Re: Re:Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
I'm hoping that if I bitch enough, they may continue to make a film body and hopefully a digital body that will use the older mount lenses. I'm not counting on it, and it wouldn't overly affect my life anyway, but I have this dream. William Robb
Re: Re:Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Re:Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co... > In my old club there was one PZ1 user a few Nikon shooters and the balance > Canon shooters and many of them have migrated to DSLRs (and overall no medium > format and virtually all AF) We had a black and white day at the old club one time a couple of years ago. One of the pompous twits came in with his brand new Canon something or other (it was big, black and shiny), and a roll of Agfa Pan 400. His camera wouldn't accept that there was film in the camera, I think the optical film counter thingie couldn't see it. I thought it was pretty funny, much more so than the PT did. William Robb
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
- Original Message - From: "George Sinos" Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective > > Here's the deal, even though I shelled out $25 for the screwmount adaptor, > I don't often use the old screwmounts on the 5n. They are from a different > era. They really work well with the Spotmatic body. They work ok with the > 5n, but they don't belong there. They just don't feel right on the 5n. I also find that the new camera bodies don't feel right mounted to the old lenses. My old K lenses have a quality feel that the MZ-5 lacks. However, even though the camera feels like shit compared to the lens, I find that sometimes I am using a K lens combined with the MZ-5, and am glad that I can. William Robb
Re: On cheerleading
To play devil's advocate here, the extra movement required to set up that tripod can make or break a nature shot. 2 seconds of stillness is better than 2 seconds moving around. Lon Williamson wrote: Subtract two seconds from your tripod setup time. I hear it takes this long for Canon's IS to "boot". If your tripod is already in place, 2 seconds is all it takes to pop in that quick release. I can understand why some people want IS and the quiet motors, but I don't want/need 'em. If I want quiet, I leave off the winder. If I want IS, a mono/tripod. Old, effective solutions. Alan Chan wrote: For the angry words of various members I saw since I joined this mailing list, I wish to give my 2 cents. I was disappointed by their on-going QC issue, not features. What I expect of them is precisely the opposite. For example, a single AF sensor on my Z-1p is adequate because any more is a waste of time to select between them and more light is lost for the AF sensor. Does that mean you will never buy another Pentax AF camera? Because I am certain none of the future AF Pentax will have 1 AF sensor only. :-) I used to have some Canon equipment including the very fine EF300/4L USM, but today I would still try to find the non-IS version if I were to use Canon again because it is cheaper and the optical formula is old and proven. There is always the worry that the IS is not as sharp optically especially when you really use it. But nothing worse than blurred pictures because the shutter speed wasn't fast enough. For that "IS" sure saves your day. But of course, one can always request the action to be stopped until the tripod was properly setup. Or can we? :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: 8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure
Not sure what to do, but please let me know what you think of this lens, I've been thinking of buying it myself. thanks, Scott Reg Wiest wrote: Just picked up a used 8mm Sigma F4 fisheye. I suspect that because a circular image is produced in the middle of the neg and no light reaches the edges of the neg, I must deviate from in-camera light meter readings (using LX, ME Super, MZ5-N)??? Perhaps, the best bet is to shoot a roll of film and bracket the exposures to determine how much compensation is required . . . or use a hand-held light meter. RW
Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder
Your eloquent prose makes me wish I had a Pimms right now, but alas, all I have is cheap beer. It will have to do! -- scott Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 1:04:26 PM, you wrote: Ya know, Cotty, in all the times I've visited the UK, I've never had a Pimms! I guess it's because I thought it was a "soft drink," and for me soft drinks are last choice for social drinking. Does it have an alcohol content? by a (perhaps not so) strange coincidence I happen to be drinking a Pimms right now. It's an extremely civilised way to while away an English summer's evening down by the river. You can feel your wits slowly sinking into torpor, while your consciousness stands on the upturned deck of reason, and salutes a fond farewell. To give those who may not be familiar with the glories of civilisation, here is an illustration of the part Pimms plays in English life: A couple of weeks ago I spent an evening watching the sun go down behind Richmond Bridge. The pub had the normal run of optics behind the bar, with 1 litre bottles of all the usual stuff. But they had 2 bottles of Pimms on the optics, each of which contained 10 litres of Pimms. I raise my glass to the gathered PUGil*ists!
BG-20 battery grip SHIPPING
Wednesday, NYC USA Adorama shipped my BG-20 today. Price @$65 USD. Burt
RE: scanner for 645 film
The new Epson 3200 should work very well for MF. I printed some MF transparencies scanned on the Epson 2450, which the 3200 replaced and was very impressed with the scans. I'm sure a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 8000 would give a better scan but for personal use and ink jet or minilab output the Epson should provide more then enough resolution. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Lens Compatibility - a Rank Amateur's Perspective
If Pentax drops the aperture coupling mechanism, presumably it's not as a cost saving measure on a $1000 plus camera. It was a standard feature up until now on very inexpensive cameras such as the MZ-M and MZ-10. If they do so, they are being doubly foolish.It's not just because I couldn't use my older M and K lenses that it would bother me. I also have a reasonable selection of F and A lenses, which I almost always use in aperture priority. Since the lens has an aperture ring, it makes sense to use it as a convenient way to set the aperture, rather than using some kind of multi-controller. Therefore, they would not just be reducing the value of 25 year old M lenses, but also most of their current line of FA lenses. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Tough question. My favorite lens is my FA*300/4.5, which would not be a good choice for an only one lens don't know what I'll be shooting. I would probably go with my K35/3.5 although I'd be tempted with the M50/1.4. With the 35/3.5 I get legendary flare resistance, and it would work well with the built in flash and zone focusing. I have been known to go to the local baseball game with only the 300 and the 35 on my Z-1p. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
This one doesn't have a simple answer! If I really could take only one lens, then I'd use my 'walkabout' lens, the 28-105 PZ. Wide enough and long enough for most day-to-day situations. Maximum aperture not an issue, as in the given circumstances I'd be loaded with 400ASA film, and would ensure my flash/batteries were fresh. If I'm allowed one lens and a TC, then I'd take my 50/1.4 and 2x, knowing that I won't be able to squeeze everything in in tight corners. Now I'm talking screw-mount, so it would have to be the SV and clip-on meter, with an old but quite powerful Hanimex 'potato-masher' flash. Why not the Spotmatic? Because I can meter with the SV in very low light without having to peer through a glass darkly! Funnily enough, it's what I do almost every day anyway! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "PDML Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:22 AM Subject: Cheerleading Part Deaux > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. > > I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you > need it, can be pressed into service as a "near portrait" > lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available > light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is > an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave > it behind. > >
Re: The New and Improved Marketplace (was Re: On cheerleading)
Collin, For a long time, $2,000 was a minimum price point in the laptop market. Prices eventually dropped thru that level and laptops now outsell desktops. They are flying off the shelves. 19 months ago, I paid $499 for a Sony P&S (S75) with 3.2 megapixels. It was a low price in the market, $600 was far more common. Now the Pentax Optio S is out of stock with a common retail price of $400. People are enthusiastic about digital in conjunction with their computers. At a low enough price, lots of digital cameras will be sold. This is the 'Polaroid' revolution all over again. Instant pictures... Regards, Bob S. On 9 Jul 2003 at 13:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > $400 is no longer the restricting price point it was 10 years ago. > The new digital marketplace has opened up the floodgates to the same-class > buyers who 20 years ago spent $2000 on their first computers.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
John, The M35/2 shows up on ebay occasionally, the M28/2 also (a fine lens, too). There is an A35/2 and an A28/2 (truly rare). You might also like the A20/2.8. I hear you about liking lots of light to focus with. :-) ...and the A85/1.4 will be very pleasant. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm working on moving up to K-series from Spotmatics: I tend to feel > cameras need a few decades to mature. I've been haunting eBay for a couple > of months, but there still hasn't been a 35/2.0 K- or M-series along to > partner the 85/1.4 I picked up there. Anyone know of a still-wider 35mm > that's available in K-mount? > > Yes, I like lots of maximum aperture. My sight isn't the finest, and lots > of light is good. b
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
> What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. For me it would be the FA 35, even thou I rediscovered the FA 50 last weekend. /Paul _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
> Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4, > bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR... which one? Cotty... or the lens?
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
On 9 Jul 2003 at 19:32, Lon Williamson wrote: > Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4, bastardized to fit > a Canon DSLR... The prospect of potentially having to ditch great glass like this to move into digital shooting is stressful indeed. :-( I'm sure Cotty wouldn't have sold his if ... 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: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4, bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR... Cotty wrote: FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I shoot are portraits. Formal or informal, and I love doing it in the existing light. Len Bh. Come on Len - it's a plasticky yucchy silver thing cobbled together out of a retro lampshade. Everyone *knows* that the best 85mil is the A*85mm f/1.4 - now THAT is a lens, oh boy yessiree. Not only does it *look* like a real mother of a lens, not only does it *feel* like a real mother of a lens, but it even has *better optics* and is indeed the *mother* of all lenses! pipe > smoke ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:17:56 -0500, Len Paris wrote: > FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I shoot > are portraits. Formal or informal, and I love doing it in the > existing light. > > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > So: If you had to go photograph, and you didn't know where > > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would you > > take with you? You get only one. MZ-S with FA* 200/2.8 since I usually shoot stuff I can't get close enough to. Mabe the 400/5.6 Macro. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Why I stick with Pentax (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
Actually it mounts just fine on the MZS, what you cant do is fire both the shutter and the lens at the same time as the shutter release on the MZS is electronic and since I couldn't figure out how to join a cable release to a electronic release its going to be cheaper/easier to buy a macro lens. I see theres 2 100mm ones but I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is before plunking my money down. As to why I stick with Pentax: Despite the on-going wars about who has the better body, the sharpest lenses the best aftermarket service, which brand is the most pro (whatever the hell that means) the best DSLR, the best. my little MZS and my K1000 still amazingly takes photographs, somewhere along the line nobody told my cameras that they not good enough, my lenses they not sharp enough... The equipment I own has never let me down in the all the years I've taken photographs, and maybe in 2043 there will no longer be Pentax, and in 2006 they'll stop supporting the LX and in 2010 they'll finally release the ultimate DSLR (which most wont buy cause it'll be too expensive) but I'll still be able to take pics then with what I have now- isn't that what its about? Feroze - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It looks like you already can't use a bellows on the new cameras, as it has > physical restrictions because of the prism extending over the mount.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
- Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" Subject: Cheerleading Part Deaux > : If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. K 50mm f/1.4. It is nicely sized for the LX, is very sharp and feels good to use. William Robb
Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder
> I can just imagine the scene at the customs hall at Charlotte: > > [snip] > > - 'Yer plaishe or mine, darlin? Grandad Hilltop will haf to wait *hic* > > 'Sir, I'm married, I'm 54 and my name is Gus' > > - 'Sheesh, where da put me glashes? I'm orf! Trebles al round!' bang, wallop> LOL!! regards, Lukasz
Re: The New and Improved Marketplace (was Re: On cheerleading)
On 9 Jul 2003 at 13:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What I wish Pentax would figure out (maybe they have and we don't see the > evidence yet) is that, at least in the US, people DO plunk down $2000 for > what they want, and that even on a whim. They don't have to come in > on the bottom end of the price scale any longer. Why? Because they > have beat "N" to the consumer DSLR punch and have a chance to grab a > really big market share in the niche. The digibino gimicks are just > a waste of Pentax' energies & resources. > > $400 is no longer the restricting price point it was 10 years ago. > The new digital marketplace has opened up the floodgates to the same-class > buyers who 20 years ago spent $2000 on their first computers. > Photography is now making a comeback and reclaiming the leisure $$$ > that were lost to IBM PCs in 1983. > > And just like the PC industry ... this is the first of 3 years of > BOOOMING DSLR sales. Watch. It seems pretty obvious doesn't it, why Pentax can't see it we can only speculate (oops, not on this list though) :-( 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: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #635
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:16:10 -0400, Lon Williamson wrote: > Hey, what about "Pentaxclover" from France? It's entirely possible that "TheWho" and "Pentaxclover" were one and the same person. If they're not, I'm saddened for the future of humanity. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
>FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I shoot are >portraits. Formal or informal, and I love doing it in the existing >light. > >Len Bh. Come on Len - it's a plasticky yucchy silver thing cobbled together out of a retro lampshade. Everyone *knows* that the best 85mil is the A*85mm f/1.4 - now THAT is a lens, oh boy yessiree. Not only does it *look* like a real mother of a lens, not only does it *feel* like a real mother of a lens, but it even has *better optics* and is indeed the *mother* of all lenses! pipe > smoke ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder
>> >Ya know, Cotty, in all the times I've visited the UK, I've never had a >Pimms! >> >I guess it's because I thought it was a "soft drink," and for me soft >> >drinks are last choice for social drinking. >> >Does it have an alcohol content? >> >> >> >> 25 percent lad. Mixes well with lemonade, ice and a sprig of mint :-) >Sounds like something you should bring lots of to Grandfather Mountain next >spring. > >Bill I can just imagine the scene at the customs hall at Charlotte: 'Did you pack your own bag sir?' - 'Yesh' *hic* 'I see. Hmmm, and what is this sir?' - 'Isha diggitul camrer, swish it on' 'Okay, and what are these?' - 'Loada lenses so's I can take nice pishers' *parp* 'And this?' - 'Sa Penkaks EmEx so's I cun take a pisher wiv film in. Shay, yer rather nishe' ' And what are these, exactly?' - 'Sa few bevvies fer me mates, lishen darlin, you doin 'nythin laters?' 'And who is this 'Pimm' person?' - 'Shome geysher wot invented it, look *brrp*, yer shure perty fer a cushtoms hoffisher' 'I'm afraid we do not fraternize with passengers, sir' - 'Soaky wiv me, cutie, I'm a vergin too' *parp* 'Okay, sir you can go through now' - 'Yer plaishe or mine, darlin? Grandad Hilltop will haf to wait *hic* 'Sir, I'm married, I'm 54 and my name is Gus' - 'Sheesh, where da put me glashes? I'm orf! Trebles al round!' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: On cheerleading
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:16:32 +0200, Pl Jensen wrote: > I prefer "who" anyday. I had a soft spot for him; he was perhaps > dyslectic and was quite often misunderstood. Well, I have my own theories about him, but it doesn't make much sense to get into them this long after the fact. Besides, this isn't the "Psychology" DML. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
On 9 Jul 2003 at 17:22, Lon Williamson wrote: > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. 31LTD these days. 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: Cheerleading Part Deaux
You CHEATED, Ed! Whiningly yours, Lon. lol. I had to cheat. I am not patient enough to make it all day with one lens. Best, Ed Ed Matthew wrote: Interesting choice. If I had to give up all but two lenses (don't ask me to go to one lens:-), I would keep my M50/1.4 and my M75-150/4 - even though I rarely use the 50 and most of my shooting is with AF lenses. Ed From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would you take with you? You get only one. I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you need it, can be pressed into service as a "near portrait" lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave it behind. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lon Williamson) wrote: > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. 85/1.8 SMC Takumar on the Spotmatic F. It's what I take c.80% of my pictures with anyway. BTW: Hello, folks, I joined a few days ago and have been lurking to get the hang of what people talk about here. I've had the SpotF and a few lenses for years. In the last 15 months or so I've been taking a load more pictures - mostly of people, hence the 85 - and scanning my Ektachromes with a MicroTek 3600 film scanner, which is a very civilised way to do colour photography. I'm working on moving up to K-series from Spotmatics: I tend to feel cameras need a few decades to mature. I've been haunting eBay for a couple of months, but there still hasn't been a 35/2.0 K- or M-series along to partner the 85/1.4 I picked up there. Anyone know of a still-wider 35mm that's available in K-mount? Yes, I like lots of maximum aperture. My sight isn't the finest, and lots of light is good. --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re[3]: On cheerleading
How soon we forget! Pentax used to host this list until we got so outrageously anti-Pentax and so actively political that we embarassed them more than they could stand and had to drop us like a hot potato. If it wasn't for Doug, we'd all have to hang out on the Nikon list in order to sing the praises of Pentax. Len --- > While in your bucolic view, Pentax will ignore this list as a > zero source of feed-back or, at best, will encourage a > bunch of crazy > advertisers for free. Which is of course, better than subsidizing > photonet or luminous landscape like C does. :oT > I think it's better for everybody that they hear what we like and > especially what we don't. Some time ago it was confirmed that they > pay us some attention. It certainly wasn't earned by singing praise > to Pentax. > > AF> In that way it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. > > :o) > Happy dreams. > > Servus, Alin >
Re: Re[3]: On cheerleading
> If it wasn't for Doug, we'd all have to hang out on the Nikon list in > order to sing the praises of Pentax. LOL! Lukasz
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
SMCK 50/1.2 Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ (now a bit long)
> I'll repost below the result of some lens tests I did that > included the > PZ 28-105. I have two of these and used them as my basic zoom for > a > while. Then I discovered how much sharper is the Tokina 28-80 > f2.8, so > it is now my basic zoom. Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom-phobia. I have always thought that the since 28-105 PZ has an excellent reputation as a very sharp lens but it still wasn't sharp enough when compared to any of my primes, I have to stick with prime lenses only. Turns out I was very wrong indeed. Your lens test is a great relief to me, the 28-105 isn't that invincible and there are much sharper zooms than that. I will give that Tokina 28-80/2.8 a closer look. I guess we have to look very hard for good wide-to-tele zooms, but at least they exist.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Lon, This is hard to do. I like the FA24/2.0 Mark talks about. I like the M50/1.4 you(?) mentioned. The A85/1.4 is a precious jewel. I've taken many shots with the A*100/2.8 Macro - very special too! The lens I've used the most is the A50/1.4, and a fine all'rounder too. But I'm getting lazy in my old age. The PZ-1p has sported the FA28-70/2.8 for the past 18 months. That's my choice - flexible and amazingly good. 2nd choice is to take the 43mm and 77mm limiteds along with a A20/2.8. That weighs a bit less, but is 3 lenses. Regards, Bob S. > Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > >everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > >equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > >you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > >you take with you? You get only one.
RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
FA* 85mm f/1.4 for me. I love it! Most of the stuff I shoot are portraits. Formal or informal, and I love doing it in the existing light. Len --- > -Original Message- > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:23 PM > To: PDML Pentax Discuss > Subject: Cheerleading Part Deaux > > > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
K 50/1.4. I'm a big fan of 50mm lenses, and this is the one I'd grab if only for its smooth focus and great feel. Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: On cheerleading
Well, as one of the major proponents of the MX on this list, I have to agree. Of course, I don't actually have an MX , but that is finally changing, as I paid more than anyone else was willing to for one Ebay yesterday. So, in a couple of weeks I will once again have an MX. I do hope it is not worn out. This one is replacing the ME Super I had to sell last summer. Now I need to find another that is not going for megabucks on Ebay, so I will once again have a pair. Considering this cheerleading thread, it is funny to me because Pentax has only made 4 cameras that really interested me. KX, MX, LX, and now the MZ-S. I note that 3 out of the 4 end in X, so I must be a Pentax X fan . Of the 4, the MX is #! with me. In the late 60's I came up with what I would call my ideal camera. The MX when it came out was virtually that dream camera, there are only a couple of things I would change if I could have them built to my specifications. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: Re: On cheerleading > My solution to this is to buy another MX or KX every year. > I've got quite a collection now: Three of each. Up that > to 5 or 6 and cannibalization repair should last me a lifetime. > I wouldn't want to do this with LXen; too expensive. > > BTW, I'm respecting the MX more and more as time goes by. > Fine little camera. Nifty winder. Screens. Best shutter sound > in the business. > > William Robb wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:53 AM > > Subject: Re: Re[2]: On cheerleading > > > > > > > >>So please clarify, is that what you meant, that older cameras can break > > > > down? > > > >>Or do you mean that K/M lenses may become harder to find? Or what? I am > >>really curious. > > > > > > Older cameras do break down and become unrepairable. One needs to upgrade to > > newer camera bodies periodically. The Asterist does not support older lenses > > properly, and as a consequence, makes older lenses pretty much useless. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibilityin perspective)
PowerZoom is passe. So is Panorama Mode (WHAT were they thinking?). The next new thing is surely PowerSnap where the RoboCamera zooms, selects exposure, and, most importantly, determines the magic moment at which to fire the shutter. Everyone will instantly be HCB. Frits Wüthrich wrote: On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 00:50, Caveman wrote: Alan Chan wrote: Pentax engineers have stated that there will be no FA-J* lenses. Of course there could be FA-S* lenses for all we know :o). But don't forget that they have the tendence to change the plan quite often. Yep. Let's speculate on the FAQ series. Power zoom ? cheers, caveman I frequently question that.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
You CHEATED, Ed! Whiningly yours, Lon. lol. Ed Matthew wrote: Interesting choice. If I had to give up all but two lenses (don't ask me to go to one lens:-), I would keep my M50/1.4 and my M75-150/4 - even though I rarely use the 50 and most of my shooting is with AF lenses. Ed From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would you take with you? You get only one. I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you need it, can be pressed into service as a "near portrait" lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave it behind. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: On cheerleading
On 9 Jul 2003 at 17:16, Pål Jensen wrote: > This is a misunderstanding. Doug's message was precisely targeted I cannot see that > you fit the bill. It was not about constuctive criticism and I have never seen that > you have harrased and insulted pepole who use other type of gear than you do. > > Pål Sorry Doug et.al, I obviously missed the offending thread, generally as soon as a thread looks like it's deteriorating into a slinging match I tend to use the delete key. Cheers, 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: On cheerleading
Mark wrote: MR> I don't know about photonet, but neither Canon nor anyone else MR> subsidizes Luminous landscape. Not directly, of course. But how would you call making available preproduction cameras or lenses to the above? Even without this, it's enough hype over there to make most anybody wary... Servus, Alin
Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ
Alan, are there already owner reports about this lens? What about flare? - that is, by the SMC standards, from someone who's actually seen more than Canon glas... Not exactly any report, but a few asian users of this lens said that lens was pretty sharp even wide open, and they didn't expected that from such lens. They also mentioned the coating was different from the Tamron coating and seemed more effective against flare. However, since I don't have this lens (yet), I cannot confirm. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Lon wrote: LW> What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where LW> everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax LW> equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and LW> you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would LW> you take with you? You get only one. Uh, I often take some piece of equipment with me even though it's totally unlikely that I get a chance to use it. I think it all dependents on the mood, so - usefulness alert! - it doesn't necessarily fits the real needs. Lately I've been carrying both the FA 50/1.4 and the SMC 135/2.5. Stuffed with the MZ-5N in a OffTrail bag with one pocket only, it makes for a small enough outfit to carry almost everywhere. Servus, Alin
Re: scanner for 645 film
I recently purchased the Epson 3200 Photo and have been very pleased so far. Bill - Original Message - From: "Gasha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:48 PM Subject: scanner for 645 film > Hi all, > > I just started to use wide (120) film. Great negs!! > > So i have a couple of questions... > > What is the best way to scan these negs? I can use some kind of flatbed > scanner with transparency adapter. HP ?? Epson ?? > > Minolta film scanner is too expensive... :( > > Gasha > >
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
My 24-90mm, good optical quality, relatively light, very usable focal length range for me. Disadvantage could be it is not so fast, can I use a tripod or flash? On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 22:22, Lon Williamson wrote: > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. > > I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you > need it, can be pressed into service as a "near portrait" > lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available > light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is > an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave > it behind. -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cheerleading Part Deaux
What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would you take with you? You get only one. I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you need it, can be pressed into service as a "near portrait" lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave it behind.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #635
Hey, what about "Pentaxclover" from France? John Munro wrote: Doug Franklin wrote: As one Doug to another, I'm with you all the way. I'm also getting tired of the folks attending the BR school of "let's stir up the mud just for the sake of it". I've been on the list since '98 and I can't remember it being less useful, with the possible exception of the "The Who" incidents. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Ah yes, the good old days! Thanks for reminding me, Doug F.. "The Who" was truly a negatively engaging chap - the only one to ever make my filter list. He seems to have symbolically multiplied
Re: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]:Lens co...
This comment makes perfect sense to me. You get enough lenses, and you are locked in unless you want to bleed a LOT of cash. William Robb wrote: Spoken by someone who doesn't own more than 50 lenses. Some of us have made a significant investment in this company's equipment over the years. We aren't talking about replacing a couple of shitty zoom lenses here. William Robb
Re: Vignetting of M 35/2.8
Alan, I don't doubt what you say is true but I don't understand how it is possible. Guess I'm an optical theory lightweight. That is what I "guess". My theory is that the surfaces of different focus screens were cut differently according to specific usage. This is the reason for so many different screens for MX/LX cameras. When the wrong one is matches, the focus screen would not be able to receive the light evenly and caused vignetting, or light-fall-off at the corners of the screen. However, the A35/2.8 is the only lens which react so dramatically, I have come across. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Semi-OT: Film scanner inquiry
If ICE works as well as folks say it does, I'd go for the ICE. Manual retouching of dust and scratches, which you _will_ have far too many of, rates right up there with pounding sand down rat holes for recreational enjoyment. I speak from personal experience. T Rittenhouse wrote: Hey, I am looking at a couple of Minolta Film Scanners. 1. the Quick Scan Dual III a 2800 bpi 16 bit USB 2.0 scanner. and 2. the Scan Elite 2800 bpi 12 bit SCSI scanner. The Elite has ICE-3, multi pass noise reduction, etc. The Dual III has 16 bits per color, etc. The question I have is this. Is the extra features on the Elite worth while, or does the higher DMax of the Dual overcome those features. Or, in other words, which would you go for? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder
>Ya know, Cotty, in all the times I've visited the UK, I've never had a Pimms! >I guess it's because I thought it was a "soft drink," and for me soft >drinks are last choice for social drinking. >Does it have an alcohol content? 25 percent lad. Mixes well with lemonade, ice and a sprig of mint :-) although you can put all sorts in it - most people do. On the back of the bottle it says: 'James Pimm opened his first oyster bar in the city of London in the 1840s and supplied Londoners with good food and a unique drink which became famous as Pimm's No. 1 Cup. Pimms is still based on the original recipe which remains a closely guarded secret known only to six people. Today the refreshing taste of Pimm's is appreciated throughout the world. Pimm's is a very versatile drink and can be mixed to suit your perso'nal taste.' *hic* Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Lens Compatibility - A Rank Amateur's Perspective
<2nd attempt to post, please forgive if there are duplicate postings> This is my first post to the PDML so I thought I'd make a splash and jump into the compatibility discussion/argument/fight straightaway. By way of introducing myself, I am an enthusiastic amateur with frighteningly limited financial resources. My Pentax gear consists exclusively of a K1000 with the M-50 f/2, M-135 f/3.5 and much maligned Takumar-A 28-80. I probably shoot 70% of the time with the 135, wish I had a wide-angle but my one experience in buying on e-bay resulted in a fungus-y FD-mount lens. Ah, life. I've been following the 'crippled' lens mount discussion and have a question. It appears that the K/M lenses won't work on these cameras because the camera won't stop down the lens because they don't have the contacts indicating the lens is an A-series or later lens set to A. The camera must stop down the lens diaphragm according to its electronic instructions from the meter or the user through the body. Since these cameras have electronic DOF preview I assume that they will only release the diaphragm actuator on the lense the distance it takes to stop down to the aperture set by the camera. Is this correct? If I have an FA lens with an aperture ring set off A on one of these bodies, will the camera behave as if the lens were a K/M lens? Assuming yes: it seems to me the K/M lens on this body is rendered useless exclusively because it has the diaphragm actuator. It has been said that most screw-mount lenses will work on these bodies (assuming the body allows you to trip the shutter at all) in stop down mode. I assume this is because the camera can't hold the aperture open. If this is true then it seems like it would only take a little bit of programming to tell the camera to depress the diaphragm actuation lever on the lens fully when DOF preview is activated with a non-A lense mounted. As long as metering could take place and the shutter could be tripped while DOFp is active that would go a good distance to solving the compatibility problem without requiring Pentax to put the stop-down coupler on every body. It would mean manual diaphragm control and stop-down metering but it's a small price to pay to retain some backwards compatibility. Am I on the right track here? Please tell me if I've gone astray anywhere here. I have a hard time believing that Pentax would completely dump the stop-down coupler across the board. Since (nearly) every K-whatever lens must be stopped down using the built-in mechanical lever, every Pentax body must still physically interact with the lens. I can't think of any good reason for Pentax to go one step at a time down the road towards a fully electronic mount. I really think the extra expense that Pentax would incur by including full compatability on their highest level bodies could be successfully passed to the consumer. If you're already spending $1000 plus on such specialized equipment, a few more dollars aren't going be the straw that breaks the high-end consumer's back, even if the consumer doesn't know or care what the difference means. In my opinion, of course. Thanks for reading. An ironic aside: it was my fiancee's purchase of a Canon Powershot S30 which reinvigorated me for photography. After playing with the S30 for a few weeks I dusted off my K1000 and, as they say, 'fell in love all over again'. I'm sure by the standards set by the PUG I've got a vast amount to learn, but I enjoy taking pictures like nothing else. Michael __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: On cheerleading
I got to thinking about true compatibility the other day, and came up with only these things: 35mm film cannisters, the tripod-to- camera 1/4 thread, the old 2-conductor hotshoe, the old style screw-in cable release, and standard pitch on lens threads. Everything else is part of a "system". [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But nothing worse than blurred pictures because the shutter speed wasn't fast enough. For that "IS" sure saves your day. But of course, one can always request the action to be stopped until the tripod was properly setup. To address your concern, I would say the included tripod collar looks gorgeous, and a waste not to use it. So I put that on a Bogen/Manfrotto height-adjustable monopod. The tripod collar is rotating so it is fun to take vertical shots. The tripod collar for the old F* 300/4.5 is equally inviting, or maybe even more so because of the Pentax factor :) When not using those 300mm's, I have a Stroboframe Vertaflip (the light version, hard to find) as monopod head, so that I can rotate 90 degrees very securely just like the tripod collars. The monopod is not that big or heavy to carry, and one such device works for all lenses. The monopod has outstanding backward and forward compatibility, working on all Pentax bodies and lenses with no issues whatsoever with crippled mounts or J series crippled lenses. In fact the monopod is compatible with any brand, any mount, any format and fully digital-ready to boot. :) Thinking about it, we have a standard-size tripod screw hole and we ought to thank God for giving us that. Really, I don't know why anyone would expect to handhold a lens exceeding 1kg in weight (e.g. any 70-200/2.8, or 300/4) and get away with that using "new technology". IS is based on the assumption that you can lift the lens up, because no electro-optical system could provide an anti-gravitational field to help you with that part. After only half a roll or so my arm fatigue would impair my judgement resulting in poor pictures. Admittedly I am quite frail and I am getting older. 10 years ago I was very to happy to lug around those monsterous 2.8 zooms.
Re: On cheerleading
Ok Got the point. I was in the dense corner last night, obviously... Thanks, Jostein - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > My point was simply that Pentax is unwise not to please established > users, even if it is designing a strategy for the future that is > different from its recent past. My reasoning is that established users > recommend Pentax to potential new users (I do), provided that they are > pleased with Pentax. It is a way of steering new customers to Pentax. In > other words, I think Pentax should keep k-mount compatibility and the > aperture ring, and not produce lenses that lack a distance scale - if > only for the continuing endorsement of established users. But as I've > said here before, I know little about marketing, and apparently Pentax > is reasoning differently. (I should mention that I own only two non-A > lenses, and they work just fine on my 1ps, so for me personally this is > not an issue.) > > Joe > >
Re: Today's Word Is "Anachronism"! :)
So that rewind lever is sweet, eh? I can always spot a Spottie (so to speak) by that metal lever. Better than the K body levers? D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: James Moniz wrote: Largely for fun, I just picked up a Honeywell Pentax H1a with a 55mm f2 Takumar from ebay. This will be my first screw mount. But probably not your last. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I wanted to know if any of you have used this ancient, beautiful-looking hunk of metal and glass, and what you like/don't like about it. While I like the flash shoe and meter in my Spotmatic, unless I actually need either of those when I'm reaching for a screwmount body, I reach for an H3 or an S1a/H1a. My first Pentax (my second SLR) was an H3, about six years ago. What don't I like? Okay, changing lenses in a hurry is a bit of a pain (but it's only a problem when I'm in a hurry). Fear that old age will eventually get to the shutter is lurking in the back of my mind. And a hot shoe would be nice. And I don't have as big a selection of zoom lenses for screwmount (but hey, those screwmount primes are pretty damned nice). What do I like? Like the K1000/KX/K2, it's a really good size for my hands. It feels solid. It still works even though it's about as old as I am. (Hmm. GIven my fibromyalgia, I guess my S1a cameras work better than my own body does.) The viewfinder is _mercifully_uncluttered_ -- all that info (starting with the simple needle in the Spotmatic and going up from there) *is* useful, and when that information is convenient, it's good to have it right there, but sometimes I just want to get away from that and exeperience the simple pleasure of a viewfinder that simply shows the view. The shutter speed dial is very easy to operate with a fingertip, or when wearing gloves. And the smooth feel of the film advance lever -- the fluid feeling of the mechanism and that just-right shape to feel right under my thumb ... all in all, it's just a real pleasure to operate -- it feels like a precision machine. I think it feels nicer to operate, on a tactile level, than the Spotmatics. Oh yeah, it also makes a cool conversation starter. "That camera is _how_ old?" Or, "No, it's not a Spotmatic, it's what came before the Spotmatic." It's especially good for making friends with people twenty years older than I am, who used to use something similar when they were half my age. "Wow, I haven't seen one of those in a while!" But the _big_ win is just a) how very nice it feels in one's hands, and b) the combination of simplicity and reliability. The H1a is a good implementation of a good design. -- Glenn
Re: On cheerleading
Doug's got a cute toosh, eh? Caveman wrote: Doug Brewer wrote: Kiss my ass. "Wonderful." Bruce Dayton "It couldn't have been ... better." Ed Matthews "Perfect!" Dick Graham
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >På onsdag, 9. juli 2003, kl. 21:08, Caveman: > >> Mark Roberts wrote: >> >>> In other words: I suspect we're seeing a sacrifice of some backward >>> compatibility (K and M lenses) in order to insure future compatibility >>> with future products. >> >> Sounds like pulling out the teeth from someones mouth in order to make >> place for future teeth that might grow in the future. > >This happens as a natural process to most children at a certain stage >of their development :-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: On cheerleading
Caveman, I've got to agree with Doug. You can say 'Your mother wears combat boots!', but when you say... Your mother is butt ugly, fat, sloppy, a drunk who is stupid, uneducated, incoherent, mean spirited, and nasty. And let me tell you a few more things about her... and then go on and on, I say ENOUGH !!! NO MORE WHINNING !!! I hate this as much as I hate the incessant apologies for Pentax. (ie. digital is just around the corner or the next flagship is coming!) Be patient. See what happens. If your not happy, whine a little bit and then move on. You don't have to own a Pentax to contribute to the list. But if you continue this equipment whinnne, there will be no list to be part of. Regards, Bob S. In a message dated 7/9/2003 11:20:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Doug Brewer wrote: > > Okay, your reading comprehension skills are perfect. Tell me what part > > of this thread I've written says this list should be a place of > > unconditional Pentax worshipping. > > "Are you angry at Pentax? Fine. Sell your Pentaxes, get another camera, > and get the hell over it. Just stop shouting at me [...]" > > Which, with my poor English comprehension, I understand as > "if you want > to say something negative about Pentax, just shut up". > > cheers, > caveman
Re: On cheerleading
Subtract two seconds from your tripod setup time. I hear it takes this long for Canon's IS to "boot". If your tripod is already in place, 2 seconds is all it takes to pop in that quick release. I can understand why some people want IS and the quiet motors, but I don't want/need 'em. If I want quiet, I leave off the winder. If I want IS, a mono/tripod. Old, effective solutions. Alan Chan wrote: For the angry words of various members I saw since I joined this mailing list, I wish to give my 2 cents. I was disappointed by their on-going QC issue, not features. What I expect of them is precisely the opposite. For example, a single AF sensor on my Z-1p is adequate because any more is a waste of time to select between them and more light is lost for the AF sensor. Does that mean you will never buy another Pentax AF camera? Because I am certain none of the future AF Pentax will have 1 AF sensor only. :-) I used to have some Canon equipment including the very fine EF300/4L USM, but today I would still try to find the non-IS version if I were to use Canon again because it is cheaper and the optical formula is old and proven. There is always the worry that the IS is not as sharp optically especially when you really use it. But nothing worse than blurred pictures because the shutter speed wasn't fast enough. For that "IS" sure saves your day. But of course, one can always request the action to be stopped until the tripod was properly setup. Or can we? :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Vignetting of M 35/2.8
Alan, I don't doubt what you say is true but I don't understand how it is possible. Guess I'm an optical theory lightweight. Alan Chan wrote: Perhaps it has to do with the exiting angle of this lens (similar to DSLR issue). I used to have the A35/2.8 and experienced the same problem when mounted it on MX with Beattie or SE-20 screen. Heavy vignetting at the corners of the viewfinder, but gone with standard MX screen or Z-1p. It has nothing to do with the actual images however so don't worry. regards, Alan Chan Recently I got my SMC M35/2.8 lens. It looks almost new, I can hardly find any signs of it being used. Still I have a question. Though I haven't developed a film that was (partially) exposed with this lens, I already can notice quite heavy vignetting in the viewfinder of my ZX-L. That is, the corners of the image are way darker than the center. And I am pointing the camera at blank window on my computer screen or at evenly colored and illuminated wall... It looks very odd to me. Can it be that my sample is optically defective? Boris _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ
Alan, thank you for your quick reply and comment. If I go for that route, I would gladly pay extra for the FA*28-70/2.8. I used to have that lens but I sold it because it was too big (though not too heavy for such a big lens) and consume too much space in my camera bag. But as Caveman has pointed out, I might need to stop down a bit, so maybe I had to live with a big lens to start with a faster aperture. Price issue aside, the Tamron is claimed to be the most compact 2.8 zoom on the market, if it mean anything to you. A few owners of this lens also said the same thing. You can check it out here http://www.tamron.com/di.htm. I am spoiled by such lenses as the FA*24/2.0, F*300/4.5, and the Zeiss lenses of my Contax G2, but I need to go back to Pentax because I need a digital upgrade path. I am pretty confident a Pentax 50/1.4 would be as sharp as my Zeiss lenses and therefore more than satisfy my needs. Even on 4x6 I saw a difference, although everybody says all lenses look good on 4x6. Granted, I use a loupe to inspect the prints sometimes, and I hope it is not placebo effect that I am seeing. I've read from a number of sources that even the oldest screw mount Takumar primes would be better than today's newest and best zooms, though. I have never used any SM equipment so I really don't know. But I am with you when you said you can see the difference on 4x6 prints. However, beware that the Pentax 50/1.4 isn't that sharp wide open. In fact, the A50/1.4 that I had was so soft I used it f4 up. I had similar problem with FA*85/1.4 too. regards, Alan Chan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Auto 110 index tab
> Let me make sure the index tab left on allows the camera to shoot at ASA > 400? If you get a 200 speed roll iwith the tab on it will underexpose by > one stop. Not undesirable in some cases:)? > > The Auto 110 sets exposure for ASA 80 when the film cartridge has > >an > >index > > tab and for ASA 400 without the tab. Those are the only two > >exposure David, Trim off the index tab to set metering for ASA 400 speed. Leave the tab on the cartridge intact for ASA 80. It's counter-intuitive, but all current emulsions are loaded into the so called ASA 100 cartridges with the tab (the Auto 110 indexes the ASA 100 cartidges for ASA 80). Mark Rofini
Re: Auto 110 index tab
> Let me make sure the index tab left on allows the camera to shoot at ASA > 400? If you get a 200 speed roll iwith the tab on it will underexpose by > one stop. Not undesirable in some cases:)?
Lens Compatibility - a Rank Amateur's Perspective
This is my first post to the PDML so I thought I'd make a splash and jump into the compatibility discussion/argument/fight straightaway. By way of introducing myself, I am an enthusiastic amateur with frighteningly limited financial resources. My Pentax gear consists exclusively of a K1000 with the M-50 f/2, M-135 f/3.5 and much maligned Takumar-A 28-80. I probably shoot 70% of the time with the 135, wish I had a wide-angle but my one experience in buying on e-bay resulted in a fungus-y FD-mount lens. Ah, life. I've been following the 'crippled' lens mount discussion and have a question. It appears that the K/M lenses won't work on these cameras because the camera won't stop down the lens because they don't have the contacts indicating the lens is an A-series or later lens set to A. The camera must stop down the lens diaphragm according to its electronic instructions from the meter or the user through the body. Since these cameras have electronic DOF preview I assume that they will only release the diaphragm actuator on the lense the distance it takes to stop down to the aperture set by the camera. Is this correct? If I have an FA lens with an aperture ring set off A on one of these bodies, will the camera behave as if the lens were a K/M lens? Assuming yes: it seems to me the K/M lens on this body is rendered useless exclusively because it has the diaphragm actuator. It has been said that most screw-mount lenses will work on these bodies (assuming the body allows you to trip the shutter at all) in stop down mode. I assume this is because the camera can't hold the aperture open. If this is true then it seems like it would only take a little bit of programming to tell the camera to depress the diaphragm actuation lever on the lens fully when DOF preview is activated with a non-A lense mounted. As long as metering could take place and the shutter could be tripped while DOFp is active that would go a good distance to solving the compatibility problem without requiring Pentax to put the stop-down coupler on every body. It would mean manual diaphragm control and stop-down metering but it's a small price to pay to retain some backwards compatibility. Am I on the right track here? Please tell me if I've gone astray anywhere here. I have a hard time believing that Pentax would completely dump the stop-down coupler across the board. Since (nearly) every K-whatever lens must be stopped down using the built-in mechanical lever, every Pentax body must still physically interact with the lens. I can't think of any good reason for Pentax to go one step at a time down the road towards a fully electronic mount. I really think the extra expense that Pentax would incur by including full compatability on their highest level bodies could be successfully passed to the consumer. If you're already spending $1000 plus on such specialized equipment, a few more dollars aren't going be the straw that breaks the high-end consumer's back, even if the consumer doesn't know or care what the difference means. In my opinion, of course. Thanks for reading. An ironic aside: it was my fiancee's purchase of a Canon Powershot S30 which reinvigorated me for photography. After playing with the S30 for a few weeks I dusted off my K1000 and, as they say, 'fell in love all over again'. I'm sure by the standards set by the PUG I've got a vast amount to learn, but I enjoy taking pictures like nothing else. Michael __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: Wanted
You can also try searching for: Pentax 35mm -(SLR,camera) This finds all auctions with the words "Pentax" and "35mm" in the title, but excludes those with "SLR" or "camera" -Matt On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: Thanks Ann I didn't know about the "-marks... -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. juli 2003 18:15 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Wanted Jens Bladt wrote: Hi I could never find one on ebay, 'cause it's useless to search for 35 mm: That will give you anything in 35mm photography!!! Any ideas? All teh best Jens Type 35mm f 2.8 lens in quotation marks and see what happens and search within category, lenses should work, I think annsan -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. juli 2003 12:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Wanted I urgently need Pentax A series 35mm F2.8. I am paying about double Jessops' offer. Need to be in my hands by Tuesday. Cheers Peter
Re: On cheerleading
I've a friend who went the other way. Started with a Pentax K1000 - one of the "Asahi" ones, and an M50mm F2. Then bought Nikon because everyone uses Nikon. The other day he told me that the M50 is much sharper than the Nikon 50mm f.14 he bought until both hit f8. Last time he took a long trip, he took one lens and one camera. Pentax. -Lon, who is repenting Dag T wrote: Thanks! Well said! I divide these people into two types: The pessimists, who are like children before christmas. They are so exited and so afraid to be disappointed that they see boogiemen all over the place. The real apologists, who have converted or want to convert, but feel really bad about because they somehow know that it will not make a difference. They will not be better photographers. Also, they miss this gang. OK, you can exclude me now .-) I´m here because I use Pentax, and intend to continue using it. So I get some information, and some laughs, but I may or may not be a better photographer. I´ve lots of friends making great photographs with anything from Leica to Holga. One of them told me he´d like to convert from Nikon to Pentax. The reason was that he, after winning a lot of competitions, was tired of making free Nikon advertisements when people asked what he used. He would like to be an outsider, like me. After all, he says, the trademark on the camera does not make the images. All you need to do is to learn how to use what you´ve got. DagT På tirsdag, 8. juli 2003, kl. 18:55, skrev Doug Brewer: It's getting damned tiresome going through my email and getting the feeling that since I, as an unapologetic fan of Pentax and Pentax gear, appear to be unwelcome on the PDML. It is now, I notice, become fashionably oh-so-clever to refer to Pentax fans as cheerleaders, in a pejorative sense. Isn't that fun? But you know what? Kiss my ass. Enjoying my Pentax gear, and reading about others who enjoy theirs, is just as valid a use for this list as the constant whining and grinding negatism pouring from the fingers of those among us who apparently feel the need to worry about what other people use to take photographs. So you use another camera brand. I couldn't care less. Why do you spend your time and energy worrying about what I use? Why do you feel the need to insult me because I use a brand you don't like? Are you really that pathetic? Are you angry at Pentax? Fine. Sell your Pentaxes, get another camera, and get the hell over it. Just stop shouting at me because I haven't mustered up enough outrage to suit you. If you feel personally insulted by business decisions made by a camera manufacturer, I suggest you get out of photography and go find some actual issues to occupy your time. I know someone is going to accuse me of trying to censor the list, or that I'm too sensitive, or that I can't stand criticism of Pentax. Bullshit. Valid criticism is fine. I've engaged in it myself. Anyone who knows me can tell you I'm hardly sensitive. And you know I don't censor the list. All I ask is that you give me a break. If you don't like Pentax, that's cool with me. Just get off my back if I say I like it.
More fun with the Optio S
Today I tried the time lapse movie feature of the Optio S. Movies shot at a frame rate of 1/50 of the normal 12fps, then played back at 12fps, gives a great effect to clouds. Bill
Re: On cheerleading
Brother Doug will now lead the repentants amoung us in a rousing acapella rendition of "The Asahi Pentax Way", where all lyric lines end in "X". We've got KX, MX, LX, and X*ist in there, I think.. Pat White wrote: Amen, Doug. Pat White
Re: Today's Word Is "Anachronism"! :)
James Moniz promised: > I will eventually post some photos taken with my H1a on my website. And, of course, in the PUG, right? ;-) -- Glenn Actually...yes. I swhould probably add to my expansive collection of 2 submissions to the PUG in as many years! :P Jim http://www.jimmoniz.com - Original Message - From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:47 PM Subject: Re: Today's Word Is "Anachronism"! :) > > James Moniz wrote: > >> Largely for fun, I just picked up a Honeywell Pentax H1a with a > >> 55mm f2 Takumar from ebay. This will be my first screw mount. > > But probably not your last. > > >> While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I wanted to know if any of > >> you have used this ancient, beautiful-looking hunk of metal and > >> glass, and what you like/don't like about it. > > While I like the flash shoe and meter in my Spotmatic, unless > I actually need either of those when I'm reaching for a screwmount > body, I reach for an H3 or an S1a/H1a. My first Pentax (my second > SLR) was an H3, about six years ago. > > What don't I like? Okay, changing lenses in a hurry is a bit > of a pain (but it's only a problem when I'm in a hurry). Fear > that old age will eventually get to the shutter is lurking in > the back of my mind. And a hot shoe would be nice. And I don't > have as big a selection of zoom lenses for screwmount (but hey, > those screwmount primes are pretty damned nice). > > What do I like? Like the K1000/KX/K2, it's a really good size > for my hands. It feels solid. It still works even though it's > about as old as I am. (Hmm. GIven my fibromyalgia, I guess > my S1a cameras work better than my own body does.) The viewfinder > is _mercifully_uncluttered_ -- all that info (starting with the > simple needle in the Spotmatic and going up from there) *is* > useful, and when that information is convenient, it's good to > have it right there, but sometimes I just want to get away from > that and exeperience the simple pleasure of a viewfinder that > simply shows the view. The shutter speed dial is very easy to > operate with a fingertip, or when wearing gloves. And the smooth > feel of the film advance lever -- the fluid feeling of the mechanism > and that just-right shape to feel right under my thumb ... all in > all, it's just a real pleasure to operate -- it feels like a > precision machine. > > I think it feels nicer to operate, on a tactile level, than > the Spotmatics. > > Oh yeah, it also makes a cool conversation starter. "That camera > is _how_ old?" Or, "No, it's not a Spotmatic, it's what came > before the Spotmatic." It's especially good for making friends > with people twenty years older than I am, who used to use something > similar when they were half my age. "Wow, I haven't seen one of > those in a while!" > > But the _big_ win is just a) how very nice it feels in one's > hands, and b) the combination of simplicity and reliability. > > The H1a is a good implementation of a good design. > > -- Glenn >
Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder
And, quite civilized it is, Sir! Thanks for the slice of pub life...on the banks of the __. keith whaley Bob Walkden wrote: > > Hi, > > Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 1:04:26 PM, you wrote: > > > Ya know, Cotty, in all the times I've visited the UK, I've never had a Pimms! > > I guess it's because I thought it was a "soft drink," and for me soft > > drinks are last choice for social drinking. > > Does it have an alcohol content? > > by a (perhaps not so) strange coincidence I happen to be drinking a > Pimms right now. It's an extremely civilised way to while away an > English summer's evening down by the river. You can feel your wits > slowly sinking into torpor, while your consciousness stands on the > upturned deck of reason, and salutes a fond farewell. > > To give those who may not be familiar with the glories of > civilisation, here is an illustration of the part Pimms plays in > English life: A couple of weeks ago I spent an evening watching the > sun go down behind Richmond Bridge. The pub had the normal run of > optics behind the bar, with 1 litre bottles of all the usual stuff. > But they had 2 bottles of Pimms on the optics, each of which contained > 10 litres of Pimms. > > I raise my glass to the gathered PUGil*ists! > > -- > Cheers, > Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital Delays?
Hell, no, let's gripe about Pentax. If I come here to rant, I'm much nicer to the wife. grin. Cotty wrote: I just like looking at nice pretty pictures that I make myself. Same here Cotty, I thought that was what photography was about. Ken Waller We should start an email list... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: a bit of OT once again ... printers ..a little longer note
Anand, I don't think you'll be pleased with "plain paper" pictures. I own the HP5550, which is supposed to do very well on plain paper in comparison to the competition. Photos on copier paper look terrible. Before you switch, try printing on plain paper. Bet you find they are all pretty bad with it. Anand DHUPKAR wrote: hi folks, once again a little bit of OT - about the printers. some time back i asked about the cost of the prints if printed at home and it was indeed a nice feedback from all of the folks over here. in the meantime, i have been playing with my printer - i have HP 932c printer. i personally, am in kind of mental block that i should go in for epson. the reason being some of their printers are advertised to give photo quality prints on plain papers, which really puzzles me. i feel quite happy with the print quality, however, when i see that i am always using the photo quality papers which are pretty expensive compared to ordinary ones, then i feel that may be if i move to epson, i would be able to print more - consumable only being inks, spending same amount of money would give me more prints. as some people mentioned, i am also one of those who without having the picture in hands, don't get feel of it - i mean, having picture to look at on monitor doesn't give me enough satisfaction and so in any case i do need to print it ... what i have observed in overall discussions is people go for either canon or epson. as i said, i do feel my pictures on hp932c are ok, however, for above mentioned reasons, i feel like going for epson. i know, i know, this is strictly personal, however, i majority of people talking/using canon/epson, hence, am kind of opening this topic once again - should i move from hp to epson ? thanks in advance anand _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: 8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure
i don't think you can use a handheld meter very easily since there will be such a huge brightness range in the captured scene. a spotmeter with all the usual caveats about using a spot meter ought to work. otherwise, center-weighted ought to get you close. a good evaluative system will recognize that the corners need to be ignored. Herb - Original Message - From: "Reg Wiest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax discussion group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 14:55 Subject: 8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure > Just picked up a used 8mm Sigma F4 fisheye. > I suspect that because a circular image is produced in the middle of the neg > and no light reaches the edges of the neg, I must deviate from in-camera > light meter readings (using LX, ME Super, MZ5-N)??? Perhaps, the best bet is > to shoot a roll of film and bracket the exposures to determine how much > compensation is required . . . or use a hand-held light meter.
Auto 110 index tab
Interesting Mark Rofini, Let me make sure the index tab left on allows the camera to shoot at ASA 400? If you get a 200 speed roll iwith the tab on it will underexpose by one stop. Not undesirable in some cases:)? David On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 11:16:47 -0700 "Rofini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The Auto 110 sets exposure for ASA 80 when the film cartridge has >an >index >> > tab and for ASA 400 without the tab. Those are the only two >exposure >> ... >> This is not the opposite ?, the cell seems more sensitive when the >tab >> is present >> Michel > >Michel, > >I just performed a little exposure test in a semi-darkened room. With >the >auto 110 and a cartridge with the index tab sliced off, exposure was >approximately one second by ear. With a cartridge with the index tab >intact, >exposure was about two seconds or more. > >Mark Rofini > > > > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
Dag T wrote: This happens as a natural process to most children at a certain stage of their development :-) Sure, they go from screwmouth to K-mouth. cheers, caveman
Re: 8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure
- Original Message - From: "Reg Wiest" Subject: 8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure > Just picked up a used 8mm Sigma F4 fisheye. > I suspect that because a circular image is produced in the middle of the neg > and no light reaches the edges of the neg, I must deviate from in-camera > light meter readings (using LX, ME Super, MZ5-N)??? Perhaps, the best bet is > to shoot a roll of film and bracket the exposures to determine how much > compensation is required . . . or use a hand-held light meter. I suspect you are correct. If you run an exposure test, I would be curious to know the amount of compensation that was required. Also, I would like to know your thoughts on that lens, and perhaps see some sample images that you shoot with it, if you could scan and post a few. Thanks William Robb
Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
På onsdag, 9. juli 2003, kl. 21:12, skrev William Robb: - Original Message - From: "Dag T" We don´t know that, do we. We don't know otherwise, do we? True. So this is how it ends: I´m an optimist and you´re a pessimist. It´s that simple :-) DagT
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
På onsdag, 9. juli 2003, kl. 21:08, Caveman: Mark Roberts wrote: In other words: I suspect we're seeing a sacrifice of some backward compatibility (K and M lenses) in order to insure future compatibility with future products. Sounds like pulling out the teeth from someones mouth in order to make place for future teeth that might grow in the future. This happens as a natural process to most children at a certain stage of their development :-) DagT
8mm Sigma fisheye/exposure
Just picked up a used 8mm Sigma F4 fisheye. I suspect that because a circular image is produced in the middle of the neg and no light reaches the edges of the neg, I must deviate from in-camera light meter readings (using LX, ME Super, MZ5-N)??? Perhaps, the best bet is to shoot a roll of film and bracket the exposures to determine how much compensation is required . . . or use a hand-held light meter. RW
Re: Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
- Original Message - From: "Dag T" Subject: Re: Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co... > > We don´t know that, do we. We don't know otherwise, do we? William Robb
Re: Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
På onsdag, 9. juli 2003, kl. 20:15, skrev William Robb: I don't want to have to replace lenses at the same time. Understandable. Sometimes technological changes can really suck. This is not a technological change. We don´t know that, do we. Many here assume that there is no technological reason why they abandon the K mount. I can´t see any proof for this. Please, can anybody show me the electronic and mechanical diagrams showing us that it is true? I work with inventors every day and know that some things are not as simple as they seem (and with the people at the patent offices claiming that they are), so I do not take technology for granted, especially when economy comes into the equation as well. DagT
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
Mark Roberts wrote: In other words: I suspect we're seeing a sacrifice of some backward compatibility (K and M lenses) in order to insure future compatibility with future products. Sounds like pulling out the teeth from someones mouth in order to make place for future teeth that might grow in the future. It also might happen that nothing grows, but what a wonderful smile we have, free of any legacy ! cheers, caveman
Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ
> I have never had this powerzoom and know many people have prasied > this lens. > However, from what I read in an Australian magazine many years > ago, they > specifically said the sharpness was pretty low at the long end. > They wren't > impressed by this lens and didn't rate it that well. If you want > 28mm, maybe > you can consider the new Tamron SP 28-75/2.8 which is $330 only. > Not bad for > a 2.8 zoom. I have my eyes on this lens too but I havem't bought > it yet so I > do not know how it performs. Alan, thank you for your quick reply and comment. If I go for that route, I would gladly pay extra for the FA*28-70/2.8. I used to have that lens but I sold it because it was too big (though not too heavy for such a big lens) and consume too much space in my camera bag. But as Caveman has pointed out, I might need to stop down a bit, so maybe I had to live with a big lens to start with a faster aperture. I am spoiled by such lenses as the FA*24/2.0, F*300/4.5, and the Zeiss lenses of my Contax G2, but I need to go back to Pentax because I need a digital upgrade path. I am pretty confident a Pentax 50/1.4 would be as sharp as my Zeiss lenses and therefore more than satisfy my needs. Even on 4x6 I saw a difference, although everybody says all lenses look good on 4x6. Granted, I use a loupe to inspect the prints sometimes, and I hope it is not placebo effect that I am seeing. I've read from a number of sources that even the oldest screw mount Takumar primes would be better than today's newest and best zooms, though.
RE: Wanted
Thanks Ann I didn't know about the "-marks... -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. juli 2003 18:15 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Wanted Jens Bladt wrote: > Hi > I could never find one on ebay, 'cause it's useless to search for 35 mm: > That will give you anything in 35mm photography!!! Any ideas? > All teh best > Jens > Type 35mm f 2.8 lens in quotation marks and see what happens and search within category, lenses should work, I think annsan > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 9. juli 2003 12:56 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Wanted > > I urgently need > > Pentax A series 35mm F2.8. I am paying about double Jessops' offer. > > Need to be in my hands by Tuesday. > > Cheers > > Peter
Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
<< Pentax is a craft oriented brand. >> Yup. And I am proud to say it , your memorable (what was it now?) quote about the limiteds "We demand limited series lenses" still sticks. I wish I could agree. They designed something great, they decided to put them into production, but they failed to commit the resources required to manufacture them right. Or am I just pure unlucky to have seen so many faulty lenses? Even though I have purchased 2 expensive lenses since late last year, I feel no joy. Sigh... regards, Alan Chan _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)
Anthony Farr wrote: So why make Pentax users face two changes, first to digital imaging and later to a more complete electronic lens interface, when the two changeovers can be integrated. I haven't heard of any "more complete" interface, on the contrary, it's about a "less complete" one, like in lacking something that previously was there (an aperture simulator coupling). cheers, caveman
The New and Improved Marketplace (was Re: On cheerleading)
Cheap & affordable: Isn't that the Pentax way? The enthusiast's camera? Besides, we've got F & FA for those who must have an aperture ring. So what does the rest matter to anyone? The LX & MZ-S are anomalies in the Pentax 35mm line-up. Nice, but out-of-order with the consistent design of the rest. If one needs a PJ body then the LX & MZ-S will be suitable. If one wants a hobbyist body then Pentax does beat C & N in price/features. What I wish Pentax would figure out (maybe they have and we don't see the evidence yet) is that, at least in the US, people DO plunk down $2000 for what they want, and that even on a whim. They don't have to come in on the bottom end of the price scale any longer. Why? Because they have beat "N" to the consumer DSLR punch and have a chance to grab a really big market share in the niche. The digibino gimicks are just a waste of Pentax' energies & resources. $400 is no longer the restricting price point it was 10 years ago. The new digital marketplace has opened up the floodgates to the same-class buyers who 20 years ago spent $2000 on their first computers. Photography is now making a comeback and reclaiming the leisure $$$ that were lost to IBM PCs in 1983. And just like the PC industry ... this is the first of 3 years of BOOOMING DSLR sales. Watch. Collin - Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 19:50:13 +0200 From: "Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Well, IMO it's ok if Pentax makes FAJ lenses and *ist-like bodies - because those are cheap, and most people will simply buy the cheapest SLR they can find in a store. This is not a problem, if we'll have our well-build cameras with K&M compatibility (even if they cost slightly more, like the MZ-5n), nice primes with the aperture ring etc. Even 2 similar lenses, a plastic, very cheap FAJ and a FA with enough metal and aperture ring will be OK for me. Alex Sarbu - mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens co...
>Spoken by someone who doesn't own more than 50 lenses. >Some of us have made a significant investment in this company's equipment >over the years. We aren't talking about replacing a couple of shitty zoom >lenses here. >William Robb Well, actually my zooms aren't all that shitty, the lower end, sure, but two of them are Pentax and all three are okay -- but, true. I fully realize that. I am just unsure why your lenses and your current system HAVE to be replaced. See my later post under "On Cheerleading [2]." Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Flame Wars
> Is it safe to come out yet? Not really :-( Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: Flame Wars
Yes, as long as you´re not optimistic about the future of Pentax :-) DagT På onsdag, 9. juli 2003, kl. 19:29, skrev Daniel J. Matyola: Is it safe to come out yet? Dan
DIGIBINO DB200 (was Re: yet another new Pentax digital camera)
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > Another digital camera (?) released as promised by Pentax: > http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/news/2003/200337.html Main updated features: - 1.3M pixel progressive scan ccd (instead of 800k) - SD Card memory storage (instead of just built-in 16MB memory) - +/- 2 EV exposure compensation - 8s voice memo I believe the relatively low pixel count (when compared with most digital cameras) is their decision to use progressive scan CCD. Almost all of the larger CCDs are interlaced design requiring the use of a mechanical shutters. Progressive scan CCD can function well without the use of mechanical shutters, allowing high shutter speed (1/8000s) and relatively fast continuous shooting (5 shots per second for 10 shots - limited by buffer). -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: Flame Wars
Is it safe to come out yet? Dan
Re: On Cheerleading
Cameron Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >then I do a shoot for the plastic surgeon with the >magnificent 24mm f=2, and all is well again. Or, more recently, I did a >shoot for Cap's Bikes, primarily with the 85mm f=1.4, and oh, man, I >just can't believe that lens. I cannot believe anyone could make a >finer lens, period. It is so beautiful, I couldn't bear to part with it >for some horrible Canon zoom with IS, but with severe distortion at >both ends. The 85 and the 24 are the reasons I still sing Pentax's >praises in public, but whine about them here. > After getting my shots back from the Cap's shoot, I must say I >still believe in Pentax. I hope my PZ-1 lasts forever. BTW, I also got >some magnificent shots with the FA* 28-70 f=2.8 Things I love about Pentax: My FA*24/2.0 My 43mm Limited My FA*80-200/2.8 My A-20/2.8 My F-100/2.8 Macro My K-15/3.5 My MZ-S My 645 ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: On cheerleading
Caveman, go back to your cave! Bruce Wednesday, July 9, 2003, 8:18:17 AM, you wrote: C> You just confirmed once more that the preferred argument of the C> cheerleaders is insult. C> Doug Brewer wrote: >> Get back to me when your reading comprehension skills improve.
RE: On Cheerleading
I must confess, I have been guilty of just what the mighty Dougster is saying. I am so pissed off at Pentax for all of the reasons I have been bitching about over the last several years (no DSLR, no 'Limited' camera, no IS, no USM, no aperture wheel or grip-strap on the otherwise gorgeous MZ-S, perhaps the prettiest camera ever produced, no 80-200 f4, etc.). But judging from recent postings, I (we) are not alone. Nikon users are whining about them being behind technologically, as well. And it is not entirely true that some of this hi-tech stuff would not make you a better photographer; image stabilization would help everyone almost immediately, if it could be done with minimal optical aberrations. So I bitch and whine for a while, and vent my frustrations on this list, and then I do a shoot for the plastic surgeon with the magnificent 24mm f=2, and all is well again. Or, more recently, I did a shoot for Cap's Bikes, primarily with the 85mm f=1.4, and oh, man, I just can't believe that lens. I cannot believe anyone could make a finer lens, period. It is so beautiful, I couldn't bear to part with it for some horrible Canon zoom with IS, but with severe distortion at both ends. The 85 and the 24 are the reasons I still sing Pentax's praises in public, but whine about them here. If they can make things of such exceptional beauty and quality, why can't they release the damn 'flagship', or update the MZ-S with an aperture wheel? And a full-frame MZ-D. Remember when we thought they were going to produce that beauty? After getting my shots back from the Cap's shoot, I must say I still believe in Pentax. I hope my PZ-1 lasts forever. BTW, I also got some magnificent shots with the FA* 28-70 f=2.8, a highly underrated optic, and I used the Powerzoom feature for mountain bike action shots with a local semi-pro mountain biker going at 40 MPH through the trails out at UBC. I will miss powerzoom when it is finally gone from my system; it is too bad it never caught on. It really is great for image size tracking. Cameron
Re: On cheerleading
Hi William, Just a few questions: William Robb wrote: > > > Pål wrote: > > > > PJ> One can wonder what drive certain people who practically only post > > PJ> negative and hateful post on PDML on issues that doesn't even > > PJ> affect their photography! A mystery! > > Allow me to demuddify the waters for you > The lack of a DSLR afects my photography. If you had never heard about Pentax releasing a digital camera, what would you have done? It can't be affecting your photography now, as you're still doing what you always did, and not using a Pentax digital camera. So I presume. If you really need a digital camera, I guess it's either wait or buy another platform. A decision we all have to make. I am a dyed in the wool Pentax guy, but Pentax are dragging their feet, for whatever reason, so I bought an Olympus C-5050. A fine, top quality, very capable 5.0 useable Megapixel camera, for half the price of what the *ist-D will probably sell for. And, I can use it NOW! Which I'm doing... No, it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, but it does have a fine 3X optical zoom, with excellent optics. If I need lens capability outside the C-5050's range, I use one of my excellent Pentax film cameras. But then, I'm not a professional, and I don't make a living with my photography, so I can't really compare how that might restrict you. > The apparent removal of K-mount lens compatability affects my photography. It _would_ have, had you bought a *ist-D, which you can't buy yet anyhow. How can something that hasn't even released to the market affect your photography? If the _only_ thing that's affects your photography is the lack of a digital camera, why blame Pentax? I'm not trying to be obstreperous about this, William... I'm just trying to see how a not-currently-available product can possibly affect your current photography... You didn't say "will affect, at some point down the road," you said "affects" which is present tense... Had Pentax never announced a digital camera, where would you be? Still using whatever cameras and lenses you presently use? Or would you have gone to some other platform, just to go digital? > William Robb keith whaley
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)
- Original Message - From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anthony Farr wrote: > > > Pentax knows more about making and selling > > cameras than you or I ever will. > > I find it interesting that you accept that for Pentax, but not for > Minolta: "It works because it works, and because we tell you so. Trust > us, we're Minolta's advertising agency and we wouldn't lead you astray". > REPLY: I was referring to actual accomplishments, not advertising claims. > > Can you name a single major manufacturer of 35mm SLR cameras who hasn't in > > recent years made changes to their mount that either alters, limits, or even > > prevents the functionality of their older, out of production lenses? > > Recent years ? Canon ? All EF mount lenses work with all EF mount > cameras ? Yes, they did a major change 20 years ago, from FD to EF, > Pentax did one from screw to K too, but after that they didn't play > sh*tty compatibility games. Like those with current FAJ lenses that > don't work with current cameras such as MZ-5n. > REPLY: Is it really twenty years? I can't be bothered confirming it so it take your word. To me that's still recent (I've been married 15 years and remember my wedding day like it was yesterday). Canon was an early adopter of totally electronic interface, mainly because electronic communication through the lens mount had matured as a concept when the FD mount was found to be unsuited to AF. But when K-mount was in development the photo world was a mechanical one, and that mount was an expression of the contemporary state-of-affairs. When the first evolution of K-mount , to KA, came up the photo world was becoming an electronic realm. But Pentax was in no position to abandon it's mechanical concept after only eight(?) years. Imagine the bitching and moaning of today and multiply that by any factor you care to mention, then add your grandmother's age, and the grief would have been twice as bad. Instead they piggybacked an electronic aperture onto a mechanical one, creating a 'Frankenstein' arrangement where the aperture value is communicated mechanically when the lens is off "A", and electronically when set to "A", but in both cases activated mechanically so that compatability with their all-mechanical predecessors was maintained. Now, twentysome years and and a couple more evolutions later, now is as good a time as any to strip some of the redundancies out of some lenses and some cameras, because the photo world is again transitioning to electronics, this time it's the imaging media. So why make Pentax users face two changes, first to digital imaging and later to a more complete electronic lens interface, when the two changeovers can be integrated. Sooner or later all camera mounts and lens operations will become fully electronic, so we can expect more evolutions of K-mount > > GET THIS. Pentax's new *ist and *ist D are fully compatible with their > > current and planned lenses. > > Get this: the *ists were designed with FAJ type lenses in mind. > REPLY: That's absolutely true, and an *ist will work equally well with any past, present or upcoming A, F, FA, or FAJ lens (with a questionmark over the F/FA28 Soft & F/FA85 Soft). So what was the question? > cheers, > caveman > > regards, Anthony Farr
Re: On cheerleading
Doug Brewer wrote: Wow. Good snip to take that out of context. You made my task easy by writing sweeping and slightly conflicting statements. Why don't make things clear once for all. Use direct addressing like in "Caveman you k*** my a** because you wrote this which is undeserved negative comment and you're idiotically wrong and here are the arguments that demonstrate that you s**k". This would avoid getting a raise from some other people that might feel targeted by sweeping generalizing statements. cheers, caveman
Re: On cheerleading
Well, IMO it's ok if Pentax makes FAJ lenses and *ist-like bodies - because those are cheap, and most people will simply buy the cheapest SLR they can find in a store. This is not a problem, if we'll have our well-build cameras with K&M compatibility (even if they cost slightly more, like the MZ-5n), nice primes with the aperture ring etc. Even 2 similar lenses, a plastic, very cheap FAJ and a FA with enough metal and aperture ring will be OK for me. Alex Sarbu - Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 6:02 PM Subject: Re: On cheerleading > Jostein wrote: > > My point was simply that Pentax is unwise not to please established > users, even if it is designing a strategy for the future that is > different from its recent past. My reasoning is that established users > recommend Pentax to potential new users (I do), provided that they are > pleased with Pentax. It is a way of steering new customers to Pentax. In > other words, I think Pentax should keep k-mount compatibility and the > aperture ring, and not produce lenses that lack a distance scale - if > only for the continuing endorsement of established users. But as I've > said here before, I know little about marketing, and apparently Pentax > is reasoning differently. (I should mention that I own only two non-A > lenses, and they work just fine on my 1ps, so for me personally this is > not an issue.) > > Joe > >
Re: On cheerleading
- Original Message - From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I'm sorry Doug, but cheerleading makes indeed no service to Pentax. >On the contrary. They need real feedback, bad or good, but >substantiated. I've praised them in the past when I had good >reasons to do so, I might do the same in the future, too bad >nowadays their interests are so divergent with mines. > >Servus, Alin > IMO the negative views on new Pentax products are just so much Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD), and Alin is a major purveyor of that FUD, by repeatedly stating categorically that Pentax will do this or won't do that when there is no basis in fact to say so. e.g. Alin predicts that ALL lenses will be FAJ, even the next 'star' lenses, even though there is no statement from Pentax, or leaked product information, or published patent documents to support this claim. IOW Alin is just spreading his own FUD around the list. Before anyone asks what's wrong with fair criticism, the answer is nothing, if it's fair. But so much of it has been either premature or plain wrong, that it appears some people actually hope for the worst. If someone says that this or that camera is entry level, then the FUDsters say "crap" as if they and no-one else are empowered to make the judgement. If we are told that this new camera is made to a price (and stripped of some features to get there) to be attractive to new customers possibly more than longtime Pentax owners, the FUDsters say "bullsh*t", without even considering that Pentax's aim could be to enlarge the ownership base, whereas selling to old customers wouldn't achieve that aim. And if told that the follow-up models will be better specified, again the FUDsters proclaim "lies!", obviously because they have planted bugs in Pentax's boardroom and know every detail of Pentax's 5 Year Plan. But that's Not Bloody Likely, they're just flapping their gums, in a keyboard kind of way, to see what comes out. Obviously I exclude from this the working pros who needed a DSLR years ago, and saw the original promise downgraded. They want the top model first, and feel cheated that the 'prosumers' get first bite of the cherry. Those who own a shirtload of pre-A lenses also get my sympathy if they bought in when Pentax crowed about compatability. They share their circumstance with the pros, i.e. their preferred camera is down the list of priorities, because Pentax sees the next generation of customers as their future rather than the present generation. Reading this list, it's easy to agree with Pentax that their future is not with the present ownership base. FWIW, I have eleven Pentax lenses of which five are M-series lenses and one is the F85/2.8 Soft, which might be crippled despite it's relatively recent manufacture. I also have two Tamron SP lenses with plain K Adaptalls, although one is a reflex so that's not an issue but I'd need to find a KA Adaptall for the 17mm. So I am affected by the mount incompatability myself. Three things lessen my concerns. Pentax has previously introduced cameras with crippled mounts, but afterwards introduced better cameras with compatable mounts. I could use the camera without its meter, which I'm perfectly comfortable in doing. And, by the time I need to buy a new or a digital Pentax SLR the problem (or Pentax) will most likely be history. So why do I believe that optimism is the better approach? Because nobody else but Pentax afficianados care whether Pentax lives or dies, and nobody else will talk up the brand. If a potential purchaser searches the internet, and surfs into PDML to get a feel for the brand, what they'll get is a bickering rabble, the loudest of who predict the demise of the marque. In that way it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy. regards, Anthony Farr
