Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Jostein wrote: Well certainly, an *istD has less bagage to it's name than KISS. http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=KISSString=exact This camera can't be meant to be anything more than a ps with a bayonet lens mount. Otoh, I'm sure it'll drag a lot of users into the DSLR market. Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - Maybe it will come with face paint? KISSKnights in Satans Service (band) - Chris -- Chris Murray /\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN http://apeman.org/ XAGAINST HTML MAIL Cell: 604.861.8307 / \/ Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: OOOOOWWOOOO, the thick plottens,
Actually there's at least an MZ-S (a naked one, without a lens nor body cap... :-( ) on a shelf in Naples (at Sbrescia, the biggest store here); with a price of 1109 Euro I guess it will stay there for a lng time... FNAC, that recently opened a megastore here, instead shows an Eos 1Ds alone in a separate stand (with a even more awful price... I could buy ten MZ-S with that money). Gianfranco PS: Michael, do you remember the price of the brand new PZ-1p? - Original Message - From: Michael Bergstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:10 PM Subject: Re: OWW, the thick plottens, I actually recently saw a new MZ-S on the shelf next to a new PZ-1p at a Ritz camera store. The salesperson I spoke with is a Pentax fan and had the (languishing) PZ-1p sent from another store just to show people next to the MZ-S. They've been there for quite a while. = __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: Digital Rebel might beat *ist-D to market
If this is the case, I should have mine around September 10 Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital Rebel might beat *ist-D to market According to their respective Japanese web sites, *ist D will ship on September 6 and Digital Kiss, September 20. -- Bo-Ming Tong
Re: OOOOOWWOOOO, the thick plottens,
I knew there was more to this: RE: dslr From: tom Subject: RE: dslr Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 06:47:10 -0700 Ok, we'll say shipped to a dealer somewhere by 9/1/03. What's in it for you? I don't have any old Nikon bodies lying around. tv
What cameras do you use; why and for what?
I was out of town for some days, hence, missed the starting of this thread. Because of my wife's liking for small, compact equipment, I useed to use LX (that's how I am on this list) Then I have my Minolta X700 - an excellent piece of equipment, however, uncompatible with new auto lenses. So, I have Nikon N90s with two nikkor zooms. Recently, however, I really thought, that burning too of film was impossible hence I decided to go in for digital and bought myself CoolPix 4500 which is always with me now-a-days. Its a beautiful camera. Absolutely handy, compact. Ofcourse, has limits as well. But carry-wherever-you-go kind of thing. anand _ MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
...and I say, just as authoritatively as you, that the 300D will be a marketing *flop*. Consumers with a thousand bucks for a camera are much smarter than Canon realizes. The will invariably spend the extra few hundred for the 10D rather than be seen as kiddie-Rebel-photographer-wannabees. Or, as Mike suggests, they will go for a nicely specified digicam for the same or less money. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com With all due respect, I beg to differ. The homework that a typical beginner does was to walk into a drugstore, an electronic store, or whatever (but not a camera store), and see the low end models of Canon (Rebel), Minolta and Pentax. They ended up buying a Rebel Ti in most cases because that's the latest model, it is the most expensive in the store, and on paper there are more features than the others, though they have no idea whether they need those features. The salesperson then rounded out the sale with some overpriced filter and cleaning kit... I don't think the DSLR buying process is any different from the film SLR one. $1,000 is not really that much money, they could have spent it on a digicam anyway. The difference between a Digital Rebel and a 10D is so subtle, that many 10D owners are lamenting on digital camera discussion boards already over their purchases, and their tactic was to tone down the Digital Rebel as a cheap, inferior camera. No there is nothing wrong with it at all. I have handled a relatively recent Rebel, it is not what you think, nothing like the original Rebel or EOS 1000. I personally would not use it, but I have to admit it is a pretty strong photographic tool. I'd expect the price gap of 10D and 300D to narrow, until they match the price gap between a Elan 7E and a Rebel Ti. And I'd further expect *ist D to track the 10D price closely.
Re: What do you use?
Clive evans wrote: Neally all shooting is on Colour Transparency film , building a stock library. Hi Clive, I've been shooting quite a bit of stock, but I've found that most stock houses don't want transparencies. They want hi-res scans. So I shoot negative film, which seems to scan somewhat better than transparency film. Paul
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
I use my Pentax 6x7 for most of the stuff that counts: fashion photography for stores and stock, car shoots for magazines, and a range of other subjects for stock. My lenses include the 55/4, 105/2.4, 165/4 LS, and 300/4. I really need a 75, but I'm holding out for a deal on a used 75/2.8. Gotta happen soon. I use 35mm when I have to shoot rapidly without reloading or need a motor drive. I also use 35mm for most of my personal photography. Sometimes it's the LX and occasionally the MX, but quite frequently I pick up my screwmount Leica iiif. The Leica is more work but more rewarding in some ways as well. Paul
Re: Last of my film cameras, some lenses and various accessories
Is this package still available... Vic In a message dated 8/25/03 2:38:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hot shoe grip, and all the brackets and cable to make the 280T into a handle-mount flash. $50.00
comments and tips solicited
Hi everyone, I am a newbie who has got interested in photography quite recently. I have been using a camera for more than 5 years now but it was mostly to take group pictures of family and touristy snaps to show where all I went and what all I did :-) http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=748579 I would really like to hear from you guys. I have been on the list for a few months now. Don't think twice before sending negative, most damnest of all remarks (ref: thread on please comments). I would appreciate if you tell me how to improve the composition, technique, get better exposure and in general, photographs that appeal to some. I understand that to each his own but still, right now my pics don't even appeal that much to me! Thanks a lot! Gaurav PS: Thanks to Wendy from whom I bought my ME Super + 50mm f/1.7 recently. --- Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
Re: What do you use?
scans from slides are less grainy and higher resolution than prints. also, you can see what you are supposed to get. do they notice the difference? Herb - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 23:19 Subject: Re: What do you use? Hi Clive, I've been shooting quite a bit of stock, but I've found that most stock houses don't want transparencies. They want hi-res scans. So I shoot negative film, which seems to scan somewhat better than transparency film.
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
Today my bag is packed with a LX (loaded with Kodachrome 64) plus 6 lenses: A20, K28/f3.5, M40, K55/f1.8, M85/f2, K135/f3.5. The LX is replaced by a K2 DMD, KX or KM now and then.Other lenses that I pick frequently for walking around are K28/f2, K28/f3.5 Shift, K35/f2, FA43,/1.9 K50/f1.4, FA77/1.8, F100/f2.8 Macro, K100/f4 Macro, K135/f2.5, FA200/f2.8. For flash photography I often use a Z1-P. My MZ5-N sees little use lately. The MX that was my only camera for years now is in the hands of my wife Arnold
Re: comments and tips solicited
Hi! On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:52:02 +0530 Gaurav Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, Don't think twice before sending negative, most damnest of all remarks (ref: thread on please comments). I would appreciate if you tell me how to improve the composition, technique, get better exposure and in general, photographs that appeal to some. I understand that to each his own but still, right now my pics don't even appeal that much to me! I took a look on the photos you uploaded to Photo Net. I must tell that there were few works that I really liked: Zip!Zap!Zoom! Proud Democracy There goes Mrs. Rao's window again - this one is particularly good. I think these three should appeal to you grin. Probably if I was most picky I could find a thing or two to improve on these three. But I would keep my mouth shut, just because I chose those works of yours that I know I would have very hard time reproducing. Here are few others that I simply couldn't understand: Colors - why the tilt? what you were trying to tell? Signal the cross. - probably the same. Shaky Foundations? - I am sure that there'd be people who'd like it, but I don't. I think that you might be suffering from the same thing I suffer. Sometimes you want to say something with your photograph, but no one seems to understand or see this message. Feel free to take a look on my home page and see what I mean. You can find it here: http://www.geocities.com/dunno57. I don't know how to get cured of this illness other than taking more and more pictures, practicing and hopefully eventually improving. As for your technique - I think that I have nothing to add, except that sometimes you seem to have a tilt (mostly to the left) which does not seem justified. This however can be easily corrected by PhotoShop or similar means. Well, I hope I did not offend you though. Cheers! Boris
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
Hello All, Salikh wrote: Well, it's time to go up from the underground: I've been enjoying reading the list well over the year now, but this is the first post to the list. Same here. Pz-1, Pz-1p FA 28-105, FA 28-80, FA 100-300 ME SUPER, M50, M28, Makinon 200/3.3 macro, Tokina AT-X 50-250 AF 330ftz flash, Espio 115g ps film, N Coolpix 4500 ps digital (I don't like the uncontrollable Optios). Waiting for the real D*ist and searching a handgrip for the Pz's ( rare here in Hungary). -- Best regards from Budapest, Fiso_PENTAX mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: comments and tips solicited
Welcome to the group Guarav, and I obviously you enjoy what you've found here: I just hope our comments don't upset you! My comments, and I only looked at the three showing on the link: Wah Taj - if you're going to make a building lean by titling the camera, you might as well go all the way! I am not sure about the tower at the right, it might have been preferable to include the base, to connect it with the wall in the foreground. The shot seems a little unsharp, perhaps out of focus, in the middle to top of the frame. Shaky foundations - it's seldom possible to convince anyone that you did this on purpose, and I think that we've all taken shots just like it hand-held and thrown them away. It doesn't really do anything for me at all. Colours - I think I see what you were trying to do here, but it just doesn't work for at least three reasons: 1. That horizon! IMHO, it's either level or it's wrong. You might be able to justify it with a dynamic marine action shot, but not with one as static as this. 2. The tree. It's pretty ugly in form, and I would have changed my viewpoint to lose it altogether. If you couldn't do that, it might have been possible to use it as a frame at one side of the shot. 3. The exposure, or possibly the post-scanning adjustment, is just not deep enough. You're obviously trying to use the silhouettes in the foreground to contrast with the colours on the horizon, and on my monitor they are not dark enough. Was it scanned from the slide by you or by a laboratory? If a lab, it seems they were trying to bring the shot up to 'normal' daylight levels. Offered in a spirit of trying to be helpful... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Gaurav Aggarwal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: comments and tips solicited Hi everyone, I am a newbie who has got interested in photography quite recently. I have been using a camera for more than 5 years now but it was mostly to take group pictures of family and touristy snaps to show where all I went and what all I did :-) http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=748579 I would really like to hear from you guys. I have been on the list for a few months now. Don't think twice before sending negative, most damnest of all remarks (ref: thread on please comments). I would appreciate if you tell me how to improve the composition, technique, get better exposure and in general, photographs that appeal to some. I understand that to each his own but still, right now my pics don't even appeal that much to me! Thanks a lot! Gaurav PS: Thanks to Wendy from whom I bought my ME Super + 50mm f/1.7 recently. -- - Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
RE: comments and tips solicited
Thanks John, I really appreciate your comments. No upseting me :-) BTW, there are 27 more shots there. The links aren't that apparent. Try: http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=748579 The shaky foundations was definitely not intended but I sort of liked it. Taj is something that I don't know how to capture. For Colors the slide was scanned by a lab. I would definitely keep your comments in mind since I too feel that the pics aren't that appealing. Thanks so much! Gaurav -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 1:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: comments and tips solicited Welcome to the group Guarav, and I obviously you enjoy what you've found here: I just hope our comments don't upset you! My comments, and I only looked at the three showing on the link: Wah Taj - if you're going to make a building lean by titling the camera, you might as well go all the way! I am not sure about the tower at the right, it might have been preferable to include the base, to connect it with the wall in the foreground. The shot seems a little unsharp, perhaps out of focus, in the middle to top of the frame. Shaky foundations - it's seldom possible to convince anyone that you did this on purpose, and I think that we've all taken shots just like it hand-held and thrown them away. It doesn't really do anything for me at all. Colours - I think I see what you were trying to do here, but it just doesn't work for at least three reasons: 1. That horizon! IMHO, it's either level or it's wrong. You might be able to justify it with a dynamic marine action shot, but not with one as static as this. 2. The tree. It's pretty ugly in form, and I would have changed my viewpoint to lose it altogether. If you couldn't do that, it might have been possible to use it as a frame at one side of the shot. 3. The exposure, or possibly the post-scanning adjustment, is just not deep enough. You're obviously trying to use the silhouettes in the foreground to contrast with the colours on the horizon, and on my monitor they are not dark enough. Was it scanned from the slide by you or by a laboratory? If a lab, it seems they were trying to bring the shot up to 'normal' daylight levels. Offered in a spirit of trying to be helpful... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
ME winder won't work
Hello! I have an Pentax ME with winder and now the winder stopped working. I loaded it with new batteries but still nothing... Does anybody has any tipps how I could try to get it working again? Thanks for any help bye Katrin ** Desertrose Chris' Katrin's X Japan homepage! Please visit it! http://www.xjapan.de * From now on I will try to live for you and for me. I will live with love...with dreams... and forever with tears.. **
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
I *might* be able to replace my whole kit for under $1K. CW - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 12:45 PM Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D i spent over $1K for only one camera, my Nikon Coolpix 5000. it was one of the first digital PS available with 5 megapixels. i have used it a lot and made quite a few images i have sold with it. in the last couple of months i have shot more film than digital because of the limited lens FOV choices i have with the digital camera. when i get the *istD, i expect to change to about 70% digital using it, a small percentage staying with the Coolpix 5000, and probably around 25% still with film. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:52 Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit approximate and include the MZ-S). --- 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: 8/19/2003
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
Dear Mark, None of the cameras I currently own, body only, exceed the $900 mark: Fuji GS645S (used), Contax G2 (used), Pentax Z-1p (new). Nor are any of the cameras I previously owned which forms a very long list. (Nikon FE2, FA, F3, F2AS, F70, F801s, F601, Canon EOS 100, 10s, 5, 630, Pentax LX) Maybe some of these costed more than $900 when new. If I put down my money for the *istD in fact it will be my first such camera. Alas, what am I doing and how did the manufacturers got me to believe that $1,000 for a DSLR is cheap ? Bo-Ming Tong
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
Ineresting question, Mark. If I use that $900 as an absolute number, I have never owned such a camera. However if we adjust for inflation. I have owned a Rolleiflex 2.8, Linhof Super Technica, Mamiya Universal (2 of them actually) even used they cost more than that in adjusted real dollars. Probably the two MX I bought new come close to that, certainly if you count the lenses (35/2 on one and 85/2 on the other) and winders with them. Heck the Pentax H3 at $200 in 1962 probably comes to the equivalent of that. Of course back in those days I had 2 things I don't have today, a real income, and good credit. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:52 AM Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $1000 may not be alot of money to those accustomed to getting semi-pro or pro equipment, but to a typical beginner, it is alot of money. How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit approximate and include the MZ-S). I have 2 such cameras: MZ-S (with battery grip) 645 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com --- 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: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
That would have too answers, Mark. 1% of serious photographers, 1/1000th of 1% if you count the pure snapshooters. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit approximate and include the MZ-S). If you make that anything that shoots I've got several in and beyond that price range. :-) HAR! I just thought of a better survey question to ask: How many people have never spent over $500 for a camera? (And how much of the camera-buying public falls under this category?) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com --- 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: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
Mark Roberts wrote: I just thought of a better survey question to ask: How many people have never spent over $500 for a camera? Well, I have to back out on that one. I have spent over $500 for a camera, several times... (And how much of the camera-buying public falls under this category?) Worded that way, I'd guess the majority of people would fall well short of that category. -- Later, Gary
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit approximate and include the MZ-S). Nope. Never. Never would, either. Which is why, if in a while (three to six months), the 300D has a street price below $900 or used ones reselling on ebay, it's going to look very good to me. OTOH, I could wait six-eight-twelve months for everything to come down even more. To fall to within my price range. Lenses are expensive enough, if you buy more than one you are getting up there. And I would prefer to put most of my money (when I have money) into glass. In fact, right now I am just trying to figure out if I want to spring for a decent one. If/when/how. Marnie aka Doe :-) Besides I found out at the end of the summer that the woman's pictures (BW street photography) that I really admired in my last class were shot on... a Rebel! Blew me away. She also auto focused everything. I suspect she had good glass, but let's face it, even dinky Canon Rebels can take good pictures.
Re: Nice and nasty pictures.
tricky subject line, y'all
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
MZ-S Ken Waller On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:52:11 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: How about an informal survey of how many people on this list own cameras of any type/brand that cost $900 or more (I'll make that a little bit approximate and include the MZ-S). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Ken Waller PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Nice and nasty pictures.
The photo attachment is essentially a housing holding a partially silvered mirror that splits the beam sending enough to an eye-piece (about 60/40) so that the field can be observed and focussed. Its quite a simple but elegant solution - designed in Dr Möllring's lab at Zeiss (Oberkochen). It first appeared about sixty years ago. Variations have been made by different microscope manufacturers ever since. The camera screws on the top (Mount adapter K) and the viewfinder should be blocked so that no light can contribute to the exposure reading. Once the prism viewing screen has been set there is no need to focus using the camera screen again. To get into light microscopy, of any kind, you need to make a rather large investment and its a lot easier said that done. Unless you have some experience there will be a very steep learning curve. I'll take a picture of the contraption some time and post it so you can see what it all looks like. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: July 31, 2003 - Original Message - From: Geoff Moes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 8:12 PM Subject: Re: Nice and nasty pictures. I also enjoyed the micrographs, other than the P30t what did you use in the way of microscope and adapter, I am curious because I have toyed with the idea of exploring photomicrography. Although I don't know if I ever will as I assume it would take a significant financial investment. Geoff Hi all, I've posted some pictures if anyone would like to take a look. Diatoms, crystals, nasty machinery; including one of the arrival of a huge stone-crusher that's going to make our lives worse than Hell. There are a couple of electron micrographs not taken with a Pentax - sorry. All the others P30t on 'A' for every frame - Solaris 200 processed in Tetenal chemicals three months old. The camera works beautifully with the new photo-attachment I got from Loma in Chicago a few weeks ago. http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/edfw/hold/index.htm Best, Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: July 31, 2003
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
For me, $1000 is still too much for a low end camera. We need the equivalent of the *ist body with a 6 MP senor in it for about $600. (for those who don't realize this, the *ist and *ist D have completely different bodies, although the AF and segment meters appear to be the same). Also, Pentax is NEVER going to beat Canon to market with anything. Canon is just too big, and even Nikon plays catch-up. Any obvious marketing idea, such as a cheap DSLR, will always come from Canon first. The important thing for Pentax is to try not to lag too far behind. The biggest problem is that Canon controls its own chips, whereas Pentax and Nikon have to look elsewhere. Oh, yeah. I do have an MZ-S $ grip (about $1000). I also have a 645, but I got that used for $500 with the 75 2.8.
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
People have gotten spoiled by just how cheap cameras have become in the last 30 years. If one were to use inflation adjusted, constant dollars, or how long, on average, one would have to work to pay for a camera you'd see how inexpensive they've become. 1000, 2003 dollars wouldn't pay for a 1973 Spotmatic. That Canon's price is around a week's pay for the average person, and a lot less for many. BR Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $1000 may not be alot of money to those accustomed to getting semi-pro or pro equipment, but to a typical beginner, it is alot of money.
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: I just thought of a better survey question to ask: How many people have never spent over $500 for a camera? Me. And I don't think I will ever spend the equivalent of $500 for a camera (even in the UK/EU where money buys you less). (And how much of the camera-buying public falls under this category?) I am stumped here. Kostas
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Gianfranco Irlanda wrote: spare 2CR5... WRT the built in flash: the MZ series one, although less powerful, is placed higher over the optical axis, so it makes more difficult to have red eyes in the subjects. I was asking about the position of the hotshoe: on the Zs it is above the right hand, which means you can use both an additional flash and the built-in one at the same time. How do you find that? Any ideas why Pentax stopped doing that? do fill flash). Works with any TTL flash (on the MZ-3/5n I usually switch to manual, set a not-so-slow-nor-so-fast speed to keep a good amount of ambient light and select -1/2 compensation - not so akward but akward indeed...). Doing the same (or just the -1/2) on the MZ-50 myself. Hope this helps. Sure does, thanks very much. I was thinking of investigating the Z-series from Boz's site. The Z-1p is more expensive than what I could afford (sth between an MZ-6 and a -5n -- used) PS: forgot to mention: I have large hands and the Z-1p, being Thanks for that too, I am really small :-) Kostas
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
I've been using my Leica CL more and more often these days, probably because I'm still trying to get the street shooting thing down pat, and the CL is such a nice little machine for that. I probably shoot more with that camera than any other right now. The all-rounder is the MX, though. With the Viv S1 24-48mm, the Sigma APO 50-200mm, and sometimes the Vivitar 19mm and the Pentax M 2.0 50mm thrown in for good measure, I've got pretty good range in a relatively compact system. The Spotmatics come out about once a month, just for exercise, as well as the Yashica Mat, around every other month for fun and something different. Paul Stenquist wrote: I use my Pentax 6x7 for most of the stuff that counts: fashion photography for stores and stock, car shoots for magazines, and a range of other subjects for stock. My lenses include the 55/4, 105/2.4, 165/4 LS, and 300/4. I really need a 75, but I'm holding out for a deal on a used 75/2.8. Gotta happen soon. I use 35mm when I have to shoot rapidly without reloading or need a motor drive. I also use 35mm for most of my personal photography. Sometimes it's the LX and occasionally the MX, but quite frequently I pick up my screwmount Leica iiif. The Leica is more work but more rewarding in some ways as well. Paul -- Jazz is about capturing the moment -Herbie Hancock
