shutter unit was capable for 1/8000 but there was a huge (probably exponential) difference in the shutter charge between 1/6000 and 1/8000 and Pentax decided to tune down the shutter to 1/6000, thus effectively increasing the durability. I do not believe that Pentax aimed at increasing the shutter durability but it was rather the side benefit of minimizing the power consumption. REPLY: True. Pentax wanted to make a very compact, well made camera (pretty much what the PDML wanted them to do) and therefore had limitations in the use of power source. The MZ-S batteries lasts for about 30 rolls. A doubling of power consumption would have been unacceptable. Larger batteries would have meant a larger camera; something close to the Z-1p. Interestingly, the Z-1p and the Nikon F(N)90 use the very same shutter unit. For all we know the F100 and MZ-S may share shutters as well. I'm not saying it is like this, just that it could very well be. The MZ-S was developed from the MD-S, an $8000 full frame digital camera targeted at Pentax professional users. The main intended market was Pentax MF users who may use the MD-S with MF lenses as an alternative to a digital back for MF. Since then Pentax strategy in DSLR has changed: now they target the entry level DSLR segment with the *ist D and will make medium format digital solutions for the professional segment. Pål
re-enablement
Finally, medium format again! This time in the form of a pre-war (Probably as lens is uncoated and f/l measured in cm) Rolleiflex Automat. Shutter is a little sluggish, but it looks like it hasn't been fired in 25 years. (Remaining film spool is metal.) Off for some fun today! Collin
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
In a message dated 6/21/03 3:34:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I agree with you Raimo. What's the deal about attacking Pål every time he says something? I personally, have more respect for what Pål says than most people on this list. I'd hate to lose his opinions and his forecasts — right or wrong Vic >During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources >in the Pentax circles in Japan. Do you? If not, "try sticking to facts, >because you will have a greater > >chance of getting things right". > >All the best! > >Raimo
Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition)
I'm with him too. Best OT post so far. A shutter speed of 1/2000 or greater should be sufficient. Jostein wrote: Hey, Dan! I'm with you. We should make some buttons and T-shirts. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:02 PM Subject: Re: (o)possums (was: Agfa Competition) STOP PLATE TECTONICS! Back in 1970, I had a geology professor who, at that time, was not convinced of plate tectonics.
Re: Magnifier FB
Hi Alan, > I have the 'F' which looks identical to the FB. As far as I know, they are > identical (but can't be since they have different names?). --Thats what is says on Boz's site, but I can't tell either > It fits any bodies since the M series. I don't think it will fit K or > earlier series, just like Refconverter M/A. It covers more than the splite > image & microprisms, but I cannot provide any figure. However, I have found > the magnification of the Refconverter A seems to provide clearer and > slightly higher magnification at 2X setting. --The eyepiece cover of my MZS fits perfectly on my K1000. The only contact it needs to make to work is to able to slide down the rails. Yes/No/Maybe? > > >2] Can you use it in portrait format, using your right eye, the pictures > >dont really show you how far back it bends? > > Why not? --Well I downloaded the manual for the magnifier F (Theres no FB on the US site) and it shows how far the tube bends back, dosn't it get in the way when you turn the camera into portrait mode? > > >3] Is it of metal construction or a cheap and nasty plastic thingy? > > Plastic and rubber body, coated glasses. But the whole thing don't feel > cheap. You can even flip it up (but might get in the way depends on the > bodies. I can flip it up completely with MX, but not Z-1p. Perhaps the FB > fixed this problem? If you want metal, looks for the M, but I have seen it > once only on eBay, and it wasn't cheap (even rarer than Refconverter A). --I would prefer metal, I'm rather strange that way, the more delicate an item, the more likely I'm to break it. I've seen one refconverter at $400- I rather buy a limited lens for that kind of money. Thanks, Feroze
Re: Definition of photography - a serious question
Caveman wrote: > > It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the > current dictionary definition of the word "photography". It appears that > they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained > "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light". > > So, here is a serious question. If *you* had to write a contemporary > dictionary definition for "photography", what would it be ? There's only > one rule to it (as for any definition): it has to be at the same time > inclusive (i.e. include everything that should be called photograph) and > exclusive (i.e. exclude everything that should not be called so). > > Any takes ? I would not try to define "photography". I would suggest defining "still imaging". Why? Although I mostly use film, every slide I sell is digitally scanned for reproduction. Very little of my work is ever printed using traditional methods, which is what I think the definition of "photography" still gets hung up on. Whether it is "photography" or "still imaging", the important part of the definition must include recognition that the "photographer" or "still imager" must make careful use of light (whether ambient or artificial) to create the result. John
Re: Lens Mount Progress
> > Agreed. Still, for me, the advantages of the MZ-S are more important than > > those of the Dynax 7 (that's why I bought the latter :-) > > You mean *the former*, don't you?:) Nah - I'm a Minolta user in disguise ;-)) Of course "the latter", what was I thinking? Anyway, it was late at night... > For me the most importand advantage of > the MZ-S is that it accepts all K-mount lenses. Definitelly - I can't imagine changing systems and not being able to use manual lenses. Regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got tested. You will never get the full story from consumer report because it takes time to show the weakness of certain products. For instances, some Sigma lenses scored well in test reports but degrade quickly mechanically. And by the time they got a meaningful some of user resports, the MZ-S might be long gone. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
In terms of features, no doubt Minolta 7 wins the game. But in terms of built quality, I have yet to strip down a MZ-S to be certain. You can't judge the quality from the "shell" only. regards, Alan Chan DMF (Direct Manual Focus) Mode (Custom 22-2) - This mode allows the photographers to fine-tune focus with most of the Minolta AF lenses*2. The clutch incorporated in the Maxxum 7 allows the focusing ring to be manually operated once the focus is locked by autofocus. The photographers can fine-tune the focus according to their preferences. There is no need to change the focus mode. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Has Consumer Report ever tested SLR cameras? Should be interesting if they did. We don't get the report this side, but if they can tell which is the bestest peanut butter in the whole wide world surely at least one camera got tested. Feroze - Original Message - From: "Raimo Korhonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 11:29 AM Subject: Vs: Lens Mount Progress > During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources in the Pentax circles in Japan. Do you? If not, "try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater > chance of getting things right". > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -Alkuperäinen viesti- > Lähettäjä: whickersworld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 21. kesäkuuta 2003 1:40 > Aihe: Re: Lens Mount Progress > > > >Pål Jensen wrote: > >>You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains > >a shutter not optimized for durability. This is way off the > >truth. > > > > > > > >*Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. > > > >Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater > >chance of getting things right. > > > >John > > > >
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Advantages? Name one. I know this will make a lot of people "not happy", but the latest Japan CAPA June magazine didn't compared the MZ-S to any F5/EOS1v/9 (1st group), or F100/EOS3/N1 (2nd group). And you know what? They compared it to other mid end bodies F80/EOS7/7/NX (3rd group), yet still scored the worst. Now, before we started a flame war, I didn't make the comparsion. The opinions were formed by 3 photographers chosen by the magazine, and they have some interesting graphs to show their strength and weakness. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
New Pentax Price list (End of MZ-3)
Hallo on the German Pentax home page is a new price list (1.7.2003) http://www.pentax.de/pentaxeurope/pentaxeurope_prod/pentaxeurope/v2/de/image s/Preisliste_endverbraucher.pdf In this price list are also the Optio 450, *ist and the FAJ lenses. The following products are gone: MZ-7, 330GS, FA 4-5.6/28-105 (from Tamron) The following products will be stoped soon: MZ-3, FA 28-200, FA 85-Soft, A2.8 16 Fisheye, A3.5 15, K2.8 28 Shift SMCA 645 2.8/55 There a still a lot of LX products in the list (viewfinder, gribs, screens, ..) The FAJ lenses are very cheep in comparision to the former cheapest lenses FAJ 28-8099 Euro (FA 28-80 179 Euro) FAJ 75-300...149 Euro (FA 80-200 239 Euro) regards Rüdiger
Re: Magnifier FB
To those who actually own and use one, could you answer a few questions. I have the 'F' which looks identical to the FB. As far as I know, they are identical (but can't be since they have different names?). The F was designed along with SF series and the FB was designed for MZ series. But as with any viewfinder accessories, they are pretty much interchangable. 1] Will it fit on both the MZS and K1000? The K has the SE split screen, how big is the circle of magnification? The manual says 2X, but how much of the screen does it cover? It fits any bodies since the M series. I don't think it will fit K or earlier series, just like Refconverter M/A. It covers more than the splite image & microprisms, but I cannot provide any figure. However, I have found the magnification of the Refconverter A seems to provide clearer and slightly higher magnification at 2X setting. 2] Can you use it in portrait format, using your right eye, the pictures dont really show you how far back it bends? Why not? 3] Is it of metal construction or a cheap and nasty plastic thingy? Plastic and rubber body, coated glasses. But the whole thing don't feel cheap. You can even flip it up (but might get in the way depends on the bodies. I can flip it up completely with MX, but not Z-1p. Perhaps the FB fixed this problem? If you want metal, looks for the M, but I have seen it once only on eBay, and it wasn't cheap (even rarer than Refconverter A). 4] How does it work on a camera that has a diopter adjustment, do you leave one on neutral and adjust the cameras diopter? Either way will do I think. I have like -5 and it covers that too, but the Refconverter A can't. I have also found the viewing quality is significantly better without wearing glasses. 5] I prefer new OEM stuff, but if someone has one in excellent condition, contact me offline! I am not selling mine. I still use it on MX. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
DMF (Direct Manual Focus) Mode (Custom 22-2) - This mode allows the photographers to fine-tune focus with most of the Minolta AF lenses*2. The clutch incorporated in the Maxxum 7 allows the focusing ring to be manually operated once the focus is locked by autofocus. The photographers can fine-tune the focus according to their preferences. There is no need to change the focus mode. Raimo Korhonen wrote: Advantages? Name one. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Artur Ledóchowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 20. kesäkuuta 2003 23:16 Aihe: Re: Lens Mount Progress - Original Message - From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress MZ-S. You say that the MZ-S doesn't compare to its rivals (EOS 3 or F100), but then again one might say that there is no other camera like the MZ-S on the market. Small, solid, well-built, offering data imprinting, fully compatibile with old manual lenses. Actually there is a camera which is quite a direct rival to the MZ-S - Minolta Dynax 7. It has weaknessess but it also has several strong advantages over the MZ-S and it's significantly cheaper than the latter... Regards Artur
Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Do I sense a negative attitude here? It is quite unnecessary. Current electronic shutters are very durable, even the cheap ones. In a Chaser d´Images test issue (226/2000) even Pentax MZ-30 shutter managed to do 145305 cycles. In the days of mechanical shutters 5 was respectable and 10 absolute top. I would expect MZ-S to perform even better but at the current rate I use film I will never know. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 21. kesäkuuta 2003 10:25 Aihe: Re: Lens Mount Progress >Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, whickersworld wrote: >> >> >>>*Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. >>> >>>Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater >>>chance of getting things right >> >> Pål is right. High durability of MZ-S shutter was mentioned in Canadian >> MZ-S brochure. And because this brochure is direct translation from >> Japanese version, I consider this info as very reliable. You can download >> this brochure here: >> http://www.pentaxcanada.com/support/brochure_download/MZ-S_eng.pdf >> Japanese version is on www.pentax.co.jp > >It also mentions impossible things like "Absolute accuracy in focusing >and metering" and "The flexibility to suit any purpose and any >photographer". For the shutter they just say "the high performance >shutter puts the emphasis on reliability and accuracy in real >situations" (which could also be read as "it performs bad in lab tests, >so we'll limit talk to "real situations" only"). No figures mentioned >like MTBF in shutter cycles. Just marketing talk (that also inspired >Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). > >cheers, >caveman >
Magnifier FB
To those who actually own and use one, could you answer a few questions. 1] Will it fit on both the MZS and K1000? The K has the SE split screen, how big is the circle of magnification? The manual says 2X, but how much of the screen does it cover? 2] Can you use it in portrait format, using your right eye, the pictures dont really show you how far back it bends? 3] Is it of metal construction or a cheap and nasty plastic thingy? 4] How does it work on a camera that has a diopter adjustment, do you leave one on neutral and adjust the cameras diopter? 5] I prefer new OEM stuff, but if someone has one in excellent condition, contact me offline! TIA Feroze
Vs: Lens Mount Progress
During the last Photokina I learned that Pål has good, reliable sources in the Pentax circles in Japan. Do you? If not, "try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater chance of getting things right". All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: whickersworld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 21. kesäkuuta 2003 1:40 Aihe: Re: Lens Mount Progress >Pål Jensen wrote: >>You seem to base this on the assumption that MZ-S contains >a shutter not optimized for durability. This is way off the >truth. > > > >*Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. > >Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater >chance of getting things right. > >John >
Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Advantages? Name one. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Artur Ledóchowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 20. kesäkuuta 2003 23:16 Aihe: Re: Lens Mount Progress >- Original Message - >From: "Lukasz Kacperczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Lens Mount Progress > > >> MZ-S. You say that the MZ-S doesn't compare to its rivals (EOS 3 or F100), >> but then again one might say that there is no other camera like the MZ-S >on >> the market. Small, solid, well-built, offering data imprinting, fully >> compatibile with old manual lenses. > >Actually there is a camera which is quite a direct rival to the MZ-S - >Minolta Dynax 7. It has weaknessess but it also has several strong >advantages over the MZ-S and it's significantly cheaper than the latter... >Regards >Artur >
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, whickersworld wrote: *Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater chance of getting things right Pål is right. High durability of MZ-S shutter was mentioned in Canadian MZ-S brochure. And because this brochure is direct translation from Japanese version, I consider this info as very reliable. You can download this brochure here: http://www.pentaxcanada.com/support/brochure_download/MZ-S_eng.pdf Japanese version is on www.pentax.co.jp It also mentions impossible things like "Absolute accuracy in focusing and metering" and "The flexibility to suit any purpose and any photographer". For the shutter they just say "the high performance shutter puts the emphasis on reliability and accuracy in real situations" (which could also be read as "it performs bad in lab tests, so we'll limit talk to "real situations" only"). No figures mentioned like MTBF in shutter cycles. Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the "100% accurate metering" claim). cheers, caveman
Re: Lens Mount Progress
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, whickersworld wrote: > *Your* assumption is way off the truth, Pål. > > Try sticking to facts, because you will have a greater > chance of getting things right Pål is right. High durability of MZ-S shutter was mentioned in Canadian MZ-S brochure. And because this brochure is direct translation from Japanese version, I consider this info as very reliable. You can download this brochure here: http://www.pentaxcanada.com/support/brochure_download/MZ-S_eng.pdf Japanese version is on www.pentax.co.jp Best regards Sylwek
Definition of photography - a serious question
It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the current dictionary definition of the word "photography". It appears that they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained "on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light". So, here is a serious question. If *you* had to write a contemporary dictionary definition for "photography", what would it be ? There's only one rule to it (as for any definition): it has to be at the same time inclusive (i.e. include everything that should be called photograph) and exclusive (i.e. exclude everything that should not be called so). Any takes ? cheers, caveman
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
På lørdag, 21. juni 2003, kl. 09:24, skrev Caveman: Dag T wrote: I agree with Jostein. Photography is about capturing light. So conversion of solar energy through photocells is photography. Is there anything left that's not ? Sure, with very large pixels :-) DagT
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
Dag T wrote: I agree with Jostein. Photography is about capturing light. So conversion of solar energy through photocells is photography. Is there anything left that's not ? cheers, caveman
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
Altaf Shaikh wrote: Photographers buying art and not cameras? They always did that. Since beautiful models are pieces of art, and photographers always paid for their time cheers, caveman
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph?
På lørdag, 21. juni 2003, kl. 09:04, skrev Caveman: Dag T wrote: På fredag, 20. juni 2003, kl. 21:38, skrev Paul Stenquist: Damn. Every high dollar pro in the business prints his or her portfolio with an inkjet. Recorded CD-Rs have been mentioned, they´re made using light, First newspapers were photographs, now CD wallets are portfolios... what's next, folks ? I told you what´s next, didn´t you like it? :-) I agree with Jostein. Photography is about capturing light. What you do with it next is irrelevant. DagT
