Re: M lenses (long)
> >From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>I've heard of the F80-210/3.5-4.5 Zoom > > > >Are you sure such a lens ever existed? K85-210mm/3.5 did, though. Ekh-um... Not really :-) There was a K 80-200/4.5 though. regards, Łukasz [EMAIL PROTECTED] === www.fotopolis.pl === internetowy magazyn o fotografii
Re: *istD teleconvertor idea
> I had actually considered that it could have a mechanical-to-electronic > convertor built in, to allow full function from pre-A lenses, without even > needing stop down metering. This wouldn't work because the pre-A lenses don't have a linear apperture coupler, among other things. -Scott
Re: *ist D Survey
Hi! ===8<==Original message text=== RB> 16th September - Sunny Brighton ===8<===End of original message text=== My birthday it is. Strong the force is with this one. Boris
some ist-D pics today
I was at my favourite camera store today and in walked the Pentax rep. After a brief discussion he asked if I wanted to see the ist-d. he handed me an ist-d with FAJ18-35 lens. He went on to describe all the great features. I was not really listening just admiring the camera. It's simply a spectacular camera. Somewhere between the LX and MZ-S in build quality and feel. Anyone who holds it will want it. For all those who have not yet seen it, you owe it to yourself to get your hands on one. You won't want to put it down. Vic
Re: M lenses (long)
Sorry, Should have been the F70-210/4-5.6 Bob S. From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've heard of the F80-210/3.5-4.5 Zoom Are you sure such a lens ever existed? K85-210mm/3.5 did, though. Andre -- _ High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
Not as fast as AE with auto exposure bracketing. If you have the time, fine, but if you dont, your outta luck J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 12:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses > > Many people have mentioned just using a hand held meter > intead of TTL. That will work a lot of the time, but > not with varible aperture zooms, and macro will also > get tricky because of light loss at high mags. Ditto > for filters and extension tubes and such... Two words: Instant review. William Robb
RE: *istD teleconvertor idea
I feel DSLRs will become more and more mainstream as time goes by and film will become the unusual/niche/history. Once that happens somebody will build a K mount DSLR if Pentax wont. There are still new cameras being made today that use M42 and that is 25 years "obsolete"...Why? Because the lenses are still out there and are very inexpensive. I wouldnt even be suprised if a M42 DSLR turns up eventually I think the digital capture thingy will spread far and wide once the costs come down. I dont think it will be a very limited scope thing like you are suggesting.. Maybe pentax will go that way like they did with M42, but somebody else can pick up the slack if they do. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD teleconvertor idea - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *istD teleconvertor idea > I think the opposite might happen. If the K/M lenses begin > to sell real cheap on the used market due to Pentax's > stupid failure to support, SOMEONE ELSE will make a K > mount DSLR, like sigma, ricoh or somebody > Those lenses are too plentiful and high quality to > go wasted I don't know if camera makers actually profit enough from camera bodies to support a lens line. When I was selling, the idea was to sell them a body as inexpenively as possible, then sell them some lenses that actually made money for everyone up the food chain. I kinda hate to break it to you, but the K mount is probably not going to make the transition to digital any further than what we now have. In an ideal world, I would be market testing Pentax DSLRs, with an upscale one with full K mount compatability just around the corner. I don't think this will be the case. I believe if they were going to take the K mount forward, they would have included it in the ist D. The idea of getting as many people to buy the camera When I came to this conclusion, it became a lot easier to accept the camera. Since I don't think there will ever be a full K mount compatable digital, the decision then was to either start building another system from another manufacturer, begrudgingly selling Pentax along the way if needed, or buying the ist and incorporating it into what I have that it works with, and perhaps buying another lens or two. Admitedly, I have enough A type lenses to keep me happy, and the K lenses do work just fine for picture taking, as long as one is not in a terrible hurry. I bought Pentax for the lenses. I would be happier if the ist was full K compatable, but I am not willing to give up Pentax lenses because it isn't. William Robb
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses Many people have mentioned just using a hand held meter intead of TTL. That will work a lot of the time, but not with varible aperture zooms, and macro will also get tricky because of light loss at high mags. Ditto for filters and extension tubes and such... Two words: Instant review. William Robb Or count the stops from wide open after using the meter button.
Re: M lens and *ist D
Chill out. I meant exposure-wise. I.e. if you meter, manual mode does the right thing mechanically. Some posts had me wondering if the *D did the right thing since they implied that the aperture didn't stop down until *after* the shutter had tripped. Rob Studdert wrote: On 9 Oct 2003 at 13:17, Robert Gonzalez wrote: Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. Not that I don't like the pic but hey you can tell jack * about a lens or just about any other part of the system by viewing a 600x400 pixel image. 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: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:40:10 -0700, Keith Whaley wrote: > Once I think they offered a kit for a fairly reasonable price. > Don't know what they did...deliver this huge crate to your front lawn? Most of the kits are the frame (or the rails and you weld them up) and some suspension components and the interior (or parts of it) and you have to supply the driveline (at least) from donors. Still an inexpensive way to get a car that's a lot of fun. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses > > Many people have mentioned just using a hand held meter > intead of TTL. That will work a lot of the time, but > not with varible aperture zooms, and macro will also > get tricky because of light loss at high mags. Ditto > for filters and extension tubes and such... Two words: Instant review. William Robb
Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 21:59:36 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cotty, I did say "a Cotty," didn't I? So maybe I meant another Cotty. Any Cotty in a storm. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
The new glass, like the new cameras arent as good as the old ones in some ways. I prefer manual focus. They havent made any lenses with as good manual focus feel as the K/M since the K/M (20 years?). Dont blame me, blame Pentax. Secondly, if you had a dozen perfectly working nice K/M lenses how "happy" would you be that they cant do AE or TTL metering anymore for no good reason? They are basic "K" mount. To not support the most basic of K functions is absurd... Many people have mentioned just using a hand held meter intead of TTL. That will work a lot of the time, but not with varible aperture zooms, and macro will also get tricky because of light loss at high mags. Ditto for filters and extension tubes and such... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses On 9 Oct 2003 at 22:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pentax has produced a fantastic digital camera, and at $1500 ($1700 some places) > US, is priced about right. I don't like all this whining on the list re non-A > lenses. If you haven't bought a new lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax > in business anyway. No other company has campatibility back to the mid-1980s > like Pentax. And the *ist-D is very competitive with any Canon SLR right now. So everyone whining hasn't spent good money on new Pentax glass recently? 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: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
> > Caterham has improved them a bit. Many more engine options. De Dion rear > suspension. Actual seats that slide forward and backward to adjust for > different sized drivers. > > But, they're still pretty basic, elemental things, that go like stink. I'm sure it's anathema to mention them in front of true believers, but if you really want one that goes like stink the Japanese ripoff (often referred to as a Rotus) will run rings round most real 7s.
Re: M lens and *ist D
On 9 Oct 2003 at 22:05, Bill Owens wrote: > I didn't post the photo for critique, just to prove that proper exposure is > possible with other than A lenses on the *ist D. The 8 1/2 x 11 borderless > print looks fine to my eye. Hi Bill, No offence intended, the pic is fine, I just don't understand the comment that was posted by Mr Gonzalez. With respect I don't think you'd have quite so much success using an external meter if the subject was specular and had high contrast. However I'm keen to see how effective the histogram display and contrast control is in the *ist D, I use it regularly on my E-10 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: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses > > So everyone whining hasn't spent good money on new Pentax glass recently? Yer Aussie dollars are no good here, Toots! I bought a new lens a couple of years ago. First new one I bought since 1988 or so when I bought Pentax in the first place. You can't make it a black and white issue. William Robb
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" Subject: Has Pentax missed again? > The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on > Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of > features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently > takes marvelous photos. Seen the Rebel. It's Ok. The ist is nicer, even the Rebel owner that I know thinks so. Canon has a very real advantage over Pentax, that being mature manufacturing of DSLRs. They've been doing it long enough now that they have paid for a lot of development costs. The Rebel is nothing new, its a stripped 10D in a cheap plastic body. > > The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently swayed > by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they realize > they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy this Canon, > not the starkistdee. Pentax will fail to gain (and probably continue to > lose) market share unless it comes out with something comparably priced. Umm, how can they lose market share in the DSLR market? If they sell any product, they gain market share. What is the alternative? I guess that would be to stay out of the DSLR market. How long do you think Pentax would keep making SLRs and lenses if they did this? Photography is going digital. There is no doubt in my mind that this is so. It offers too many advantages over film, with few disadvantages. All the new photolab technology is geared towards digital. Noritsu is marketing 13 minilabs on their website right now. Only 4 are optical printers. The state of technology at the moment gives digital a quality edge over film when both are printed on the same machine. This is not likely to change. We already complain all the time about how hard it is to get quality printing from film, and it is going to get harder, quite a bit harder. Unless you have a digital camera. If you have one of those, and use it at an appropriate file size setting, it gives very nice prints. Nicer than those from film, in fact. So, the choice a camera maker has is to get into the market, or eventually close up shop completely. Pentax would become the next Olympus if they stay out of the game. Do you want a Pentax SLR or not? They have to be on the shelf for you to be able to make that choice. Canon is a Goliath at the moment, and is throwing their weight around pretty good. That makes it tough to compete, but the alternative is to go home. If Pentax does that, we all lose, film SLRs are on their way out. Of this I am sure. Personally, I think the ist D is worth the extra coin. It is a nicer camera. William Robb
Re: *istD teleconvertor idea
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *istD teleconvertor idea > I think the opposite might happen. If the K/M lenses begin > to sell real cheap on the used market due to Pentax's > stupid failure to support, SOMEONE ELSE will make a K > mount DSLR, like sigma, ricoh or somebody > Those lenses are too plentiful and high quality to > go wasted I don't know if camera makers actually profit enough from camera bodies to support a lens line. When I was selling, the idea was to sell them a body as inexpenively as possible, then sell them some lenses that actually made money for everyone up the food chain. I kinda hate to break it to you, but the K mount is probably not going to make the transition to digital any further than what we now have. In an ideal world, I would be market testing Pentax DSLRs, with an upscale one with full K mount compatability just around the corner. I don't think this will be the case. I believe if they were going to take the K mount forward, they would have included it in the ist D. The idea of getting as many people to buy the camera When I came to this conclusion, it became a lot easier to accept the camera. Since I don't think there will ever be a full K mount compatable digital, the decision then was to either start building another system from another manufacturer, begrudgingly selling Pentax along the way if needed, or buying the ist and incorporating it into what I have that it works with, and perhaps buying another lens or two. Admitedly, I have enough A type lenses to keep me happy, and the K lenses do work just fine for picture taking, as long as one is not in a terrible hurry. I bought Pentax for the lenses. I would be happier if the ist was full K compatable, but I am not willing to give up Pentax lenses because it isn't. William Robb
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
On 9 Oct 2003 at 22:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pentax has produced a fantastic digital camera, and at $1500 ($1700 some places) > US, is priced about right. I don't like all this whining on the list re non-A > lenses. If you haven't bought a new lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax > in business anyway. No other company has campatibility back to the mid-1980s > like Pentax. And the *ist-D is very competitive with any Canon SLR right now. So everyone whining hasn't spent good money on new Pentax glass recently? 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: Has Pentax missed again?
This one time, at band camp, Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on > Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of > features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently > takes marvelous photos. I really dont think Pentax is too fussed about the dSLR market, consentrating more on point and shoot folks is where the dollars are. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Pentax has produced a fantastic digital camera, and at $1500 ($1700 > some places) US, is priced about right. I don't like all this > whining on the list re non-A lenses. If you haven't bought a new > lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax in business anyway. You can buy lenses made since 1981 and still own older lenses and want to use them. My M lenses are the 40/2.8, 135/3.5, and 200/4. None are particularily expensive, but none of them get much use anyway (except the 40/2.8, and I probably wouldn't care too much about using that on the *ist D, the body is a little too big for such a tiny lens and the A 24/2.8 that I own is a more useful prime normal lens for this camera). The 135/3.5 and 200/4 are lenses that I rarely use -- rarely enough that I don't really want to replace them with FA or A equivelents but often enough that I'd like to use them with metering. I still bought the *ist D since I also own some nice A and FA lenses (A 24/2.8, A 50/1.4, FA 50/1.7, FA 28-70/4, Tamron 90/2.5 with an A adapter) and I look forward to buying the FAJ 16-45/4 when it comes out. I tend to prefer the A and M lenses because they have a better build quality and feel better to me than the FA lenses (excluding the limited lenses). There are a lot of wonderful M primes on the used market that would be nice to have the option of using on the *ist D. alex
Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
I have been testing the fantastic *ist-D with a variety of lenses. So far, the Pentax 80-200/2.8 FA and Pentax 200/4 FA Macro have been stunning.beautiful. Tamron 24-135 not bad. Pentax 20-40/4 FA very good. Tamron 80-200/2.8 superb (adaptall pk-a mount works just fine). I believe the quality/resolution of the top Pentax & 3rd party lenses goes well beyond what a 6mb sensor can display, from my tests so far. I would like more people on the list to test the best Pentax and 3rd party lenses and give us feedback. Pentax has produced a fantastic digital camera, and at $1500 ($1700 some places) US, is priced about right. I don't like all this whining on the list re non-A lenses. If you haven't bought a new lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax in business anyway. No other company has campatibility back to the mid-1980s like Pentax. And the *ist-D is very competitive with any Canon SLR right now. Robert James USA
Re: (OT) Back from my travels (Yellowstone)
From: "jerome" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I actually had a guy say proudly and emphatically, "look at my lens!" "Yes it's big, but does it stand up?" > Oh my gosh. It was so absurd. I wanted to smack him with a tokina. > - jerome (who has no idea why he mentioned Tokina... it just sounded right). Nothing against Tokina, but LOL > The funny part is that he engaged me in conversation only to tell me, "I've > been looking to shoot some mule deer, but can't find any!". That's funny > because I saw so many mule deer that it was ridiculous. In fact, no more than 2 > minutes after he pulled off, about 4 of them walked right out of the brush (and > I think I heard a mutley snikker from one). Reminds me of the Kit Kat where the photog was at the zoo behind his tripod at the panda enclosure- waits forever and no pandas, turns his back to have a Kit Kat and the pandas come out doing a musical number on rollerskates.. and of course, are gone by the time he turns around again :) Cheers, Ryan
Re: Stofen Omnibounce for AF360FGZ flash unit?
Hey Rob, thanks for that! Looks about right; think I'll go get mine now :) Digital cameras are convenient aren't they.. Ryan From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Here are the pics: > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/Imgp0485.jpg > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/Imgp0486.jpg > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/Imgp0487.jpg > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/Imgp0488.jpg > http://www.calcot.plus.com/Pentax/Imgp0484.jpg
Re: Slide vs Film
I switched from negative to positive (slide) film because I seemed to keep having inconsistencies in the color when the prints were made -- from lab to lab. If you can find a good lab you are happy with, prints can be less trouble than slides. OTOH, I also got a scanner and a printer, and I am happy now to make my own prints. Probably not the highest quality around, but they please me. It also puts me in control of the color balance. Where I try to reproduce the slide colors. I just like the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) aspect of slide film. And with certain types of slide film I think the colors are more vibrant. OTOH, the downside is the lack of latitude as others have mentioned and that is still a problem I run into, being still a relative novice at photography. Underexposure (blacking out) being the main one. Or not good results when there is a lot of contrast. Shadows too dark. It's a trade off. If I did a lot of people shots I'd probably go with negative film, but I do primarily scenery and stuff, so I go with slide film. I started with Velvia, but Provia 100F probably does scan better. It's what I've been using lately. However, when the hills are green again I will try Velvia again because I love the color it produces with a lot of green. Pretty much I've said what every one else has. I think. One thing, slide film does force you to be more accurate in your exposure and if one is a novice I don't think that is entirely a bad thing. That is one upside of the lack of latitude. HTH, Marnie aka Doe
Re: M lens and *ist D
I didn't post the photo for critique, just to prove that proper exposure is possible with other than A lenses on the *ist D. The 8 1/2 x 11 borderless print looks fine to my eye. Bill - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Re: M lens and *ist D > On 9 Oct 2003 at 13:17, Robert Gonzalez wrote: > > > Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. > > Not that I don't like the pic but hey you can tell jack * about a lens or just > about any other part of the system by viewing a 600x400 pixel image. > > 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: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
Thanks everyone for the recommendations! Cotty, I did say "a Cotty," didn't I? So maybe I meant another Cotty. Marnie aka Doe Besides I am too far away for *that.* (You Brits and your funny slang. ;-))
Re: website similarities, copyrights, etc.
Funny you should ask. When I had graywolf.com, I was contacted by a company out of Tennessee going by Graywolf, Inc. Scary. However, upon a bit of research I discovered that I have been using graywolf.com since before they had formed their company. That I had registared a DBA (Graywolf Consulting) in Charlotte NC several years before they had formed their corportation. They had no recourse against me, and I could have prevented them from operating in NC if I had desired to go to the trouble. The decided not to trouble me, and I decided not to trouble them. The only time you are going to find a problem is: 1. You register a domain name that is similar to a well known business. 2. You are both pretty much in the same business. 3. Or, as you mentioned, they are a site with a very negative image the reflects back on your site. Since there is no conflict, and since the .net address was available when they registered the .com and they did not grab it up. I think you have nothing to worry about. And, welcome back, Jerome. Glad you had such a great trip. jerome wrote: Here's a question for you omnipresent/omnipotent pentaxians. When I registed my website some months ago ( http://exposedfilm.net ), I noticed that someone else had already registered exposedfilm.COM ( http://exposedfilm.com ). However, their site wasn't up yet. Over the past few months, I'd check periodically to see if anything had popped up, but found nothing. I was kinda holding my breath hopeing that it would be neither a porn site nor anything too close to (and worse yet, much better than!) my site. Well, it finally popped up. It's a movie company. While I'm pleased with that (as if my opinion matters), I was kinda taken aback with the similarity of the logo. We both use a film strip, albeit different types of film. The only solace is that the orientation of mine is landscape, while theirs is portrait. After I thought about it some, the following question popped up: Given the similarity in name and also logo, are their any circumstances in which I should anticipate this being a problem? Personally, I don't care much about it... but as my imagination ventured off, I pictured them contacting me sometime down the line saying that I have infringed on some copyright / trademark law that I don't even know about... and all I'd be able to say was "but I was here first!"... Now *that* would bother me. It seems like we are both pretty small entities right now, but if they should blow up (not literally), then this line of question may not seem as unreasonable. What do you think? Side note: They're in Canada, I'm in the USA. Aside the side note: since they're the "com" and I'm the "net", they'll likely get more of my mis-directed traffic (not that I Have much anyway) than me theirs. That's crummy, too. I can't catch a break. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
RE: OT: Nice bird, nice car...
Hey now, get in line :-) Cesar Panama City, Florida but willing to travel -- -Original Message- -- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:54 PM -- -- On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:16:49 +0100, Cotty wrote: -- -- > [...] our gorgeous presenter Hannah, [...] -- -- So, does she need a husband ... fiancee ... boy toy ... :-) -- -- TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- --
RE: (OT) Back from my travels
Come on now Jerome, let's not start getting soft now. Gew up in the south Bronx, César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:35 PM -- -- > you were gone? -- -- -- You Bum!!! -- -- -- -- but thats why we love you. --
RE: (OT) Back from my travels
Doug, You need to pay more attention... :-) Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Doug Brewer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 4:03 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Subject: Re: (OT) Back from my travels -- -- -- At 10:17 AM 10/9/03, throwing caution to the wind, jerome wrote: -- -- -- -- you were gone? --
RE: Slide vs Film
Thought about putting my two cents in... I know I have been quiet here, I did not start to realize my potential in photography (not like there was much there) - the technical aspects, not the compositional - until I started shooting slides. Basically, to reiterate what has already been said, what you see is what you shot - save for the intrinsic properties of the film itself and given a reliable developer. Recently I have taken some shots using print film - assignments of sorts. I find myself always going to the back of the prints to read what corrections the developers have done. Bracketing can be nullified in print film by the developer. You can more easily see the bracketing differences with slide film. I use my exposure skills when shooting triathlon finish line photos. We do one-hour developing to get the photos to the competitors in a timely manner. I know that when the developers do no corrections the exposure will be fine due to my exposure settings. This comfort has come from shooting slides. One of the best compliments I have ever received - on more than one occasion - has been the people in the lab commenting on my consistency in exposure. I have had about four people tell me that with the first shot on the roll if there is a correction needed it will be such for the rest of the roll. In this sense I would recommend using slide film. My two cents, for what it is worth, Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:43 PM -- -- "Patrick Wunsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- -- >I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my -- skill level may be -- >considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on -- film to this -- >point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat -- satisfied with the -- >results. -- >What does it take to switch to color slide and be able to -- enjoy the results? -- -- Patience, practice and attention to metering (a good deal of exposure -- bracketing will probably be helpful, especially at first). -- -- >Is it worth the switch? -- -- I think so, personally. -- -- -- When you shoot slide film you get back a transparency which can be -- viewed and judged directly (or with a loupe, at least!) What -- you got is -- what you see. -- -- After I get a roll of slides processed, the first thing I do -- is put them -- all up on a slide sorter (a kind of cheap, non-color-corrected light -- box). Then I immediately toss all the ones that are obvious rejects -- (glaring faults that can be seen even without using a loupe). This -- usually culls the lot down by 1/4 to 1/3 (even though my skills have -- been improving, my standards seem to have to have gone up -- proportionally). The remaining slides get scanned at medium -- resolution -- with all-automatic settings on the scanner. These scans -- usually make it -- easy to detect more subtle deficiencies like lack of sufficient -- sharpness for my tastes. If necessary, the remaining slides -- may go onto -- the light box for examination under a loupe and more -- critical evaluation -- of exposure accuracy (which will have been compensated for -- slightly by -- the automatic settings of the scanner). Because I'm shooting slides, -- this evaluation process is based on what's on the *film -- itself*, not on -- what's on a print made from the film. -- -- Personally, I usually keep about 12-16 slides from each 36-exposure -- roll. Never more than 20. I consider myself to be doing well if I get -- two shots on a roll that I think are worth making into prints. -- -- -- -- Mark Roberts -- Photography and writing -- www.robertstech.com --
RE: (OT) Back from my travels (Yellowstone)
Here is my story from Yosemite... I was there in 1985, if I remember correctly. I had a Super Program and an LX (still have both of them). The latter with slide film. This is where I accidently put my finger through the SP shutter - horrors! It forced me to use the LX for the rest of the day. I did put the blades in place that night and the SP worked great since then. Anyway, I got there late in the week in the spring season. I was at Sequoia National Park for an afternoon and headed to Yosemite that evening. I was able to spend the night at the rustic hotel there. The following morning I got up early and explored. I did not hear my first person until noon. I did not see anyone until 1 p.m. I felt as if I owned the place. Talking to the workers there they commented that the waterfalls that year were the best in at least the previous five years. All in all an excellent experience. It was made all the more special since my supervisor insisted I leave work at LeMoore Naval Air Station as I had worked enough hours that week. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:45 PM -- -- -- Back in '67 you would have hated visiting the valley at -- Yosemite National -- Park. Lots of cars. Lots of people. My one burning memory -- of that place -- was walking by a camper truck and seeing some family -- watching TV. I am -- happy that the park service is banning vehicles in the valley now. -- -- -- Thanks for the story. I enjoyed it. -- -- Jim A. -- -- > From: jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:00:49 -0400
Re: M lens and *ist D
On 9 Oct 2003 at 13:17, Robert Gonzalez wrote: > Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. Not that I don't like the pic but hey you can tell jack * about a lens or just about any other part of the system by viewing a 600x400 pixel image. 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: Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5
> well, I have both the above mentioned lensen now. Both from ebay, > both in excellent condition and I am very happy. Especially the > fisheye is a joy to use. And to my amazement, depending on the > subject and standpoint, the distortion is not bothering me at all. > It even adds to the picture and in some I cannot even tell I used > the fisheye, rather some super wide angle lens. Great! If it's the Pentax SMC or the SMC-A 15/3.5, it's ~not~ a fisheye - in fact, it is a very fine rectilinear wide-angle lens, with almost no distortion of its own. (Of course, there is a "perspective distortion" when using any such a wide-angle lens that you would try to work around.) Fred
Re: *istD teleconvertor idea
> Now here is an interesting question. Would there be enough of a market > to make it worthwhile for someone to set up a company to retrofit > modified mounts on older Pentax lenses? Either one that has a manual > stopdown lever, or better one that simulates an 'A" mount. Now the > leaves the question do you guys really want to use your old lenses badly > enough to pay for such? This is tricky... modifying the mount to be always 'A', (then you leave your lens at fully closed F stop), and drill contacts appropriately to set the correct aperture range could be done pretty easily. However, the non-linearity of the aperture lever is the real problem here. I can't think of an easy way to fix that... I wouldn't pay for it, but then, the M lenses I have aren't particularly expensive or exciting (M28/2.8, M50/1.7, M135/3.5, M200/4 and a crappy third party 28-80 zoom). Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
Probably do no good, but I it would be fun to send him and e-mail: Hi, I am the expert who wrote your ad for you. I will have my attorney contact you about my fee. Continuing to use the ad constitutes your agreement to pay my $500.00 fee in full. Dr E D F Williams wrote: I wrote a careful description for a Leitz Heine Phase Contrast condenser and put it on eBay with a couple of pictures. I gathered all the information I could find and did a good job of the text. But I withdrew the item very fast when I saw there was another listed. I had missed it somehow. I decided to wait a week or so and then put it on again. These things are worth a lot of money (maybe $600) and so I didn't want competition. However a third Heine condenser has suddenly appeared on eBay and the description the seller has put up has been taken -- word for word -- from mine. The SOB even had the cheek to write 'I don't no much about this so I had an expert write this for me [sic].' How does one deal with this? The bugger has a very good feedback rating and seems to be well known. And his starting bid was low, there is no reserve, and it seems to be in very good shape from the pictures. Argh! Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages "The Cement Company from HELL!" Updated: August 15, 2003 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
RE: *istD teleconvertor idea
I think the opposite might happen. If the K/M lenses begin to sell real cheap on the used market due to Pentax's stupid failure to support, SOMEONE ELSE will make a K mount DSLR, like sigma, ricoh or somebody Those lenses are too plentiful and high quality to go wasted J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 8:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD teleconvertor idea Now here is an interesting question. Would there be enough of a market to make it worthwhile for someone to set up a company to retrofit modified mounts on older Pentax lenses? Either one that has a manual stopdown lever, or better one that simulates an 'A" mount. Now the leaves the question do you guys really want to use your old lenses badly enough to pay for such? Rob Brigham wrote: > You could also build in a lever to activate 'stop down' on the lens so > that the *ist D could meter properly on pre-A lenses. Then everybody > would be (almost) happy! > > >>-Original Message- >>From: Peter Loveday [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: 08 October 2003 23:43 >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: *istD teleconvertor idea >> >> >>I was thinking about the *istD last night (which I seem to do >>a lot of these days :), and thought of something; is it >>possible to make a 0.67x TC for it? I'm not talking about >>some wide-angle adapter on the end of the lens, but exactly >>the same principle as the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs that currently exist. >> >>I would assume the major limitation with making a <1.0 TC has >>always been lack of image circle beyone the outside of the >>lens? This is not the case with the *istD, as there is >>plenty of image circle spare. Is there something I'm missing >>here, or can this be done? And if so, why hasn't anyon >>(Canon, Nikon) already done it... I for one would pay good >>money for such a convertor. >> >>And the really good bit... it seems to me, with this TC you >>would actually GAIN just over stop of light? As it would >>effectively be squashing the 35mm image circle into the APS >>sensor size, all the original light would be gained, but in a >>smaller area. Which makes sense anyway, given that apertures >>are relative to F stop. Then I could choose between my >>FA50/1.4 as a nice portrait lens, with FOV crop, or a normal >>lens at F1.0 Or perhaps an A50/1.2, or would that be A50/.85... >> >>So is any of this possible, or have I missed some fatal >>problem in the whole idea? If it is, Pentax, please make >>one! I'd buy one, and I'm sure many other users would too. >> >>Perhaps Cotty could rig something up with custom engineering >>and a FA1.4xS adapter mounted backwards? :) >> >>Love, Light and Peace, >>- Peter Loveday >>Director of Development, eyeon Software >> >> > > > -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: *istD teleconvertor idea
Now here is an interesting question. Would there be enough of a market to make it worthwhile for someone to set up a company to retrofit modified mounts on older Pentax lenses? Either one that has a manual stopdown lever, or better one that simulates an 'A" mount. Now the leaves the question do you guys really want to use your old lenses badly enough to pay for such? Rob Brigham wrote: You could also build in a lever to activate 'stop down' on the lens so that the *ist D could meter properly on pre-A lenses. Then everybody would be (almost) happy! -Original Message- From: Peter Loveday [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 October 2003 23:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *istD teleconvertor idea I was thinking about the *istD last night (which I seem to do a lot of these days :), and thought of something; is it possible to make a 0.67x TC for it? I'm not talking about some wide-angle adapter on the end of the lens, but exactly the same principle as the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs that currently exist. I would assume the major limitation with making a <1.0 TC has always been lack of image circle beyone the outside of the lens? This is not the case with the *istD, as there is plenty of image circle spare. Is there something I'm missing here, or can this be done? And if so, why hasn't anyon (Canon, Nikon) already done it... I for one would pay good money for such a convertor. And the really good bit... it seems to me, with this TC you would actually GAIN just over stop of light? As it would effectively be squashing the 35mm image circle into the APS sensor size, all the original light would be gained, but in a smaller area. Which makes sense anyway, given that apertures are relative to F stop. Then I could choose between my FA50/1.4 as a nice portrait lens, with FOV crop, or a normal lens at F1.0 Or perhaps an A50/1.2, or would that be A50/.85... So is any of this possible, or have I missed some fatal problem in the whole idea? If it is, Pentax, please make one! I'd buy one, and I'm sure many other users would too. Perhaps Cotty could rig something up with custom engineering and a FA1.4xS adapter mounted backwards? :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Has Pentax missed again?
The November Pop Photo arrived today, complete with an article on Canon's new dSLR selling for $899. Yep, $899. It lacks a bunch of features, but otherwise has the same sensor as the 10D and apparently takes marvelous photos. The issue is gaining market share. Newcomers are more frequently swayed by price. It is not until they are more experienced that they realize they will need those extra-cost features. Newcomers will buy this Canon, not the starkistdee. Pentax will fail to gain (and probably continue to lose) market share unless it comes out with something comparably priced. Joe
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
I've hankered for a Lotus Seven for half my life, it seems! Once I think they offered a kit for a fairly reasonable price. Don't know what they did...deliver this huge crate to your front lawn? Hell, I'd have had to quit work for 6 or so months, to build the car. But talk about raw fun! I suspect one of the few cars that might match it in pur sang fun would have been an early 4-banger Morgan. Ahhh, the good old days... keith frank theriault wrote: > > Hi, Tom, > > Yep, Sevens are still around. Now they're being made by Caterham, having > acquired the rights from Lotus some 30 years ago. They were originally > designed as an auto-crosser for those who couldn't afford to trailer them, > so they were street legal, and could be driven to and from the events. > > Caterham has improved them a bit. Many more engine options. De Dion rear > suspension. Actual seats that slide forward and backward to adjust for > different sized drivers. > > But, they're still pretty basic, elemental things, that go like stink. > > I know that when Lotus made them you could get the motorcycle fenders, or > "clamshell" ones. I always thought the clamshells looked cooler, but > apparently they caused lift at high speeds, so that's likely why they aren't > made anymore. > > One day, if I win the lottery... > > cheers, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > >From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ... > >Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:34:02 -0400 > > > >Gee, the Super 7 still lives. I really wanted one of those when I was a > >tad. Tell's you how long those things have been around, they had cycle type > >front fenders back then. > > > >frank theriault wrote: > > > >>I'd give my left - well, my left something - for a Caterham Super > >>Seven. With the most powerful engine option, they'll do, what, like a 4.1 > >>second 0-100kmph? That's ultra-exotic territory, for a small fraction of > >>the price. Even cheaper, if you assemble it yourself! > >> > >>Do they still have a few of the eccentricities of the old Lotii? Like the > >>outside exhaust pipe, that would burn your leg when getting out of the car > >>if you weren't careful? I'm sure that with the roof up, you have to do > >>the "Seven Scissors Entry" technique; what would any Super Seven be > >>without that? > >> > >>BTW, Collin, Jags are quite reliable these days, ever since being bought > >>out by Ford. This weekend, in fact, I'm going on a little road trip with > >>my only rich friend, in his XK8. He bought it when they first came out, > >>what, around 6 years ago? Hasn't had a problem with it yet. > >> > >>I don't get to ride in a Jag very often. It's a wonderful feeling. You > >>~know~ all the young ladies aren't looking at you, it's the car. But, you > >>don't care a whit! > >> > >>cheers, > >>frank > >> > >> > >> > >>"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > >>pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Subject: Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ... > >>>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:06:49 +0100 > >>> > >>>Caterham - small, nippy and bloody good fun. > >>> > >>>In fact, more like a motorcycle than a car... > >>> > >>>m > >>> > >>>Robert Gonzalez wrote: > >>> > > >>> > How bout: > >>> > > >>> > Toyota - good value, reliable, nothing in the high end > >>> > Chevy - inexpensive, gets you there, conservative not innovative > >>> > Chrysler - never the leader, good mix of features but never > >>>outstanding > >>> > > >>> > Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > >>> > > ... which one would it be more like? > >>> > > > >>> > > Jaguar -- Small, sleek, but not very reliable. > >>> > > GM -- A clumsy juggernaut with a mediocre product. > >>> > > Accura -- Not a Mercedes, but really nice for the price. > >>> > > > >>> > > ... or some other copmany ... and why? > >>> > > > >>> > > Collin > >>> > > KC8TKA > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >> > >>_ > >>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* > >>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >> > >> > > > >-- > >graywolf > >http://graywolfphoto.com > > > >"You might as well accept people as they are, > >you are not going to be able to change them anyway." > > > > > > _ > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Slide film advise
Ramesh, I have not used Sensia 100 or 200, only 400. The 400 is well saturated. The 100 is a consumer version of Astia, so will not be saturated. Images I have seen taken with Sensia 200 are not overly saturated. However, almost anything will give you better saturation and contrast than E200. E200 is supposed to do better pushed. There is no Provia 200. You can, however, shoot Provia 100F, Velvia 100F, or E100VS at ISO 200 (or even higher), processed with a one stop (or more) push. The results are quite good. Provia 400F is a wonderful film, very well saturated. It is also expensive, and intolerant of even slight overexposure. Joe
Re: M lenses
I don't think coatings have a lot to do with it. Lens are designed by a process called ray tracing. What that means is simply drawing lines simulating light rays through a set of lenses. Change the lens design slightly and do it again. They go through this process many many times until as many aberations as possible have been eliminated. As you can imagine before computers that was a long drawn out laborous project. Usually it ended at a point that was considered "good enough". Some of those lenses had that indefinable quality. Now with computers it is fairly easy. So they keep going until the lens design is fully optimised. However, lens design is a trade off, do you want maximum sharpness, maximum contrast, maximum smoothness? Do you want it to work best close up, or at infinity? Or do you want to design for a compromise of all of these. With your nifty supercomputer you can do anything you want, but some of these things are mutually exclusive. You can not have it all. So tell me if you can design your lens for the best looking photograph, or the best magazine test results but not both; and your job depends on you employer making money with your choice; which do you choose? Pentax being different chose photo quality in the past. Since I have never used their newer lenses I do not really know if they still do. mike.wilson wrote: Wonder if it has anything to do with coating. This was very hit & miss for the first 100(?) years of photography. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
One more time: AF360FGZ vs. AF 500 FTZ
I know this has been asked and answered before, and I apologize (before asking again). What features/options would I lose using the AF360FGZ on the PZ-1p? What would I lose using the AF 500 FTZ on more recent bodies - MZ-S, starkist, starkistdee, or future dSLRs? Thanks, Joe
Re: Slide vs Film
I think you meant colour negatives vs colour slides. They are both regular films and you don't need special equipment. What is important when shooting slides is that the exposure accuracy is important. Once you get the slides back, they can be viewed on a lightbox with aloupe (4-10X)/standard-lens (reverse position) or through a projector. If you want to put them on the web, it's best you have a film scanner and plently of free time and patient, and photo-editing (Photoshop or similar softwares) is unavoidable if you want great results no matter how good the scans are. That's pretty much what you need. For Velvia, I rate it at 40. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my skill level may be considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on film to this point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat satisfied with the results. Most of this can be attributed to "operator error" however there are those moments when everything should have been perfect but leave me quite displeased when I get the results back from the lab. Of coarse, some shots are better than others but generally I have not been impressed with what comes back. The greens are not nearly as green as I remember them. Same with the blues and reds.. There's just something missing. I have visited many of your web pages out there and the one thing that appears consistant is that mnay of the pictures that I find so awe-inspiring are those taken using color slides. Specifically, I have been most impressed with those results from Fuji Velvia in the ISO 50 range. Sorry to be so winded so I'll get to my point. What does it take to switch to color slide and be able to enjoy the results? I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color slides into jpgs or any type of viewable picture for that matter. Is it worth the switch? What kind and how much of an investment in equipiment can I expect to have to make? I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of being able to look at a fisnished product like you can with film. . Someone please enlighten me or send me down the right path at least. Once again, any and all help is very much appreciated! Pat Wunsch _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Hi, Tom, Yep, Sevens are still around. Now they're being made by Caterham, having acquired the rights from Lotus some 30 years ago. They were originally designed as an auto-crosser for those who couldn't afford to trailer them, so they were street legal, and could be driven to and from the events. Caterham has improved them a bit. Many more engine options. De Dion rear suspension. Actual seats that slide forward and backward to adjust for different sized drivers. But, they're still pretty basic, elemental things, that go like stink. I know that when Lotus made them you could get the motorcycle fenders, or "clamshell" ones. I always thought the clamshells looked cooler, but apparently they caused lift at high speeds, so that's likely why they aren't made anymore. One day, if I win the lottery... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ... Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:34:02 -0400 Gee, the Super 7 still lives. I really wanted one of those when I was a tad. Tell's you how long those things have been around, they had cycle type front fenders back then. frank theriault wrote: I'd give my left - well, my left something - for a Caterham Super Seven. With the most powerful engine option, they'll do, what, like a 4.1 second 0-100kmph? That's ultra-exotic territory, for a small fraction of the price. Even cheaper, if you assemble it yourself! Do they still have a few of the eccentricities of the old Lotii? Like the outside exhaust pipe, that would burn your leg when getting out of the car if you weren't careful? I'm sure that with the roof up, you have to do the "Seven Scissors Entry" technique; what would any Super Seven be without that? BTW, Collin, Jags are quite reliable these days, ever since being bought out by Ford. This weekend, in fact, I'm going on a little road trip with my only rich friend, in his XK8. He bought it when they first came out, what, around 6 years ago? Hasn't had a problem with it yet. I don't get to ride in a Jag very often. It's a wonderful feeling. You ~know~ all the young ladies aren't looking at you, it's the car. But, you don't care a whit! cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ... Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:06:49 +0100 Caterham - small, nippy and bloody good fun. In fact, more like a motorcycle than a car... m Robert Gonzalez wrote: > > How bout: > > Toyota - good value, reliable, nothing in the high end > Chevy - inexpensive, gets you there, conservative not innovative > Chrysler - never the leader, good mix of features but never outstanding > > Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > > ... which one would it be more like? > > > > Jaguar -- Small, sleek, but not very reliable. > > GM -- A clumsy juggernaut with a mediocre product. > > Accura -- Not a Mercedes, but really nice for the price. > > > > ... or some other copmany ... and why? > > > > Collin > > KC8TKA > > > > _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway." _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Rob, the mechanical linkage needed to feedback the aperature ring position from the K and M lenses is simply not there on the *istD. All there is at that part of the mount is a bit of open space. This I know from actually comparing the *istD with my MX at GFM. The so called K/M function is actually labeled "Allow shutter to fire with lens off "A" setting", or something very close to that. You needd to set it to use a newer lens with the aperture ring set to any thing other than "A" as well. I have come to think the fact you can use older lenses at all is not a design feature so much as a lucky accident. Rob Studdert wrote: On 8 Oct 2003 at 21:14, graywolf wrote: Over the years mechnical things have gotten more expensive, and electronic things have gotten less expensive. We are talking a moving target here not something set in concrete. You can not compare 1983 manufacturing economics and 2003 manufacturing economics directly. The discussion keeps slipping sideways. So if we rule out lenses which require mechanical aperture ring feedback and its associated stratospheric costs we are left with the potential for aperture ring operation with F/FA and LTD lenses. All of which provide aperture feedback via electronic signalling (?) So why was aperture ring operation disabled when it would likely have been simply be a matter of a software I/O routine? (I assume that information such as MTF etc. is still being read when using these lenses) The "expense to develop the software" argument is getting thinner too, how much time and effort was invested in the software multi-exposure function? Who is going to seriously use this function (which is found on virtually no other DSLRs) over an external image editor? Really a waste of time but an interesting spec to quote for a marketing guru or a gizmo freak. So I guess they had the opportunity but not the impetus to implement aperture ring control. Why is the question? 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 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
On 9/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >It's nice to be back. I hope all has been well. Best regards, > - jerome Nice trip Jerome. Glad you made it in one piece (just about ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
On 9/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >So I'd like to pull a Cotty. :-) Here in England, that phrase has a very certain meaning. If only I were available!!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Fisheye - 135/2.5 - 15/3.5
Hi all, well, I have both the above mentioned lensen now. Both from ebay, both in excellent condition and I am very happy. Especially the fisheye is a joy to use. And to my amazement, depending on the subject and standpoint, the distortion is not bothering me at all. It even adds to the picture and in some I cannot even tell I used the fisheye, rather some super wide angle lens. Great! The 135/2.5 is wonderful, but as I do not use tele a lot, I'll need some getting used to this one. I'll post some pictures and let you know where to find them. No fancy artistic stuff, just on the fly ones. One of the 15/3.5 lenses I missed on ebay because I was overbid, is now on sale again as the buyer also bought the A version. He's asking more than he ended up paying for it (small wonder), but I wander, now with my fisheye (and my Tokina 17/3.5) whether it's worth going for it once more. No doubt great lens, but at 444 euro's or 555 buy now it's too much I feel. :-) Paul Delcour
RE: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
In my experiences the 35 3.5 have been tremendous image quality, as good or better than the 35 f2. and they are cheap 35-45 lenses right now. You cant go wrong... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 3:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations? On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andre Langevin wrote: > DJE wrote: > > >SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap > >"beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. > > I am a bit surprised by your evaluation here. Have you used a SMCT > 35/3.5 in your comparison? I find the K 35/3.5 (supposedly identical > to the SMCT 35/3.5) superior to the K35/2 (supposedly identical to > the SMCT 35/2) as far as flare and resolution are concerned. I'm a bit surprised by the results of my testing, I'll admit, given that it should be easy to build a good 35/3.5 and much harder to build a good 35/2.0. However, the 35/3.5 was the least sharp 35mm prime I tested in both center and corners, only achieving parity at f/8.0. In general other 35s were equally sharp at a stop wider aperture than the 35/3.5. Of course most of them also open at least a stop wider! This was the Super Takumar and not Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version, which is probably why the more modern 35mms I tested against it did better. On the other hand, in my testing the non-SMC 35/f2.0 was sharper across most apertures. This is NOT TO SAY that the 35/3.5 Super Takumar is a bad lens. It outperforms the Pentax A and M zooms I tested it against in that focal length range, and probably most other zooms as well. By f/8.0 it is competitive with many other wide-angle lenses. Note also that I'm testing for sharpness/contrast, not bokeh, distortion, or any of the other sometimes subtle properties that give a lens its "look". "Flare" in my mind is something that describes how a lens handles light coming in at difficult angles, which is also not something I tested. I suspect that the 35/3.5 was a "beginner" lens because in its day 35mm was the standard wide-angle focal length, the one recommended by Keppler in his "Asahi Pentax Way" as a first wide-angle. It appears to have been felt back then that wider lenses were too obviously distorted. Nikon also made 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 kinds of lenses back then that were small and cheap and they have only mediocre reputations in the Nikon community, also probably as "first wide angles". Nikon also made a 35/2.0 for years, just like Pentax. Gerjan's book says that the front element of the 35/3.5 was NEVER multi-coated, even in the SMC Takumar version, which also suggests that it was a "bargain starter" lens for Pentax. (That's also why I don't have an SMC 35/3.5 to test, given that I've already got a non-smc one. I don't have an SMC-T 35/2.0 because I can't find one!) The existance of the 35/2.0 by itself makes me wonder how Pentax felt about the 35/3.5. They didn't in the same era make more than one concurrent version of the 24 or 28, but they made 2 35/2.0 designs and had them availible alongside the 35/3.5 for years. I could always have a bad sample, too. DJE
Re: *ist D Survey
9/30/03 Stamford CT USA CW - Original Message - From: "zoomshot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:08 AM Subject: *ist D Survey > So how many do we actually have? > > Please state when and where obtained; > > 19th September - London > > Ziggy > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
Re: *ist D Survey
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 16:08:20 +0100, zoomshot wrote: >So how many do we actually have? > >Please state when and where obtained; > >19th September - London 23 September - Melbourne Australia Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: *ist D Survey
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, zoomshot wrote: > So how many do we actually have? > > Please state when and where obtained; October 3 or thereabouts, Edina MN. DJE (actually my girlfriend's camera--I've got spotmatics)
Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andre Langevin wrote: > DJE wrote: > > >SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap > >"beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. > > I am a bit surprised by your evaluation here. Have you used a SMCT > 35/3.5 in your comparison? I find the K 35/3.5 (supposedly identical > to the SMCT 35/3.5) superior to the K35/2 (supposedly identical to > the SMCT 35/2) as far as flare and resolution are concerned. I'm a bit surprised by the results of my testing, I'll admit, given that it should be easy to build a good 35/3.5 and much harder to build a good 35/2.0. However, the 35/3.5 was the least sharp 35mm prime I tested in both center and corners, only achieving parity at f/8.0. In general other 35s were equally sharp at a stop wider aperture than the 35/3.5. Of course most of them also open at least a stop wider! This was the Super Takumar and not Super-Multi-Coated Takumar version, which is probably why the more modern 35mms I tested against it did better. On the other hand, in my testing the non-SMC 35/f2.0 was sharper across most apertures. This is NOT TO SAY that the 35/3.5 Super Takumar is a bad lens. It outperforms the Pentax A and M zooms I tested it against in that focal length range, and probably most other zooms as well. By f/8.0 it is competitive with many other wide-angle lenses. Note also that I'm testing for sharpness/contrast, not bokeh, distortion, or any of the other sometimes subtle properties that give a lens its "look". "Flare" in my mind is something that describes how a lens handles light coming in at difficult angles, which is also not something I tested. I suspect that the 35/3.5 was a "beginner" lens because in its day 35mm was the standard wide-angle focal length, the one recommended by Keppler in his "Asahi Pentax Way" as a first wide-angle. It appears to have been felt back then that wider lenses were too obviously distorted. Nikon also made 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 kinds of lenses back then that were small and cheap and they have only mediocre reputations in the Nikon community, also probably as "first wide angles". Nikon also made a 35/2.0 for years, just like Pentax. Gerjan's book says that the front element of the 35/3.5 was NEVER multi-coated, even in the SMC Takumar version, which also suggests that it was a "bargain starter" lens for Pentax. (That's also why I don't have an SMC 35/3.5 to test, given that I've already got a non-smc one. I don't have an SMC-T 35/2.0 because I can't find one!) The existance of the 35/2.0 by itself makes me wonder how Pentax felt about the 35/3.5. They didn't in the same era make more than one concurrent version of the 24 or 28, but they made 2 35/2.0 designs and had them availible alongside the 35/3.5 for years. I could always have a bad sample, too. DJE
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
At 10:17 AM 10/9/03, throwing caution to the wind, jerome wrote: you were gone?
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
Hi, Thursday, October 9, 2003, 7:54:13 PM, you wrote: > Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Thursday, October 9, 2003, 6:22:17 PM, you wrote: >> >>> Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's a cheerful thought. I learned today that the whole of Yellowstone is in the caldera of an enormous and very, very powerful active volcano of extraordinary magnitude. And the centre is rising. When it blows it will change the entire planet. >> >>> Been reading "Krakatoa"? >> >>no, just started reading this: >>http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713996404/qid=1065723234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-7804832-0159011 > Than you should have a go at "Krakatoa: the Day the World Exploded", by > Simon Winchester (author of "The Professor and the Madman" and "The Map > that Changed the World"). yes, I probably will sometime. Although I think I'll have a break from vulcanism for a bit - I seem to have had a run on it recently, by coincidence. I've just finished 'Pompeii' by Robert Harris, recently watched something on TV about it, and before 'Pompeii' I read 'Out of Eden' by Philip Oppenheimer http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841196975/qid=1065728559/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/202-7804832-0159011 which makes a lot of the Toba explosion on Sumatra 74,000 years ago, that gave the ancestors of most of us rather a hard time when it covered the whole of India in ash. It was the biggest explosion of the last 2 million years. http://zyx.org/TOBA.html -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: (OT) Back from my travels (Yellowstone)
Thanks. I was last in the world's first national park in 1967. There were hordes of tourists even then, and being conscious of the environment wasn't yet on the horizon for most of them. I got the most from my visit there by taking a very early morning hike to a high area overlooking the basin where Old Faithful is located. With the majority of tourists still asleep I kind of felt like the first human to ever see this phenomenon. Back in '67 you would have hated visiting the valley at Yosemite National Park. Lots of cars. Lots of people. My one burning memory of that place was walking by a camper truck and seeing some family watching TV. I am happy that the park service is banning vehicles in the valley now. I live in Oregon, in the Portland area. I witnessed the power of a volcano when Mt. St. Helens had several eruption in 1980. Mt. Hood, a dormant volcano, 70 air miles from Portland could erupt some day. Not far from Hood is an area called the Three Sisters, three volcanic peaks in Central Oregon. Geologists have detected a bulge growing there that could be a harbinger of an eruption. Thanks for the story. I enjoyed it. Jim A. > From: jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:00:49 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (OT) Back from my travels (Yellowstone) > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:02:12 -0400 > > Jim, > >> What didn't you like about Yellowstone? > > You sure you wanna know? I should warn you that the word "long winded" wasn't > invented until I got email access some years ago. > > Anyhow... You know... I've been asking myself the same question about > Yellowstone for about 3 weeks now. Haven't quite come up with a definitive > answer. But as my initial statement suggested, I wouldn't say I "disliked" it; > rather, I was disappointed. I expected more. I expected bells, whistles, > music, > and dancing bears with grass skirts and hula hoops. But instead I got stupid > tourists and burned down forests. > > I think it was all the hype. See, my world is very different. Growing up in > (the rougher parts of) Brooklyn, NY, things like national parks and wildlife > refuges never quite made it onto my radar until I took up photography about 2 > years ago. Prior to that, I thought a "state park" meant that the government > helped pay for the fences, handball walls and basketball rims that I played > on. > In fact, prior to this trip I had never heard of ANY of the other national > parks that I visited (Badlands, Glacier, Ranier, etc)... But somehow, I still > knew the name Yellowstone (oh, and Yosemite... but I wasn't sure where either > one was located). I guess because it's the oldest and most celebrated of them > all, somehow it seaped into my brain over time. With that in mind, I thought > it > would be the grandest, most beautiful place I'd visit on my trip. > > It wasn't. In fact, it was far from it. > > The fires if 1988 (?) left seemingly 80% of the park totally scorched, with > only dead wood and otherwise empty fields left to adorn the hillsides > [sidenote: the more I learned about the fire, the more I could appreciate > it... > but still...]. The ice covered mountains and grand vistas that awed me in > Montana and Washington, and also at the Grand Tetons, were gone. The rain > forests of Olympic and the northwestern corner of Ranier didn't exist here > either. The dozens of waterfalls that I had photographed at the previous 3 > Parks on this trip were either missing or dried up. In my eyes, it just seemed > kinda... plain. > > And then there were the people. Oh my gosh, the people. Even in late September > this place was a carnival, and I think that may be what got to me the most. I > could not IMAGINE visiting this place in midsummer. Like a walk-off homerun by > the visiting team, the drones of tourist and the atmosphere that they created > totally killed my buzz. My tranquility was stolen. My pace was quickened. I > suddenly felt rushed. And my nerves agitated. I no longer felt like a *part* > of > nature, instead I became an observer of it like everyone else. Usually, I'm > not > that sensitive to such things but I guess you get used to things quickly. In > the parks prior to this, I would be in camp locales of 100+ sites... but would > often be one of maybe 4 or 5 groups in the entire area! Ten at most (the > beauty > of traveling in fall, I suppose). With "crowds" that small, you get a fair > share of interaction (more intimate at that), but yet enough personal space to > provide a sense of oneness with your surroundings. To make a quick (albeit > cliche) sentence of a long soliloque, I had never felt so one with nature in > my > life... until I got to Yellowstone. > > At Yellowstone I felt like I was back at Coney Island. > > Admittedly, however, the place is likely 100x more astounding in the midst of > Spring or Summer. > > The only solace was that leaving the road
Re: Slide vs Film
"Patrick Wunsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my skill level may be >considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on film to this >point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat satisfied with the >results. Most of this can be attributed to "operator error" however there >are those moments when everything should have been perfect but leave me >quite displeased when I get the results back from the lab. Of coarse, some >shots are better than others but generally I have not been impressed with >what comes back. The greens are not nearly as green as I remember them. >Same with the blues and reds.. There's just something missing. What kind of film have you been using? >What does it take to switch to color slide and be able to enjoy the results? Patience, practice and attention to metering (a good deal of exposure bracketing will probably be helpful, especially at first). >I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color slides into jpgs or any >type of viewable picture for that matter. A basic film/slide scanner to start with. Add a color inkjet printer and you can do your own prints, too. >Is it worth the switch? I think so, personally. >What kind and how much of an investment in equipiment can I expect to have >to make? I'd say you could probably get a cheap scanner and printer for around $300.00 or so. >I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of being able to look at >a fisnished product like you can with film. > >Someone please enlighten me or send me down the right path at least. Once >again, any and all help is very much appreciated! You do indeed get to look at a "finished product" when you shoot negative film, but it's been "finished" by someone else - often with just a machine making the decisions regarding exposure and color balance. How accurately the results represent what's on the actual negative can vary tremendously. I've just been going through a roll of negatives that my girlfriend's sister shot. She thought she had nothing worth keeping on the roll because all the prints looked awful. (She wants some prints anyway because of the sentimental/personal value of the content of the photos - family stuff.) It turns out that a lot of the shots are just fine. The lab that made the prints just did a horrible job. When you shoot slide film you get back a transparency which can be viewed and judged directly (or with a loupe, at least!) What you got is what you see. After I get a roll of slides processed, the first thing I do is put them all up on a slide sorter (a kind of cheap, non-color-corrected light box). Then I immediately toss all the ones that are obvious rejects (glaring faults that can be seen even without using a loupe). This usually culls the lot down by 1/4 to 1/3 (even though my skills have been improving, my standards seem to have to have gone up proportionally). The remaining slides get scanned at medium resolution with all-automatic settings on the scanner. These scans usually make it easy to detect more subtle deficiencies like lack of sufficient sharpness for my tastes. If necessary, the remaining slides may go onto the light box for examination under a loupe and more critical evaluation of exposure accuracy (which will have been compensated for slightly by the automatic settings of the scanner). Because I'm shooting slides, this evaluation process is based on what's on the *film itself*, not on what's on a print made from the film. Personally, I usually keep about 12-16 slides from each 36-exposure roll. Never more than 20. I consider myself to be doing well if I get two shots on a roll that I think are worth making into prints. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Slide vs Film
Hi, I shoot mostly on slides, though not Velvia. I tend to use Kodachrome. If your aim is to produce scans you can get perfectly good results from colour negative. In fact they may even be better than slides for scanning because they have more exposure latitude so you will probably have a better tonal range. It is as easy to scan negatives as it is to scan slides. You buy a scanner, learn to operate it, learn to tweak the results in some imaging software, and there you have it. It's quite easy to get acceptable results for the web. It's possible that your dissatisfaction with prints comes from the printing process rather than the developing process. Developing negatives and slides both appear to be very standard processes. So your negatives may be as good as slides would be, as far as processing accuracy goes. Of course you may prefer the colour palette of something like Velvia, and that's fine. I don't know what country or city you're in, but in the larger towns and cities in Western Europe it should be quite easy to get your negatives or your slides scanned to a cd by the lab. This may be your best choice for now until you decide to spend money on your own scanner. If you can get a personal recommendation for which lab you choose, all the better, but most pro labs should be able to do a decent job. Once you have the slide or neg scanned you can look at a finished product by printing it yourself, or having it printed professionally. If you decide to go mad for slides then, assuming you're not doing your own processing, you will need some or all of the following pieces of equipment: slide mounts folders and storage a daylight-balanced lightbox - many people build their own a loupe - good ones are quite pricey a projector - pricey a projection screen or a white wall Slides shot with a good lens, projected to a large size through a high quality projector with a good lens, onto a high quality screen, look stunning. You will probably also enjoy looking at them on the light box through a good lupe (Schneider, Pentax, etc.). Hope this is some help. Bob Thursday, October 9, 2003, 7:27:11 PM, you wrote: > I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my skill level may be > considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on film to this > point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat satisfied with the > results. Most of this can be attributed to "operator error" however there > are those moments when everything should have been perfect but leave me > quite displeased when I get the results back from the lab. Of coarse, some > shots are better than others but generally I have not been impressed with > what comes back. The greens are not nearly as green as I remember them. > Same with the blues and reds.. There's just something missing. > I have visited many of your web pages out there and the one thing that > appears consistant is that mnay of the pictures that I find so awe-inspiring > are those taken using color slides. Specifically, I have been most > impressed with those results from Fuji Velvia in the ISO 50 range. > Sorry to be so winded so I'll get to my point. What does it take to switch > to color slide and be able to enjoy the results? I am completely illiterate > as to how you turn color slides into jpgs or any type of viewable picture > for that matter. Is it worth the switch? What kind and how much of an > investment in equipiment can I expect to have to make? I'm not sure is I > want to give up the convenience of being able to look at a fisnished product > like you can with film. . > Someone please enlighten me or send me down the right path at least. Once > again, any and all help is very much appreciated! > Pat Wunsch
Re: Slide vs Film
Greetings. > I have visited many of your web pages out there and the > one thing that appears consistant is that mnay of the pictures > that I find so awe-inspiring are those taken using color slides. Don't be deceived by false correlations (sorry, I'm part statistician). While your conclusions may be accurate, it may not always be the slide film itself that makes the photos / websites worthwhile. Rather, it may be the case that a photographer who uses slides is often of a different calibre since slides are occasionally required for publication purposes. Their use of slides (i.e., professional minded) may also speak to the extent to which they meticulously design their sites, edit their photos, etc... which *in turn* corresponds to the quality that you see in their photos on the web. So it may not be the photo medium... but rather the photog. Heck. Look at some of phillip greenspun's (sp?) photos on the web (thats the photo.net guy). I've seen some great stuff on the web that I thought was slide film, but found out it was simply a good application of Kodak Royal Gold 100 or 200 and/or just a well-done scan (some of Mark Cassino's macro shots quickly come to mind). I've also seen (and produced) some crudy slides scans. With that said, I *am* a big fan of slides and have used only slides since "turning amateur" two years ago. I went straight to slides for all of the usual reasons; most of which deal with the elimination of a middle man wrt how your exposures turn out. It was also more cost effective (36exp roll + development via mailer < $7) And once I did, I was hooked. The images just absolutely DANCE on the light table. It's incredible... but (as your inquiry suggests) getting past the light table is often the problem. > Sorry to be so winded uh yeah. me, too. > What does it take to switch > to color slide and be able to enjoy the results? > I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color > slides into jpgs or any type of viewable picture > for that matter. Is it worth the switch? Depends on what you shoot and why. For me, it makes sense. I like nature stuff (animals included) and for now, my only goal = jpegs viewable on the web. I very seldom print anything nor need prints to pass around. And I can store slides very easily (big binders with plastic pages hold hundreds of slides). But for someone like Cory Waters who shoots primarily family stuff, and needs / prefers prints for the grandparents and such, switching to slides made almost no sense at all. Whether store-bought, or done at home, prints from slides are expensive any way you look at it. And often times, the quality suffers if you try to go the cheap route. I had some done at Wolf once which where just atrocious! and I think it costed about $1 per 4x6" print. > What kind and how much of an > investment in equipiment can I expect to have to make? 1. light table. 2. lupe for viewing slides with magnification 3. 2400 dpi or more film scanner 4. quality printer I'd say that those are the four basics, with the first 3 being essential. 1 thru 3 can likely be had for $300 or less, total. With the advent of digital slrs, the price of a decent beginner scanner (e.g., HP photosmart s20, if there are any left) has dropped like a stone. You can make a list and buy everything, or do it over time. I did it over time. I started out with nothing. Just a reversed 50mm lens that I already owned (for magnification) and holding the slide up to the light. Crude, but effective. Eventually I bought a light table (Portatrace brand). Then a lupe (Pentax). Neither one was very expensive, but both quite effective. To get past the light table, you need the scanner. There are a billion threads on that in the archives, plus lots of dedicated websites, so I won't bother. But basically, you scan, select output type and, viola, you have your file. As for printing, the easy answer is: see Mark Roberts. That, my friend is an art, if you ask me. He and I essentailly have the same printer (epson 1270 or 1280), but I've yet to figure the ins and outs of getting superb prints, whereas Mark and many others can write a book on it. > I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of > being able to look at a fisnished product > like you can with film. But it can be 10x more rewarding when you print it yourself and it comes out *exactly* as desired. I think the key is how many you plan to print from each roll (not to mention for what/who, and what size). WRT printing, I think the point to where it is no longer economical to use slides is reached rather quickly (if you are not selling prints). OTHER OPTIONS: 1. Admittedly, colors and sharpness tend to be rendered much better in slide film. But (if your final goal is web design) also keep in mind that another option is to try to milk more out of what you already have. If you are going to buy the scanner anyway, then buy one that takes both typ
Re: *ist D Survey
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "zoomshot" > > Subject: *ist D Survey > > > > So how many do we actually have? > > > > Please state when and where obtained; > > > > Sept 26th, Regina. Oct 1, Seattle, WA (Kenmore Camera) I just rejoined this list today. I was a member for many years (and hosted Boz's website for a while) but left the group when I switched to digital a few years ago. Thankfully Pentax finally came out with a D-SLR so I'm back. alex
Re: *ist D and Adobe colour space
If the previous link doesn't help, try this one: http://www.printimagematching.com/ Bill - Original Message - From: "zoomshot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:34 PM Subject: *ist D and Adobe colour space > Changed the colour format on the camera to AdobeRGB for the first time and > the image will not load in Photoshop7. > > There is a way to get by this, go to Colour settings and for AdobeRGB(98), > untick profile mismatches and missing profile. This only works if your > monitor has been calibrated. > > Looks like a firmware fix! > > Regards, > > Ziggy > > >
Re: *ist D Survey
- Original Message - From: "zoomshot" Subject: *ist D Survey > So how many do we actually have? > > Please state when and where obtained; > Sept 26th, Regina. William Robb
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Thursday, October 9, 2003, 6:22:17 PM, you wrote: > >> Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>Here's a cheerful thought. I learned today that the whole of >>>Yellowstone is in the caldera of an enormous and very, very powerful >>>active volcano of extraordinary magnitude. And the centre is rising. >>>When it blows it will change the entire planet. > >> Been reading "Krakatoa"? > >no, just started reading this: >http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713996404/qid=1065723234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-7804832-0159011 Than you should have a go at "Krakatoa: the Day the World Exploded", by Simon Winchester (author of "The Professor and the Madman" and "The Map that Changed the World"). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: *ist D and Adobe colour space
Also, see if you can find the Adobe P.I.M. II plug in. It will allow you to basically load what the camera saw in PS 6&7, as long as you save in TIF or JPG. Try this link for starters: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supAdvice.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes¬eoid=17769&cookies=no Bill - Original Message - From: "zoomshot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:34 PM Subject: *ist D and Adobe colour space > Changed the colour format on the camera to AdobeRGB for the first time and > the image will not load in Photoshop7. > > There is a way to get by this, go to Colour settings and for AdobeRGB(98), > untick profile mismatches and missing profile. This only works if your > monitor has been calibrated. > > Looks like a firmware fix! > > Regards, > > Ziggy > > >
*ist D and Adobe colour space
Changed the colour format on the camera to AdobeRGB for the first time and the image will not load in Photoshop7. There is a way to get by this, go to Colour settings and for AdobeRGB(98), untick profile mismatches and missing profile. This only works if your monitor has been calibrated. Looks like a firmware fix! Regards, Ziggy
Slide vs Film
I've been dabbling in photography for a few years but my skill level may be considered amateur at best. Everything I shoot has been on film to this point and to a certain extent I have only been somewhat satisfied with the results. Most of this can be attributed to "operator error" however there are those moments when everything should have been perfect but leave me quite displeased when I get the results back from the lab. Of coarse, some shots are better than others but generally I have not been impressed with what comes back. The greens are not nearly as green as I remember them. Same with the blues and reds.. There's just something missing. I have visited many of your web pages out there and the one thing that appears consistant is that mnay of the pictures that I find so awe-inspiring are those taken using color slides. Specifically, I have been most impressed with those results from Fuji Velvia in the ISO 50 range. Sorry to be so winded so I'll get to my point. What does it take to switch to color slide and be able to enjoy the results? I am completely illiterate as to how you turn color slides into jpgs or any type of viewable picture for that matter. Is it worth the switch? What kind and how much of an investment in equipiment can I expect to have to make? I'm not sure is I want to give up the convenience of being able to look at a fisnished product like you can with film. . Someone please enlighten me or send me down the right path at least. Once again, any and all help is very much appreciated! Pat Wunsch
Re: M lens and *ist D
Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. Bill Owens wrote: Taken with a 100/4.0 M Macro in manual at f8, metered with handheld meter. No manipulation other than resizing http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41 Bill
Re: website similarities, copyrights, etc.
> I don't think there's any reason to be concerned. The "strip of film > with sprocket holes" motif is very widespread. I agree... but I guess it's the combination of that with the similar name that piqued my concern. In any event, I agree that it's likely no big deal. Thanks for weighing in, Mark. - jerome
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
Hi, Thursday, October 9, 2003, 6:22:17 PM, you wrote: > Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Here's a cheerful thought. I learned today that the whole of >>Yellowstone is in the caldera of an enormous and very, very powerful >>active volcano of extraordinary magnitude. And the centre is rising. >>When it blows it will change the entire planet. > Been reading "Krakatoa"? no, just started reading this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713996404/qid=1065723234/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-7804832-0159011 -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
Chris wrote: > I just sent this question to the seller. Should be interesting to see > what he says. > > " so please ask > your professional and let me know what he says. ..." You wicked dude!!! ERN rofl
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
> I'm just saying there's a happy medium. > You brought the camera to serve > you, not the other way around. Excellent Point! Trust me, I had to remind myself of that very thing several times during the trip. It was too easy to get caught up in the "Assignment" mode and lose scope of the enjoyment aspect until it was too late (i.e., until I wore myself out). Happened at least twice. Luckily I met some great people along the way that (thru their own spoken appreciation of the environment) helped me regain perspective on occasion. Thanks.
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
Don. If you hosted the pix off eBay, the easiest way to do something is change the original pix to something a little different, and change your URL in the auction (possible as long as you have no bids currently). Personally I don't think complaining to eBay is any good; by complaining to the perp you are just tipping him off to your little ruse. When you relocate the URL of your pix, make sure you overtype picture author in a strategic place. I don't generally bother overtyping on used items unless they are considered unusual; used is rarely homogenous and the perp will simply be running the risk of shooting themselves in the foot. Cheers Peter
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
> Here's a cheerful thought. I learned today that the whole of > Yellowstone is in the caldera of an enormous and very, very powerful > active volcano of extraordinary magnitude. And the centre is rising. > When it blows it will change the entire planet. yeah. All of these parks are amazing in their own respects. Along those lines, the movie they showed at the visitor center at Mt. St. Helens (i *think* the most recent volcano to go off in the states, Hawaii aside) really freaked me out. It ends with the statement "... because it's only a matter of time!" And then the curtains open and your staring (thru a glass wall) into the open crater of this massive volcano. The effect was super cool... but it had me ready to get off that volcano... and fast! The power of nature to transform the landscape. Amazing. The earth is indeed very much alive.
Re: (OT) Back from my travels (Yellowstone)
> How many guesses do we get as to what brand it was? NONE! because I rather not talk about it Oh my gosh. It was so absurd. I wanted to smack him with a tokina. The funny part is that he engaged me in conversation only to tell me, "I've been looking to shoot some mule deer, but can't find any!". That's funny because I saw so many mule deer that it was ridiculous. In fact, no more than 2 minutes after he pulled off, about 4 of them walked right out of the brush (and I think I heard a mutley snikker from one). I just laughed. I wanted to tell the guy, well, if you get out of your SUV and stop whirling thru the park at 60 MPH "looking" for something to shoot... ya might find something! - jerome (who has no idea why he mentioned Tokina... it just sounded right).
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
<< See: http://www.caterham.co.uk/ >> See:http://www.old-jalopies-I-have-owned.com/rusty-jap.htm
OT: Nice bird, nice car
<< 've been shooting all week on a short series about famous motion picture locations in our area and today we were up at Stowe school and gardens in Buckinghamshire. We had a James Bond double (works with Shaun Connery a lot) >> UK folks might like to hear a younger Sean on 01273 697272. Check it out, I swear they sampled him. Peter
Re: *ist D Survey
September 6th, Japan
RE: *ist D Survey
16th September - Sunny Brighton > -Original Message- > From: zoomshot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 October 2003 16:08 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: *ist D Survey > > > So how many do we actually have? > > Please state when and where obtained; > > 19th September - London > > Ziggy > > >
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
> Hi, > > Thursday, October 9, 2003, 4:36:15 PM, you wrote: > > > Here's a cheerful thought. I learned today that the whole of > Yellowstone is in the caldera of an enormous and very, very powerful > active volcano of extraordinary magnitude. And the centre is rising. > When it blows it will change the entire planet. > > Cheers, > > BOB > Well at least the potholes in the roads will be filled in then. Dave
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
It's good to hear you enjoyed your trip, but don't worry that you could have taken more pictures. It was a holiday, not an assignment, right? It's better to soak up the beauty around you with the naked eye when you can. The photos are a record of that experience and feeling. If you see the whole trip through the viewfinder, the experience and emotion are diminished. I'm just saying there's a happy medium. You brought the camera to serve you, not the other way around. Pat White
Re: website similarities, copyrights, etc.
jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Here's a question for you omnipresent/omnipotent pentaxians. > >When I registed my website some months ago ( http://exposedfilm.net ), I >noticed that someone else had already registered exposedfilm.COM ( >http://exposedfilm.com ). However, their site wasn't up yet. Over the past few >months, I'd check periodically to see if anything had popped up, but found >nothing. I was kinda holding my breath hopeing that it would be neither a porn >site nor anything too close to (and worse yet, much better than!) my site. > >Well, it finally popped up. It's a movie company. While I'm pleased with that >(as if my opinion matters), I was kinda taken aback with the similarity of the >logo. We both use a film strip, albeit different types of film. The only solace >is that the orientation of mine is landscape, while theirs is portrait. > >After I thought about it some, the following question popped up: Given the >similarity in name and also logo, are their any circumstances in which I should >anticipate this being a problem? Personally, I don't care much about it... but >as my imagination ventured off, I pictured them contacting me sometime down the >line saying that I have infringed on some copyright / trademark law that I >don't even know about... and all I'd be able to say was "but I was here >first!"... Now *that* would bother me. It seems like we are both pretty small >entities right now, but if they should blow up (not literally), then this line >of question may not seem as unreasonable. > >What do you think? I don't think there's any reason to be concerned. The "strip of film with sprocket holes" motif is very widespread. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: *ist D Survey
09 October USA Bill - Original Message - From: "zoomshot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:08 AM Subject: *ist D Survey > So how many do we actually have? > > Please state when and where obtained; > > 19th September - London > > Ziggy > > >
RE: So Wheres all the Wonderful Art? (Long and boastful)
Hi Folks! > "So quite a few pdml'ers have digital SLR's which makes it much easier to > post your images. So my question is where is all the wonderful images > your all shootings with your new cameras?" > I'm too busy selling my 11x14" prints, framed and matted to 16x20", for $100 a pop! And I don't want the images ripped off, so I'm not posting them anywhere. Also I'd just as soon let the buyers feel like the print on their wall is somewhat "exclusive", even though I let more than one person buy the same photo. But that's gotta be better than seeing the artwork you bought "all over the net". :-) :-) :-) BTW, I don't think I'm making any money at this price, I'm mostly just trying to not to lose too much. (Until I get really famous I guess. :-) The paper and inks cost about $4, the pre-built frame will cost about $30-$40, the foam board about $1.50, the pre-cut mat board $2.50-$5. And don't forget the spray adhesive, vinyl gloves, glass cleaner, cloths, cutter blades and the eyelets and wire for hanging, not to mention my time and effort in taking the photo as well as doing all this framing work. Shooo! And now I have "invested" (thrown money away) on a Logan mat board cutting rail and a couple of cutters, it's very easy to cut my own mats, so now I can double mat with my own color combinations, and I can start using 12x16" mats to get larger images, with even borders too, in the same 16x20" frames. This is _way_ too much fun!!! (And I don't charge myself $0.75 a cut either!) I'm using a very early C*n*n 10D, with the C*n*n 16-35 L zoom, and an amazing (for $150 anyway) C*n*n 70-300 zoom. (Notice interesting gap between 35 and 70!) Then I whisk the RAW files to my Mac with a Firewire reader, sharpen and crop them a bit in Photoshop, then print them on the Enhanced Matte paper on an Epson 2200. I'm mostly shooting the truly astounding variety of flowers my neighbor lady has growing around our apartment. I understand the Town Hall of Hamden, Connecticut is showing nine of my recent flower pictures, two are hanging in the Mayor's office now and they are going to put all nine in the Library for a few months with a sign in the lobby telling visitors to go look at them. These are a collection I sent to my Mom to help her redecorate the ancestral manor, and when she called a friend of hers (who chairs the Connecticut Council on Fine Arts or something) to come look at them, the woman really liked them and wanted to show them somewhere. Cool, huh? Thanks for listening! - THaller
Re: (OT) Back from my travels
lol. Good to have you back. Humor, it seems to me, is the essence of groups like this. At least at times. -Lon jerome wrote: After driving around the country semi-aimlessly for just over a month (about six weeks I think), I finally arrived back "home" to Atlanta. Can't exactly call it home since I no longer have a residence here... but I now realize more than ever that despite my prior reluctance to calling it home, over 10 years Atlanta has become everything that is familiar to me. And Man, it's good to be back! In short, the trip was phenomenal. This country (USA) has so much to see, it's incredible. I spent significant time in 3 of the dubya's (Wisconsin, Washington, and Wyoming), as well as Montana, South Dakota, Illinios and Minnesota. Also passed thru about 5 or 6 other states, but didn't get to venture off the highway much in those locations. I'm told by family that photo mailers have already started to trickle in (I mailed as I exposed), so any worthwhile photos (?) should start popping up on my website in a week or two. But herein lies the problem with not ever having been anywhere: I was so awestruck by the beauty of most of these places that I occasionally fell into a stupor (okay, moreso than usual) and found myself more inclined to just sit there and soak up the atmosphere rather than trying to capture it on film. So I didn't burn Nearly as many rolls as I thought I would. I'd guess that I still have about 40 unexposed rolls in the boot... but when I did shoot, I at least strived for a notch or two above "vacation photo" status. But in hindsight, I'm thinking that far too many of my shots were too cliche / typical shots... Either way, I'll find out just how bad it was once I return up north and rip the boxes open. In Pentax news, I met a handful of non-list pentax users (all amateurs, or slightly advanced) on the road and pointed quite a few of them to the PDML, so they are likely lurking out there somewhere. Accordingly, I hope that you all have been on your best behavior... though I doubt that very seriously. Thanks again to Jim M., Mark R., and Maris L. for letting me crash at their pads when needed. Much appreciated. Lastly, 10 Random blurbs about my trip: 1. Yellowstone was a disappointment. I enjoyed the other national parks much more. 2. I bumped into a lone Bison (almost quite literally) during a 10 mile trek thru Wyoming woods. After deciding that he sufficiently scared the @#&! out of me, he decided to keep going and surprisingly kept the trail while letting me tag along. We hiked together for about 2 miles before he turned off trail and went his own way. Great conversationalist. An experience of a lifetime. 3. Elks do serious damage to cars (and people!... but mostly dumb tourists). Especially during mating season. Herds of pronghorns are also fun to watch and photograph... but if you kill the engine to reduce vibrations while shooting from the window, make SURE that you also turn off your headlights. either that, or deal with a dead car battery in the middle of Nowhere, Wyoming. Not fun. Just trust me on that one. 4. With 8 stitches needed after just 1 week on the road, I learned that tree branches are just as deadly as mountain lions. 5. I got to Minneapolis just in time to see the Yanks beat up on the Twins... and then to Chicago in time to hang out all night with (absolutely crazy) cub fans for a couple of nights. Man, the electricity! Cub fans are great! 6. Custer State Park (SD) is beautiful. But that president-face-in-the-mountain thing, was a bore for me. Devil's tower was suprisingly interesting, however. 7A. Film is very much alive and kicking, seeming to outnumber the digicams in most of my touristy locations by about 20 to 1. 7B. Disposible cameras will never die. 8. Despite what the spedometer says, 4-door Honda Civic filled with cargo tops out at about 97mph. 9. Birds in national parks will steal the food right out of your mouth.. literally! I found out the hard way, and it scared the hell out of me. 10. It's nice to be back... but I now have the travel bug in a serious way. It won't be long before I set those tires spinning again. Just over 10,000 miles logged on this trip alone. oh... one more! An 82mm Hoya HMC Circular Polarizer can bounce three times during a decent down a cliff before the glass shatters. It's nice to be back. I hope all has been well. Best regards, - jerome
Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
DJE wrote: SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap "beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. I am a bit surprised by your evaluation here. Have you used a SMCT 35/3.5 in your comparison? I find the K 35/3.5 (supposedly identical to the SMCT 35/3.5) superior to the K35/2 (supposedly identical to the SMCT 35/2) as far as flare and resolution are concerned. There are two S-T 35/2. The big one with 67mm filter size is said to have high resolution but also more flare than smaller 35/2, probably because of its big front element (from JCO and a japanese site). But in any circumstances, as you noted, SMCT are a better choice. Andre --
*ist D Survey
So how many do we actually have? Please state when and where obtained; 19th September - London Ziggy
Re: Motor Drive A Repair Resource?
I just had a look at mine. That switch on the battery component also has unreachable screws, at least they _look_ that way. I'd like to crack mine open because the vertical release doesn't work. Alan Chan wrote: One thing I do know is that to open the Motor Drive A, one needs a special tool. There are screws inside the battery compartment - three, if memory serves me - that must be removed to pull the thing apart. One of them is far enough back that it is impossible to get at with a standard straight-shanked screwdriver. The trick is to remove the switch on the bottom first, then you will be able to reach that screw easily. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Uhhh, that's "Giulietta." The Spider version. Thankfully, I rarely had to spell it! keith Keith Whaley wrote: > > Well, I once had a white 1958 Guilletta. Still have a set of ball joints > for the front end! Never did replace them... > Loved that car! [. . .]
RE: Stofen Omnibounce for AF360FGZ flash unit?
Goto www.stofen.com and select Sigma & 430 and it shows you the options. You may want OM-MZ3 or I actually got the gold OC-MZGL for warming effect too (The Sigma came with its own white diffuser already). Now that I have a digicam, I will take a pic of it on the 360FGZ tonight and post the URL for interested parties. > -Original Message- > From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 October 2003 14:57 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Stofen Omnibounce for AF360FGZ flash unit? > > > Thanks Bruce/Rob > > Rob, that sounds perfect.. I've been searching for the > dimensions of the EF430ST but can't seem to find it. How did > you discover it worked- I'm wondering what kind of packaging > it comes it cos it'd be great if I could try it at the shop.. > > Bruce, I suppose that would be the alternative.. I'm hoping > Rob's right about the Omnibounce for the EF430ST.. you know.. > no velcro sounds good to me > > :), > Ryan > > - Original Message - > From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 6:36 PM > Subject: RE: Stofen Omnibounce for AF360FGZ flash unit? > > > > I use the same one they make for the Sigma EF430ST - cant > remember the > > model number but it fist the 360FGZ perfectly and looks like it was > > made for it. Will check the model number tonight if you > cant lookup > > the Sigma in their chart. > > - Original Message - > From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 4:59 PM > Subject: Re: Stofen Omnibounce for AF360FGZ flash unit? > > > > Lumiquest makes a variety of bouncers/soft boxes that attach via > > velcro strips - fits all models. I used their soft box and > bouncer on > > AF360FGZ's very successfully. www.lumiquest.com > > > > --- > > Bruce > > > >
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Stephen Moore a écrit: Michel Carrère-Gée wrote: Alfa Romeo for me ! Yes! Especially the pre-Fiat Alfas: wonderful performance and handling, and a (mostly) charming set of idiosyncrasies, sneaking under the mainstream radar. Not to mention a hard core of aficionados. It never surprised me that I've wound up with an Alfa and a Pentax. Sure, but modern 156 and 147 aren good cars ! But wat for futures "Alfopel" with the Fiat-GM connection ? Ah, if it was as easy to collect Alfa's that Pentax. Michel
Re: M lenses (long)
Mark Roberts a écrit: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The M50/2.0 was their replacement for the K 55/2.0. That the K55/1.8 and K55/2.0 were essentially the same lens internally doesn't affect their pricing or place in the product line. And the K55's aren replacement for Super-Takumar 1.8/55 and 2.0/55. The 1.8/55 cost much more, but the 2.0/55 was strictly the same lens internally. She is a "crippled" lens: a 1.8/55 with an internal ring to limit the max aperture at 2.0 !!! You can see easily on a sample. Michel
Re: Screwmount Lens Recommendations?
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've not yet decided on a DSLR, re Canon or Pentax. Doesn't matter yet, > because I can't afford one yet. Going to wait about a year for a drop in price, etc. > > However, I do have the Elan 7e now and would like to be able to submit to the > PUG now and then before I get a DSLR. > > So I'd like to pull a Cotty. :-) > > Screwmount Pentax lenses work on the Elan -- others won't. > > Anyone have a particular Takumar recommendation? I am not partial to 50mm, > seem to prefer either wide angle or 70mm or 90mm and above. Some go fairly > cheaply on ebay. In general SMC designs are sometimes a bit more evolved optically than Super-Takumars, although many are optically identical, and the coating does make a difference. Auto-Takumars and many Takumars do not have fully automatic diaphragms, which may be a hassle in use. SMC Takumars and Super Takumars do, but of course you will be using them in stopped-down manual mode anyway! If you need an adapter with a glass element in it to make the screw-mount lenses work on the Elan then you may experience poor corner performance at wider apertures, especially with wide angles. I'm using some of my S-T lenses on a Nikon F3 with such a converter and they are fine at 5.6 or so but show adapter issues at wider stops. Also, my glass-element converter bumps into the metering lug on SMC screwmount lenses keeping them from mounting right, and into the rear element on most 50s and the 35/2.0 keeping them from focusing properly--just a caution if your converter has glass in it rather than being simply a tube. As to recommendations: SMC/S-T 28/3.5 is the best of the wide angles, almost equal to the best 28s anybody makes. The 24/3.5 is weak in the corners and the 20/4.5 is really weak in the corners. (Older ultra-wides without fancy aspheric elements and such had problems getting good corner performance. Everybody's lenses had these problems) SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap "beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. If you do get a 50, go for a 50 and not a 55 which is a lesser optic. SMC/S-T 105/2.8 has a fine reputation, as does SMC 150/4.0 (there are two versions of S-T 150/4.0, #2 sharper than #1). SMC 135/2.5 has two versions, #2 sharper than #1 (which is the same as the S-T 135/2.5), and #2 is presumably the same optics as the well-regarded Pentax K 135/2.5. SMC 85/1.8 is a legend for sharpness, and is expensive used. Auto-Takumar 85/1.8 is NOT the same lens! SMC/S-T 85/1.9 is supposedly soft wide-open in a portrait lens kind of way as the Pentax M 85/2.0 is. SMC 120/2.8 is apparently deliberately soft wide open for use as a portrait lens. SMC/S-T 200/4.0 is a decent lens but very big for its focal length and aperture. SMC/ST 300/4.0 is a very good lens and a more reasonable size for what it is (meaning it is a hair bigger than the butch 200, but not much larger than anybody else's MF 300/4.0). DJE
eBay buyer fraud attempt (was OT: eBay Plagiarism)
Very simple. You send eBay an email with the 2 URLs and this guys story. Describe the issue and seriousness of the problem fully. Send the other seller a copy as well. The truth scares people and they often correct themselves quickly. I had a facinating eBay sale issue a couple of months ago. A guy bid & won my Vivitar 285 flash. But he never paid for it. After a month or so he sent a threatening email and said he was going to turn me in if I didn't send the unit to him immediately. So I told eBay. They got on his case right away. He was really apologetic, but still hasn't paid. Has this happened to anyone else? Collin KC8TKA Domino PCLP
M lens and *ist D
Taken with a 100/4.0 M Macro in manual at f8, metered with handheld meter. No manipulation other than resizing http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=41 Bill
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
eBay has an email address? I didn't know one existed! keith Robert Gonzalez wrote: > > Send a note to ebay. There are rules against this. > > Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > I wrote a careful description for a Leitz Heine Phase Contrast condenser and > > put it on eBay with a couple of pictures. I gathered all the information I > > could find and did a good job of the text. But I withdrew the item very fast > > when I saw there was another listed. I had missed it somehow. I decided to > > wait a week or so and then put it on again. These things are worth a lot of > > money (maybe $600) and so I didn't want competition. > > [. . .]
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
I just sent this question to the seller. Should be interesting to see what he says. "Will this Heine condenser work with *any* phase objective? I need to know specifically if it will work with a Weitznel Schlong objective circa 1976. I realize that you won't know the answer yourself, so please ask your professional and let me know what he says. I may be willing to pay a lot of money for this condenser ($700+ US), so I thank you for your prompt reply in this matter." Thanks, Chris > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > However a third Heine condenser has suddenly appeared on eBay and the > description the seller has put up has been taken -- word for word -- > from mine. The SOB even had the cheek to write 'I don't no much about > this so I had an expert write this for me [sic].' How does one deal with > this? The bugger has a very good feedback rating and seems to be well > known. And his starting bid was low, there is no reserve, and it seems > to be in very good shape from the pictures.
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Well, I once had a white 1958 Guilletta. Still have a set of ball joints
for the front end! Never did replace them...
Loved that car!
keith
Stephen Moore wrote:
>
> Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
>
> > Alfa Romeo
> >for me !
>
> Yes! Especially the pre-Fiat Alfas: wonderful performance
> and handling, and a (mostly) charming set of idiosyncrasies,
> sneaking under the mainstream radar. Not to mention a hard
> core of aficionados. It never surprised me that I've wound
> up with an Alfa and a Pentax.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen
> ('69 roundtail Spider, a project car far too long...)
website similarities, copyrights, etc.
Here's a question for you omnipresent/omnipotent pentaxians. When I registed my website some months ago ( http://exposedfilm.net ), I noticed that someone else had already registered exposedfilm.COM ( http://exposedfilm.com ). However, their site wasn't up yet. Over the past few months, I'd check periodically to see if anything had popped up, but found nothing. I was kinda holding my breath hopeing that it would be neither a porn site nor anything too close to (and worse yet, much better than!) my site. Well, it finally popped up. It's a movie company. While I'm pleased with that (as if my opinion matters), I was kinda taken aback with the similarity of the logo. We both use a film strip, albeit different types of film. The only solace is that the orientation of mine is landscape, while theirs is portrait. After I thought about it some, the following question popped up: Given the similarity in name and also logo, are their any circumstances in which I should anticipate this being a problem? Personally, I don't care much about it... but as my imagination ventured off, I pictured them contacting me sometime down the line saying that I have infringed on some copyright / trademark law that I don't even know about... and all I'd be able to say was "but I was here first!"... Now *that* would bother me. It seems like we are both pretty small entities right now, but if they should blow up (not literally), then this line of question may not seem as unreasonable. What do you think? Side note: They're in Canada, I'm in the USA. Aside the side note: since they're the "com" and I'm the "net", they'll likely get more of my mis-directed traffic (not that I Have much anyway) than me theirs. That's crummy, too. I can't catch a break.
