RE: An outing with an MX.
The leds were dim and it seemed difficult to just have one led lit. It appeared that there were three lit at a time. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:50 AM -- -- You say this was in the evening. In dim lighting conditions, -- you should have no trouble seeing an MX's LEDs. At least, -- in my experience (I own three of 'em). In bright light, yup, -- the LEDS can look a little dim. Bright light is where needles -- (KX, etc) shine. Anyone else have problems with MX LEDs in dim -- light? -- -- Cesar Matamoros II wrote, in part: -- > -- > I went out to a jazz festival, small by most standards -- since it is held -- > here, and was carrying my MZ-S and MX. The former had the -- color slide film -- > with the MX loaded with 400 b/w print film. -- > -- > I had a lot of problem seeing the exposure indications of -- the MX. Is this -- > normal? -- > -- --
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:39:54 -0500 (Central Daylight Time), Chris Brogden wrote: > If you want a particular list member dead, can you at least tell > them that off-list? Just put Bruce in your kill file and you won't have to "listen" to his misogynist (and otherwise offensive) ramblings. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: First Pano Try
On 17 Sep 2003 at 14:48, Lon Williamson wrote: > Apparently, any lens-body combo has an axis about > which it can be panned that minimizes distortion for > reconstituting panoramas. I think "nodal point" is part > of the technical discussion. > This is a thing I've read about and couldn't grasp. > And, more to the point, see how to test and implement. The nodal point of a lens can be tested easily if you have a mount which allows easy adjustment of the sidewards and front to back position of the camera relative to the centre of rotation. Crossed macro slide rails are excellent however you only need one macro-rail (for front to back adjustment) if the tripod mounting point is directly under the axis of the lens mount. Testing for the nodal point of a given lens is a relatively simple task. The procedure is to set two coincident objects at one side of the finder view at a few metres distance apart. If the lens is set at the nodal point the two objects will remain aligned as the assembly is panned to the other side of the finder. Whereas if the lens is rotating in front of or behind the actual nodal point the objects will appear to have moved sidewards relative to each other as the lens will have actually shifted horizontally. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: First Pano Try
On 17 Sep 2003 at 14:48, Lon Williamson wrote: > Apparently, any lens-body combo has an axis about > which it can be panned that minimizes distortion for > reconstituting panoramas. I think "nodal point" is part > of the technical discussion. > This is a thing I've read about and couldn't grasp. > And, more to the point, see how to test and implement. The nodal point of a lens can be tested easily if you have a mount which allows easy adjustment of the sidewards and front to back position of the camera relative to the centre of rotation. Crossed macro slide rails are excellent however you only need one macro-rail (for front to back adjustment) if the tripod mounting point is directly under the axis of the lens mount. Testing for the nodal point of a given lens is a relatively simple task. The procedure is to set two coincident objects at one side of the finder view at a few metres distance apart. If the lens is set at the nodal point the two objects will remain aligned as the assembly is panned to the other side of the finder. Whereas if the lens is rotating in front of or behind the actual nodal point the objects will appear to have moved sidewards relative to each other as the lens will have actually shifted horizontally. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
In manual mode, the *ist D does stop down a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in "A" position). Only it does not meter. It is in Av mode (metered!) that a K or M lens (or A/F/FA lenses that are not in "A" position) does not get stopped down but stays wide open all the time (unless one unlocks the lens and turns it 15 degrees anti-clockwise, so that one gets stopping down and real aperture metering). Arnold Chris Brogden wrote: So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad.
OT: US to Oz shipping assistance (around VA)
Hi Team, Would anyone around the area of Reston, VA be willing to receive and on-ship a small item for me? You will not be left out of pocket but you would need to be willing to contend with the minimal requirement of completing a customs declaration for O/S shipping. The item is a small and fairly robust circuit board. Any assistance would be appreciated. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pairs
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: A pair. A pear. A pple. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Tripods usage with DSLR
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >When tripod is not available, given a choice b/w not >shooting and shooting with slight noise, latter seems >to decent choice. Yeah Bill, some of us *like* noise ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Tripod use
Hi, Thursday, September 18, 2003, 2:41:20 AM, you wrote: > Telling these people that tripod use > makes for better pictures is like talking to a brick wall. makes a change from photographing one, eh? -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tripod use
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Christian Skofteland wrote: > To them, saying they can hand hold a 400/2.8 lens at > 1/60 from the back of a pickup truck on a dirt road going 50 mph without > noticeable camera shake is manly and shows their > tremendous "skill" at photography. Telling these people that tripod use > makes for better pictures is like talking to a brick wall. A tripod wouldn't help in that situation, now would it? Using a steadicam harness would probably help. Haven't heard of a still photograper that's using those kinds of things, though. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: OT-Hats and Good Health-was:An outing with an MX.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, frank theriault wrote: > But, seriously, I know several others who have reported fewer colds > once they started wearing hats once the weather gets cold. I have two > theories... I have a third theory. You catch colds from other people right? But when they see you in your hat (especially the Nepalese one!) they go "Uh-oh, weirdo" and steer a wide berth. Ergo, no colds :-) Chris (actually I have a wide-brimmed 'Indy' type hat myself)
Re: UK Street Price of *ist D
In a message dated 17/09/03 18:57:25 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Lets' go for it. Holga on the home page and Nikon/Pentax are both 'other >brands'. Chinon, surely. >> Which brings us neatly to another delicate question "Shi-non" or "Chi-non"? Oh Paul Stradivarius, champion of the 3rd part cult lens and underdog camera-maker, where art thou?
RE: Re[2]: Ist D production samples (WAS: UK Street Price of*ist D)
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Rob Brigham wrote: > > you need PSP 8 to save the info after manipulation. i use > > Ulead PhotoExplorer 8 to do this work. i am sure there are > > freeware ones too. > > Typical - I got version 7!! I use the open source command line tool "jhead" to transfer the EXIF data from the original file to the manipulated one after editing images in a program that discards the EXIF data. http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/ anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hi! In light of recent tripod talk the following thought occured in my mind. The smaller sensor/film is, the worse is the effect of shake. This is because even small motion of the camera while shutter is open would translate in larger effect relative to the frame size. Also, smaller film/sensor would mean that magnification necessary to obtain even moderately large print is bigger. Hence less than optimal sharpness would become more apparent. I also noticed William Robb mentioned microscope that he was using to see the difference in sharpness between various shooting conditions. I think that in real world and for amateur photography still very good pictures could be taken without tripod. Though of course, tripod, MLU, cable release, etc are advisable. Hope I am not out of whack . Boris
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
<< As far as I am aware Pentax lenses with "*" designations mean nothing specific > apart from being an indication that they offer premium performance for their > class. >> So are we generally of the opinion that *ist-D is offered by the maker as giving premium performance for its' class? Given that the humble * has been resurrected. Peter
Re: That was fast! or Posting of interesting KEH items?
<< I know of a K 1000mm f/8 for sale here, including case & wooden tripod. Shipping might be a bit of a killer though. >> Wasn't that one missing something important though? BTW this one will be offered on ebay end of this month if it doesn't sell at Wolverhampton (camera show 28th September). IIRC the tripod comes in at 12kg on it's own.yikes! Peter Peter
Re: Tripod use
Hi! On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:41:20 -0400 "Christian Skofteland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bill; ... Telling these people that tripod use makes for better pictures is like talking to a brick wall. They won't listen or much less, try your test. Just the fact that someone could ask "What's the slowest shutter speed I can hand-hold a XXXmm lens?" indicates a lack of effort on their part. Jeez, why don't you try it and see what kind of results you get? Christian, you're basically right, but your reasoning has to take into account the ultimate outcome. If we're talking 30x40 cm prints or 10x15 cm prints these two are completely different stories. Not to mention scanning and following Web publishing. I am fairly certain that my first PUG submission http://pug.komkon.org/03jan/lonely.html which was shot handheld at 1/60 sec with total 1.5 kg of gear in my hands, would not look too good if enlarged to exhibition size. But for home (10x15 cm) album or for internet, or for studying things such as exposure or composition, the outcome is very acceptable, don't you agree? I think William Robb was referring to photography for sale or for exhibition, not to amateur study... Then of course, I may be quite wrong. Boris
Re: FA* Lenses
Marnie, The FA * lenses have a wider focusing ring than regular FA lenses. This focusing ring can be pushed or pulled (it snaps into place) to switch the lens from AF to MF or MF to AF. So the basic motion is to let the lens focus using AF and then if you want to touch it up a bit, just pull the focus ring toward the camera body (quite natural motion) and manually focus a bit. Want AF back, just push the ring (snaps back) and you are doing AF again. Much nicer system than standard FA lenses where you have to reach to the lower side of the camera and push the switch. Bruce Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 12:18:57 PM, you wrote: >>Bruce Eac> Where is this clutch located? Eac> Just curious. I mean on the lens. Is it readily visible and findable? Eac> Marnie aka Doe More ignorance to dispel.
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
True, maybe we can agree that wars are made by people who KNOW they have the right to overdo the revenge... DagT > Fra: "Bob S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Dag, > > I've come to think that wars, now and thru the ages, > were carried out by peoples who KNEW they were right. > > Regards, Bob S. > > >From: Dag T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Even my kids are starting to recognize that wars are started by overdoing > >the revenge. > > _ > Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. > http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es > >
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Chris Brogden wrote: > > So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), > then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down > an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad. Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering would have cost only a nominal amount of money. However, the whole point of its deliberate omission is to maximise sales of new lenses. Cynical, but now that the "caring, sharing 1990s" have gone, a new commercial reality means that screwing your existing customers is the way to go ... > I was scared of this happening when Pentax first started messing with > their entry-level bodies. First the MZ-50, which would only meter at full > aperture but would still stop down a K/M series lens properly. Then the > MZ-30 and 60, which won't even work with non-A lenses or with A-series > lenses taken off the "A" setting. Then the FAJ lenses, which don't even > have aperture rings. And now we have their first, and flagship, DSLR, > which essentially works like a digital MZ-60. This completely and totally > hoovers. Very well put, Chris. > Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease, considering that > Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital Rebel won't fit on their 35mm > bodies, but Pentax has a history of excellent body/lens compatibility, > which they now seem to be doing their best to throw away. Pentax can't > hope to compete with N/C in many ways, but they've still been able to > carve out a niche for themselves by offering inexpensive entry-level > bodies, high-quality lenses, and excellent compatibility. Once their > compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like Nikon's > G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just alientated a lot of > people. They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and p&s cameras, but > they'll simply be a lesser company than C/N instead of a different one. Exactly so. That's why the *ist and *ist D make me slightly sadder than I already was. ;-) John
Re: My own little *ist D review
Alan Chan wrote: > whickersworld wrote: > >That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but > >it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have done > >it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have > >nowhere to go! > > You can always go LEICA, the final destination... Well, I do use Leica M as well as Pentax ... but I still need an SLR system for those shots that are difficult or impracticable with a rangefinder camera - basically anything needing a telephoto >90mm, macro and architectural shooting and anything where I need to see the depth of field in the viewfinder. I do like the Carl Zeiss manual focus lenses for Contax but even that brand is offering two separate, totally incompatible 35mm film SLR systems! ;-) John
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Hello, >> Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease, >> considering that Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital >> Rebel won't fit on their 35mm bodies > Exactly so. No, not exactly so. Pentax and Nikon made a marketing decision to drop support for their oldest lenses. Canon made a marketing decision to deliberately drop support for some functions in the 300D. But their decision not to support the new wide-angle on the existing bodies is a technical one. That lens protrudes too deeply into the lens mount, and owuld interfere with the mirror. The 300D has a complex mirror mechanism that allow it to "clear" the rear-element of the new wide-angle. Cheers, Boz
Re: Tripod use
On 18 Sep 2003 at 9:40, Paul Delcour wrote: > Try using a tripod in a crowded room where you're supposed to catch in a > flash what's goin gon and the light's really low and you have no flash. Yeah, I was having visions of me, a tripod, my camera and a mosh pit :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: My own little *ist D review
William Robb wrote: > > Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I don't recall which > model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which would not work at > all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no problem. The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (and don't) see it as a major issue on entry-level cameras. The F80 (N80) is a different matter, because of its wider appeal to both new and existing Nikon customers, including advanced amateurs and pros looking for a second body to their F100 or F5. Heck, I really wanted to buy an F80 until I realised it would not meter with my AIS lenses! > It was a big reason for my abandoning Nikon. If I am totally honest with myself, it was the final reason and the one that tipped the balance. I also wanted to return to using a rangefinder outfit so I sold all my Nikon gear, bought a small Leica M outfit and started to build a manual focus Pentax outfit. The problem is, I find that the market for my 35mm work is shrinking rapidly unless I supply scanned images, and that takes me time. It's far easier to shoot digital and my Olympus E-10 is now my main source of income. Nice camera, but not exactlyin the LX mould! If only the *ist D would meter with my K and M lenses I would buy one in an instant, and the knowledge that less than $20 has been saved on an $1800 camera by the omission of that feature causes me dyspepsia. > Large format. Always 100% compatability. > I use Nikkors, Schneiders and Fujinons on my 4x5. Large format is NICE! ;-) John
Re: Pairs
On 18 Sep 2003 at 8:46, mike wilson wrote: > Hi, > > Tom wrote: > > > However as far as I know line pairs > > consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space > > disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. > > So this pair consists of three things.. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_optical_line_pair.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: test
Could be everyone is out there doing something in the real world. Otis Wright frank theriault wrote: haven't seen a post in about 2 hours - something's not right... -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
Boris Liberman wrote: > > Here's the correct URL: > http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html > > Congratulations. Seconded. Wonderful image. Well done Kenneth! John
Re: OT-Hats and Good Health-was:An outing with an MX.
So I should wear my Moroccan fez in public? Haven't done that yet, but if it's a health issue... -frank Chris Stoddart wrote: > I have a third theory. You catch colds from other people right? But when > they see you in your hat (especially the Nepalese one!) they go "Uh-oh, > weirdo" and steer a wide berth. Ergo, no colds :-) > > Chris (actually I have a wide-brimmed 'Indy' type hat myself) -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
*istD and modified K/M lenses
Hi! I have a question to those who already held *istD in their hands or those who bought *ist. I suppose it is correct to assume that *ist and *istD behave similarly about K and M lenses. So if I were to modify K/M lens so that it would have proper contacts and transfer widest/narrowest aperture value to the body, would *ist(D) be able to meter in fully manual mode? If so, we might be in not so bad a shape. Thanks. Boris
Big Winds
The hurricane should hit land today. Last I heard, landfall will be North Carolina. Hope you're all battened down, Tom. Anyone else in the projected path of the storm? Hope all will be okay. It's supposed to hit Ontario/Quebec here in Canada tomorrow afternoon, but hurricanes lose power once they hit land. We'll get about 50mm of rain, with high winds (but nothing deadly). Should be a fun day on a bike! Anyway, all you PDMLers on the US Eastern seaboard, be safe. cheers, frank -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: OT-Hats and Good Health-was:An outing with an MX.
No brim on the fez Frank. The germs will still fall right in your face. Might as well wear the bunny ears... Regards, Bob S. From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So I should wear my Moroccan fez in public? Haven't done that yet, but if it's a health issue... _ Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: OT: FS: Pentax owner sells Leica CL
Yeah, those were sharp shots, eh Dave? I think the ones of the fishing fleet at night were some of the sharpest I've ever taken. Handheld @ 1/15th. That, of course, is another advantage of rangefinders, you can handhold them one or two shutter speeds slower without shake, as there's no mirror flapping around to vibrate the camera. I was quite amazed that I can handhold that much slower, but it's true. Your post made me look for those prints last night, so I could scan them and post them, but really, with my crappy scanner, you wouldn't get a true idea of just how sharp that lens is. Oh well. Now, where the hell did those prints go to? cheers, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I can atest to that.I saw some of Franks > shots from down east and they were just > great.Never have > seen 35mm proofs that sharp. > > Dave -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
Re: Re: Pairs
> Fra: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Tom wrote: > > > However as far as I know line pairs > > consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space > > disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. > > So this pair consists of three things.. Imagine a pair of objects with no separation between them. Is this a pair or is it one object? Beyond the resolution limit there you see one line, not two separate lines. :-) DagT
Re: Big Winds
Frank asked: > Anyone else in the > projected path of the storm? Baltimore is expecting a drenching (something like 15cm?) and dangerous winds, but I don't think the eye is supposed to pass too close. IIRC, the transition between "hurricane warning" and "tropical storm warning" is just south of Baltimore. Then again, I'm supposed to go down to Arlington later today, and the last time I looked at the predicted path, that looked kind of close. (We're keeping plans flexible, just in case.) Wherever I go, I gotta take some cameras and lots of film, of course. In the meantime I'm trying to make the house as ready as I can (including putting big buckets under the leaky spots of the 3rd floor ceiling). I'm expecting more inconvenience (and if I'm unlucky, expense) than danger. But I don't plan on driving through water flowing across the road, or travelling to southern MD, either. Yesterday the Longship Company sank their Viking longship at the dock, figuring it'll be safer on the bottom and they can raise it again on the weekend. Gonna be a lot of bailing, but apparently it's a traditional Viking method of coping with dangerous weather. (I'm told they often sank their boats for the winter and raised them again when the ice melted.) -- Glenn
Re: *istD and modified K/M lenses
Boris Liberman wrote: > So if I were to modify K/M lens so that it would have proper contacts > and transfer widest/narrowest aperture value to the body, would > *ist(D) be able to meter in fully manual mode? If so, we might be in > not so bad a shape. It is not possible to midify an SMC or SMC-M lens to behave like an SMC-A. The reason is that the former ones have a logarithmic aperture coupling and the latter a linear one. The *ist D requires linear, so even if you modify the lens mount to simulate the presence of the SMC-A contacts, the aperture will not operate properly. Furthermore, such a modification would simulate an SMC-A lens set to a numeric aperture, and the *ist D requires as minimum and SMC-A lens set to "A". Cheers, Boz
Re: Pairs
A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' keith mike wilson wrote: > > Hi, > > Tom wrote: > > > However as far as I know line pairs > > consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space > > disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. > > So this pair consists of three things.. > > mike
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
That would certainly remove "entry level" wouldn`t it?! Oh Pentax god, tell us there will be a digital SLR coming that will be above entry level with K compatibility. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:17 AM Subject: Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?) > > > << As far as I am aware Pentax lenses with "*" designations mean nothing > specific > > apart from being an indication that they offer premium performance for > their > > class. >> > > So are we generally of the opinion that *ist-D is offered by the maker as > giving premium performance for its' class? Given that the humble * has been > resurrected. > > Peter > >
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
Got the checklist right here: - Water - Flashlight - Milk - Bread - Cabernet - Zinfandel - Chianti - Dark Rum - Brie - Crackers. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:12 AM Subject: OT: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one > I gather that the storm is about to hit. You guys take it easy there > while the wind blows. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
Re: *istD and modified K/M lenses
Hi! It is not possible to midify an SMC or SMC-M lens to behave like an SMC-A. The reason is that the former ones have a logarithmic aperture coupling and the latter a linear one. The *ist D requires linear, so even if you modify the lens mount to simulate the presence of the SMC-A contacts, the aperture will not operate properly. Furthermore, such a modification would simulate an SMC-A lens set to a numeric aperture, and the *ist D requires as minimum and SMC-A lens set to "A". Cheers, Boz Well, it was a good idea, wasn't it? Boris
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
"whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Chris Brogden wrote: >> >> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode >> (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which >> won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad. > >Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering >would have cost only a nominal amount of money. In the case of stop-down metering in the *ist-D I suspect that money wasn't as much of a factor as time. Even with the lack of the aperture simulator, stop-down metering certainly could have been implemented in software (using the DOF preview) but would have required more software coding, and the attendant debugging and hardware testing. Given the lateness of the DSLR project as a whole (just look at how much complaining there still is about having to wait) it was a predictable corner to cut simply to get the camera to market quicker. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
Congrats again, Ken! - MCC At 03:32 PM 9/17/2003 -0400, you wrote: Well, after being advised a year ago that an image of mine was selected for publication in Outdoor Photographer, "Your Gallery" section, it finally appeared in the October 2003 issue. Check out pages 80/81 of that issue - the "Your Gallery" section. I've posted this previously to the PUG (http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwr.html). I also sent them a paragraph about the capture of this image but they chose to write their own. They did to use this image previously as a background for an story on "Keeping Cool", in the June 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer. Kenneth Waller - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI - Photography: http://www.markcassino.com
RE: Big Winds
> Anyway, all you PDMLers on the US Eastern seaboard, be safe. Thanks! I am skeptical that NYC will get anything significant. I think it will just be a hard rain and some wind. I'm thinking about going down to the waterfront to see if I can get some shots of whitecaps on the river.
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:20:53 -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > But of course. There's a ... damn, what's the word ... it means > something that's so self-evident as to be pointless to point out ... in > there somewhere. :-) Teleology? (No) ... Rats. I hate it when I can't > come up with the word. Syllogism? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pairs
On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: > A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' It's not a space it's a white line and a black line Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Stock supposed to arrive in UK shops today...
Shame for them, Peter already sorted me out! Email from Cameraworld: We are still expecting the cameras and lenses to arrive today - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: Pentax ist D Are these coming into stock today? If so, are they all sold already and how many units are likely? Thanks Rob
Re: Big Winds
Lexington is in the path. of the storm, but since we're on the western slope of the Blue ridge Mts. the mountains will give us some protection from the winds. We could get up to 8 in of rain, however, and anything over 4 causes flooding. My house is actually too high to be directly affected, but I could get stuck there for a day or so if things get bad. And, of course, the water treatment plant fails when the water gets too high, so you need bottle water. The last real flood was about six years ago. It's always amazing to see these little creeks become small rivers so quickly. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:20:53 -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > >> But of course. There's a ... damn, what's the word ... it means >> something that's so self-evident as to be pointless to point out ... in >> there somewhere. :-) Teleology? (No) ... Rats. I hate it when I can't >> come up with the word. > >Syllogism? Axiom. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
I have no doubt the market pressure had no influence on Pentax decision to cut the backwards mount compatibility. Mechanical aperture coupler and corresponding firmware were nothing new, P could have inherited the solutions from previous bodies just as they did with various other common SLR features. It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to buy new ones. It was also carefully planned over several years, starting with the release of the MZ-50. The timing also denotes a good analysis of the Pentax owner psychology. Just remember how many on the list cried loudly about the backwards lens compatibility, yet how many of those placed their order for *ist d and now can't wait for the delivery. Only digital could manage to break their resistance and P knows that very well indeed. Servus, Alin Mark wrote: MR> In the case of stop-down metering in the *ist-D I suspect that money MR> wasn't as much of a factor as time. Even with the lack of the aperture MR> simulator, stop-down metering certainly could have been implemented in MR> software (using the DOF preview) but would have required more software MR> coding, and the attendant debugging and hardware testing. Given the MR> lateness of the DSLR project as a whole (just look at how much MR> complaining there still is about having to wait) it was a predictable MR> corner to cut simply to get the camera to market quicker.
Re: OT: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >But take some stunning pics. Careful does it though. Wouldn't want to be >outside in such wheather. It's unheard of here in the Netherlands. Worst we >ever got was force 12. ...and that was a only a backfire from a bottle of Grolsch Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
- Original Message - From: "Paul Delcour" Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round > I see. Well, I must say I'm not that surprised. If you take really great > care to ensure a good stirdy setup, I would expect even 1/500 to show some > unsharpness due to movement. However, I was in a situation serveral times > when the shot had to be taken and a tripod was not available, or would have > been impossible to use, in a theatre for instance. Question is more: how > much unsharpness is still acceptable knowing the circumstances. Usually I > don't really mind, although the occasional crisp sharp photo of course I > like very much. Read my post about wedding photography (subject is tripod use). If you are shooting for a purpose, you suit your technique to that purpose and hope the client doesn't change their mind after the fact. > > Unsharpness also creates some softness, giving me reason to wander whether > those really contrasty sharp Pentax lenses are any good when I accept so > much unsharpness. Think about how much less sharp the image would be if you were using a low quality lens. OTOH, if you are accepting poor technical quality as a matter of course, we don't have enough in common to make a discussion out of this. > > Also: I used to use Kodak neg. film which is quite contrasty. For people my > wife rightly said this was too contrasty. I now use a medium film. Again > here, why use such hard lenses if I compensate them by using milder films. > So here comes the question of using a softer Takumar with a hard film or a > Pentax lens with a softer film. Which would give me a more satisfying > result. But as I said before, I cannot afford to get all that stuff and > simply choose what I need at the appropiate moment. I actually don't find Pentax lenses to be overly contrasty. Pentax glass is more about balance. Everything is compromised somewhat, this is the nature of lensmaking, but no one parameter is compromised overly at the expense of another parameter. William Robb
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round > Hi! > > In light of recent tripod talk the following thought occured in my > mind. > > The smaller sensor/film is, the worse is the effect of shake. This is > because even small motion of the camera while shutter is open would > translate in larger effect relative to the frame size. Also, smaller > film/sensor would mean that magnification necessary to obtain even > moderately large print is bigger. Hence less than optimal sharpness > would become more apparent. > > I also noticed William Robb mentioned microscope that he was using to > see the difference in sharpness between various shooting conditions. I > think that in real world and for amateur photography still very good > pictures could be taken without tripod. Though of course, tripod, MLU, > cable release, etc are advisable. > > Hope I am not out of whack . This is moving away from the original subject, which was trying to find ways to avoid tripod use by dialing up digital sensor sensitivity. Let me ask you this, why would an amateur, who is supposedly doing the work for love (this is the definition of the term) take shortcuts that can only dissapoint? It's not like we have to take pictures like those poor saps who hung a shingle outside their door. William Robb
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
- Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" Subject: Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?) > > Then, some non-APO lenses might be as corrected as some (supposedly) > APO lenses. My non APO Nikkors were easily as good as the APO Minotla lenses. > > Aren't there any norms, JCII or else, to fix a minimum degree of > correction before you can say it is apo? That is a good question. I suppose it depends on if the term APO actually means something in the hands of the marketing department or if it is just a buzz word. William Robb
RE: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
> -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:20:53 -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > >> > > >> >> But of course. There's a ... damn, what's the word > ... it means > >> >> something that's so self-evident as to be pointless to > >> >> point out ... in there somewhere. :-) Teleology? > (No) ... Rats. > >> >> I hate it when I can't come up with the word. > >> > > >> >Syllogism? > >> > >> Axiom. > > > >Tautology. > > Nah, a tautology is an argument (in the logical sense) that's true > because it's really a definition. An axiom is something > that is assumed > that has to be true because it's too fundamental to be > broken down and > explained. An axiom is a "self-evident truth" as in the axioms of > Euclidean geometry. Well, it's often used in the same sense as "self-evident" or "obviously true" in common usage. Anyway, I threw it out there becuase he was looking for a "T" word! tv
Re: First Pano Try
Well I'll be dipped. Sounds like this would not be too hard to do with a two-axis Macro Rail like my Velbon. Thanks, Rob! Rob Studdert wrote: The nodal point of a lens can be tested easily if you have a mount which allows easy adjustment of the sidewards and front to back position of the camera relative to the centre of rotation. Crossed macro slide rails are excellent however you only need one macro-rail (for front to back adjustment) if the tripod mounting point is directly under the axis of the lens mount. Testing for the nodal point of a given lens is a relatively simple task. The procedure is to set two coincident objects at one side of the finder view at a few metres distance apart. If the lens is set at the nodal point the two objects will remain aligned as the assembly is panned to the other side of the finder. Whereas if the lens is rotating in front of or behind the actual nodal point the objects will appear to have moved sidewards relative to each other as the lens will have actually shifted horizontally. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
>>> I read somewhere that the Star in the Pentax lenses stands for
>>> APO, so it should apply to the apochromatic lenses. But I may be
>>> wrong...
>> I don't know the exact techanical differences, but Pentax &
>> Nikkor use ED, while Sigma use APO.
> The lens designation ED is not a definitive indication of lens
> performance it only indicates that the lens design utilizes glass
> with extraordinary dispersion characteristics. The lens
> designation APO is an indication of measured optical behaviour.
> By definition an APO labelled lens will provide coincident focus
> on a plane perpendicular to the lens axis at at least three
> frequencies in the visible spectra. Unfortunately few "APO"
> labelled lenses actually achieve this and the lens designation
> APO is no guarantee that the lens may not have other significant
> optical aberrations.
Here's a quote from "Alexander" (I believe it was from a post to the
now defunct "X-Star" group [is that the correct name? - was it a
Yahoo club or group?] and not to the PDML) -
> In a brochure from Pentax Germany (Technik-Information 8/88, p.15)
> the A* designation and the difference between A* and A* ED lenses
> is explained as follows (rough translation from German)
> "Lenses designated such as e.g. A*1,4/85 or A*2.8/300 ED contain
> 'special glasses'. Such glasses are characterised by a high
> refractive index and a low dispersion. They reduce the residual
> secondary spectrum[.]. Lenses additionally designated with
> 'ED' are so-called Super-Achromats. They also contain special
> glasses; 'ED' stands for 'extra low dispersion'."
> According to this definition, all star lenses have low dispersion
> ('ED') glasses. The additional 'ED' designation refers to a higher
> degree of correction of chromatic aberation compared to the
> 'normal' star lenses, rather than it seems to refer to a
> particular sort of low dispersion (i.e. 'special') glass. 'ED',
> means that the lens is a Super Achromat.
> As far as my knowledge goes, a Super Achromat (i.e. as this term
> is used by Zeiss) is corrected from blue to infrared, or for four
> wavelengths - blue (about 430 nanometer), bluegreen (about 500nm),
> yellow (about 640nm), red (about 710nm) and infrared (about
> 900nm).
> Due to dispersion (means different refractive indexes for
> different wavelenths in a glass) a single lens does not focus the
> three (visible) colors at one point. A lens system is correced
> such that at least two colors (or more) focus at the same point.
> According to the amount of the "residual secondary spectrum" (i.e.
> the remaining "apochromatic error") a lens system can be ranked
> from low to high as achromat, semi-apochromat, apochromat and
> super-achromat.
> I don't think there is a strict definition for semi-apochromat and
> apochromat-lenses. Approximately, Apo- means that a lens system
> focuses three wavelengths at the same point (or may be "close to
> one point"). A Super Achromat focuses four wavelengths (or more)
> at the same point. (please correct if there is something wrong
> with this, I am no expert).
> I think this is an important information (particularly for Astro-
> and infrared photography). As far as I know the A*200mmED macro is
> the only Super Achromat (Tele) macro lens for 35mm systems.
Fred
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
>>> I read somewhere that the Star in the Pentax lenses stands for >>> APO, so it should apply to the apochromatic lenses. But I may be >>> wrong... [snip] > As far as I am aware Pentax lenses with "*" designations mean > nothing specific apart from being an indication that they offer > premium performance for their class. So you could argue that like > ED and APO, ASPH lens designations it usually purely a marketing > tool and should be considered in context. I would say that Pentax has been both vague and inconsistent in its use of the "*" designation. Overall, I would say that the "*" lenses have been variously been defined by Pentax as those that: 1. are generally "premium" lenses, sold at premium prices. 2. ~might~ ~perhaps~ be assembled and tested more carefully in small batches. 3. ~might~ sometimes use low-dispersion and/or high refractive index glass. In various (and often undated) "Lenses and Accessories" booklets, Pentax has provided, at times, the following sorts of "*" explanations: 1. "The M* and A* lenses are a new generation of telephoto lens, among the most compact on the market, and they incorporate low-dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration." 2. "A* = Called A-star. High-performance, compact lens using special glass elements." 3. "A*/F* = Called A-star or F-star. High-performance, compact lens using special glass elements." Note that ~some~ "star" lenses also have been designated with "ED" (apparently for Extra-low Dispersion glass), but some are not. For example, at the time that Pentax made statement #1 above, the only 35mm Pentax lenses that were designated as "star" lenses seemed to be the M* 300/4, the A* 300/4, 300/2.8, and 600/5.6, but only the 300/2.8 and the 600/5.6 received the "ED" designation (for "Extra low dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration"), while the two 300/4's did not - was Pentax making a distinction between Extra-low dispersion glass and "mere" Low dispersion glass? Furthermore, while the M* 300/4 and A* 300/4 lenses are dramatically smaller and lighter than their non-"star" counterpart (the SMC 300/4), probably indicating the use of high refractive index glass, most "star" lenses (in my opinion) do not seem to be overly compact for their focal lengths and apertures, so the use of high refractive index glass might not be found in all "star" lenses. In his book "Camera Test - Pentax LX System" (Henry Greenwood and Company Limited, 1982, originally published in The British Journal of Photography), Geoffrey Crawley makes the following statements about the M* 300/4 lens: "The star after the M is in fact inscribed in green and this denotes that extra low dispersion glass is used in its construction." (Pg. 68) - and - "The green star Pentax lens is of the low dispersion glass type and therefore compares very favourably in cost with fluorite designs." (Pg. 69) I just thought that I'd throw another log or two onto the fire... Fred
Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round
Hi! On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:10:10 -0600 "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is moving away from the original subject, which was trying to find ways to avoid tripod use by dialing up digital sensor sensitivity. Let me ask you this, why would an amateur, who is supposedly doing the work for love (this is the definition of the term) take shortcuts that can only dissapoint? It's not like we have to take pictures like those poor saps who hung a shingle outside their door. William Robb Oh yes, probably it is somewhat off the original topic. I could see several reasons why an amateur who is serous about their __learning process__ might not use a tripod: 1. Laziness. No, I am serious. 2. Curcumstances - my wife put up quite a fight when I once wanted to take a tripod with me in order to shoot some macro shots in the near forest. 3. Level of an amateur. You see, I for example, haven't yet enlarged past 10x15 cm any of my shots. I do intend to do so some time soon. But again, I haven't done that. All the scans that I've been getting from the lab do not count as a measure of how sharp are the pictures. No offence to the lab, but this is how it is. So I will have to taste this thing myself and conclude my own outcome of it. It took me about a year here on PDML to realize that even with this very low level quality processing that I get from the local labs, I'd better use primes instead of zooms. No, I am not trying to cause this talk another turn of direction. I think I could say (with proper modesty mentioned) that I keep growing as a photographer. I suppose one day I will be experienced enough to use a tripod as often as ever possible. By the way, I need to buy one, that is good enough. The plasticky video tripod that I have sucks. But again, as I said - level of an amateur. Peace! Boris
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Chris, I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Nikon D100 will NOT meter with older lenses. I'll ask my buddy who has one tomorrow. Bruce Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 6:28:19 PM, you wrote: CB> So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), CB> then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down CB> an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad. CB> chris
Re: Pairs
Dag, While I would normally agree with Tom, regarding your following comment, visually there IS no pair, unless you can distinguish between each line. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Fra: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Tom wrote: > > > However as far as I know line pairs > > > consist of two lines with a space in the middle, when the space > > > disappears you have hit the limit of resolution. > > So this pair consists of three things.. No, two 'things,' or two individual items, if you will. One item is a black line. The other item is a white line. Separate the two black lines with a while line in between, and you have a pair of black lines. This assumes all you start with is two black lines on a piece of white paper. If you insist on making one of a "pair" of lines white, then the background or the sheet of media on which they lie MUST be of a contrasting color, in order to tell that the "white line" is not merely a space between two black lines. > Imagine a pair of objects with no separation between them. Is this a pair or is it > one object? > > Beyond the resolution limit there you see one line, not two separate lines. > > :-) > > DagT If, as Rod has most recently exposed us to, you define a "line pair" as two CONTIGUOUS lines, meaning adjacent to and touching each other, they MUST be of different contrast, or you wouldn't be able to distinguish that there were two of them... In Rod's supplied definition, it can indeed be a white line and a black line, sharing a common border. That's when you need the media upon which they reside to be a third shade or color. Interesting discussion... keith
RE: Tripod use
> -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Delcour" > Subject: Re: Tripod use > > > > Try using a tripod in a crowded room where you're > supposed to catch in a > > flash what's goin gon and the light's really low and you > have no flash. > > You're overreacting I feel. When possible a tripod used of course > improves, > > but when going candid it's out of the question. Besides, > as with the > > discussion on lenses I wonder whether all this extra > sharpness is needed > of > > desired. Not always, so a tripod doesn't always improve > the picture quaily > > by adding sharpness. > > > > If the image is stunning, nobody will question the technique. > > See, I knew some anal retentive would come up with an > example of this. Who's anal? The guy who says to stay loose to get the shot, or the guy who says open up a tripod in the middle of a bar? tv
Does anyone here enjoy writing photography articles or tutorials?
Does anyone here enjoy writing photography articles or tutorials? I was looking for a few good writers and was curious if anyone here enjoys writing about pentax or photography in general. Al http://www.usefilm.com
Re: Pairs
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... Jostein
Re: Tripod use
I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing wrong? I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered plenty of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all be tripoding along, wouldn't we. :-) Paul Delcour > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:05:23 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tripod use > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:00 -0400 > > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Delcour" > Subject: Re: Tripod use > > >> Try using a tripod in a crowded room where you're supposed to catch in a >> flash what's goin gon and the light's really low and you have no flash. >> You're overreacting I feel. When possible a tripod used of course > improves, >> but when going candid it's out of the question. Besides, as with the >> discussion on lenses I wonder whether all this extra sharpness is needed > of >> desired. Not always, so a tripod doesn't always improve the picture quaily >> by adding sharpness. >> >> If the image is stunning, nobody will question the technique. > > See, I knew some anal retentive would come up with an example of this. > > It doesn't matter, all you are doing is compromising your picture, and > limiting what you can do with it. > I have shot in precisely the situation you described. I chose to use a solid > tripod. It was a professional decision. It allowed me enough personal space > to work. > > Regarding your last statement, if the image is stunning, you used good > technique, but more importantly, you also had a good concept. > Nothing is worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept. > Except perhaps a just ever so slightly fuzzy picture, just enough to make it > unviewable, of a sharp concept. > > William Robb >
Re: Yet another *istD report (dropping to a style page?!)
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:52:54 -0400, Andre Langevin wrote: When I try to go to the site, it drops to this page: > http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/style.css Has it something to do with the way the site is done or with my computer? Can it be easuly fixed? Nope, you've got the wrong URL. The .CSS file at that site simply defines the way the site will look on the screen. The actual content is at some different URL. Try dropping the "/style.css" part and see if that takes you where you want to go. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Yes it works if I take it out. But what I don't understand is that with some pages (and some can only be accessed with the complete URL) the URL automatically changes to get me on this unavailable and unwanted style page. I was wondering how I could defeat this or if I depnds on the architecture of the web page... and the fact that I use Netscape 4.79! I guess I should first of all upgrade to 7... Andre --
Re: Tripod use
William, you said very truly: There have been times when I have just sat and admired what was in front of me until the light was gone, rather than spoil the moment by pulling out a camera. It is amazing what we don't get to enjoy when we take a feeding frenzy approach to getting every great picture there is. Often, we don't get to enjoy what we went to photograph in the first place. That was exactly the reason why I didn't turn pro. I was just seeing photographs, nothing else. It drove me mad, not taking the moment to enjoy the moment. Still happy I made that decision. :-) Paul Delcour > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:57:49 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tripod use > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 11:22:00 -0400 > > There have been times when I have just sat and admired what was in front of > me until the light was gone, rather than spoil the moment by pulling out a > camera. > It is amazing what we don't get to enjoy when we take a feeding frenzy > approach to getting every great picture there is. > Often, we don't get to enjoy what we went to photograph in the first place.
Re: Tripod use -
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Tripod use - hard lenses and soft films or the other way round > > Oh yes, probably it is somewhat off the original topic. I could see > several reasons why an amateur who is serous about their __learning > process__ might not use a tripod: > > 1. Laziness. No, I am serious. > 2. Curcumstances - my wife put up quite a fight when I once wanted to > take a tripod with me in order to shoot some macro shots in the near > forest. > 3. Level of an amateur. You see, I for example, haven't yet enlarged > past 10x15 cm any of my shots. I do intend to do so some time soon. > But again, I haven't done that. All the scans that I've been getting > from the lab do not count as a measure of how sharp are the pictures. > No offence to the lab, but this is how it is. So I will have to taste > this thing myself and conclude my own outcome of it. > > It took me about a year here on PDML to realize that even with this > very low level quality processing that I get from the local labs, I'd > better use primes instead of zooms. No, I am not trying to cause this > talk another turn of direction. > > I think I could say (with proper modesty mentioned) that I keep > growing as a photographer. I suppose one day I will be experienced > enough to use a tripod as often as ever possible. By the way, I need > to buy one, that is good enough. The plasticky video tripod that I > have sucks. But again, as I said - level of an amateur. It does take a while to figure these things out. I hope when it comes time to enlarge some of those negatives, they are good enough to take the magnification. I do think a bad tripod is worse than no tripod at all. A bad tripod will entice you to try things that it can't deliver on, whereas no tripod will make you find other ways to take the picture. And yes, there are certainly situations where tripod use is prohibited or undesirable. I do think that these situations happen less often than people think they do. Your reason #1 comes into play more often than you would care to believe, perhaps not with yourself, but with a lot of people, myself included. William Robb
Re: Tripod use
- Original Message - From: "Paul Delcour" Subject: Re: Tripod use > I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of > not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing > wrong? > > I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered plenty > of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all be > tripoding along, wouldn't we. Sorry, I should have dropped a smiley in there someplace. William Robb
Re: Tripod use -
Hi! I do think a bad tripod is worse than no tripod at all. A bad tripod will entice you to try things that it can't deliver on, whereas no tripod will make you find other ways to take the picture. . That time I mentioned I actually took a tripod. Then I must say I refreshed my memory of russian expletives that day. Admittely one or two shots of that shoot where really good technique-wise. My conclusion was that I'd rather not take this very tripod with me to the field any more. My another conclusion was that good macro can be done only with tripod. So I've not been shooting macro ever since. So bad tripod had a questionable influence on me. Your reason #1 comes into play more often than you would care to believe, perhaps not with yourself, but with a lot of people, myself included. I think that if I could one day arrive to US of A again, I would enter a good photo shop and look for a __good__ monopod. I think I could overcome my lazyness and carry the above monopod with me most of the time. Boris
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Got the checklist right here: >- Water >- Flashlight >- Milk >- Bread >- Cabernet >- Zinfandel >- Chianti >- Dark Rum >- Brie >- Crackers. Hey Christian, what the heck do you need water for ? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >North Carolina will have it worse. I hope PDML central doesn't blow >away! Is there any truth in the rumour that Mark Roberts is on the peak tuffing it out in a small dome tent? That sunrise wure will be pretty Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
> On 18/9/03, pentax-discuss-d- [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Got the checklist right here: > >- Water > >- Flashlight > >- Milk > >- Bread > >- Cabernet > >- Zinfandel > >- Chianti > >- Dark Rum > >- Brie > >- Crackers. Would'nt light rum be better for walking a round in the dark Dave
RE: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
> -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >North Carolina will have it worse. I hope PDML central doesn't blow > >away! > > Is there any truth in the rumour that Mark Roberts is on > the peak tuffing > it out in a small dome tent? That sunrise wure will be > pretty No, he's running the entire length of the Outer Banks right now. tv
Re: Yet another *istD report ;-)
Hi Andre, on 17 Sep 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Heiko, you have tried the "normal" *ist-D lens on a MZ body. Can we see a picture that shows the "circle" it projects on a 24 x 36 film? I have tried that. I don't have the prints yet, but the FAJ 18-35 is not a special lens for DSLRs (as the new smc DA series). So there won't be any small "circle". Cheers, Heiko Thamks for mentionning to me, I had not noticed. 18mm wide on a cheap zoom... will enough quality be there? ANdre --
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
At 12:55 PM 9/18/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Got the checklist right here: >- Water >- Flashlight >- Milk >- Bread >- Cabernet >- Zinfandel >- Chianti >- Dark Rum >- Brie >- Crackers. Hey Christian, what the heck do you need water for ? Cheers, Cotty To clean the glasses, of course
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
- Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Got the checklist right here: > >- Water > >- Flashlight > >- Milk > >- Bread > >- Cabernet > >- Zinfandel > >- Chianti > >- Dark Rum > >- Brie > >- Crackers. > > Hey Christian, what the heck do you need water for ? > > > Cheers, > Cotty Currently it's in the form of ice for the rum and to keep the beer cold Christian
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
Clean Glasses? Sissy. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/18/03 01:23PM >>> At 12:55 PM 9/18/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote: >On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Got the checklist right here: > >- Water > >- Flashlight > >- Milk > >- Bread > >- Cabernet > >- Zinfandel > >- Chianti > >- Dark Rum > >- Brie > >- Crackers. > >Hey Christian, what the heck do you need water for ? > > >Cheers, > Cotty To clean the glasses, of course
RE: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >No problems here! We're far enough west that all they're forecasting >for us is ~1/4 inch of rain and winds 15-25 mph with gusts to 30. Get used to it Bill - it'll be the same inside PDML Central when the Vikings arrive. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
UK CF Card retailer recommendation
I bought a 512 MB CF card from this bunch, and although it was working in the camera and showed up on one computer, it wouldn't mount on the desktop of another computer without hot unplugging / replugging the (Firewire) card reader. Even so, I contact them and was kindly offered a change of card brand. The new one works well and the prices are competitive. A satisfied customer. http://www.valuemedia.co.uk/ Digital media is becoming as important as film with compatibility issues between cameras and computers, and decent retailers are perhaps worth noting. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
OT: Canon 300D (aka Rebel digital)
I was at the local camera store and saw 20 boxes of the new Canon Rebel Digital. Played with one of them. Nice camera, good AF speed, nice handling, light, small. Viewfinder wasn't as bad as I had thought. Still no sign of the ist-D. Christian
Re: Yet another *istD report ;-)
Hi Andre, on 18 Sep 03 you wrote in pentax.list: [18-35] >Thamks for mentionning to me, I had not noticed. 18mm wide on a >cheap zoom... will enough quality be there? I can tell you Friday or Saturday, when my prints are ready. But a member of the digitalfotonetz.de forum has made some pictures and he was quite pleased. Cheers, Heiko
Re: Does anyone here enjoy writing photography articles or tutorials?
>Does anyone here enjoy writing photography articles or tutorials? I was >looking for a few good writers and was curious if anyone here enjoys >writing about pentax or photography in general. Hmm, and exactly what will you do with these people when you find them? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT: Canon 300D (aka Rebel digital)
You know, it's just hard for anyone to compete with the kind of resources Canon has. If Pentax had come out with a Rebel D analog first, then folks would have screamed about the lack of quality. And the *ist D is just no the cmaera that they can sell for <$1000. Canon can just get things to market so quickly (even compared with Nikon) that Pentax will always lag. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pairs
Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' > > It's not a space it's a white line and a black line Okay, I read you. But, stay with me now, if all you have is a piece of white paper, on which reside some straight black lines, and if you slide two of the lines together so they have a line width's of distance between them, what's in between could be a white line or it could be merely a space. Especially if they're on a white piece of paper. I'm with you, Rod. But, if you're going to define one of a pair of lines as white, and the other black, you must also decree that these line pairs NOT be displayed on a white or black surface... it has to be some other contrasting shade of color. Situation two: you have a boundary that is one millimeter in width. Within that boundary you place equal width black/white line pairs until they fit from side to side. The only parameter you can change is the individual width of each line, in order to fit more lines in the one millimeter boundary. Example: if each line is 1/4 millimeter thick/wide, you can have two line pairs in that one millimeter space. In this case, there is no space separating the lines, it's only the contrast between their shades that provides the boundary definition. So, the question arises, if the one millimeter space is constant, and all that changes is the line widths, when does a pair cease to be distinguishable as a black and white pair? When it turns gray, and you can't distinguish a boundary between black and white? Just curious... keith > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Re: Pairs
Ever see two pertures? Darndest thing you ever DID see! I once saw a percher on a dirt track, prancing around. Pretty thing it was, too! keith Jostein wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > A pair. A pear. A pple. > > A perture... > > Jostein
Re: Pairs
Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Rob Studdert wrote: >> >> On 18 Sep 2003 at 5:25, Keith Whaley wrote: >> >> > A space is not a definable as a 'thing.' >> >> It's not a space it's a white line and a black line > >Okay, I read you. >But, stay with me now, if all you have is a piece of white paper, on >which reside some straight black lines, and if you slide two of the >lines together so they have a line width's of distance between them, >what's in between could be a white line or it could be merely a space. >Especially if they're on a white piece of paper. I think the reason people are having a problem with this is because they're stuck with the ink/paper analogy. This is *just* an analogy. With light images there's no foreground or background. It isn't white on a black background or black on a white background. It's a white line next to a black line. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I suppose it depends on if the term APO actually >means something in the hands of the marketing department or if it is just a >buzz word. I wouldn't be suprised if there were an actual definition somewhere, but I'll bet only scientists working in the field of optics use it. In the real world it's pretty much become a marketing buzzword, which every lens manufacturer defines in a way their marketing department decides upon. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pairs
Reminds me of an old joke from the boy scouts: Be Alert! - your country needs lerts! DagT På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 19:49, skrev Keith Whaley: Ever see two pertures? Darndest thing you ever DID see! I once saw a percher on a dirt track, prancing around. Pretty thing it was, too! keith Jostein wrote: - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A pair. A pear. A pple. A perture... Jostein
Re: Washington DC hunkering down for the big one
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 18/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>North Carolina will have it worse. I hope PDML central doesn't blow >>away! > >Is there any truth in the rumour that Mark Roberts is on the peak tuffing >it out in a small dome tent? That sunrise wure will be pretty Nope. Stuck here in Pittsburgh. But we *are* getting weather warnings about the hurricane even here! (Mostly flood warnings because the ground's already saturated from recent rain.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?)
- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: Star lenses (was: Re: Reputable dealer?) > "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I suppose it depends on if the term APO actually > >means something in the hands of the marketing department or if it is just a > >buzz word. > > I wouldn't be suprised if there were an actual definition somewhere, but > I'll bet only scientists working in the field of optics use it. In the > real world it's pretty much become a marketing buzzword, which every > lens manufacturer defines in a way their marketing department decides > upon. Well, there is an actual definition. APO is short for apochromatic, which in our context is a lens which focusses all wavelengths of light onto the same plane. William Robb
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
> > Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to > > buy new ones. > > I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not > consist of a significant number of people who own old lenses. They > certainly comprise a significant portion of this mailing list but not > the public at large. Not even close. Quite right. It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses. These have even worse compatability problems with old bodies, but I don't hear them being described as a plot to force people to buy new bodies (even though this is a more defensible claim). Bodies made in the last twenty years have the ability to directly set the aperture of lenses made in that time, rather than relying on a manually-set limit on the lens itself (which is pretty much what the aperture ring is). But only now are we beginning to see bodies that depend on this ability. And, rather more significantly, we're beginning to see lenses that don't even have that preset ring. That's where the cost savings will be found, not on the high-end digital body. Perhaps it's because there isn't a really tempting new FA-J lens on the market, so nobody is bothered about the lack of compatibilty with older bodies. This is *far* worse than the old lens compatibility problem. If I put an FA-J lens on my MX I expect to have some issues. But what about my Super Program? I've lost Aperture Priority & Manual modes; all I've got is shutter priority and full program. The same is true for any camera that requires a lens aperture ring to specify the aperture; That would be almost every body Pentax have made. Certainly the only camera in my collection that could use such a lens without loss of functionality is my PZ-1p (and, of course, the *ist-D when it arrives). That excludes my MZ-S, a recent (and expensive) body. So which bodies *can* use the FA-J lenses?
Re: Yet another *istD report (dropping to a style page?!)
Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 15:52:54 -0400, Andre Langevin wrote: >> >>> When I try to go to the site, it drops to this page: >>> >> > http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/style.css >>> >>> Has it something to do with the way the site is done or with my computer? >>> Can it be easuly fixed? >> >>Nope, you've got the wrong URL. The .CSS file at that site simply >>defines the way the site will look on the screen. The actual content >>is at some different URL. Try dropping the "/style.css" part and see >>if that takes you where you want to go. >> >Yes it works if I take it out. But what I don't understand is that >with some pages (and some can only be accessed with the complete URL) >the URL automatically changes to get me on this unavailable and >unwanted style page. I was wondering how I could defeat this or if I >depnds on the architecture of the web page... and the fact that I use >Netscape 4.79! I guess I should first of all upgrade to 7... Yes, Netscape 4.x is pretty poor with web pages that use style sheets. That's one of the reasons I put off using style sheets for my own web designs for a long time; there are still a lot of people using older browsers. I still try to use CSS for just basic formatting in order to maintain maximum browser compatibility with my pages. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
> > > . . . Canon made a marketing decision to > deliberately drop support for some functions in the 300D. > > But their decision not to support the new wide-angle on the existing > bodies is a technical one. That lens protrudes too deeply into the lens > mount, and owuld interfere with the mirror. The 300D has a complex > mirror mechanism that allow it to "clear" the rear-element of the new > wide-angle. Is that true? Or does it just have a smaller mirror?
Re: Pairs
På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 22:04, skrev Jostein: - Original Message - From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ooooh, yes! I think pairs would be a wonderful theme. Can we have it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Um... Wouldn't that need two galleries? :-) Jostein Of Course! DagT
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
> > > > Which bodies can use the FA-J lenses in aperture priority (and/or manual)? > > Wouldn't the cameras that control everything from the body (MZ-30? as an > example) be able to use them? Yes. But I haven't been keeping up to date - which are these? Let's start with the PZ-1p & *ist-D. Any others? MZ-30? *ist?
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > It was a deliberate, cynical move to force owners of old lenses to >> > buy new ones. >> >> I don't buy this at all. The target demographic for the DSLR does not >> consist of a significant number of people who own old lenses. They >> certainly comprise a significant portion of this mailing list but not >> the public at large. Not even close. > >Quite right. It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer >bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses. Perhaps that's because the new camera bodies are actually *desirable*, unlike the J lenses? Seriously, the J lenses are too slow (f/3.5 or f/4.0) to be of interest to me unless they have some other truly outstanding characteristic, which they don't. Their low weight might be appealing for a lightweight travel kit, but they're too large - I take an M-series prime when space is at a premium. Marketing-wise, I think that Pentax got it right for the most part with the J lenses: Their limitations won't bother the people who want this kind of lens. The people who are bothered by the lack of the aperture ring are people who, with a few exceptions, wouldn't want one of these lenses in the first place. With the cameras it's a different story. The DSLR is a highly desirable, top-of-the-line item. Even the film *ist is a great mid-level camera. For someone with mostly modern lenses it's a worthy successor to the 5n - fits nicely below the MZ-S and the entry-level cameras. Heck, I even considered one as a replacement for the ageing MX because of its small size and low weight. (Problem is, my lightweight kit usually consists of an MX and either an M-28/3.5 or M-50/1.4, neither of which will work with the *ist. I'm undoubtedly an oddball exception in the grand scheme of things!) Anyway, since the cameras appeal to a wider audience than the lenses they are bound to attract more attention, scrutiny and criticism. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pairs
På torsdag, 18. september 2003, kl. 22:05, skrev Jostein: - Original Message - From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ooooh, yes! I think pairs would be a wonderful theme. Can we have it? Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Um... Wouldn't that need two galleries? :-) Jostein Of Course! DagT
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
John wrote: JF> It's funny how all the tirades seem to be aimed at the newer JF> bodies, and not at the new FAJ lenses. Actually they had their share (don't know if you were here by then). People still find it hard to believe FAJ is the future - maybe because the first incarnations are cheap consumer grade. But it's obvious Pentax stripped the aperture ring for good. We'll see FA/FA* around for a while, not necessarily to support "classic" bodies like MZ-S and MZ-5n, but simply because Pentax was always slow to replace their lens line. Servus, Alin
Re: Pairs
"Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >if i use gray paper, i have to use white ink and black ink... Same if you use a sheet of clear film. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Tripod use
OK :-) I have a nice Manfrotto 058 tripod, the one where you can centrally control all three legs together or each leg seperately. Heavy, but very steady. Problem is, I had a photocamerahead and now I have a camcorder head. This one however doesn't take my K2 very well. I can only get it on horizontal,it won't tilt to vertical. And changing the head each time is too cumbersome. Now what? :-) Paul Delcour > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:23:10 -0600 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Tripod use > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:24:03 -0400 > > > - Original Message - > From: "Paul Delcour" > Subject: Re: Tripod use > > >> I feel I'm being insulted: anal retentive: what does that mean? A touch of >> not enjoying this list is beginning to creep in. What the ### am I doing >> wrong? >> >> I do not disagree with what you're saying, just that I've encountered > plenty >> of situations where tripod use is out of the question. Otherwise we'd all > be >> tripoding along, wouldn't we. > > Sorry, I should have dropped a smiley in there someplace. > > William Robb >
Remote control question
what is the difference between the Remote Control Set D and the Remote Control Set F? everything i can find out about them makes them seem the same functionally. the Remote Control Set E at least looks like it controls zooming. there isn't a D on the Pentax web site, so it looks like it is an older control superceeed by the F, but nothing says anything that i can see. i know the D can control the *ist and i am guessing the F model will too. Herb
