Re: Tripod head? was(Re: Tamron 300/2.8 SP LD IF Ex+, $1000)
on 28.07.03 7:31, Paul Eriksson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My wife approved the purchase, so now it's mine. I have to admit that it was a 100% impulse buy, I never considered a 300 2.8 since I wrongly assumed that in AF it would be to expensive. Well now I have to pay the price, my tripod head is totally inadequate a bogen 3001/3031 setup. First step will be a new head, I looked at the Kirk BH-3 (right name?) and it looks promising but I'm sure there are other options. Anyone feel like making a suggestion? The leg set will have to wait a couple of months thou. Look at Novoflex Magicball Small: http://www.novoflex.com/html_d/fr_sz1.htm or Universal: http://www.novoflex.com/html_d/fr_sz5.htm It is much easier to operate than standard ball head - anyway worth considering for your new 300/2.8! -- Best Regards Sylwek
KX voted Top Stealth Camera?
Yesterday I used my KX in earnest for the first time - I also have a K1000 (which I shall soon sell) an MX and LX's, all cameras have been CLA'd. I had long suspected that the KX had the sweetest quietest shutter and using it yesterday after a long spell of using mainly LX's and occasionally the MX really brought this home. The KX shutter (on my example anyway) is noticeably quieter and it has a silkier sound. I did notice that the wind-on is a little rough - rather like a K1000 - the MX and LX in particular have a smoother action. The KX has all the features for easy smooth stealthy operation - aperture and shutter displayed in viewfinder, mirror lock-up for even quieter operation, MLU and self-timer can be used in conjunction so you could leave the camera on a table and set it off whilst you busy yourself talking to a friend (though the noise of the self-timer would negate the reduction in sound of the MLU). Although the KX isn't small, it looks like an old uninteresting camera (particularly with the case attached) and people dont usually give it a second glance, I think its reasonable un-stealworthy. I don't think that the greater size over the MX makes much difference to visibility. I think a big guy like myself holding something up to his eye is what will draw attention; a few centimetres in the size of the thing he's holding won't make much difference (no sexual comments here please). I hereby nominate the KX as No. 1 Pentax manual focus stealth camera. Anton __ Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application.
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
Dave Brooks wrote: I think that may be my next purchase (and maybe the tubes)instead of something wider.I want to get in a bit closer now. The tubes will be necessary if you want to get tight head shots. BTW how do you print your slides. I assume you mean 6x7 slides. I scan them and send the files to the lab. My scanner is only capable of 1200ppi but this is adequate for my purposes (I can get a good 8x10 but haven't tried anything bigger yet). For really big prints I can have the lab scan the slide for me. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
OT: Having to buy a scanner
Hi! Remember a few days ago I was boasting about my local shop doing 4000 dpi scans with Nikon scanner. Now, apparently the shop owner decided to move abroad. He's closing a shop or selling it out. Most probably the result would be unacceptable to me. I decided to buy a scanner. My options are: Epson 2400 or Epson 3200. The latter is twice as expensive as the former. It could be that I won't get approval on the expensive one. Still I wonder whether anyone already bought an Epson 3200 and used it. What do you say? Thanks. Boris
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
That is one thing that I like in PDML: I am always learning something new about life and people. When starting in this list I read all about Pentax gear and I spent very much money on getting a better quality level of my equipment (I had been warned ... sigh) Now I am switching more and more to read threads like camping in Scotland (very nice - must have been fun). Regards Bernd ---original message Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:33:34 -0400 From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GFM is Grandfather Mountain, see http://www.grandfather.com/ . There are two Photography events there each year, Nature Photo Weekend which is a nature photo workshop, and Camera Clinic a photojournalism seminar. Both events are attended by several list members on a regular basis. You are almost guaranteed to meet the list guy, Doug Brewer, and Bill Owen (and his lovely wife Phyllis) who sometimes seems to live there in his camper. As a bonus, the Event Director for these programs is also the South East US Pentax Rep, so neat things show up for list members to fondle. There will probably will be at least one *istD, maybe several at the Camera Clinic next month. RV? There is someone in the world who does not know what RV means? I'm amazed. RV is short for Recreational Vehicle, anything from Bill's tent trailer to a multi-million dollar converted over the road bus. That includes what Europeans' call caravans (we call them travel trailers), and the ubiquitous VW Camper Bus. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
Hi, Monday, July 28, 2003, 8:24:43 AM, you wrote: Hi! Remember a few days ago I was boasting about my local shop doing 4000 dpi scans with Nikon scanner. Now, apparently the shop owner decided to move abroad. He's closing a shop or selling it out. Most probably the result would be unacceptable to me. I decided to buy a scanner. My options are: Epson 2400 or Epson 3200. The latter is twice as expensive as the former. It could be that I won't get approval on the expensive one. Still I wonder whether anyone already bought an Epson 3200 and used it. What do you say? why not offer to buy the shop owner's scanner from him? -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner - clarification
I think I need to clarify myself here. Epson 2400 can give me roughly 8MP from purely optical scan. I've seen the results and they are quite impressive. It can also do very good scans from proper b/w film, such as Kodak TMax 100. I wonder whether such scanner is enough for a semi-serious amateur like me, or do I have to buy Epson 3200. This one has roughly twice the resolution, and is said to have proper dynamic range. But $450 is a lot of money for me and I don't see immediate good that would come out from choosing 3200 above 2400... Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Boris
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
on 28.07.03 9:24, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I decided to buy a scanner. My options are: Epson 2400 or Epson 3200. The latter is twice as expensive as the former. It could be that I won't get approval on the expensive one. Still I wonder whether anyone already bought an Epson 3200 and used it. If you want top results, and don't want to spend hours hand-cleaning every scan of dust and scratches, you'd better buy specialized film scanner for similar to 3200 price - like Nikon Coolscan IV or Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 08:47:53 +0100 Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, why not offer to buy the shop owner's scanner from him? Bob, he has two years old Nikon Coolscan 4000-something scanner that he's been using very extensively every single day. My knowledge about modern technology forces me to fear that this scanner is going to the scanner's heaven very soon... Boris
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:51:02 +0200 Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want top results, and don't want to spend hours hand-cleaning every scan of dust and scratches, you'd better buy specialized film scanner for similar to 3200 price - like Nikon Coolscan IV or Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. That's exactly the point. I don't want top results since I am quite far from being able to earn money from my photography. However the results I've been seeing and ocassionally getting from my friend's Epson 2450 are definitely acceptable. I am going to verify prices on Nikon Coolscan LS-40. It sounds like a good alternative to Epson flatbeds... Boris
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner - clarification
Or Nikon LS-2000 or Minolta Scan Elite F-2900 if you do 35mm only. Mind you this Minolta doesn't scan Kodachrome well. regards, Alan Chan I think I need to clarify myself here. Epson 2400 can give me roughly 8MP from purely optical scan. I've seen the results and they are quite impressive. It can also do very good scans from proper b/w film, such as Kodak TMax 100. I wonder whether such scanner is enough for a semi-serious amateur like me, or do I have to buy Epson 3200. This one has roughly twice the resolution, and is said to have proper dynamic range. But $450 is a lot of money for me and I don't see immediate good that would come out from choosing 3200 above 2400... Any advise will be greatly appreciated. Boris _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
Hi! Sylwek, Nikon Coolscan IV (LS-40) costs locally $1100 - way out of my reach. I might as well save for ist-D or something... At the moment I am leaning towards Epson 2400 - reasonably good and very affordable - $300 or even less. Boris
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
on 28.07.03 10:10, Boris Liberman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylwek, Nikon Coolscan IV (LS-40) costs locally $1100 - way out of my reach. I might as well save for ist-D or something... At the moment I am leaning towards Epson 2400 - reasonably good and very affordable - $300 or even less. Unfortunately the price for Coolscan IV is similar in Poland too :-( You can eventually trie to look for lightly used Coolscan II as I did (that shouldn't be problem it was rather used by amateurs). Mine was almost like new and was about 330$ - scan quality is very good, and it has original ICE! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Letter from Scotland - Day 2
Indeed, a visit to a distillery is on the agenda. I'm not an great fan of whiskey myself, but I'm sure it will prove interesting ;-) Ahhh. Speyside! Home of some legendary single malts, truth be known... g Cotty wrote: Up slowly this morning as yesterday was long and arduous with lots of travelling. After breakfast, we all walked down the lane to the village and found the small railway station that is part of the Speyside Steam Railway. Earlier we could hear the train chugging back and forth along the ten mile track, and it seemed a good bet for some decent pics, not to mention keeping the kids occupied for the best part of the morning. Aha. In that case we probably got the wedgies from you guys :-) As for a wedgie, we in the North American colonies know exactly what they are. I don't believe I've ever had the pleasure of being the receipient of one of those. I was a nerd, and my pant waist was just below my chest (as a defensive measure...). Do you guys have atomic wedgies? That's where the waist band goes up over the head. Ah, the innocence of youth! I'll have to have a good think now and come up with a load of old Brit nonesense - you can guess through the context. But wait - it's the start of day 3 and I'm not yet out of bed. Must go see Gianfranco (whose nickname I have discovered is 'Ganco' - with a soft 'g' like a 'j') and Veronica off as they are eager to get going south shortly. More soon. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
At last
Dear Friends, After a week and a half I have finally launched the website. The new 'The Cement Company from Hell' is much better than the preliminary version which I submitted for your perusal and this is mainly because of the valuable feedback I got. Navigation has been included as well as better text. There is a link now that goes from my own front page. At the risk of being boring, if any of you would care to go back and look I'd be eternally grateful. The main perpetrator of the atrocities against us is dead. But his successors are. if anything. rougher in their approach to business, life and other people than he was. We have now finally, in the face of a threat to our health, to do something about this menace. I have sent the link to members of the Eduskunta (Parliament) or Congressmen and women for those of you the other side of the Atlantic. And to a sprinkling of people concerned with public health and safety. There are links below the introduction that people can click to email a selection of people who might be able to help and I have included the board of directors of the villain's company. I don't know how many folk will spend the time mailing dignitaries, but I hope some do. You can go there directly from my font page: http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams or http://personal.inet.fi/cool/aino.williams Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: Tripod head? was(Re: Tamron 300/2.8 SP LD IF Ex+, $1000)
you need more than stability. if your lens/camera combination weighs more than a certain amount and you don't have a tripod collar, there will be flex and twist in the tripod screw and its pad. cork pads, unless they are very carefully designed, will flex enough that when you position the camera while holding the lens, it will droop after you tighten the head and let go. how much it does depends on head position and how well balanced the camera/lens is about your mount point. similarly, if you don't have a rotating tripod mount on the lens, you will get movement if you flop the head on its side for a portrait shot. since you are using Pentax bodies, your best options are an Arca-Swiss-style quick release head with Kirk plates and brackets specifically for the body and lens you are using. this is after you have chosen the sturdiest set of legs you can afford. Herb... - Original Message - From: Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 01:31 Subject: Tripod head? was(Re: Tamron 300/2.8 SP LD IF Ex+, $1000) Well now I have to pay the price, my tripod head is totally inadequate a bogen 3001/3031 setup. First step will be a new head, I looked at the Kirk BH-3 (right name?) and it looks promising but I'm sure there are other options. Anyone feel like making a suggestion? The leg set will have to wait a couple of months thou.
Re: At last
I feel for you Don. Unfortunately, if Finland is similar to the US, you're probably facing a losing battle. Over here the developers who line the politicians pockets usually get what they want, regardless of the wishes of, and without regard to, the health of the average citizen. Bill - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:01 AM Subject: At last Dear Friends, After a week and a half I have finally launched the website. The new 'The Cement Company from Hell' is much better than the preliminary version which I submitted for your perusal and this is mainly because of the valuable feedback I got. Navigation has been included as well as better text. There is a link now that goes from my own front page. At the risk of being boring, if any of you would care to go back and look I'd be eternally grateful. The main perpetrator of the atrocities against us is dead. But his successors are. if anything. rougher in their approach to business, life and other people than he was. We have now finally, in the face of a threat to our health, to do something about this menace. I have sent the link to members of the Eduskunta (Parliament) or Congressmen and women for those of you the other side of the Atlantic. And to a sprinkling of people concerned with public health and safety. There are links below the introduction that people can click to email a selection of people who might be able to help and I have included the board of directors of the villain's company. I don't know how many folk will spend the time mailing dignitaries, but I hope some do. You can go there directly from my font page: http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams or http://personal.inet.fi/cool/aino.williams Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: MZ-5n vs MZ-6
Coming back, I hope that it's still interesting (and that people may refer to it in the future). On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Boris Liberman wrote: you. I couldn't make my wife take either of ZX-L or ME Super and start shooting though she did press the shutter release couple of times. I am struggling to convince her we should let go of the MZ-50 :-) Sentimentalism. 1. -5n has penta prism, -6 has penta mirror. For instance recently I mounted M 35/2.8 and observed heavy vignetting in the viewfinder of -6 with somewhat less vignetting in case of -5n - my co-worker has one, so I could try. What do you mean by that? Could you see the lens from the viewfinder? Or do you mean that you see less from the viewfinder than what you actually shoot on the film? Or sth else? 2. -5n has 0.8 magnification while -6 has only 0.7. I noticed that the -6 is even smaller than the -50 (0.77). Would the magnifier make any difference? Or is it unsuitable for general photography? http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/magnifier-FB.jpg As for your trouble with spot meter. It is actually quite convenient. Thanks for this. Regards, Kostas
Re: KX voted Top Stealth Camera?
You seem to have an amazingly quiet KX. I have three of them, and three MXen, and all the MXen are quieter than the KXen. Gimme decent light, though, and I like the KX best. Anton Browne wrote: Yesterday I used my KX in earnest for the first time - I also have a K1000 (which I shall soon sell) an MX and LX's, all cameras have been CLA'd. I had long suspected that the KX had the sweetest quietest shutter and using it yesterday after a long spell of using mainly LX's and occasionally the MX really brought this home. The KX shutter (on my example anyway) is noticeably quieter and it has a silkier sound. I did notice that the wind-on is a little rough - rather like a K1000 - the MX and LX in particular have a smoother action. The KX has all the features for easy smooth stealthy operation - aperture and shutter displayed in viewfinder, mirror lock-up for even quieter operation, MLU and self-timer can be used in conjunction so you could leave the camera on a table and set it off whilst you busy yourself talking to a friend (though the noise of the self-timer would negate the reduction in sound of the MLU). Although the KX isn't small, it looks like an old uninteresting camera (particularly with the case attached) and people dont usually give it a second glance, I think its reasonable un-stealworthy. I don't think that the greater size over the MX makes much difference to visibility. I think a big guy like myself holding something up to his eye is what will draw attention; a few centimetres in the size of the thing he's holding won't make much difference (no sexual comments here please). I hereby nominate the KX as No. 1 Pentax manual focus stealth camera. Anton __ Join Freeserve http://www.freeserve.com/time/ Winner of the 2003 Internet Service Providers' Association awards for Best Unmetered ISP and Best Consumer Application.
Re: Was: B/W PUG Favorites. Now: Pentax and Us
Steve Desjardins wrote: But remember the PDML battle cry: Any idiot can buy a Canon or a Nikon, but it take's a special kind of idiot to buy a Pentax! Hey Mark Roberts! Does this qualify for your The Collected Wisdom of the PDML? ;-) Regards, Stephen
Re: Newbie Questions
I really don't agree that you should buy only Pentax lenses. Yes, You can't go WRONG with most of the Pentax lenses out there but some of my favourite lenses are not Pentax Lenses at all. And, I would add, that in many cases they are as good or better than the equivalent Pentax offering. Once again, I maintain that it is not the lenses that make the difference but the photographer and his or her technique. I'm not sugggesting you go out and buy the cheapest lenses you can find, but don't limit yourself to Pentax lenses. If you see a good used lens that is not a Pentax brand, ask the PDML about it. But remember, most of us are extremely biased toward Pentax lenses. Non Pentax Lenses I own that I am very happy with are Tokina ATX 100-300 F4 Tokina ATX 90 F2.5 macro Tokina ATX 28-70 2.6-2.8 Kiron 105 2.5 macro Kiron 28-105 There are a few others Vic In a message dated 7/27/03 10:02:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: Newbie Questions I hate to say it, but buy Pentax lenses. I don't mind saying it at all. BUY PENTAX LENSES. William Robb No matter how (un)fortunate it sounds, I totally second Lon's and Bill's opinion. One of the things that were caused in my life by PDML was to decide rather decidedly grin to buy only Pentax glass. That's why I decided to sell my Sigma 28-135 zoom and my Soligor 70-222 zoom and buy (eventually) Pentax 28-105 and Pentax 70-210 zooms instead. Any enablers? Disablers? big broad grin Boris
Re: Newbie Questions
Hi, How would you rate Tokina ATX 28-70 2.6-2.8 in terms of optical performance?Do you have any comparison with any other fast zoom?even from other manufacturer. And how does it performe vs Pentax primes? Cheers Alek - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Questions I really don't agree that you should buy only Pentax lenses. Yes, You can't go WRONG with most of the Pentax lenses out there but some of my favourite lenses are not Pentax Lenses at all. And, I would add, that in many cases they are as good or better than the equivalent Pentax offering. Once again, I maintain that it is not the lenses that make the difference but the photographer and his or her technique. I'm not sugggesting you go out and buy the cheapest lenses you can find, but don't limit yourself to Pentax lenses. If you see a good used lens that is not a Pentax brand, ask the PDML about it. But remember, most of us are extremely biased toward Pentax lenses. Non Pentax Lenses I own that I am very happy with are Tokina ATX 100-300 F4 Tokina ATX 90 F2.5 macro Tokina ATX 28-70 2.6-2.8 Kiron 105 2.5 macro Kiron 28-105 There are a few others Vic In a message dated 7/27/03 10:02:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! From: Lon Williamson Subject: Re: Newbie Questions I hate to say it, but buy Pentax lenses. I don't mind saying it at all. BUY PENTAX LENSES. William Robb No matter how (un)fortunate it sounds, I totally second Lon's and Bill's opinion. One of the things that were caused in my life by PDML was to decide rather decidedly grin to buy only Pentax glass. That's why I decided to sell my Sigma 28-135 zoom and my Soligor 70-222 zoom and buy (eventually) Pentax 28-105 and Pentax 70-210 zooms instead. Any enablers? Disablers? big broad grin Boris
Re: New M42/Thread Mount Body (Bessaflex TM)
Thanks, Lon! I'll check the archives. Ya' know, If they built one of these puppies in K mount, it would be in my bag already! Regards, Chris L. Christopher Lillja Director of Publications The Pennington School www.pennington.org (609) 737-6121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/26/03 10:37AM Chris, there was a thread about this very topic a week or two ago. Welcome back. -Lon
RE: Newbie Questions
I have to agree with Vic. There's nothing wrong with buying third-party lenses if you're on a budget and you want a certain focal length, or a zoom. The lens might turn out to be just fine. I have several and I enjoy using them all, and I get good results with them. On the other hand, I don't particularly like my SMC PENTAX-A 28/2.8, although it works just fine. It feels plasticky to me. Like anything else, some Pentax lenses are better than others, and there will be some third-party brands that you like better than Pentax. Amita -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Newbie Questions I really don't agree that you should buy only Pentax lenses. Yes, You can't go WRONG with most of the Pentax lenses out there but some of my favourite lenses are not Pentax Lenses at all. And, I would add, that in many cases they are as good or better than the equivalent Pentax offering.
Another OT post....
Not being very clued up about His Bushness, can someone advise the names of his 'cousins'? Kind regards Peter
Re: Letter from Scotland - Day 2
If you don't like the single malts there, Cotty, send them back to us (by email attachments, of course!) Cotty wrote: Indeed, a visit to a distillery is on the agenda. I'm not an great fan of whiskey myself, but I'm sure it will prove interesting ;-)
RE: Newbie Questions
I have found the Sigma 24 2.8 (not the 1.8, as good or bad as it might be) to be outstandingly sharp. I have both the MF K mount and Nikon AF versions, both are great, with sturdy metal constroction. I don't think I paid more than $65 for either one. Chris L. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/03 09:18AM I have to agree with Vic. There's nothing wrong with buying third-party lenses if you're on a budget and you want a certain focal length, or a zoom.
RE: Newbie Questions
Uh, cave man, that would be construction ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/03 09:38AM I have found the Sigma 24 2.8 (not the 1.8, as good or bad as it might be) to be outstandingly sharp. I have both the MF K mount and Nikon AF versions, both are great, with sturdy metal constroction. I don't think I paid more than $65 for either one. Chris L. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/03 09:18AM I have to agree with Vic. There's nothing wrong with buying third-party lenses if you're on a budget and you want a certain focal length, or a zoom.
Re: Was: B/W PUG Favorites. Now: Pentax and Us
Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Desjardins wrote: But remember the PDML battle cry: Any idiot can buy a Canon or a Nikon, but it take's a special kind of idiot to buy a Pentax! Hey Mark Roberts! Does this qualify for your The Collected Wisdom of the PDML? ;-) You're reading my mind! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Newbie Questions
I hate to say it, but buy Pentax lenses. I don't mind saying it at all. BUY PENTAX LENSES. No matter how (un)fortunate it sounds, I totally second Lon's and Bill's opinion. One of the things that were caused in my life by PDML was to decide rather decidedly grin to buy only Pentax glass. Any enablers? Disablers? big broad grin I, too, prefer Pentax glass when available (and most of my lenses are Pentax lenses). But, sometimes Pentax doesn't make a lens that I wish that they did. My #1 example of this is the manual focus Tokina AT-X 100-300/4, which (for me) is an extremely useful lens, and (for any user) was designed and built very well and is of top quality, optically. http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x1003004/ - and - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/x1003004/modphoto.htm Pentax didn't make a lens like this. I fact, almost nobody has made a 100-300 that doesn't go soft at the long end. The AT-X, though, is fast and sharp throughout its range. I do wish it were a Pentax lens design - then it probably would have even higher flare resistance and higher contrast. But Pentax didn't make a good one of these. There are a few other unusual designs that are lacking in the Pentax stable, too... Fred
Re: Newbie Questions
I really don't agree that you should buy only Pentax lenses. Yes, You can't go WRONG with most of the Pentax lenses out there but some of my favourite lenses are not Pentax Lenses at all. And, of course, you ~can~ go wrong with a ~few~ of the Pentax lenses... And, I would add, that in many cases they are as good or better than the equivalent Pentax offering. This is not true frequently (thank goodness). Sometimes, the problem is that Pentax doesn't have a lens with a certain useful set of specs, and sometimes a third-party company has (and, sometimes, the third-party lens can be quite good...). Once again, I maintain that it is not the lenses that make the difference but the photographer and his or her technique. True, but good tools help even the good worker. I'm not sugggesting you go out and buy the cheapest lenses you can find, but don't limit yourself to Pentax lenses. Agreed. If you see a good used lens that is not a Pentax brand, ask the PDML about it. But remember, most of us are extremely biased toward Pentax lenses. And rightly so, in most cases... Non Pentax Lenses I own that I am very happy with are Tokina ATX 100-300 F4 Tokina ATX 90 F2.5 macro Kiron 105 2.5 macro These are very good lenses. Fred
Re: Newbie Questions
on 28.07.03 15:51, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax didn't make a lens like this. I fact, almost nobody has made a 100-300 that doesn't go soft at the long end. The AT-X, though, is fast and sharp throughout its range. You may be wrong. Sigma EX 100/300/4 is regarded as very sharp at every focal length and even wide open! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
Congratulations! Boris
Re: Newbie Questions
The Tokina has been around for 20+ years, the Sigma just came out recently. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: Re: Newbie Questions on 28.07.03 15:51, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax didn't make a lens like this. I fact, almost nobody has made a 100-300 that doesn't go soft at the long end. The AT-X, though, is fast and sharp throughout its range. You may be wrong. Sigma EX 100/300/4 is regarded as very sharp at every focal length and even wide open! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Was: B/W PUG Favorites. Now: Pentax and Us
I'm honored. Maybe I can list it as citation in my Faculty Activities Report. ;-) Publish or Perish Steve Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/28/03 09:52AM Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Desjardins wrote: But remember the PDML battle cry: Any idiot can buy a Canon or a Nikon, but it take's a special kind of idiot to buy a Pentax! Hey Mark Roberts! Does this qualify for your The Collected Wisdom of the PDML? ;-) You're reading my mind! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RV, was Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
This thread makes me think of the Sam Neil in The Hunt for Red October. He plays Borodin, the second in command of a defecting Russian sub, and he's talking about living in Montana and getting a pick-up truck, or maybe a recreational vehicle. And, of course, we have the attack RV from Stripes. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/27/03 09:03AM Hi, Boris, Just to be more specific, RV stand for Recreation Vehicle, more or less a self contained, motorized camping trailer. Usually driven by retired folks, who've sold the family home, and are spending their golden years, travelling (well, I was being funny, but lots of folks do that). As a matter of fact, we had our pop-up at one of the campgrounds in the mountains here last year and got into a conversation with another camper. Turns out he was retired, paid his $1000.00 US for 6 months rent (includes water, electricity, sewage) there, and spent the other 6 months (November-April) in his RV in Florida. Ours, being a folding trailer with fabric sides, wouldn't be suitable for this type of camping, but sure does serve us well for weekend trips to the mountains. Bill
Re: Newbie Questions
I like Nikon's top line cameras, throughly hate everything else they make. While most Pentax lens are very good pictorially, I really like the older Pentax bodies the best of any I have used (quite a few). I still think the MX is the epiphany of 35mm SLRs. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems to me if you aren't intending to use Pentax lenses, you may as well be shooting with a Nikon.
RE: Back from the Art Wars: A report
Congratulations. I suspect that this is the most satisfying kind of photography to do, although it's hard to make a living that way if it's like what my other artist friends go though. You'll have to start wearing a beret. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MZ-5n vs MZ-6
Hi! My reply is between lines of your message. 1. -5n has penta prism, -6 has penta mirror. For instance recently I mounted M 35/2.8 and observed heavy vignetting in the viewfinder of -6 with somewhat less vignetting in case of -5n - my co-worker has one, so I could try. What do you mean by that? Could you see the lens from the viewfinder? Or do you mean that you see less from the viewfinder than what you actually shoot on the film? Or sth else? No, but the corners of the image in the viewfinder were considerably darker than they should have been. Though when one looks at real world image, not the uniformly lit and colored wall in their office this effect is hardly noticeable on any of the cameras. 2. -5n has 0.8 magnification while -6 has only 0.7. I noticed that the -6 is even smaller than the -50 (0.77). Would the magnifier make any difference? Or is it unsuitable for general photography? http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/magnifier-FB.jpg I think it will be cumbersome to use. Also I have to wear glasses all the time, so magnifier could be a trouble for me. Though I never used one so I can only speculate. There are few things that 5n can do and 6 cannot: 1. 5n has KAF2 mount, so that it can read MTF data from the lens and set up exposure to gain the best from the lens. 6 has KAF mount and it seems that it cannot do that. That's of course provided the lens submits the MTF data to the body. I suppose most if not all 3rd party lenses cannot do that. 2. 5n seems to have more advanced DX film code reader. So supposedly it should be able to take into account film latitude while calculating the exposure. That's of course is film cartridge has necessary data. 6 cannot do that. 3. There is an undocumented feature of 5n - you can actually set up flash output compensation on camera. On 6 it is tricky and I fear is not possible for all the lenses. FWIW, I seemed to be able to do it for old (non-A) lenses. Though once I think I succeeded with SMC FA 50/1.7 too. It could be I am wrong on this one. So you see, all these features are subtle in a sense. Using 6 you won't notice absence of any of them. At least not until you decide you must to change flash output. But these little things I suppose make 5n more like Ford Sierra and less like Nissan Almera, both being fine cameras/cars of their own right. Ultimately, you would be able to shoot with either of the two and most probably you'd enjoy whatever camera you choose. But still, I think one deserves to make an educated decision... Man, I got wordy again... grin Boris
Re: Newbie Questions
Heh, heh... Check this one out, gentlemen! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2941840935category=3344 keith whaley T Rittenhouse wrote: Nah, these days a SMC Pentax-M 40/2.8 goes for $150 or so on Ebay. At one time it was the darling of Japanese collectors and was going for $300+. If you had bought one new it would have been a grand investment. They are nice, super compact lenses, but really nothing special, except for the focal length and size. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:48 PM Subject: Re: Newbie Questions Speaking of Pentax lenses, isn't the infamous 40mm pancake lens part of that mystique? Or is it a 43mm? I just saw a 40mm Olympus 'pancake' lens offered on eBay for something like $750 or more, with the 'opinion' of others of GRAB it! Is that in the range of the Pentax lens, or is it a bit high? I don't buy many new lenses, and I have no sense of value in present day new lenses... keith whaley [...]
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner - clarification
Anyway, I think I will have to rely on the fact that 2400 should be enough for my purposes. I know from one experiment that at least 30x40 cm print outs come out just fine. Thanks. Boris Boris. If you dont go over 8x10 the 2450 Epson should be fine.Its a pretty decent scanner for the money and it has the option of MF and LF scans.I'm finding the MF slide scans are pretty good.So much so that the 6x7 may replace most of my 35mm equipment soon.Not all but most. Now if i can only find out how much the D2H will sell for.vbg Dave
Re: WOOOHOOO again
Actually it is that one, small city lol. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now the english version http://www.torphoto.net/images/tearsheet4s.jpg tho it sucks in BW I think it looks ok in BW.Is that the one on Leslie at Eglinton Ave?If so i surveyed that one.lol Dave __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner
Well, I picked up a HP S20xi film scanner from www.globalcomputers.com for $69 ($80 with shipping). Even after paying import duty on $69 that ought to be cheap enough. Not a pro type film scanner, but certainly good enough for the web and 8x10s. A photo taken with my Ebay purchased MX and scanned on it is at: http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto/_images/St%20Luke's%20Chapel.jpg The MX I would rate at about a 7 and needs a thorough going through, the winder that came with it is near mint. Since KEH wants more than I paid for it for an ex+ winder, I guess I did OK. I know I did OK on the scanner. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:59 AM Subject: Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:51:02 +0200 Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want top results, and don't want to spend hours hand-cleaning every scan of dust and scratches, you'd better buy specialized film scanner for similar to 3200 price - like Nikon Coolscan IV or Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. That's exactly the point. I don't want top results since I am quite far from being able to earn money from my photography. However the results I've been seeing and ocassionally getting from my friend's Epson 2450 are definitely acceptable. I am going to verify prices on Nikon Coolscan LS-40. It sounds like a good alternative to Epson flatbeds... Boris
Re: RV, was Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
One of my absolutely favorite movies, bar none... Poor Borodin...he didn't make it. I think he asked to be buried in Montana, however. keith Steve Desjardins wrote: This thread makes me think of the Sam Neil in The Hunt for Red October. He plays Borodin, the second in command of a defecting Russian sub, and he's talking about living in Montana and getting a pick-up truck, or maybe a recreational vehicle. And, of course, we have the attack RV from Stripes. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...]
Spotmatic F and metering
Hello, I've recently acquired a SPF with an SMC 55mm lens and shot a test roll to make sure things worked as advertised. From what I could tell things worked well with the meter giving me accurate readings for 125 ISO film. I then acquired a SMC 135mm lens and shot another test roll, this time in color at ISO 100. 1) I noticed this time that the meter readings never dipped to the underexposed area in the finder, no matter what the setting. 2) Most if not all the pictures were under exposed. Other than bad eyesight or stupidity, what are some reasons that the meter would give erroneous readings in regards to exposure? (I have read that stray light can enter from the eyepiece, however I've tried to emulate this and it does not effect the reading). Might I have a physical camera issue? The meter reacts consistently no matter what the lens. Thanks for your help, Cedric Milan
Re: Spotmatic F and metering
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cedric Milan) wrote: Other than bad eyesight or stupidity, what are some reasons that the meter would give erroneous readings in regards to exposure? (I have read that stray light can enter from the eyepiece, however I've tried to emulate this and it does not effect the reading). Might I have a physical camera issue? The meter reacts consistently no matter what the lens. Try taking readings at 25, 50, 100, 200 and 400 ASA and see if it seems to be bad at 100. If so, you might have a bad spot on the variable resistor under the shutter/ASA knob. One other thing to check: you don't have the stop-down switch pushed up, do you? It latches up, and stays there until you take it off again. --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Spotmatic F and metering
The 135 lens is probably not a Super Multi Coated version. Most of the Super Multi Coated screwmount lenses have an aperture coupling for the Spotmatic F that stops down the lens when metering or shooting. With other Takumar or Super Tak lenses, you have to manually stop down. Cedric Milan wrote: Hello, I've recently acquired a SPF with an SMC 55mm lens and shot a test roll to make sure things worked as advertised. From what I could tell things worked well with the meter giving me accurate readings for 125 ISO film. I then acquired a SMC 135mm lens and shot another test roll, this time in color at ISO 100. 1) I noticed this time that the meter readings never dipped to the underexposed area in the finder, no matter what the setting. 2) Most if not all the pictures were under exposed. Other than bad eyesight or stupidity, what are some reasons that the meter would give erroneous readings in regards to exposure? (I have read that stray light can enter from the eyepiece, however I've tried to emulate this and it does not effect the reading). Might I have a physical camera issue? The meter reacts consistently no matter what the lens. Thanks for your help, Cedric Milan
#9 Reminder
When: Tonight, 7:30 Where: Hard Times College Park http://www.hardtimes.com/collegepark.htm There's looking to be a good turnout...so far 4 or 5 people have RSVP'd. Unfortunately, I have to bail out. Have fun. tv
Re: Newbie Questions
Raimo wrote: A 4.5/80-200 SMC-M Pentax would fit your needs very well - if you can find one. Very sharp and contrasty (mine was sharper than 4/200 SMC-M Pentax that I had before it). Not expensive. REPLY: You're the second, if not the third, who claims the M 80-200/4.5 is better than the M 200/4. The M zoom represent the first generation of Pentax zooms that really took off saleswise. Almost certainly because it was quite good. The M zooms is not at all a shabby lens optically. Recommended as a budget zoom. Pål
AF cameras as manual bodies (WAS: Now: Pentax and Us)
Steve wrote: With all of this in mind, I tried shooting a bit using the MZ-S in full manual mode. It works really well this way, and I find the speed dial very convenient to spin while I'm looking through the camera. I do like the viewfinder better on the MX, however, especially the split prism. Nonetheless, I think I have a new appreciation for the MZ-S interface as a bridge between the robocam and the older style SLR's. Certainly the MZ-S and the MX make a nice combination. REPLY: Thats almost certainly the rationale behind the MZ-S interface. Incidentally, the Z-1p is Pentax best manual camera if you by manual camera mean the ability to be in total and excact control, as opposed to wanting a camera from a certain era with certain feature set. Precise spotmetering, the ability to set exposure in 1/3s increments manually and an exposure readout scale in 1/3s increments, all possible to set with the eye to the finder, is hard to beat. The MZ-S is usurpassed if you want full manual control with the option of effordless switch to aperture priority auto. Pål
OT: Having to buy a scanner - clarification
I just got the Sept. issue of Shutterbug magazine. They had a review on the 3200. The improvements may be worth saving up for. Basically they said that the 35mm scans were as good or better then a 2800 PPI dedicated film scanner, The one caveat is that the Silverfast AI 6 is much better then the SE version and they recommend either getting the Pro ($600) version of the 3200 or plan on upgrading SE to AI 6. If you get Shutterbug over there you might want to pick up a copy and read the review. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: KX voted Top Stealth Camera?
I also have a few KX but did not compare them to MXs. What amazes me is that they all have a different sound. One of them is very special as it produces a high frequency resonance. Different shutter batches? Mechanical variations in the mechanism? Perhaps it's time for CLA? regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: MZ-5n vs MZ-6
No, but the corners of the image in the viewfinder were considerably darker than they should have been. Though when one looks at real world image, not the uniformly lit and colored wall in their office this effect is hardly noticeable on any of the cameras. There is something about the M/A35/2.8. MX with SE-20 or Beattie Intenscreen also suffered from heavy vignetting with the viewfinder too when using this lens. None of my other lenses have similar problem. Would the magnifier make any difference? Or is it unsuitable for general photography? I have found the usability of magnifier (mine is Magnifier F) is much depends on the viewfinder quality. If the viewfinder sucks, the magnifier doesn't provide much help. Also, the viewing quality of the Magnifier F is much better when not wearing glasses. Btw, based on the spec of these 2 magnifiers, the FB seems to be made bigger so it can be flipped up even with AF cameras. The F can't (can do only with small prism cameras like MX). But I have never seen the FB so I cannot be 100% certain. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
I've got an extra beret or two, if Mark needs one. BTW, congrats, Mark, not only on it being a profitable and educational weekend, but especially on your prize for best body of work! That's excellent. cheers, frank Steve Desjardins wrote: snipYou'll have to start wearing a beret. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
congratulations on a successful show. how many other booths were there at the art show? did they have minimum standards for the booths and if so, how much did you have to bring yourself? how much inventory did they require you to have? two or three months ago, Shutterbug did an article on art shows for a living and some of the startup costs they mentioned seemed pretty high. Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:50 Subject: Back from the Art Wars: A report This past weekend I did my first art show and it went pretty well. Enough so that I'm planning on doing more of them.
Re: OT - comments requested
frank theriault wrote: I can't ever put this into PUG, as it weren't taken with a Pentax. But, I kind of like it, so I put in a request for critique on Photo.net. So far, I don't think they get it: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1639375size=lg It's a fine shot, Frank. They don't get it. I'm registering on Photo.net now for the first time. Hardly been at PDML much these days - sort my inbox by subject and almost randomly click on something - more often OT than not :) Keep clicking annsan
Re: OT Photoshop Question
Peter Alling wrote: I find that you can't paste the © into photoshop from the character map. The Alt key should work though. In photo deluxe 4.0 you can get the © from a word processor and cut and paste it into the pull down Text box. then put it in your image. (In my version of word, the program auto-corrects (c) to ©) annsan At 11:48 PM 7/18/03 -0400, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Guys, Where do I find the copyright symbol to use in Photoshop? I needed to use it in a text layer and I'm using 6.0 on a PC, windows xp if it matters. On a PC it's usually ALT-0169. Just hit 0169 while holding down the ALT key. You can always check the character map under accessories-systems tools for the specific character you want in a particular font. -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085 To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Spotmatic F and metering
Battery OK? Did you use negative film? I try to test with slides. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've recently acquired a SPF with an SMC 55mm lens and shot a test roll to make sure things worked as advertised. From what I could tell things worked well with the meter giving me accurate readings for 125 ISO film. I then acquired a SMC 135mm lens and shot another test roll, this time in color at ISO 100. 1) I noticed this time that the meter readings never dipped to the underexposed area in the finder, no matter what the setting. 2) Most if not all the pictures were under exposed. Other than bad eyesight or stupidity, what are some reasons that the meter would give erroneous readings in regards to exposure? (I have read that stray light can enter from the eyepiece, however I've tried to emulate this and it does not effect the reading). Might I have a physical camera issue? The meter reacts consistently no matter what the lens.
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: congratulations on a successful show. how many other booths were there at the art show? I'd guess about 20 but I didn't get much of a chance to look around. (An assistant would be good to have for this and other reasons.) did they have minimum standards for the booths and if so, how much did you have to bring yourself? how much inventory did they require you to have? It was a juried show, so there were requirements for the quality of work (I didn't see any rubbish at any of the booths near me - pretty good stuff for the most part) but no requirements for *quantity* of material. two or three months ago, Shutterbug did an article on art shows for a living and some of the startup costs they mentioned seemed pretty high. I made my 12 x 18 and 12 x 16 display prints (framed) for a local exhibit last month. For the show I made 50 5 x 7 prints in 8 x 10 mats and 20 8 x 12 prints in 12 x 16 mats and bought polyethylene bags to put them in. I'd say that my overall costs were under $1000.00 total. And I still have all but one of the framed prints left and a very healthy stock of 5 x 7 and 8 x 12 prints. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got an extra beret or two, if Mark needs one. BTW, congrats, Mark, not only on it being a profitable and educational weekend, but especially on your prize for best body of work! That's excellent. Thanks Frank. It was really good affirmation after all I've been through in the past few months. Of course, whenever my ego starts to get too inflated I just have to visit the PUG to get humbled! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Having to buy a scanner - clarification
I don't use Silverfast. I use PhotoShop with the Epson plug in. I don't think you need the Pro version of the 3200 if you're a PhotoShop user. Paul Butch Black wrote: I just got the Sept. issue of Shutterbug magazine. They had a review on the 3200. The improvements may be worth saving up for. Basically they said that the 35mm scans were as good or better then a 2800 PPI dedicated film scanner, The one caveat is that the Silverfast AI 6 is much better then the SE version and they recommend either getting the Pro ($600) version of the 3200 or plan on upgrading SE to AI 6. If you get Shutterbug over there you might want to pick up a copy and read the review. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Letter from Scotland - Day 3
Gianfranco and Veronica left this morning and headed south where they may or may not have met with Mike Wilson. I think he was keen to, and Mike had asked, but as they were travelling around virtually all of the UK, communications were not perhaps easiest to administer. And so to the business of the day. Alma and I had some business in Inverness at 11.30 am, the nature of which will be revealed on Day 5, so watch this space. The business over, we headed out from Inverness down Loch Ness and arrived at Drumnadrochit where we had outrageously expensive sandwiches in the Nessie Cafe. Fortunately the place redeemed itself on the Nessie Experience thing with AV presentations on the history of the loch and what Nessie may or may not be. Jostein's wife Vera suggested a boat voyage would be the natural conclusion to the trip and we duly set out on an hour's excursion over the deepest bit. Here's some useless facts: Loch Ness is: - 22 odd miles long by a mile wide at it's widest and nearly 300 metres deep at the deepest (note British lunacy at mixing imperial and metric measurements - only we could do this) - is by far the largest freshwater supply in the UK, containing more water than all other freshwater supplies in England, Wales and Scotland put together - contains enough volume to swallow every human being on Earth 3 times over - a license to print money for local businesses - great to just sit and watch over.just in case. Many photographs were taken on the trip and we were treated such charms as a pair of F-15 fighters screaming along at warp 9 and 63 feet, a few other boats containing people taking photographs of us - as we were them - and awesome views of castle ruins, picturesque reflections, and the back of Jostein's head as he wielded his PZ-1 and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Inverness itself seems a charming town and warrants further exploration on foot, which we may get the chance to do tomorrow. Upcoming highlights will hopefully include a funicular railway ride to the top of Cairngorm Mountain, doyen of the ski-set in the winter months, given over to fair- weather photographers like us at this time of year ;-) It's such a beautiful place and the people are all so friendly. I think my SO summed it up quite well. Hmmm, she mused. I could live here. Coming from her, praise indeed. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report
yes, i remember you mentioning the gallery display. so you didn't make any new framed prints for this show? i was wondering about the booth display itself i guess because some art shows require a minimum quality of appearance of the booth in addition to whatever it is you sell. these art shows require that your booth's display be of a certain type and cleanliness of appearance. i'm referring to the walls and roof you put up. if you didn't have to do this, then it wasn't that kind of show. the Shutterbug article said that the typical walls/roof asked for people in those kind of art shows typically ran about $3-5K for the booth exclusive of the cost of your inventory. better quality materials making up the booth display increase sales. think of the circulating mall craft shows. Herb... - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 18:37 Subject: Re: Back from the Art Wars: A report It was a juried show, so there were requirements for the quality of work (I didn't see any rubbish at any of the booths near me - pretty good stuff for the most part) but no requirements for *quantity* of material. two or three months ago, Shutterbug did an article on art shows for a living and some of the startup costs they mentioned seemed pretty high. I made my 12 x 18 and 12 x 16 display prints (framed) for a local exhibit last month. For the show I made 50 5 x 7 prints in 8 x 10 mats and 20 8 x 12 prints in 12 x 16 mats and bought polyethylene bags to put them in. I'd say that my overall costs were under $1000.00 total. And I still have all but one of the framed prints left and a very healthy stock of 5 x 7 and 8 x 12 prints.
RE: Letter from Scotland - Day 3
Cotty, did you by any chance visit Urquhart Castle? Because I understand there's a new visitor's center there. I was there back in 1993, did the lake cruise and the Nessie Experience. Had a great time there. Inverness really is a pretty little town. Another piece of trivia I recall about the Loch...it's deep enough for the Empire State Building to be completely submerged in it. :) Amita
Re: RV, was Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:17:39 -0700, Keith Whaley wrote: [The Hunt for Red October is] One of my absolutely favorite movies, bar none... I have to say it, though ... the book was better. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pentax and young
Refreshing story Jim. It is nice that even some young folk want an aperture ring. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: Pentax and young I was up at the International Rose Test Gardens taking some pictures that I would include in a wedding package. I noticed a young man watching me work. He finally approached and I saw he had a Pentax ME with him. He asked if I was a pro (I'm not) and began peppering me with questions about photography. I asked about his ME. He owns that and a K1000. He likes the fact that Pentax lenses have an aperture ring. I immediately thought about all of the comments about the new Pentax lenses coming out with out them. He had never seen or heard of an LX that I was using at the park. He loves photography and Pentaxes. I told him about swap meets in the Portland area and he said he will go to his first one in the fall and look for Pentax stuff. It was very refreshing to talk with a young person about the hobby that I have enjoyed for 40 years. Photography is in flux now with digital. I wonder what it will be like when he gets to be my age. Jim A.
Re: OT Photoshop Question
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:51:14 -0400, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In photo deluxe 4.0 you can get the © from a word processor and cut and paste it into the pull down Text box. then put it in your image. (In my version of word, the program auto-corrects (c) to ©) In any Windows program, you can get the copyright symbol using the numeric (ten-key) keypad. 1) Set NUM LOCK on 2) Press one of the ALT keys and hold it down 3) Type 0169 on the numeric keypad 4) Release the ALT key Other special characters are available the same way, but I don't remember the codes. You can also start the Character Map program that's in Start | Programs | Accessories folder, or the System Tools subfolder of that one. It shows the characters graphically, and you can copy them to the clipboard from Character Map, then paste them into the other program by pressing Shift-Ins or Ctrl-V. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: OT Photoshop Question
Other special characters are available the same way, but I don't remember the codes. You can also start the Character Map program that's in Start | Programs | Accessories folder, Or (in Windows) you can just go Start Run and type charmap and you'll get it. Just remember to make sure you're selecting the font you're using in your photo editing program or else you might end up with another character. :)
test
ping
Re: test
pong Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Scott Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: test ping
Re: Newbie Questions
I have found this website helpful. http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/ Hope it helps. Regards, Robert - Original Message - From: Patrick Wunsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 2:56 PM Subject: Newbie Questions Hello, Let me first introduce myself. I have been a Pentax owner for about 10 years and am brand new to this list and still consider myself fairly new to photography. For the last 10 years I have done a considerable amount of nighttime lightning photography but I would like to broaden my horizons a bit. I currently have a Pentax K1000 paired up with a satisfactory 35-80 zoom and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I have about 8 other lenses ranging from 28mm to 500mm that I consider garbage for the most part. They are Vivitars, Soligors, Tokinas and the like that I have not been very impressed with. With the exception of the first two lenses I mentioned, I was disappointed at the results of some of my photos I took in the beautiful state of Washington a few weeks back and decided I need to invest in some better lenses. My question relates to what other quality, yet affordable, lenses would you recommend that I add to my arsenal? I would love to hear your recommendations for both a nice wide angle lens along with a 80-200 zoom and possibly a 400 to 500mm range zoom or telephoto. Any thoughts are really appreciated. Thank you for your time! Pat Wunsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Going Rate for A* 85mm f/1.4
What's a fair price for one of these anyway? -Scott
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
Boris Liberman wrote: 2. Tourists by Ann Sanfedele - I hope that if I were to call this one classic, it would not be understood as cliche, because I really mean anything but. Anyway, it is my favorite. Just my pennies worth. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 Worth much more to me... Thank's for making my day - I've been terribly under the gun with some stuff and had not even been aware that the Aug PUG was up. Best, ann
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
Lon Williamson wrote: Observations on this month's bw PUG: Another vote for Ann Sanfedele, who's work seems always to grab me, even in the thumbnails. Bill Sawyer's shot is great, too. (snip, snip) Sorry I'm late to respond - thanks Lon, and I agree with you, too, and Boris about Sawyer's shot being a stunner. I tend not to do my comments publicly , but I'll add a me too in there since we are both on the same page so to speak :) Re the thumbnails -- I really work at finding images for the PUG that will work at that size to some extent, so I'm especially pleased to have that point made. annsan
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
Joseph Tainter wrote: Yep, Ann and Mark take top honors this month. As does Mark's cat. It is interesting to observe how many PUG contributors are using older gear. What does this mean for Pentax? Joe Thanks, Joe For myself, I will have to confess that, although I am still using the gear I took that shot with, I took it in April of 1981 - so, um, thant kinda explains :) annsan
Re: Letter from Scotland - Day 3
- Original Message - From: Amita Guha Subject: RE: Letter from Scotland - Day 3 Another piece of trivia I recall about the Loch...it's deep enough for the Empire State Building to be completely submerged in it. :) The Lower Arrow lake in BC is somewhat smaller on the surface than Loch Ness, but they don't know precisely how deep it is, as they haven't been able to find the bottom yet. Somewhere over 3000 meters, apparently. William Robb
Re: Newbie Questions
- Original Message - From: Christopher Lillja Subject: Re: Newbie Questions Sure, William - If you're willing and able to pay for them. But for a new photographer who may be on a limited budget, a third party lens (especially a prime in an extreme focal length) can be an excellent alternative. Are you that ad copy writer for Canon? If you're not shooting a Canon lens, do you really have a Canon camera? blah blah Are you that moron troll that pops up to piss me off from time to time? The only reason to shoot Pentax bodies is to get to use their lenses. Otherwise, there are a whole bunch of better options out there. Marketing drivel at its best/worst Wrongo, nutbar. Experience of a working photographer, whether at it's best or worst, I don't know, but my customers never had a complaint. William Robb
Re: KX voted Top Stealth Camera?
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: KX voted Top Stealth Camera? I'd dare to respond to this one. It seems to me that each camera with fully mechanical shutter could have its own sound simply due to various levels of usage and hence various levels of shutter wear off... So naturally I think each camera would have to have a slightly different shutter release sound... A former list contributor found that his camera sounded different depending on which lens was mounted. William Robb
Re: Low light camera (WAS: Re: Wanted Pentax SF1 parts)
- Original Message - From: Andre Langevin Subject: Re: Low light camera (WAS: Re: Wanted Pentax SF1 parts) 18 minutes on Auto? A night of cityscapes must eat the batteries! The LX with fresh batteries will give at least 6 hours of exposure on untimed automatic. William Robb
