Re: OT:anyone made there own carriers
> > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The smooth side should be good enough you say then. > > I see what you mean about the felt atracting dust etc. > > Thats why your in Saskatchewan and im stuck in Ontario. > > Dust is an issue here. > > William Robb They are planning to build 5000,yes 5000 new homes just south of me,starting next spring,or maybe even in the fall if sewer construction goes well.So much for our towns slogan of"Country close to the City"Har. I'm going to have a serious dust problem for the next 10 years,unless i move out of Dodge. (not to mention trying to drive around.lol) Dave
RE: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats andPartialCoverage Lenses)
AND, it is not just camera stores. Best Buy, Office Max, CompUSA, and other office and/or computer stores have quite a stock of digital cameras. Presumably they catch the casual shopper looking for a computer peripheral rather than the photographer looking for a new camera. I have not seen any Pentax penetration of that market, either in the stores or the catalogs or web sites. Stan REPLY My Optio S was purchased via the Wal-Mart website. Bill
Re: For all Toronto and area photogs, this weekend is Buskerfest
> TPDML? > Where ?? I might be picking up my new vehicle Saturday.I'll know around 8:30am Dave
RE: gfm
> -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Some D10 users have mentioned > > to me that they have to shoot > > a bit > > earlier to get the action they want. > > It's not as fast as some other cameras but it's not so slow you > actually have to "pre-fire". > > tv Thanks for the clarification,Tom. Dave
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D >>shots from last weekend: >>(http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/IMGP0068.htm) and all I can >>say is HOLY SH*T! Amazing! I could sell this as a fine art print next to >>any of my shots printed from film. In fact, I expect I will. > >:-) > >Now you know how I felt just under one year ago! I just so dearly wish >that I could have been a Pentax. But I don't cry over spilled milk. I >don't cry at all. > >Congrats Mark. You've seen the light! I saw the light long ago, actually. You should see my 12 x 16 prints from 4.5 megapixel medium format film scans. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why is it...
Cameron, jeeze, it's so simple. Your momma dresses you funny. grin. -Lon Cameron Hood wrote: Threds about beer and the blackout can carry on unchecked, but if I mention a Mac I get screamed at? Which is more applicable to photography? I use my computer constanly for editing, printing and selling.
Pentax needn't care about 300D
Why? Because they can only take one step @ a time. The 300D is more of an answer to Sony's similarly-priced fixed zoom unit. What has kept me away from a Pentax P&S digital is one simple thing -- the lack of a dedicated flash shoe. They do a well at hitting the casual enthusiast market but no so well at the serious enthusiast market. The products are good but not excelling in the feature-rich advantage as in the past. The particular market price-point niches are still being carved out. The imaging computer market boom today is as new as the desktop computer market boom of 1988-1990. I expect by 1/1/04 we'll see a Pentax dslr @ the $250 price point with 4-6 Mp. *istD-5n. CRB
Back in town and out again...
Whew! Got back to the USA on Saturday night. Back home Monday night. I subscribed in time to hear about the Camera Clinic I missed at GFM :-( I had a friend take a shot with the Optio S to show why I could not make the clinic. Two shots and they were both blurry. I guess he could not stand still! And it was early in the morning, so he had not had a beer yet:-) I am already about 300 messages behind!!! But it looks like the *ist D talk has subsided quite a bit . aw, and I missed it all :-) I am sure my Pentax rep will fill me in on the particulars of the camera. Wonder if it will arrive in time for either the sprint triathlon or the seafood and pirate festival I help put on in September... Anyway, I will be active on the list (promises, promises), but it will have to wait. I am headed to Bristol race track in Tennesse on Friday afternoon. And through some quirk or another I have to take a private jet with five other people to get there ;-) We are supposed to be in some private suite there - it does not look like I will get down to any of the areas for some good photography chances. I will have to be happy with people photography during the race, while eating and imbibing. I am not a fan, but it should be interesting. I will be attending both the Friday night and Saturday night races. A new experience and of course with cameras in tow. Back in town on Sunday... Had a blast in Roatan. Shot seven rolls underwater with a Nikonos V with the SB-101 strobe. I ended up doing eight dives with two of them being at night. This is an incredible learning experience. The worst is having to wait to see how I did. There was just one other person there with an underwater camera. It was a housed Olympus digital. It was fun to see the shots after the dive. They wanted to see my shots, especially with the strobe I was using. They had no external strobe and thus were limited in shooting distance. The LXen had a workout with ten rolls going through them. All the shots should be ready on Friday, but I will have to wait until Monday to see them :-( Oh yeah, by the way, people really loved the snake skin. TV - even internationally, women like the cameras :-) I am in the process of getting some pages up recounting the trip with the shots from the Optio S up on the web. For those interested, I will post once completed. I took about 200 shots with the Optio S. I could have probably sold about four or five of them. I did not bother with downloading, just carted two 256MB cards with me. Recharged the battery three times while there, and only probably needed to do it twice. Well, I have rambled enough - have to get back to work. Lurking for the moment, César Panama City, Florida
Re: Looking forward, may be far forward
Not in the near future. Too many things need replacing to upgrade the sensor, related electronics, firmware, etc. The body itself is still relatively inexpensive compared to the electronics. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:14 AM Subject: Looking forward, may be far forward > Hi! > > Now, we're witnessing the prices of DSLR take a plunge down. I am > thinking about the next killer feature of today's DSLRs. What comes to > mind is ability to replace camera sensor, at worst in authorized > service, at best at home. > > Do I make any sense? > > Boris > > _ > Ñóïåð ÄÆÈÍC!!! Ñðîêè äåéñòâèÿ áîëüøå íå äåéñòâóþò. http://www.jeans.mts.ru > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
Re: 300D
When you consider all the US bashing that goes on, at least our governments do not make more off what a merchant sells than the merchant does (except for booze, smokes, and gasoline). Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:56 AM Subject: Re: 300D > > > << A 20% markup would make it about 585. >> > > Bill, I might think I had died and gone to heaven. 20%? - I dream of 20% > > Kind regards > > Peter > > > CAMERA DIRECT > 8 DORSET STREET > BRIGHTON > EAST SUSSEX > BN2 1WA > UK > http://www.camera-direct.com > TEL 44 1273 681129 > FAX 44 1273 681135 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
Pentax needn't care about 300D
>I expect by 1/1/04 we'll see a Pentax dslr @ the $250 price point >with 4-6 Mp. *istD-5n. > >CRB Collin, I wanna sniff what you're sniffin there boy! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Views on the F 70-210
Kenneth, You can't always judge a thread by its title. Boris was considering a supplementary question, regarding an F 85/2.8 Soft for which he was awaiting delivery. The pertinent quote from his message (that you'll find in his part of the "Original Message") is, "But then I suppose it means that my soon to arrive F 85/2.8 soft would have A position too." regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anthony, > sorry to disagree, but I hold in my hands @ this very moment, a 70-210 > f4-5.6 SMC Pentax - F that has -- ta dah - an "A" position on the aperture > ring. Bought in late 1988. I use it a lot and like the results. It has been > totally trouble free. The only complaint I have is the end rotates for > focus, making the use of a polarizer a little more complicated than it could > be. > > Kenneth Waller > - Original Message - > From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:50 AM > Subject: Re: Views on the F 70-210 > > > > Boris, > > > > Sorry to disappoint, but this lens lacks an "A" position. The logic in > its > > omission is that the soft effect changes with aperture so Pentax thought > it > > undesirable to use program or Tv mode. The lens's contemporary camera > > bodies could do Av or metered manual without the "A" setting, and body > > control of aperture was at the time unforeseen. > > > > Sometime soon I really must get down to a store with my own F85 Soft and > see > > how an *ist regards it, because even though it lacks an "A" button on the > > aperture ring it has "A" contacts on its mount. Because of its vintage > its > > aperture actuating lever should have true linear proportionality (which > does > > not exist on pre-A series lenses). > > > > IMO Pentax should retrofit these lenses with an "A" type aperture ring at > a > > nominal cost, because they were so recently made. In fact the FA version > > was only dropped from the current lens list immediately before the *ist > > became available, and was outwardly identical except for the colour of the > > finish (black vs slate grey), was optically identical, and AFAIK only > > differed in having an MTF chip fitted. > > > > regards, > > Anthony Farr > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:24:25 -0600 > > > "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Any post M series lens has the A position. This includes A series, F > > > >series and FA series lenses. > > > > > > > >William Robb > > > > > > I see. Well, I did not know that. But then I suppose it means that my > > > soon to arrive F 85/2.8 soft would have A position too. That's way > > > cool. > > > > > > Still, I am curious - what is the difference then between F and FA > > > lenses? Something to do with the way FA lenses "talk" to the camera > > > body? > > > > > > I am sorry I am taking this subject off-track, but I hope noone is > > > offended. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > > > >
Re: Pentax needn't care about 300D
> Wonder if it >will arrive in time for either the sprint triathlon or the seafood and >pirate festival I help put on in September... > >Anyway, I will be active on the list (promises, promises), but it will have >to wait. I am headed to Bristol race track in Tennesse on Friday afternoon. >And through some quirk or another I have to take a private jet with five >other people to get there ;-) Jumping Jupiter! Cesar, don't you bloody Americans ever do any work?? Seriously, good to see you had a great time as usual. Looking forward to the web pages. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
any news?
I have been un-subscribed due to my move since 27 July. Is there any news since then? How about the *ist D ? Frits
RE: any news?
-Original Message- From: Frits Wuthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 August 2003 16:07 To: Pentax-Discuss Subject: any news? I have been un-subscribed due to my move since 27 July. Is there any news since then? How about the *ist D ? Frits Official release date 29/08/12, shipping to UK around 12/09. No price set. Ziggy
Re: Pentax needn't care about 300D
Hi! On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:50:02 +0100 Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jumping Jupiter! And the rest was totally unimportant. I laffed for few minutes straight. I am still chuckling... Cotty, you got me on this one... Boris _ Супер ДЖИНC!!! Сроки действия больше не действуют. http://www.jeans.mts.ru
Re: New Toy
Hey David, Did it knock? It certainly couldn't ring the doorbell it's not tall enough. Perhaps a 1200mm f8 could ring the doorbell however? Maybe I should order one to find out. Na, I think a new car would be a better investment. Unsincerely, Ryan --- David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FA* 200mm f/2.8 arrived on the doorstep this > morning. What a little > beauty. > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 01:37 AM, William Robb wrote: Nikon has a more reasonable product turnover, they seem to have real technical improvements before the release a new camera. Pentax will probably chug along with the *ist D for a couple of years before releasing another digital SLR camera. William Robb While Pentax probably won't keep up with Nikon's relatively slow pace (or Canon's jackrabbit sprint), I don't think it will take Pentax two years to produce another dslr. They've already done two (tho' the first was a noshow) at glacial pace, by this time they should have the needed design teams and support systems in place to start speeding up (1 year to a year and half at the latest). I wish mostly for Pentax to catch up with technologies already on the market, and (gasp) actually innovate once in awhile. Refinement of existing technology is great, but at some point they're going to be in the position of offering the finest buggywhip in the world to a market that has moved on to superhighways and high speed mass-transit. Dan Scott
Re: any news?
Frits Wuthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have been un-subscribed due to my move since 27 July. Is there any >news since then? >How about the *ist D ? Oh, a bit :-) Supposed to be hitting the streets (in the U.S.) next month. Price of $1699 for camera body, $1899 with the 18-35 zoom. A few of us got to try out a pre-production version last weekend at the Grandfather Mountain Camera Clinic. All-round favorable reviews for appearance, ergonomics and performance. Enthusiasm ran very high. I have some of the shots I took with it posted on my web site: http://www.robertstech.com/temp.htm Tom Van Veen, Bill Owens, Tom Rittenhouse and a couple of list lurkers also tried it out. Their opinions and many responses can be found in the list archives. Seems like a real winner to me. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Way OT - Mid-life Crisis
Hi Frank, I just read this (taking me awhile to catch up on my PDML). It's a bummer, especially having to temporarily move away from your kids. But hey, like you said—it's big opportunity, too (got to be better than ending up a flat, frozen popsicle). Hang in there. Dan On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:09 PM, frank theriault wrote: Well, not really a "mid-life crisis" per se, but I'm in my mid-life, and this is close to a crisis! A few of you know that the bike courier biz has really gone down the tubes in the last year or so. In fact, my income has dropped by over 30%, such that not only has my discrectionary income disappeared, but making ends meet has become a problem. Given my age, the fact that I've been riding a bike for a living for about 71/2 years, and since I've been promising myself for the last 3 or 4 winters that I'm not going to do another winter, I've decided to start life anew. I've given my notice at work (effective Aug 31), and given my notice on my apartment (effective Sept 30), and will be moving down to Nova Scotia to stay with my Mom and Sis for a while. I've come to the conclusion that I can't find a job while I work at the current one, and I can't afford to live in Toronto if I'm not working. Besides, I need a vacation in the worst way - living from pay to pay is very draining. So, mid-September or so, I'll be off on an adventure (unfortunately, moving away from my kids, which I'm not happy with), and we'll see where I end up, and what I end up doing! Will likely only be away from PDML for a couple of days or a week - mom has a computer. cheers, frank
SMC=A 200/4
Anybody have this lens? I'm looking at buying one to replace my 200/4 M. Is it as good as the M? Stan's page has no comments for it. Please don't comment on the A* Macro or FA* Macro. They are way out of my league. Thanks! Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
Mark Roberts wrote: > > I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D > shots from last weekend: > Hi Mark, What was the dpi of that image at 12 x 18?
Re: any news?
Thanks Mark. Is that $1699 the street price? Thanks for posting the images, can't wait to hold a *ist D in my hands and try it out, including getting an enlargement. Frits On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 20:04, Mark Roberts wrote: > Frits Wuthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I have been un-subscribed due to my move since 27 July. Is there any > >news since then? > >How about the *ist D ? > > Oh, a bit :-) > Supposed to be hitting the streets (in the U.S.) next month. Price of > $1699 for camera body, $1899 with the 18-35 zoom. > A few of us got to try out a pre-production version last weekend at the > Grandfather Mountain Camera Clinic. All-round favorable reviews for > appearance, ergonomics and performance. Enthusiasm ran very high. I have > some of the shots I took with it posted on my web site: > http://www.robertstech.com/temp.htm > Tom Van Veen, Bill Owens, Tom Rittenhouse and a couple of list lurkers > also tried it out. Their opinions and many responses can be found in the > list archives. Seems like a real winner to me. > >
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> I just (minutes ago) made a 12 x 18 inch print from one of my *ist-D >> shots from last weekend: > >Hi Mark, >What was the dpi of that image at 12 x 18? I assume you mean ppi (pixels per inch) output resolution? Since the *ist-D maximum resolution is 2000 x 3000 pixels, output res for an 18 inch wide print would be 166.6 ppi but I used Genuine Fractals to double the linear dimensions so I was able to print at 333 ppi. It has been my observation that Genuine Fractals works much better with images resulting from digital cameras rather than from scanned film - the film grain seems to be the reason for this. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: A coincidence, I hope.
> Hey, Anthony, > > H Knowing Aaron a bit, as I do, I doubt that he's 35 yet - could be, > but I think he's younger. Agreed > But, I realized that it wasn't him when I read about this fellow running two > blocks. That's not the Aaron we all know! Agreed > Besides, Brother Aaron wouldn't have even tried to run, he'd have beat them off > with his 6x7! Agreed with a HAR.lol > cheers, > frank I hope to see the Brother Aaron on Monday,I'll check. Brother Dave > Anthony Farr wrote: > > > I spotted this item at http://www.clumsycrooks.com/ > > Hopefully it's not OUR Aaron :-/ > > > > "Pants Slipped Down Again! > > > > In February, police in Clifton, N.J., chased Aaron Reynolds, 35, who was > > driving a stolen car, into New York City, where Port Authority police joined > > the pursuit. After the car was stopped, Reynolds bolted on foot, ran about > > two blocks, and came crashing down to the sidewalk because his low-riding > > pants slipped down and tripped him. According to police, Reynolds said he > > was giving up and asked for a minute to compose himself. During the lull, he > > darted off again, but this time barely ran a few yards before his pants > > slipped down again and tripped him. > > > > [- The Record (Hackensack) -]" > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > >
PDN article
Hi guys; There's an article on Schneider and his lost POY awards at PDN http://pdnonline.com He was the guy that spoke at GFM. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: 300D
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:56 AM Subject: Re: 300D > > > << A 20% markup would make it about 585. >> > > Bill, I might think I had died and gone to heaven. 20%? - I dream of 20% > Around here mark ups on camera equipment doesn't cover carrying charges if the thing happens to sit in stock until the vendor has to pay for it. Everyone is net - 2%, but the mark ups are often less than that. William Robb
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses) > A couple of years seem a looong period for digital cameras. This is the company that kept the LX in the lineup for 20 years we are talking about. William Robb
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
- Original Message - From: "Dan Scott" Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses) > I wish mostly for Pentax to catch up with technologies already on the > market, and (gasp) actually innovate once in awhile. Refinement of > existing technology is great, but at some point they're going to be in > the position of offering the finest buggywhip in the world to a market > that has moved on to superhighways and high speed mass-transit. Dan, they have been selling buggy whips to people who are too darned stubborn to buy into horseless carriages for about 15 years now. This is their market. William Robb
Re: any news?
>Thanks for posting the images, can't wait to hold a *ist D in my hands >and try it out, including getting an enlargement. Frits old boy, from what we've been reading here lately, you hold that *ist D in your hands and you'll definitely get an enlargement. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and PartialCoverage Lenses)
> The higher level camera is harder to figure. Maybe not too > different than > the istD, but with a higher res sensor (a bigger sensor would > require a > whole new viewfinder system), full mechanical coupling, USB 2.0, > and better > firmware. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto The higher level camera will be a digital insert or a complete camera for 645. Are the archives down at the moment, BTW ?
Re: SMC=A 200/4
Hi Christian, On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:39:09 -0400, Christian Skofteland wrote: > Anybody have this lens? I'm looking at buying one to replace my > 200/4 M. Is it as good as the M? I have the SMC-A 200/4, but I've never used the M version, so I can't offer a comparison. I've been very happy with it, even when used with the 1.7X AF teleconverter. I've recently upgraded to an FA* 200/2.8, though, so the A sits at home most of the time. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PDN article
And from my point of view he did nothing that changed the meaning of the photographs. Getting rid of a distracting background is a long long way from cloning in someone who wasn't there. I think this is all coming about because people are now buying digital cameras. Almost all of them come with some kind of digital editing software so people are becoming aware that things like this are possible. In the past they kind of thought that a photographer had no more control over the content of their pictures that the consumer did over his snapshots. That never was true. To me the line is when you do something that changes the meaning of a photograph. Editing for impact is in my mind just part of the photographic process. Just a couple of weeks ago you were all trying to get Boris in trouble by telling him to clone out that trash can . I wondered why Schneider was singled out to be made an example of, the PDN article makes that clear. A jealous competitor in the contest complained. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:08 PM Subject: PDN article > Hi guys; > > There's an article on Schneider and his lost POY awards at PDN > http://pdnonline.com > > He was the guy that spoke at GFM. > > Butch > > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. > > Hermann Hess (Demian) > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03
RE: SMC=A 200/4
Hi Christian, >I'm looking at buying one to replace my 200/4 M. Is this for *ist compatibility? I ask because that's what I'm doing at the moment. I wonder if the price of A glass will go up and M down? Cheers, Simon -Original Message- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 22 August 2003 7:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMC=A 200/4 Hi Christian, On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:39:09 -0400, Christian Skofteland wrote: > Anybody have this lens? I'm looking at buying one to replace my > 200/4 M. Is it as good as the M? I have the SMC-A 200/4, but I've never used the M version, so I can't offer a comparison. I've been very happy with it, even when used with the 1.7X AF teleconverter. I've recently upgraded to an FA* 200/2.8, though, so the A sits at home most of the time. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: SMC=A 200/4
- Original Message - From: "Simon King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi Christian, > > > Is this for *ist compatibility? I ask because that's what I'm doing at the > moment. > I wonder if the price of A glass will go up and M down? > Cheers, > Simon Why yes it is! *ist-D to be more acurate. I'm thinking that A prices will go up and Ms and Ks down. Christian
Re: Way OT - Mid-life Crisis
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 01:04 PM, Dan Scott wrote: That was supposed to be off list. :-(
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 05:13 PM, William Robb wrote: Dan, they have been selling buggy whips to people who are too darned stubborn to buy into horseless carriages for about 15 years now. This is their market. William Robb Looking at my gear, I can see that's true—but even I'd be in the market for a new-fangled horseless-carriage whip if Pentax could figure out how to make a few Pentax-style (i.e., "well thought out & well made", not "late, late, & really damn late"—although the later is Pentax-style, too). Dan
What pentax are you? (WAS: RE: *istD and the future)
Cotty challenged... >Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be? Dare I say an ME super; Middle aged, still in good working order and enjoy a regular servicing? Simon PS There's a line in there about "works best when lubricated", but I didn't want to go there... -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2003 5:31 AM To: Pentax List Subject: Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial >I just so dearly wish >that I could have been a Pentax. LOL. Now there's a Freudian slip! Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be? 8-D Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
test 2
test 2
Re: SMC=A 200/4
>> I wonder if the price of A glass will go up and M down? > I'm thinking that A prices will go up and Ms and Ks down. My thoughts, too. I know that I'm looking at some of my ol' pre-A lenses "in a new light" (so to speak - ). I've been lucky in one regard - Over a period of time now I've been gradually selling a number of my old K and M lenses and/or replacing them with A lenses (and an occasional F or FA lens, such as the delightful F* 300/4.5 or the "different" FA* 85/1.4), but this has not been because of the arrival of the *ist-D. Rather, it has been the desire to be able to share some nice lenses with my wife and my daughter-in-law (for program mode use on their ZX-5n's) that has driven this gradual transition to A glass. So, I have been fortunate to have already migrated quite a bit toward eventual A lens use on a Pentax digital body without ever having thought of that reason to change - . However, I don't need A lenses for the manual exposures and aperture-priority autoexposures that I take on my film-based Pentax bodies (LX's, Super A's, ME Supers), and I'm not in any hurry to give up using those ol' workhorse bodies (and their "ancient" chemical-based medium) in any hurry. So, some of my favorite pre-A lenses will probably remain in the stable here for some time yet. For example - sure, I've toyed with the idea of replacing my sweet K 200/2.5 with an A* 200/2.8 (a lens I used to have, a few years ago, too - ), but I haven't felt the urge that strongly yet... Fred
Re: PDN article
- Original Message - From: "T Rittenhouse" Subject: Re: PDN article > And from my point of view he did nothing that changed the meaning of the > photographs. Getting rid of a distracting background is a long long way from > cloning in someone who wasn't there. I think this is all coming about > because people are now buying digital cameras. Almost all of them come with > some kind of digital editing software so people are becoming aware that > things like this are possible. In the past they kind of thought that a > photographer had no more control over the content of their pictures that the > consumer did over his snapshots. That never was true. The problem is that this sort of thing becomes the thin edge of the wedge. You start by making a little tweak here, a bit of a clone there, and as time goes on you find yourself routinely making alterations to content. And suddenly, you are no longer a news photographer but a visual editorialist, probably still passing your fictionalized images off as news. You start posing people and calling the image "news", or you take several images and paste them together to make a "news" picture. Perhaps there is no harm in this if it is done innocently, or to make a picture have more impact without altering the news value (the Brian Walski image from Iraq that got him fired is a pretty good example of editorializing that causes no real harm). But where do you draw the line? Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? And who decides if the content has effectively changed? If a picture of George Bush fornicating a goat is run in an Arab newspaper, is it news or is it editorial? What if it makes it to the New York Times? It's hard enough to believe news photos these days because of the amount of image massaging that is done with long focal length lenses taking things out of context and journalists with Stockholm Syndrome passing off their tripe from the front lines as news without having to add in the question about whether anything in the picture had a relationship to each other at the moment the picture was taken. Allowing any removal or addition of image details, whether they "matter" to the image or not makes a mockery out of what is already pretty much a sham. > > To me the line is when you do something that changes the meaning of a > photograph. Editing for impact is in my mind just part of the photographic > process. Just a couple of weeks ago you were all trying to get Boris in > trouble by telling him to clone out that trash can . To stay serious, if Boris was passing the image off as a news photo, then the cloning out of the garbage can would be wrong, if it is an editorial or art photo, then that is a different thing completely. We have to hold journalists to a very high ethical standard, because they are often the people who sway public opinion. Either what they choose to cover, or how they choose to cover it can cause some pretty major events to happen. Would the bombing of Iraq have happened if CNN had mocked the entire concept of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction? Would the American public have allowed the war to happen if the news media had been broadcasting that GWB was bald faced lying to them about his reasons for wanting to wage a war? For myself, I have more respect for the American public than that. I am pretty sure if they had known that there was a lot of fabrication going on, and that their President was being spoon fed a bill of goods to sway him into doing something, they would have demanded some accountability up front before they put their son's and daughter's lives on the line. We'll never know, though, since the media saw a huge opportunity to make lots of money and ratings. War is big business for more than the people that make guns, tanks and uranium tipped shells. It's a huge industry that will make a lot of money for anyone that can jump on the wagon and go downtown with it. Froth up a story, give it a spin to strike fear into the hearts of the masses, and boom bang, you suddenly have a nice little war that you can make tons of money with. The only losers are the soldiers who get injured or die as part of the thing, and a bunch of rag headed foreigners who no one over here give a damn about anyway. This is how news works nowadays, and quite frankly, I find it quite disgusting that the news media wants these things to happen as badly as the companies that make tanks and bullets, and is willing to manipulate not only the general public, but the people who make the decisions about who gets to live, and who gets the shit bombed out of them. Sorry for the rant, and it wasn't meant to be an anti anyone diatribe (except possibly the puss heads at CNN) William Robb
Re: test 2
Did I pass? --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > test 2 > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: test 2
No, you failed test 1 William Robb - Original Message - From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: test 2 > Did I pass? > > --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > test > 2 > > > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > >
Re: test 2
:-( --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you failed test 1 > > William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 9:02 PM > Subject: Re: test 2 > > > > Did I pass? > > > > --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > test > > 2 > > > > > > > > __ > > > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
FS: (update) 35mm and 645 bodies and lens, etc.
Return privileges on everything. [Shipping cost via USPS Priority Mail will be added.] $10 SC-21 LX Finder screen, good condition. In box in (mismatched) case with tool and instructions. This one is the original that came in LXen - a ground glass field with a central small microprism grid. $15 SG-20 LX Finder Screen. Fair condition (small mark on surface which does not interfere in use.) In box in case with tool and instructions. $20 SE-20 LX Finder screen, good condition. In box in case with tool and instructions. Said to be especially suited for extreme telephoto or macro work (i.e., when the viewfinder image is quite dim.) > > Various K and M lenses: See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/lensFamily.jpg All lenses in good to very good condition. Ask for details on particular lenses. All have caps, in many cases, hoods; again, ask me for details. Shipping via Insured USPS Priority Mail in addition to the prices below. 20mm [SMC-M, 4.0] $275 See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/20mm.jpg 24mm [SMC (K) 2.8] $175 See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/24mm2dot8.jpg 30mm [SMC (K) 2.8] [Spoken for] $125 See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/30mm2dot8.jpg 40mm [SMC-M 2.8] $100 See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/40mm2dot8.jpg 85mm [SMC (K) 1.8] $450 See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/85mm1dot8.jpg 135/2.5 [SMC (K) 2.5] NOT the Takumar version. $125See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/135mm2dot5.jpg 200/4 [SMC-M 4.0] $75See http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/200mm4dot0.jpg = Preliminary listing of 645 equipment for sale. A package price for portions or all of the 645 gear could be negotiated... No images posted yet. All in very good condition unless otherwise noted. All lenses with caps, some with cases. All lenses are A series, not the newer FA. All in very good condition 645 body with 120 or 220 insert. Factory modified: the S-C dial now selects a finer range of exposure compensation instead. Hairline crack in case on the pentaprism, otherwise in fine condition. $325 645 body with 120 or 220 insert. Standard S-C dial (i.e., no factory mods). In good condition. CLA about 2 years ago. $375 120 inserts (approx 2-3) $80 each incl plastic case. 220 inserts (approx 2-3) $75 each incl plastic case. [The inserts may be spoken for. Number and type available depends on desires of purchasers of the bodies; they get first call.] 35mm/2.8$400 45mm/2.8$350 75mm/2.8$150 120mm/4.0 Macro $$325 200mm/4.0 $200 Helicoid extension tube $90 Extension tube #1 $40 Spare battery holder$10 Adapter to reverse mount 58mm filter-size lenses reversed on 645 $25 $15 AF200S Pentax flash unit. Very fine condition. [Reduced price] $15 Vivitar 550FD flash unit. It works. It seems about equivalent to the 280T. It has M, Auto 1, Auto 2, and TTL modes, a head that swivels vertically for bounce flash. [Reduced price. Bargain of the year!] $15 Cable Switch F The remote switch, on about a one meter cord, for the PZ and MZ series bodies (except MZ-S) and the 645N. == Various macro items: see http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/macroTools.jpg > Bellows [Asahi Pentax Bellows II] > Slide copier > 100mm bellows lens [Takumar] $75 (reduced price) for the above three items as a package. The lens is a Screw mount, Bellows-Takumar 100mm f4.0 in pristine condition. The bellows has the adapter on the rear which mounts this unit on a K-mount body, NOT a screw mount. All items like new. $10 49mm reversing ring for Pentax screw mount. Combined with the bellows above, you could reverse any of your K, M, etc. lenses on the bellows unit... $10 49mm reversing ring for K-mount $5 #1 Extension tube for Pentax screwmount == Let me know if you have any interest in any of these. Stan FYI, some of the items sold... LX camera [Sold] LX Winder [Sold] Remote Control Cord 37361: [Sold] Remote Battery Pack 37353 [Sold] Original LX manual [Sold] AF280T Flash 100/2.8 [SMC-M 2.8] [Sold] 120mm [SMC-M 2.8] [Sold] Helicoid extension tube K [Sold] K extension tube set [Sold] 645 150mm/3.5 [sold] Adapter to use 645 lenses on K-mount [sold]
Re: PDN article
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:56:14 -0600, William Robb wrote: > But where do you draw the line? > Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? > And who decides if the content has effectively changed? To me, that's the crux of the issue. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and so is the "meaning" of a photo. Some leave less to the imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
*ist-D Brochure
Not sure how long it has been there, but Pentax USA now has a 4-page brochure on the D available as a .pdf from the website (to supplement the spec sheet that has been up for several days.) Detailed photos of camera controls, etc. Stan
Re: PDN article
- Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" Subject: Re: PDN article > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:56:14 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > But where do you draw the line? > > Do you draw it at no editorializing? Just a bit? > > And who decides if the content has effectively changed? > > To me, that's the crux of the issue. "Beauty is in the eye of the > beholder", and so is the "meaning" of a photo. Some leave less to the > imagination than others, but photography is always an interprative art. > Who decides what doesn't matter? Who decides what is the meaning of a > photo? The creator or the viewer? Both? In the case of journalistic photography (news photos), there should be as little as possible left for interpretation. Photojournalism, or really, journalism of any kind, should be information first and foremost. William Robb
