Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Not really. Just a bit pixelated, that's all. Cheers, Jostein Are they coming apart? ;) Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Gianfranco Irlanda wrote: Hi guys, That sounds really nice! I'm glad I'm going to join you by the end of the month, although not in London. :-) Gianfranco (thinking about what to put in the backpack, photographically speaking...)
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Heiko Hamann wrote: No, there are no different layers of material but one composite material (as far a I have understood that). My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover that has been vacuum plated then painted black. John
Re: Pentax Energizer bunny
The original 645 was like that too wrt battery consume. Seems to me that the electronics in these cameras are very tolerant to dropping voltages. Cheers, Jostein Pål Jensen wrote: Yep. The batteries last about out the roll on the MZ-S after battery warning. The 645NII goes on and on. Pål
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Sorry, Frank. I connected through the cellphone with my laptop from the restaurant. Battery life and cellphone rates being what they are, and not to mention line bandwidth, I just sent the message an logged off. Cotty was driving, so he was no match in pint hoisting. :-) Jostein Onsdag, 02 juli 2003, skrev du: You guys still on line? Who's drinking what? I bet Cotty's had the most to drink!! vbg Hoist a pint for me! Cheers! frank Jostein wrote: Hi, Gang. Just a quick hello from three PDML'ers dining together in London tonight. Cotty's got his big awful, ugly digicam, with which he will probably document the event and put up on his website (god, am I green with envy... *istD, c'mon!). We're having a good time, and honestly, wish you were all here. Cheers, Bob Walkden, Cotty, and Jostein -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
Pål Jensen wrote: John wrote: No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again. REPLY: Why should I say that? I've said the same thing since I forst heard about the 4/3 system. The Olympus makes more sense than the *ist D (or D10 for that matter) to me. The way I see it is that the Olympus offer advantages beyond the fact that it doesn't use film. Good grief! We agree. Hugs, John ;-)
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi John, on 03 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: No, there are no different layers of material but one composite material (as far a I have understood that). My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover that has been vacuum plated then painted black. Sorry - I meant the *istD. Cheers, Heiko
RE: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
The problem I see with the 4/3 system is also the very strength of the system - namely the 'open standard lens mount'. It will never be in the interests of P*, C*, N*, M* and some others to make kit in this mount. They all want to lock you into a proprietary system and force you to buy their own lenses and accessories. The 4/3 system would be a free for all which would be of no benefit to manufacturers doing well at the moment who could only lose sales as a result of getting involved. As long as these manufacturers don't get involved, then this will always be considered niche, however big that niche may be. The system may make absolute sense to consumers, but it will never be the future withough the backing of the 'big two' who will see only downsides to getting involved. Of course, this is all IMO and C* may annouce tomorrow that they are scrapping the EOS mount! Rob -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 July 2003 23:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1 John wrote: Personally, I think the 4/3 system could be the future of digital, and that we will see the 'Holy Grail' of a 24x36mm sensor as more of a 'blind alley'. No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again. REPLY: Why should I say that? I've said the same thing since I forst heard about the 4/3 system. The Olympus makes more sense than the *ist D (or D10 for that matter) to me. The way I see it is that the Olympus offer advantages beyond the fact that it doesn't use film. Pål
RE: A quick hello from South Bank, London
I wish I could have been there. Glad someone was there to welcome you and represent the locals! Fingers crossed next time I can make it. This is two london bashes that I have missed now... Rob -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 July 2003 11:21 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London Sorry, Frank. I connected through the cellphone with my laptop from the restaurant. Battery life and cellphone rates being what they are, and not to mention line bandwidth, I just sent the message an logged off. Cotty was driving, so he was no match in pint hoisting. :-) Jostein Onsdag, 02 juli 2003, skrev du: You guys still on line? Who's drinking what? I bet Cotty's had the most to drink!! vbg Hoist a pint for me! Cheers! frank Jostein wrote: Hi, Gang. Just a quick hello from three PDML'ers dining together in London tonight. Cotty's got his big awful, ugly digicam, with which he will probably document the event and put up on his website (god, am I green with envy... *istD, c'mon!). We're having a good time, and honestly, wish you were all here. Cheers, Bob Walkden, Cotty, and Jostein -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
No, I don't get it. I guess I haven't been paying attention. How, if it will use manual and AF lenses, is it NOT backward compatible? There are manual lenses and manual lenses - an A series lens is a manual lens that should work on the *ist D, while plain K-mount lenses probably won't. Regards, ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Hi,. Jerome, ROTFL! You had me going for a second there... cheers, frank jerome wrote: snipThose who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart not to design this beauty with those folks in mind. Okay Okay . !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call that my editorial additions.snip -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Optio S Case;
Hi Daniel, On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 09:00:10 -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I while back I related how I am using an Altoids tin as the case for my Optio S, and how well it works. Recently, I was browsing in a camera shop (something I do whenever I can) and looked again at the case Pentx sells for the S. It's a bit bulkier that the Altoids tin, but it also holds an extra battery and and extra memory card in an outside pocket. Best of all, it has a belt loop, which works great because of the camera's tiny size. I love it! I hope that belt-loop is a real loop! Using a leather-case that had a strong metal belt-CLIP, I managed to LOOSE my Optio-S the day before yesterday ... So I am stuck with a loader and a spare DL-18 battery now :-( I plan to get a new one on a trip to the USA in october, prices for the Optio-S seem to be at least 20% lower in the states. Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ? Regards, Jan van Wijk -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Optio S Case;
I hope that belt-loop is a real loop! Yep, it uses a real loop, but I still carry mine in a pocket to be on the safe side Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ? They're hard to find in the USA right now, according to my local dealers they're backordered due to higher than expected demand. I got mine at the Wal-Mart website (www.walmart.com) for $397.00 US including a 128 MB SD card. Bill
Re: Optio S Case;
Hi Bill, On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:15:57 -0400, Bill Owens wrote: Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ? They're hard to find in the USA right now, according to my local dealers I will be near SF the first two weeks of october, so I can't use mail-order. I will be visiting a few of the big photo-stores I guess and see if I can find one. they're backordered due to higher than expected demand. I got mine at the Wal-Mart website (www.walmart.com) for $397.00 US including a 128 MB SD That is a good price! Maybe prices will even drop a bit, they might plan for an Optio-S upgrade end of the year or early 2004 ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Optio S Case;
My local photo shop (Millburn, NJ) has three in stock. Bill Owens wrote: I hope that belt-loop is a real loop! Yep, it uses a real loop, but I still carry mine in a pocket to be on the safe side Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ? They're hard to find in the USA right now, according to my local dealers they're backordered due to higher than expected demand. I got mine at the Wal-Mart website (www.walmart.com) for $397.00 US including a 128 MB SD card. Bill -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://geocities.com/dmatyola/ Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
Excuse me, but doesn't this newfangled 4/3 system remind you of something? It is effectively destined to be a digital version of the old Pentax K mount. Who made the best bodies for the K mount? Pentax. Who made the best lenses for the K mount? Pentax. And my point is? I'm not entirely sure but maybe it goes something like this: why start another 'universal' system of digital bodies and lenses (aside from the obvious fact that the design of the lenses/bodies is optimised for smaller than 'full-frame' sensors)? Won't the same thing happen again, and a good idea by Olympus become watered down by 3rd parties with inferior (although cheaper) equipment and mainstream manufacturers turning their proprietary noses up at it?? Devil's advocate. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
on 02.07.03 13:04, Alin Flaider at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The E1 is cheap as a body, but expensive as a system. Looking at the lenses price, I expect only organizations can step in the 4/3 system at this time. Maybe things will calm down with the advent of an entry level camera and third party lenses. Only then the Oly will be accessible to the amateurs. If it survives. That's not true. Compare for instance MSRP of 50-200 E-lens and comparable 100-400 Canon lens. EF 100-400 is 2x more expensive than 50-200 from Olympus. Flash is cheaper too. 50/2 macro has MSRP 200$ than EF 100/2.8. 300/2.8 has not even anything comparable at the competition - oh, sorry Canon EF 600/4 has MSRP 12000$ - about 4000$ more than Olympus lens... So suggested prices for E-system are even lower than those of competition. The only question is - how much will they drop down in the shops? -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Drop me a big hint, Jerome. What is J-Lo ? Multiple choice exam: Option A: J-Lo is a (Pentax?) Model that was made in 1970. Unlike other Pentax models, this one was designed in Puerto Rico, not Japan, and manufactured in the Bronx, NY. The user interface is lovely, and most people would love to get their hands on one... but they are rare, and expensive to maintain. The trademark for this model is that the back protrudes in a *very* round fashion, providing for a very ergonomic grip for it's user; quite a unique design given that most other models are substantially flat in this area. Ben Affleck is currently the spokesperson of this model (lucky dog)... but that has been known to change with the weather. Option B: J-Lo = jennifer lopez. A model / singer / dancer / actress who has arguably gained fame via her shapely curves, sub-par movie performances, and mediocre singing ability. Option C: All of the above.
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
The *photographic* evidence in full: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/lpdml.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Jennifer Lopez??? Oh, I thought it was something important ;-p Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Pentax Equipment Gets the Job Done
Hello. I would like to comment on Pentax equipment. I have been using Pentax cameras and lenses for a while now. I have an MX, LX, and PZ-1P. Oh, an old K1000. I have had a couple of problems. I had the sticky mirror thing with the LX. Got it fixed and never had a problem with it again. I have had a problem rewinding film with the PZ-1P and sent it to Pentax (under warranty) and it is fine now. Actually it may have been partially my fault. I use the manual rewind function and was not holding the button down for the entire time it was rewinding. Once I left my MX out in the rain (by accident of course) for 15 minutes. That ruined the film in the camera, but the camera still works. I bought a AF500FTZ and combined with the PZ-1P, I cannot think of a better combination. I shot a wedding with that combination a couple of weeks ago and the results were great (except for my own mistakes). Exposures indoors and outdoors were perfect. Pictures shot with the Af50/1.4 and the 28-105 Power Zoom were always sharp. Of course I used the AF50/1.4 for the shots that would most likely result in the purchasing of enlargements. Using the LX for long time exposures, well the results speak for themselves. Not to mention how well the LX does under adverse conditions. What I guess I am trying to say in this ramble is I think Pentax makes great dependable photographic tools. They get the job done and do it well. Thanks for listening. Francis
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Oh, I thought it was something important ;-p Nope! Not at all. Sorry. It ranks right up there with D-ist speculation in that respect and Digital vs. Film debates in that respect.
Optionally
Ok. I bit the digi-bait this morning, at Cameraworld in Wells Street, London. Now I own an Optio S. If only this meeting could finish, so I could get out and play. :-) Jostein
FA 24-90 focal length
Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality. Subsequently I bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical quality as very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good. What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure this with some precision. The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1 mm). I have also tested some other Pentax lenses: M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says. Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does it like that). So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80. I thought you might be interested. Sven
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
Did you check the short end? Wouldn't be interesting if it was just another 28-80? BTW, nominal and actual focal lengths have always been somewhat problematic, but 10+% is a bit out of line. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: FA 24-90 focal length Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality. Subsequently I bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical quality as very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good. What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure this with some precision. The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1 mm). I have also tested some other Pentax lenses: M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says. Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does it like that). So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80. I thought you might be interested. Sven
re: FA 24-90 focal length
Sven, I'm not familiar with your measuring system, but are you able to check the focal length at various focusing distances? Some internal focusing (IF) lenses are known to have shorter effective focal lengths at shorter distances. The FA 28-200 is around 180mm at infinity, but more like 110 mm at around 2 meters, as tested by Keppler at Popular Photography. Most other Pentax lenses are much closer to the specified focal length. Thanks for the info, Sven, it is of interest. Pat White
Re[2]: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
Sylwester, those MSRP are more than twice the street price, while Oly prices are not exactly official. It's apples versus oranges also because Oly means buying everything why C/N/etc. is reusing current system. Servus, Alin Sylwester wrote: SP That's not true. Compare for instance MSRP of 50-200 E-lens and comparable SP 100-400 Canon lens. EF 100-400 is 2x more expensive than 50-200 from SP Olympus. Flash is cheaper too. 50/2 macro has MSRP 200$ than EF 100/2.8. SP 300/2.8 has not even anything comparable at the competition - oh, sorry SP Canon EF 600/4 has MSRP 12000$ - about 4000$ more than Olympus lens... So SP suggested prices for E-system are even lower than those of competition. The SP only question is - how much will they drop down in the shops?
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
Sven wrote: ks As ks the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from ks infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure ks this with some precision. Sven, this may be valid with older lenses design, but nowadays modern lenses focus at close distances by shorting the focal length. The odds are that your lens is near 90mm at infinity and drops towards 80mm at the shortest focus distance. Servus, Alin
Saturday
If Christine is fit, plan on turning up around mid-afternoon, say 3.30 ? Remind me - Christine eats fish, yes? Alma got some swordfish from Waitrose and that barbeques well... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Hi, Rob wrote: I wish I could have been there. Glad someone was there to welcome you and represent the locals! Having met all of them individually and some of them together, I'm not sure being in a restaurant with _all_ of them would have been entirely safe. 8-) Although, as the waitress had Cotty by the, er, Canon, maybe they were exceedingly well behaved. Is that the outdoor eating area near to Festival Hall? (I forget its name) mike
Re: Pentax Energizer bunny
Hi, Jostein wrote: Seems to me that the electronics in these cameras are very tolerant to dropping voltages. No doubt due to them being analogue devices 8-) BTW, an interesting comparison in today's newspaper. Printer ink is up to seven times more expensive than vintage champagne, per millilitre. And, according to some members of this list, its effect is as tranistory mike
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Clothes? What clothes?? Do you mean that I should actually wear something apart from the camera hanging from my neck? :-) Gianfranco - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Don't forget to reserve some space for clothes! :-) Cheers, Jostein Onsdag, 2 juli 2003, skrev du: Hi guys, That sounds really nice! I'm glad I'm going to join you by the end of the month, although not in London. :-) Gianfranco (thinking about what to put in the backpack, photographically speaking. ..) = __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
re: FA 24-90 focal length
The difference between infinity and 1:1 is the focal length of any lens, by definition. I had blocked the lens (with tape) in the infinity position (verified by looking through the finder) so - more precisely - I should have stated that what I measured is the focal length in the infinity position. With internal focusing, away from infinity, the lens effectively becomes 'a different lens'. So it may well be that when set to closer distances the focal length is different... but at infinity it is significantly less than 90 mm. The short end of the lens seemed to be o.k., but at short focal lengths it becomes difficult to adjust the lens to exact 1:1 magnification, so I did not measure this. Sven Zitat von Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sven, I'm not familiar with your measuring system, but are you able to check the focal length at various focusing distances? Some internal focusing (IF) lenses are known to have shorter effective focal lengths at shorter distances. The FA 28-200 is around 180mm at infinity, but more like 110 mm at around 2 meters, as tested by Keppler at Popular Photography. Most other Pentax lenses are much closer to the specified focal length. Thanks for the info, Sven, it is of interest. Pat White
Re: Saturday
Apologies, please ignore this thread. Finger trouble. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Saturday
Mm.. swordfish. Shall I bring the sticky wine for afters? regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 4 July 2003 12:14 AM Subject: Saturday If Christine is fit, plan on turning up around mid-afternoon, say 3.30 ? Remind me - Christine eats fish, yes? Alma got some swordfish from Waitrose and that barbeques well... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
shooting fireworks from up high
Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River. I know that I should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens, but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know about shooting a fireworks display in a city? Thanks, Amita
RE: shooting fireworks from up high
You'll be shooting at f11 or f16 with 100 speed film. The buildings will probably expose fine (not blown out) with an exposure of several seconds. Lit windows will be blown, don't worry, have fun. BR Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River. I know that I should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens, but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know about shooting a fireworks display in a city? Thanks, Amita __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: I Am Pissed!
Imhave no sympathy for you. After all the years you have spent making photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of concern to a cheap amateur lab like that. At least you have now learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you paid for cheap crap! I read here and other places of people using inexpensive labs and cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good. To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a few more pennies and get good quality always. Z === I shot a couple of rolls of color print the other day, and since I intended to just scan the negs and process the prints digitally, I dropped the rolls off at the local 29 min photo place. BIG mistake! While there was, in fact, image on the negs, they appeared to look unprocessed. The thick beige haze covered over the images for the most part. The man said, The film must be old. He did manage to get some sucky prints out of them, but they will not scan. Period. I took the negs to Pro Photo Connection in Irvine, CA to see if anything could be recovered. After much examination and after confirmation with film strips, the photo engineer at Pro Photo Connection concluded that the problem was chemical in nature, the negs had not been bleached. The damage was permanent. Lesson: Deal with professionals - only. -- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f Sponsor: Lestate si avvicina.. dai unocchiata al nostro vasto assortimento di occhiali da sole i più trendy sono su. Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1445d=3-7
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
on 03.07.03 15:29, keller.schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure this with some precision. [...] So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80. Interesting. But read test of this lens in Popular Photography: http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2article_id=327 They rate 24-90 as 24.42-87.14 mm in reality. Who is right? Also, have you tried 24-90 at different focusing distances? Internal focusing AFAIK changes a bit focal length, so maybe here is the point? -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: lightning
the lightning bolt itself is brighter than the sun. you can have very small apertures. you probably want to underexpose the sky by between two and three stops to get it to be near black. otherwise, the lightning won't contrast enough with the background. for such long exposures, you probably also want to figure in some reciprocity failure, depending on the film you are using. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:17 Subject: lightning I tried to capture some lightning strikes the other day and didn't have any luck. The bolts always appeared in a direction other than where the camera was pointing and then the rain came. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a polarizer so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my chances but now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on the film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes long when I allowed for the polarizing filter.
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
Ed Mathews, Cesar Matamoros, Tom Van Veen, 5 of Tom's Assistants http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml/uhoh1.htm Hilarious caption!
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
I sent that last email prematurely... actually there's a handful of them that are comical in their own rights. For one, I'd forgotten that Teddy Roosevelt was a devout PDMLer! Aside from that, the one with Cesar peering over your shoulder is hilarious for reasons that I can't even figure out. In all, it's always nice to put faces with names (well...usually g).. and some decent photos to boot! Thanks, Tv. Your idea of centralizing the PDML photos (or at least the links to such pages) is a good one, IMO. Eventually we should have some photos of the Atlanta PDML mini-get together from a coupl of weeks ago, too. Give us time... we're a little slow here in the south g I'll letcha know. jerome
Re: Optionally
I second that emotion, Jostein. Bill Owens wrote: You'll not regret it. Mine is in my pants pocket nearly everywhere I go, and for a PS digital it's a great piece of equipment. Bill - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:21 AM Subject: Optionally Ok. I bit the digi-bait this morning, at Cameraworld in Wells Street, London. Now I own an Optio S. If only this meeting could finish, so I could get out and play. :-) Jostein -- Daniel J. Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Stanley, Powers Matyola mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Suite203, 1170 US Highway 22 East http://geocities.com/dmatyola/ Bridgewater, NJ 08807 (908)725-3322 fax: (908)707-0399
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
In switching servers I've tried to clean things up a bit...I've grouped my PDML images in one place: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto contingents? Just give me a caption and a year... tv Hi Tom. I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; send 1-2 of the better ones.Might be Texas Leica in there too.
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
In switching servers I've tried to clean things up a bit...I've grouped my PDML images in one place: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto contingents? Just give me a caption and a year... tv Hi Tom. I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; send 1-2 of the better ones.Might be Texas Leica in there too. This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together? Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
Yes, the old FA Power Zoom 28-105 actually went to 101 mm. The Sigma AF 70-200 f2.8 actually goes to 190 mm. or so. It is common practice. Still I regard the FA 24-90 as a fine lens. Like you, I do not care for the built quality. Joe
RE: PDML Get-Togethers
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together? I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year? I remember him being in the group shot. tv
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
tom wrote: I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year? I remember him being in the group shot. John Francis? I seem to remember his departure was prompted by a flame war that got personal. (Killer motorsports photog, BTW) Stephen
RE: PDML Get-Togethers
John Francis At 01:24 PM 7/3/03, throwing caution to the wind, tom wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together? I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year? I remember him being in the group shot. tv
SV: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Hi Jerome Your editorial work actually has a point. But not a lot of old farts (an expresion covering people stupid enouhg to own some excellent 20 years old lenses) would have to buy the camera to pay for a mechanical aperture simulator, or whatever is missing to make it truely K-mount campatible. They might even make it optional. Or an adition to the *its Dn, which is bound to come in a year! Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juli 2003 05:17 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine Admittedly, I picked up the mag because J-Lo was adorning the cover... oh and I was looking for some tips on environmental portraits (more on that later, perhaps)... but (j) lo and behold, there was a blurb about the D-ist just a few pages over. From the magazine (July / August issue): It's name may be in inpronounceable, but this model, the ist Pentax D-SLR, has impressive specs. Despite its claim to be the smallest interchangeable-lens D- SLR, it features a 6.1 megapixel sensor, 16 segment metering, and 11 point wide- angle autofocus. Its shutter speeds go up to 1/4000 second, and fires at up to 2.7 frames per second. Its viewfinder is excellent, especially by D-SLR standards, providing a 95 percent field of view and .95X magnification. Two separate dials control lens aperture and shutter speed. The camera gives you a choice of JPEG, TIFF, and Raw image files, saved on CF Type I/II cards. Its powered by four AA batteries or two CR-V3 lithium cells, and can be used with an optional battery grip. Best of all, its compatible with current Pentax AF and manual focus lenses. Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart not to design this beauty with those folks in mind. Okay Okay . !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call that my editorial additions. But back to the J-Lo thing g There was quite a spread of photos of the pop star (including 4 different cover shots on the stands collect them all! HAR) But to even keep this part of my rant on topic, youd be pleased to know that a handful of the shots were taken with a Pentax 67 [and Portra 160NC, I believe]. Regards, jerome ___ http://www.exposedfilm.net
Re: shooting fireworks from up high
hi. use your steadiest tripod, and a cable release. Ive done this only once and very happy with the result. do have a look at http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=149963 and keep enough film - I ran out of film that night !! choice of lenses would be nice too. do take shots of the skyline before the fireworks. I would suggest experimenting with exposures ranging from 1 to 10 seconds. Im sure you will have a nice time! bests. -Sridhar - Original Message - From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:02 PM Subject: shooting fireworks from up high Tomorrow night I'll be in an office on the 69th floor of the Empire State Building shooting the fireworks on the East River. I know that I should get 100 ISO film and take long exposures with a wide angle lens, but I'm concerned about the fact that there will be a lot of light coming from other buildings. Is there anything special I need to know about shooting a fireworks display in a city? Thanks, Amita
RE: PDML Get-Togethers
-Original Message- From: Stephen Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tom wrote: I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year? I remember him being in the group shot. John Francis? yep. tv
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
The real strength of this system will be that there is a group out there who really liked the E-10,E-20 system and might like to continue along these lines. I suspect the price will come down quickly to the $1500 dollar level and they may try to make more money on the lenses, which is an old ploy. I don't think the 5 vs, 6 MP will make much of a difference in terms of sales. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Saturday
Oh, sure, you're just showing off that you have a life besides the list. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/03/03 10:14AM If Christine is fit, plan on turning up around mid-afternoon, say 3.30 ? Remind me - Christine eats fish, yes? Alma got some swordfish from Waitrose and that barbeques well... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
Hallo, I just put my FA 1.4/85 and my 24-90 on my camera and compared the field of view on 85 and 90 at infinity. The zoom has a longer focal lenght than the 85, maybe 88? I think that the FA* 85 has a focal lenght of about 85. I compared it also to the FA 2/24. There it looked the same. I think the zoom is longer as 80. Ones I have measured my SMC-F 28-80 and it was 77 at the long end. I do not know how you did your measurement, but I think the 24-90 is not far from the specs. regards Rüdiger Von: keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality. Subsequently I bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical quality as very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good. What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure this with some precision. The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1 mm). I have also tested some other Pentax lenses: M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says. Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does it like that). So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80. I thought you might be interested. Sven
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
Marnie, Back in the days of Shel, we had one or two gatherings but it has been quite a while. Care to set one up for NorCal PDML'ers? Bruce Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:15:20 AM, you wrote: EacIn switching servers I've tried to clean things Eac up Eac a bit...I've grouped my PDML images in one place: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml How about if we put everyone's PDML group images up here? Cotty, I know you have a few, send them my way...how about the NY and Toronto contingents? Just give me a caption and a year... tv Hi Tom. I have some from the Toronto outings but they are on the home computer.I';; Eac send 1-2 of the better ones.Might be Texas Leica in there too. Eac This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together? Eac Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: PDML Get-Togethers
tom, He was John. Had the big 250-600 zoom. That was a sight. Bruce Thursday, July 3, 2003, 10:24:13 AM, you wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This has started me wondering, do California PDMLers ever get together? t I know there was one back in 98 or 99...what was the guy's name who t worked at SGI? Bearded guy, left the list last year? t I remember him being in the group shot. t tv
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
I couldn't have said it better. At 07:40 AM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. Arnold jerome schrieb: Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart not to design this beauty with those folks in mind. Okay Okay . !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call that my editorial additions. To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: I Am Pissed!
Unfortunately, in my own experience, price does not neccessarily mean quality from a lab. I have found most so-called pro labs to be very inconsistant. If you find a good one, give them your business. But, 99.9% of the time you can depend on properly processed negatives from the 1 hour labs. Prints on the other hand can not be depended on, though with the Frontier machices they are more consistant that they used to be. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: zcaballero [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: I Am Pissed! Imhave no sympathy for you. After all the years you have spent making photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of concern to a cheap amateur lab like that. At least you have now learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you paid for cheap crap! I read here and other places of people using inexpensive labs and cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good. To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a few more pennies and get good quality always.
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Hi, Thursday, July 3, 2003, 4:31:51 PM, you wrote: http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/lpdml.html Did you at least get a shot of the waitress? No, but Cotty was obviously having a shot _at_ her... (let's hope La Cottette isn't reading g) -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Hi, Thursday, July 3, 2003, 3:19:17 PM, you wrote: Is that the outdoor eating area near to Festival Hall? (I forget its name) yes, indeed. Coin Street. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PDML Get-Togethers
Ok, it's been updated again. http://www.bigdayphoto.com/pdml -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.thomasvanveen.com 301-758-3085
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
Current pop/rap/soul star, a somewhat overrated actress/singer with about the same talent as Madonna but better looking. (Ok, so Madonna's better looking since she's had a few corrections done too, or she's mellowed with age). At 09:19 AM 7/3/03 +0100, you wrote: But back to the J-Lo thing Drop me a big hint, Jerome. What is J-Lo ? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
I couldn't have said it better. Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch.
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Gaud, I hope so. At 07:25 AM 7/3/03 -0700, you wrote: Clothes? What clothes?? Do you mean that I should actually wear something apart from the camera hanging from my neck? :-) Gianfranco - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Don't forget to reserve some space for clothes! :-) Cheers, Jostein Onsdag, 2 juli 2003, skrev du: Hi guys, That sounds really nice! I'm glad I'm going to join you by the end of the month, although not in London. :-) Gianfranco (thinking about what to put in the backpack, photographically speaking. ..) = __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Saturday
Is that what it is... At 03:26 PM 7/3/03 +0100, you wrote: Apologies, please ignore this thread. Finger trouble. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this: http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/ It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome Regards Albano --- jerome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't have said it better. Relax. Don't your panties in a bunch. = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5
I use Netscape 7.0. From the Anzeigen (display) menue I choose Zeichenkodierung and then Kyrillisch (Windows-1251). 35 Russian Rubels are 1 Euro. Arnold Kristian-H. Schuessler schrieb: Hallo Arnold, how do you manage to read from e-mails and and in www russian letters as russian letter and not as any nonsense? I use last version of Outlook Express. And how much Euro or US-$ is one Russ.Rubel ? Sincerely Yours Kristian-Heinrich Schüssler - Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:13 PM Subject: MC APO Telezenitar-K 300mm f/4.5 I just looked at the russian Zenit homepage: http://www.zenit-foto.ru/index.htm and I found some interesting lenses in k-mount like the fish-eye lens MC
RE: lightning
I agree with f16 aperture but not the 100 speed film. I've used 400 speed print film in the past with really good results. Also, and though it's tricky, a 2-3 second exposure is ideal. After that reciprocity failure creeps in and your color shifts plus the blacks go all milky. Instead of a polarizer, try a filter for shooting in fluorescent light...it helps correct the color shift on longer exposures. -Brendan MacRae --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are not trying to set exposeure for the dark sky; you are exposing the lightning itself. I would start with f16 with 100 speed film. BR Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any suggestions for a good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a polarizer so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my chances but now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on the film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes long when I allowed for the polarizing filter. __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
SV: *ist D was not production type :-(
Hi OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds of rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast. On the other hand, the new Kodak DCS 14n reaches 3000ppi. In a year or two they may reach a final level of let's say 7000ppi - which pretty much is high as any film. Mybe I'll wait for that. I'm quite happy with 16MB scannings (2048 ppi). Enough for not too large enlargements. The producers of digital cameras want to satisfy price tags not too much above the current price level of film SLR's. A Leica M7 cost about the same as the Kodak 14 MP diggie! Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juli 2003 07:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-( Hi Alan, on 02 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: The problem with plastic shells is that they tend to crack when aged. But then again, the 6 month cycle for digital cameras should not pose any problem. LOL. Hard but true... ;-) Cheers, Heiko
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Pål When you take a position you defend it even when it's indefensible. The problem is people on the list who don't know better will take your word as gospel. The LX had at least limited but useable compatibility with all previous Pentax made lenses for their 35mm cameras. As a landscape photographer you know exactly what that means. The *ist series abandons the usability part of that equation. At 05:07 PM 7/3/03 +0200, you wrote: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine)
Well, the LX can use M42 lenses via the screw mount adapater. With this adapter, the LX can use all M42 lenses at all apertures, and the meter works at all apertures too. There is no such adapter for plain K-mount lenses for the *ist D to achieve the same functionality. However, the *ist D works almost as well with M42 lenses as does the LX. Can you explain to me why the *ist D (in aperture priority mode) meters at all apertures with M42 lenses but not with plain k-mount lenses? Maybe I should replace some of my k-mount classics by the equivalent SMC Takumars as those are more up-to-date? Arnold Pål Jensen schrieb: Arnold wrote: It would have been better not to have added your two sentences because they simply and absolutely are not true. I, for example, am in the market for a new Pentax DSLR, and I only WILL try to get such a camera in a yard sale or at Ebay for 20% of retail, if it won't have better backwards compatibilty than the pre-production models that we have seen. I only spend real money on new products when they are convincing and not unneccessarily devalued. REPLY: It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! Pål
Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this: http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/ It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome Regards Albano ...a long way ahead of J Lo. Thanks. Ed _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine
At 11:17 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, jerome wrote: From the magazine (July / August issue): Those who will bitch and moan about backwards compatibility are likely the same old farts that wouldnt have bought the camera anyway, unless it was to be found at a yard sale or on eBay for 20% of retail. Pentax was smart not to design this beauty with those folks in mind. Okay Okay . !! The last two sentences werent in the article You can call that my editorial additions. Har! But look what a search of *ist on ebay brings up: http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2Fkrd=1from=R8MfcISAPICommand=GetResultht=1SortProperty=MetaEndSortquery=*ist Maybe that is the real story behind the name - if you can't find it on eBay, people might actually buy it new - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Kodak Gold 100 - RIP
At 11:36 AM 7/3/2003 -0400, Caveman wrote: What would the replacement be ? Or are they dropping 100 completely ? Or is it just a renaming game ? The other day I noticed that the mondo-super-ulta-one-stop store that I use is not stocking ISO 100 color print film. They _do_ have TMax 100 and both Elitechrome and Sensia 100 though. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
SV: lightning
Hi I recently saw a TV show about an American who made GREAT lightning shots: He was just shooting away - he didn't wait for the flash to appear on the sky. That would be too late anyway. He fired ALL THE TIME - really - pointing at the part of the sky where I believed the lighning show. Using speeds about 2-0.5 second (AFAIR). This guy was working at a photolab but had become a professional by doing this! He's work was awesome! Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juli 2003 17:17 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: lightning I tried to capture some lightning strikes the other day and didn't have any luck. The bolts always appeared in a direction other than where the camera was pointing and then the rain came. Does anyone have any suggestions for a good aperture to use for lightning? I was shooting at f/22 with a polarizer so I could hold the shutter open for a long time to increase my chances but now I'm wondering if that's too dark for the lightning to register on the film. I determined my exposures by pointing a light meter at the sky and underexposing by half a stop. Some of my exposures were 5 minutes long when I allowed for the polarizing filter.
SV: Future Pentax e-bay classics
Hi Pål Have you got one? Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juli 2003 17:00 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Future Pentax e-bay classics Chrome MZ-S bodies and black Limited lenses are going to fetch stellar prices on e-bay in the future. You just mark my word... Pål
Re: Kodak Gold 100 - RIP
Mark Cassino wrote: The other day I noticed that the mondo-super-ulta-one-stop store Wally World? :-))) -- Later, Gary
Re: FA 24-90 focal length
I always knew my FA77 is actually a FA85. :-) regards, Alan Chan Some weeks ago I inquired here about the FA 24-90 lens quality. Subsequently I bought the lens and shot some film with it. I would rate the optical quality as very reasonable and the mechanical quality as not-so-good. What puzzled me was the fact that when looking through the viewfinder the lens in the longest '90' mm position still had a shorter (!) focal lenth than my M 2,0/85. I tried to verify this by mounting the remnants of an old ME Super K-mount to the lens standard of a view camera and attaching the lens to it. As the difference in distance between lens and film (when moving the lens from infinity to 1:1 magnification) equals the focal length, I was able to measure this with some precision. The longest focal length turned out to be 81 mm (I'd say plus or minus 1 mm). I have also tested some other Pentax lenses: M 2,0/35: 34,8 mm M 1,4/50: 49,2 mm M 2,0/85: 83,9 mm M 2,8-4/40-80 at 80 mm: 78,9 mm and found these are quite close to what the lens designation says. Pentax Germany did not dispute my measurements but admitted that the 90 mm designation is an exaggeration for competitive reasons (...everybody does it like that). So, effectively, this lens is an 24-80. I thought you might be interested. Sven _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Cotty has, I think, been known to snap pix of waitresses. I seem to remember one on PDML, but I'm too damned lazy to confirm such. Cotty wrote: Did you at least get a shot of the waitress? Letch! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!! was Re: D-ist blurb in AmericanPhoto magazine
If you think J-Lo is beauty, you must see this: http://www.pampita-ardohain.com.ar/ It's worth some web-surfing. She is awesome Needs a comb running through that hair. Also, Pampita is a nice name, but the rest sounds like something you paint on a fence. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: A quick hello from South Bank, London
Cotty has, I think, been known to snap pix of waitresses. I seem to remember one on PDML, but I'm too damned lazy to confirm such. Cotty wrote: Did you at least get a shot of the waitress? Good memory Lon. I'm impressed. http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/portraits/images/pic1.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: AF TC?
Which are the best AF teleconverters for use with F 100mm macro and the FA 200mm f/2.8? The best TC for FA*200/2.8 is A2X-L, as suggested by Pentax. However, it is not AF. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Pentax-A 300mm f2.8
Andre Langevin wrote: A little bit over eleven hundreds for a Pentax-A 300mm f2.8. Is this a common price for this lens? Sounds like a bargain...if you want a *green* one. grinning, ducking, and running Stephen
FS: 43mm Limited
This was recently posted on Leica Users Group, and I received the author's permission to post it here, as some might be interested: [Sorry to break the Friday-posting rule, this is a one-time thing] I was wandering around some used camera stores in Osaka today and found two lenses that are of interested to the LUG and CVUG folks: * Pentax 43mm f/1.9 (new in box w/warrantee) - $600 * Cosina Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 (new in box w/ warrantee) - $1000 If you're interested in either of the two, please let me know. The store had two of the Pentaxes and two of the CV 35mm f1/.2s . I'm going to the store again on Saturday, so please let me know if you're interested. I'll be returning to the U.S. on July 16th and you can pay me then by Paypal, check, MO, bidpay, etc. Shipping would be around $8 since I live in St. Paul (Minnesota). Please e-mail me privately ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) if you're interested. Cheers! Karen Nakamura [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself! :-) cheers, frank -- What a senseless waste of human life -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Optio S Case;
http://www.fotoversand24.de/fotoversand24.htm?vid=3feb3e3c7fac1f70fdc20fda07680a91pid=997tid=shop/4cp=1pmid=1psid=21mid=2sid=3ssid=32ptid=shop/2 399 euro excluding memory card. Are you located in Europe, perhaps the Netherlands based on your name? Regards, Frits On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 13:20, Jan van Wijk wrote: Hi Bill, On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:15:57 -0400, Bill Owens wrote: Any advice on where to get one in the Bay area near San Francisco ? They're hard to find in the USA right now, according to my local dealers I will be near SF the first two weeks of october, so I can't use mail-order. I will be visiting a few of the big photo-stores I guess and see if I can find one. they're backordered due to higher than expected demand. I got mine at the Wal-Mart website (www.walmart.com) for $397.00 US including a 128 MB SD That is a good price! Maybe prices will even drop a bit, they might plan for an Optio-S upgrade end of the year or early 2004 ... Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?
Is this a good lens optically? I am comparing it to the tokina atx 28-80mm and Sigma 28-70mm and tamron 28-105mm. Much distortion at the 24mm end, is flare well controlled.
Re: Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?
Firstly, I will readily admit that I haven't shot enough frames with this lens to give a *conclusive* review of it... but I do own it. And I must say that I love this lens thus far! For one (you didn't ask about it, but) the feel and the build quality are definitely to my liking (I'd say the build is superb, but then someone will surely nit-pick behind me). As for the optics, personally I've been very pleased with it so far. I've only used it for landscapes thus far, and almost always at or close to the 24mm end, but the sharpness on the light-table has yet to let me down. Is this a good lens optically? I'd say yes, with no reservations. I am comparing it to the tokina atx 28-80mm and Sigma 28-70mm and tamron 28-105mm. Sorry... I can't compare since I only own this one. Much distortion at the 24mm end I haven't noticed any distortion. That doesn't mean no, but I guess it at least means that it's not obvious. Sorry I can't give more details, but I'm honestly not one to test lenses... I just use 'em until I find a problem. flare well controlled. I've had no flare issues with this lens (and I'm very good at forgetting to use the hood with it)... but then I've yet to use it to shoot directly into the sun. HTH, jerome http://www.exposedfilm.net
Re: AF TC?
As far as I know, there are no pentax af tc's. Does anyone have any 3rd party recommendations for these lenses? Jason Sent via wireless messaging device.
Re: Sigma 24-70mm EX 2.8 - any experiences?
I wrote: I haven't noticed any distortion I should clarify. I meant that I haven't noticed anything abnormal about the distortion at 24mm. Nothing that you wouldn't expect. And nothing (to me) that says, hey! thats a wide angle lens.. which is what I *don't* want in my landscape shots (i.e., no funky fish-eye stuff going on). And in fact, IMO, even at 24mm it doesn't seem to distort anywhere close to how my Pentax PZ 28- 105 does at 28mm, which gives me very noticeable distortion when things are too close. Again, I guess the bottom line is that in looking at my shots @ 24mm, distortion has never come to mind.
Re: AF TC?
As far as I know, there are no pentax af tc's. And now you know differently :o) http://www.pentax.co.uk/cgi- bin/pentax.storefront/3f04b3a1007a0f482740c2d886f006a5/Catalog/1023 There's a typo on that page, it should be 1.7x, not 17.x (boy, wouldn't that be interesting). In case the page doesn't load properly, that should be the Pentax 1.7x AF adapter that you're looking at. You'll get very mixed responses with respect to how well the AF part of this TC actually works (basically you have to get it close to focused, and then the TC will do the rest)... but at least you now know it exists. Regards, - jerome
Re: 43mm Limited
Cheers! Karen Nakamura [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. please don't ask me for the name of the store since I'd like to make sure that there's still one of the lenses for me to buy for myself! :-) FWIW - I remember that woman from a RF List, and she seems an honest person. Regards, Lukasz
Re: SV: Future Pentax e-bay classics
Time to have a nice holiday in Japan and stock up every silver MZ-S you can. This baby is even less common than black Limited. But it sure looks much worse than black ltds. Regards, ukasz
Re: AF TC?
But isn't this the af adapter for mf lenses. The way I understand is that it moves the tc element to make mf lenes af. It does not actually pass the af info to the lens Jason Sent via wireless messaging device.
Re: AF TC?
But isn't this the af adapter for mf lenses. The way I understand is that it moves the tc element to make mf lenes af. It does not actually pass the af info to the lens Your understanding is correct. In that respect, I suppose it can be said that it is not a true AF adaptor. Sorry to have misled you. However, I wouldn't say that it is totally useless for an AF lens (I use it with an FA 300mm 2.8), as it can be used in the same fashion as you described for the mf lenses. It is my hope (and I'm sure that of plenty others) that Pentax eventually gets around to fixing such omissions in their gear line-up. I hope you find what you're looking for. - jerome
Re: AF TC?
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:26:04 -0400, jerome wrote: Your understanding is correct. In that respect, I suppose it can be said that it is not a true AF adaptor. Sorry to have misled you. However, I wouldn't say that it is totally useless for an AF lens (I use it with an FA 300mm 2.8), as it can be used in the same fashion as you described for the mf lenses. I used it with the FA* 200/2.8 last weekend. Worked fine. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine) It IS true. You are just an exception. The funny thing is that the *ist D has better compatibility than the LX had when released. The LX was only fully compatible with 5 year old lenses compared to the *ist D 20 year! The LX was compatible with future lenses and I expect the *ist D to be as well. The LX didn't have the selection of compatible lenses when new as the *ist D has. Still, people bought it anyway! What a hilarious pile of crap. William Robb
Re: I Am Pissed!
- Original Message - From: zcaballero Subject: Re: I Am Pissed! Imhave no sympathy for you. After all the years you have spent making photographs you should know better than to bring any film that is of concern to a cheap amateur lab like that. At least you have now learned your lesson - too bad, but you get what you pay for, and you paid for cheap crap! I read here and other places of people using inexpensive labs and cheap processing, and then getting upset because results are not good. To all who buy such processing, maybe you should think of spending a few more pennies and get good quality always. You are not only wrong, you are an ass. The quality a lab puts out is controlled by the people operating the equipment, and this has little bearing on the price point the lab runs at. You stand as good a chance of having your film ruined by a tech who has come to work pissed off that he didn't get laid the night before at an expensive lab as anywhere else. I have been working at a Wal-Mart (cheap processing) lab for 6 years, and have processed close to a half million rolls of film while there. I can count on one hand the number of times I have had to tell a customer that we damaged their film. My previous employer was a specialty lab run by a cheap prick. We charged pro rates and scratched every film that went through the processor because the moron that ran the place wouldn't pay for needed parts to fix the machinery. Get your facts straight or go home. William Robb
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: SV: *ist D was not production type :-( Hi OK metal shells may be better. But I have a 11 years old Z1, (plastic shell) - still working like the day i got it in 1992 - through thousinds of rolls. What more would you expect from a diggie? You may have to buy a new one every 2-4 years anyway, because technology evolves so (too) fast. I am still driving a 1995 car, my wife is driving a 1985 car. While the auto industry has surely evolved greatly, especially in the past 18 years, we have stayed with what we know. Why would a person automatically junk a camera every couple of years, just because something better (a vacuous justification at best) has come along? If the product serves you well when you buy it, it will probably still serve you well in a decade. Perhaps all the screw heads or manual focus camera users on this list know something you don't? Camera technology has surely passed these people by, but they continue to plod along making pictures that make them happy with very old technology equipment. Regarding plastic camera bodies, they may or may not be more rugged. I have seen more than enough plastic shelled SLR's that fell the wrong way and got seriously damaged. For myself, I still trust metal over plastic. William Robb
Re: Future Pentax e-bay classics
On 3 Jul 2003 at 17:00, Pål Jensen wrote: Chrome MZ-S bodies and black Limited lenses are going to fetch stellar prices on e-bay in the future. You just mark my word... Before of after Pentax is no 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: FA 24-90 focal length
On 3 Jul 2003 at 16:50, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: on 03.07.03 15:29, keller.schaefer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. But read test of this lens in Popular Photography: http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2article_id=327 They rate 24-90 as 24.42-87.14 mm in reality. Who is right? Also, have you tried 24-90 at different focusing distances? Internal focusing AFAIK changes a bit focal length, so maybe here is the point? At a 3m subject distance my A*85/1.4 definitely shows narrower field of view than my FA24-90 at 90mm. However what I noticed is that the magnification seems far more affected by focal distance using the zoom so at an effective infinity subject distance it may well measure more like 90mm (or ~87mm) 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
