RE: Unusual lens
Hi, Bob R wrote: I have seen them appear numerous times. For a real trip, check and see his present Pentax offerings. If I were a bidder, I would be happy to know that no one could see how dumb I really was g. The whole list is a classic example of how not to offer products. The prices are all over the place, though mostly too high. The descriptions are a bit awry, too, if this (apparently) fungussy and delaminating object is the seller's idea of clean. http://cgi.msn.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688item=2973004802 mike
Naughty ebay guy [Was: More lens problems]
Hi folks, Remember the Tamron 90/2.5 that I bought off ebay and turned out to be a lemon? The seller thinks that fogging of internal elements and an unresponsive iris are normal for a lens of this age, that it is is good working order and that there are risks associated with buying from ebay (I guess he meant there are risks associated with buying from him). He also wished me good luck in my future purchases. As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one with such an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has anybody ever filed a complaint against a seller? Is SquareTrade the one and only option? Thanks, Kostas
Re: Naughty ebay guy [Was: More lens problems]
This one time, at band camp, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one with such an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has anybody ever filed a complaint against a seller? Is SquareTrade the one and only option? I have not made a complaint, but I have lodged a Non selling seller complaint. This is when you have paid for the goods but never recieved anything. Basically the process is.. Try to contact seller. File Non selling seller complaint. From there, nothing happens. eBay has no further contact from that point. I did manage to get onto [EMAIL PROTECTED] and asked them for any progress before I reported the incident to the police. They replied saying sometimes goods are late in the mail, 2 months in this case, or that the seller may be on holidays and I should not report the incident and I should wait. They also promised to further investigate the issue. I am still waiting Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:26:04 GMT From: Donald A. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all, Today I managed to get my hands on an absolutely pristine example of the above lens - glass perfect, cosmetically it looks as if it has never been used and at a price I couldn't refuse as well. One thing I've noticed is that it has a considerably looser focusing ring than other my other example of this lens. It's a one-touch zoom so this is slightly irksome - the ring will slip and change focal length according to gravity rather than staying put as the other lens does. Could anybody could tell me whether there is anything I can do to sort this out myself or whether is is a job for the repair shop. Many thanks, DAM. -- Donald A Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine. I have one and had to do the same fix to it. Take off the rubber surround. There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place. Just tighten them. That's all. Collin
Re: Naughty ebay guy [Was: More lens problems]
At 05:18 2003.12.19 -0500, you wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:33:03 + (GMT) From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi folks, Remember the Tamron 90/2.5 that I bought off ebay and turned out to be a lemon? The seller thinks that fogging of internal elements and an unresponsive iris are normal for a lens of this age, that it is is good working order and that there are risks associated with buying from ebay (I guess he meant there are risks associated with buying from him). He also wished me good luck in my future purchases. As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one with such an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has anybody ever filed a complaint against a seller? Is SquareTrade the one and only option? Thanks, Kostas I have. It's a waste of energy. eBay will do nothing. The system is designed to protect them. Your only real options are legal and civil. Same as in the rest of life outside of eBay. Collin
Re[2]: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Hi, there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens, and the rubber grips on the focus/zoom ring are different - the non-SMC version has longer gnurls (or are they knurls?). The non-SMC version has an enormous amount of slip in it - it's absurdly loose, but that can be surprisingly useless, and it's actually a good lens all round. The SMC version has some slip, but not a huge amount. Bob Friday, December 19, 2003, 11:48:31 AM, you wrote: CRB At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:26:04 GMT From: Donald A. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all, Today I managed to get my hands on an absolutely pristine example of the above lens - glass perfect, cosmetically it looks as if it has never been used and at a price I couldn't refuse as well. One thing I've noticed is that it has a considerably looser focusing ring than other my other example of this lens. It's a one-touch zoom so this is slightly irksome - the ring will slip and change focal length according to gravity rather than staying put as the other lens does. Could anybody could tell me whether there is anything I can do to sort this out myself or whether is is a job for the repair shop. Many thanks, DAM. -- Donald A Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] CRB A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine. CRB I have one and had to do the same fix to it. CRB Take off the rubber surround. CRB There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place. CRB Just tighten them. That's all. CRB Collin
RE: Naughty ebay guy [Was: More lens problems]
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one with such an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has anybody ever filed a complaint against a seller? Is SquareTrade the one and only option? I've lost a fair bit of faith with eBay as a buyer; I had a demand for payment from eBay stating that a seller would re-list an item I had agreed to buy and had not paid for. I thought this was odd as I actually had received the item through the post, submitted feedback, and checking my bank account, I found the item as paid. Despite e-mails to the parties concerned, I never received an apology or an acknowledgement, just the demand statement removed. Such an easy problem to resolve, for which I was the innocent party and I had to do all the legwork. As a percentage of deals, problems I have had are low, but you have to remember the potential hassle factor if an item is not as described or other troubles occur. My bids for any items factor this in. Malcolm
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens Isn't the SMC A version marked as a 70-210/4 lens, while the non-SMC version is marked as being something like 70-200/4 ? Fred
Re: Google name (was:Re: GFM and a CRAPPY weekend...)
Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately Mark Roberts is a much more common name so I'm only the 5th web site listed. Even more unfortunate is what happens to be the *first* one listed... I don't know Mark, it sounds like good exposure to me :0) (someone had to say it) Yeah. Looks like some kind of flash exposure to me... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: *Australian GFM (Abridged/Consolidated)*
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Dec 2003 at 9:45, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: You guys are the biggest bunch of SOOKS!!! vbg You think it gets hot down there, you wanna live up here during the summer, it is now 9.43am, and has already hit 36 degrees! Estimated to be around 42 up here today, with about 85% relative humidity! It's ONLY 34.8 in Sydney at the moment :-P Heck, it's only 25 here in Pittsburgh! Oh, wait...we're talking Fahrenheit, right? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Konica Minolta?
on 18.12.03 18:57, graywolf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nikon belong alongside Mitsubishi already. Asahi Glass is now subsidiary of Mitsubishi too ;-P Actually it has been since 1944 :-))) http://www.agc.co.jp/english/company/history/history.html But I doubt if this company has anything in common with Asahi Pentax :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Alan. I have this lens too and it seems to me that the focus is a bit loose too.I palm hold my zooms and it would take nothing at all to move focus. Someone mentioned a few years back there were several small screws on the lens that could be tightened.The only ones i saw were up close to the k mount end,3 screws i think,but i'm not sure they are the ones.I tried to tighten with a small jewlers screwdriver but nothing moved.May be they are as tight as should be. I only use the A 70-210 f4 now on a monopod or for macro shots. To big of a pita for hand holding now. Dave Zoom creeping is normal for the SMC PENTAX- A 70-210/4 and there is nothing can be done. Yours regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Could anybody could tell me whether there is anything I can do to sort this out myself or whether is is a job for the repair shop. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f% 3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote: A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine. I have one and had to do the same fix to it. Take off the rubber surround. There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place. Just tighten them. That's all. Collin Collin I have the SMC A 70-210 also. I dont have it with me but i dont remeber any rubber surround. Can you elaborate pls Dave
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
The more contrtasty ones look best on my screen. I'm not sure which were subjected to auto levels. However all of them would print just fine with a tweak in PS. Paul On Dec 18, 2003, at 8:59 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Hi, could be - I can't remember what was on mine. I have neither of them now, but I seem to remember them both being 70-210. Kilpatrick's book describes a Takumar A 70-210/4, which is not what I had, as well as the SMC A 70-210/4. In the description of the SMC lens he writes 'A previous Pentax-A 70-210mm with a fixed f4 maximum aperture and 58mm filter thread, similar to the current Takumar but of higher performance, is now discontinued'. Perhaps there was another still. -- Cheers, Bob Friday, December 19, 2003, 12:31:41 PM, you wrote: there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens Isn't the SMC A version marked as a 70-210/4 lens, while the non-SMC version is marked as being something like 70-200/4 ? Fred
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
It's a one-touch zoom so this is slightly irksome - the ring will slip and change focal length according to gravity rather than staying put as the other lens does. This is a personal preference issue, it seems to me. If you want to use the lens pointed up or down on a tripod, then I can see that zoom ring looseness would be problematic. I also suppose that, even hand-held, if you wanted to set the focal length and then forget it, that there might be an annoyance. However, I have used a couple of these critters for many years as hand-held zooms, and have found the so-called looseness to be perfect for such use. I ~like~ being able to zoom in or out quickly, focusing as I zoom as needed (for moving targets), and/or zooming as I focus as needed (for cropping). The lens works very well for tracking and cropping moving targets. I would not like the zoom ring to be fighting me as I am adjusting it. For me, if I am going to be shooting in this FL range on a tripod (with the lens aimed in any direction), I am probably going to be using a suitable prime lens anyway. I would think that a 2-touch zoom would also be a good possibility for such use. Your mileage may vary, of course... Fred
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Someone mentioned a few years back there were several small screws
on the lens that could be tightened.
I have used a couple A 70-210/4's quite a bit over time, and one of
them (due to much use in very dusty conditions, including wind-blown
sand) actually started to develop a gritty feel when it was
focused and/or zoomed. (Fortunately, there was very little internal
dust in the optical path itself.) I took off the rubber sleeve over
the focus/zoom ring, and proceeded to remove as much of the grit
as I could reach {with cotton swabs for the more accessible places
and pieces of sticky tape for the thinner crevices). I do remember
there being some white plastic screws (nylon, I am guessing,
although I suppose they might have been teflon) under the sleeve.
Perhaps those are the screws that could be tightened as necessary
(although I had no desire to stiffen up the focus/zoom action, so
I didn't try adjusting them - I just wanted to get rid of the
grittiness, which I did succeed at, by the way).
Fred
OT:Thanks Ann for the calender tips
This is for everyone too. Taking your que Ann, i decided to try my hand at a calender for the farm owners were we board out our horses.Spent a bout 16-18 hours compiling photos,scanning those that were not from the D1 and doing a collage type setup for each month except for March and December which had 1 picture each.I decided to let the local printer do them and i thought their prices were ok. I did it all in PS Elements and used ACDC to convert one to sepia. It was a hit. Now i need a list up for sales.Looks like the riders want it. Dave
OT: Anyone here do camera repair?
http://classifieds.yahoo.com/display/merchandise?ct_hft=detailnpintl=cc=merchandisecr=cids=76081e6fbc11a19cbca56d3b88dd0e81refsrc=search Looks like a set of repair guides.
Re[2]: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Hi, Bob W. wrote: there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens, and the rubber grips on the focus/zoom ring are different - the non-SMC version has longer gnurls (or are they knurls?). Knurls. Gnurls are female 8-))) mknurl
JPG Compression
I'm having an odd problem. I'm trying to submit my PUG entry for Jan. The image was taken on the *ist D at high quality JPG at 2000X3000. I cropped the image and reduced it to 500 x 360 pixels. My compression algorith is saying the image is about 46 K (20x) compression but the file is actually litsed as 104K. I've never had this problem with the Optio images and I don't want to go to higher compression (as it is, I started much lower and have moved to this stage trying to shrink the file). Am I missing something here? I use Picture Publisher 7 by Micrografx. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
leaving today
We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;) It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and West coast, some in the Southeast and one or two in the Southwest. Curiously, the heartland the middle of the country seems to have very few (as far as I know) members... Mark Cassino, wave towards I75 some time this weekend, we'll be going by on the way to Cadillac and Petoskey. BTW, I'm taking all my good camera stuff and most of my CDs so don't bother robbing my house :~) Cory --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
RE: leaving today
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:leaving today We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;) It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and West coast, some in the Southeast and one or two in the Southwest. Curiously, the heartland the middle of the country seems to have very few (as far as I know) members... Mark Cassino, wave towards I75 some time this weekend, we'll be going by on the way to Cadillac and Petoskey. BTW, I'm taking all my good camera stuff and most of my CDs so don't bother robbing my house :~) Cory ---
Re: leaving today
Really Bill? CW - Original Message - From: Bill Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: RE: leaving today -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: leaving today We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;) It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and West coast, some in the Southeast and one or two in the Southwest. Curiously, the heartland the middle of the country seems to have very few (as far as I know) members... Mark Cassino, wave towards I75 some time this weekend, we'll be going by on the way to Cadillac and Petoskey. BTW, I'm taking all my good camera stuff and most of my CDs so don't bother robbing my house :~) Cory --- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
RE: leaving today
Cory, I hit the send button a bit too fast on the other post - sorry to all. There are four members of the Michigan PDML that I know of. Mark in Kalamazoo on the west side of the state. Ken Waller, Paul Stenquist and myself all live in suburban Detroit, on the east side of Michigan. And we'll make sure Mark doesn't bother robbing your house as you ask... ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:leaving today We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;) It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and West coast, some in the Southeast and one or two in the Southwest. Curiously, the heartland the middle of the country seems to have very few (as far as I know) members... Mark Cassino, wave towards I75 some time this weekend, we'll be going by on the way to Cadillac and Petoskey. BTW, I'm taking all my good camera stuff and most of my CDs so don't bother robbing my house :~) Cory ---
Re: leaving today
Wasn't much concerned about Mark robbing my house...it's those Lurkers you have to watch out for ;) well, you'll have to wave towards the west then, we're the Yellow Xterra hurtling towards parts North. Happy Holidays! Cory - Original Message - From: Bill Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:27 AM Subject: RE: leaving today Cory, I hit the send button a bit too fast on the other post - sorry to all. There are four members of the Michigan PDML that I know of. Mark in Kalamazoo on the west side of the state. Ken Waller, Paul Stenquist and myself all live in suburban Detroit, on the east side of Michigan. And we'll make sure Mark doesn't bother robbing your house as you ask... ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: leaving today We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;) It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and West coast, some in the Southeast and one or two in the Southwest. Curiously, the heartland the middle of the country seems to have very few (as far as I know) members... Mark Cassino, wave towards I75 some time this weekend, we'll be going by on the way to Cadillac and Petoskey. BTW, I'm taking all my good camera stuff and most of my CDs so don't bother robbing my house :~) Cory --- --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 12/15/2003
Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
bethegotthepointthough... :-) - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:27 AM Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts Yes, Mr. Cottrell! :-) Ryan -OriginalMessage- From:Cotty[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:pentaxlist[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent:Friday,December19,20034:42AM Subject:OT:BloodyAussiesandtheirlongposts Jeesguys,anychanceofcuttingoutthemilesofreplied-totextin yourpostswhileyousortoutavenueforthePDMLOZ? TanyaandRyan,thismeansyou! Ta. Cheers, Cotty
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
I think with the Pentax software you can only batch process the same changes to a group of RAW images. That's the way I've done it anyway. Christian - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:57 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics Just out of curiousity...how hard is it to batch correct a group of raw files with the Pentax software? Bruce, many of my flash photos are slightly underexposed as well, but it's very easy to correct when batch converting. With the Canon software you click on a folder and it displays all the raw files in that folder as thumbnails. You can see which ones need a little exposure compensation and you can change it *before* you convert. I think this is an important distinction and is one reason I don't use BB exclusively. With BB, you need to convert each file that has changes, or convert a group that has the same changes. You can't say, convert a group of files that have various exposure compensations. I guess the question is - can you apply various exposure/wb settings to files before conversion? If you change settings for one file do you have convert it before you move on to the next file or will it remember your settings when you convert the whole folder? Am I making sense here? tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:59 PM To: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Re: PUG themes and submissions
Have you seen Pet Cemetery? Oh my god it is already the 19th! I have to go dig up an animal annsan Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[4]: Santa Pics
Tom, As I have played around a bit, the photo lab will convert from raw to jpg/tiff with one set of settings. If you only have loaded one image, it applies to the single image. If you have a group of them, they will all get the settings applied during conversion. So for a group, you would use the photo browser, from the thumbnails select the ones that had the common settings, choose photo lab tool. It would load those images into photo lab, make your changes and save to jpg/tiff. Does this make sense to you? Other questions? Bruce Friday, December 19, 2003, 9:57:29 AM, you wrote: t Just out of curiousity...how hard is it to batch correct a group of t raw files with the Pentax software? t Bruce, many of my flash photos are slightly underexposed as well, but t it's very easy to correct when batch converting. With the Canon t software you click on a folder and it displays all the raw files in t that folder as thumbnails. You can see which ones need a little t exposure compensation and you can change it *before* you convert. t I think this is an important distinction and is one reason I don't use t BB exclusively. With BB, you need to convert each file that has t changes, or convert a group that has the same changes. You can't say, t convert a group of files that have various exposure compensations. t I guess the question is - can you apply various exposure/wb settings t to files before conversion? If you change settings for one file do you t have convert it before you move on to the next file or will it t remember your settings when you convert the whole folder? t Am I making sense here? t tv -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:59 PM To: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
More lens problems.
Obviously this is going to be a bad day The *ist D is not working with a few lenses. In particular: can't read aperature or AF w/ FA 50, FA 135, FA100 2.8 macro Works just fine w/ FA20-35, A50.17, Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 I'm assuming this body has just won a trip to Colorado. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Triples all round!
Hi, people often say that the PDML is like a bar that a group of friends drop into regularly to chat about photography and other things. Here is that bar: www.web-options.com/PUG.jpg It's in Chiswick, London. (For a clue as to the correct explanation of the bar's name see this self-portrait of a famous former resident of Chiswick: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/pd/factsheets/images/hogarth_self.jpg ) -- Cheers, Bob
Re: More lens problems.
Steve, Do you have another ZX type body to try them on? I found that my FA 80-320 acted like it was not set to 'A' when I put it on the *istD. After putting it on the ZX-10 it behaved just the same. Pointing to a problem with the lens, not the body. After pressing and hold on the aperture ring right near the lens mount, it starts to read properly. Let go and it goes back to error. Also check for dirty contacts - body and lenses. Bruce Friday, December 19, 2003, 10:43:56 AM, you wrote: SD Obviously this is going to be a bad day The *ist D is not working with SD a few lenses. In particular: SD can't read aperature or AF w/ SD FA 50, FA 135, FA100 2.8 macro SD Works just fine w/ SD FA20-35, A50.17, Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 SD I'm assuming this body has just won a trip to Colorado. SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re[4]: Santa Pics
-Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Does this make sense to you? Other questions? I think that covers it. I think that method would double the time it takes me to edit a wedding. tv
Re: More lens problems.
I'm going to bring in my zx-7 for testing, although I know the FA 50 works fine on my MZ-S. I have cleaned the contacted, made sure they're on A etc. What's so odd is that three lenses now fail and that AF won't engage. OTOH, I have an FA, A and Sigma lens that work fine, both aperture and AF (when applicable). Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/19/03 02:00PM Steve, Do you have another ZX type body to try them on? I found that my FA 80-320 acted like it was not set to 'A' when I put it on the *istD. After putting it on the ZX-10 it behaved just the same. Pointing to a problem with the lens, not the body. After pressing and hold on the aperture ring right near the lens mount, it starts to read properly. Let go and it goes back to error. Also check for dirty contacts - body and lenses. Bruce Friday, December 19, 2003, 10:43:56 AM, you wrote: SD Obviously this is going to be a bad day The *ist D is not working with SD a few lenses. In particular: SD can't read aperature or AF w/ SD FA 50, FA 135, FA100 2.8 macro SD Works just fine w/ SD FA20-35, A50.17, Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 SD I'm assuming this body has just won a trip to Colorado. SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: JPG Compression
I just tried this with phtoshop 6 and got files of the same size. I'm not sure why I'm suddenly having this problem. Must be bad karma. . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/19/03 01:14PM business charting software (the best around from reports I'd read), and kept PP going under the new name of iGrafx but only up to version 10, and then killed it because it was cannibilising sales from PhotoPaint. IOW they threw the baby out with the bathwater. R.I.P. Picture Publisher. Count me as another fan of PP. I first started using it with PP4, I believe, and progressed through PP5, PP7, PP8, and finally PP10, which I still use as my primary image editor. I, too, find the PP clone tool by far the best of those I have tried - that's what has kept me with it. Unfortunately PP seems to have a problem with JPEGs from digital cameras - it can read them just fine, but if you try to write out another JPEG image (such as a re-sized verson for a thumbnail page) there's something wrong with the resulting image; Windows XP, for one, can't display it. I suspect it's something to do with EXIF tags - the image data is there, and can be read by several old (pre-EXIF) image utilities I own. If I create an intermediate file (such as a TIFF) first, the read that back and write it out as a JPEG there are no problems. As for the problems PP reports with TIFFs from other utilities: PP is correct. The TIFF spec states that the tags within an IFD must appear in numerically increasing order. Some image utilities violate this condition. Hand such an image to PP and it will complain about the out-of-order tags.
Re: OT:Thanks Ann for the calender tips
Ann wrote: I haven't used Automate -- I know the create for web stuff in Elements is pretty ugly. My covers were done by bringing each image in on top of a background one at a time. Hey,me too :-) Will be itnerested to see how ACDC works, though I'm always reluctant to add more software - I can barely deal with the amount I have. The trial is 1.6 megs.I used it to do my resizing until i reloaded Ifran view.Now i resize and add my copyright there and do the web html pages in AcDsee. Dave ann
Re: Santa Pics
Tom, I would be very curious to find out your general workflow of editing a wedding after downloading from the cards. What tools, what order, etc. Also, I have been trying to decide if it is worth using raw when needing to process a large number of files - thinking jpg or tiff might be better because of the single settings for a group of images. Thoughts? Bruce Friday, December 19, 2003, 11:14:39 AM, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Does this make sense to you? Other questions? t I think that covers it. t I think that method would double the time it takes me to edit a t wedding. t tv
Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
On 18/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Yes, Mr. Cottrell! :-) Ryan No need to stand on formality. Please call me sir. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
there's one born every minute
P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727category=48539 William Robb
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: there's one born every minute
Hey Wheatfield, $981.00 total so far. He's saved $18.00 over retail! Bill - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: there's one born every minute P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727category=48539 William Robb
Re: there's one born every minute
Hi, some minutes it's rather more than one, apparently. -- Cheers, Bob Friday, December 19, 2003, 7:32:18 PM, you wrote: P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727category=48539 William Robb
Re: there's one born every minute
It is still a scam and the guy should be shut down. It is like someone selling a camera box. Regards, Robert
RE: there's one born every minute
Dunno if it's technically a scam; he says right up front that you're not getting an actual Rebel. If I were that kind of jerk, I'd put up a bunch of auctions for this alleged URL with a BIN of say $50 or $100. I'd be rolling in cash... -Original Message- From: Robert Leigh Woerner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: there's one born every minute It is still a scam and the guy should be shut down. It is like someone selling a camera box. Regards, Robert
RE: there's one born every minute
Holy shirt! That must be the stupidest person still able to use eBay. To pay that much just to get the URL. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:32 PM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: there's one born every minute P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727; category=48539 William Robb
RE: there's one born every minute
He probably could have googled for the URL directly. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: there's one born every minute Hey Wheatfield, $981.00 total so far. He's saved $18.00 over retail! Bill - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:32 PM Subject: there's one born every minute P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727; category=48539 William Robb
Re: there's one born every minute
A scam? He's selling information and he made it perfectly clear what he's doing. And, if the buyer can really purchase the camera for the noted price, with reasonable shipping, it would be possible to buy a few for resale and start turning a profit. Buying a camera or lens box can be a very wise decision in some instances, and offering one for sale is far from a scam. Robert Leigh Woerner wrote: It is still a scam and the guy should be shut down. It is like someone selling a camera box. Regards, Robert
Re: there's one born every minute
Well, the seller did say that with the information the buyer could turn a profit. You've seen that quite clearly ... Amita Guha wrote: Dunno if it's technically a scam; he says right up front that you're not getting an actual Rebel. If I were that kind of jerk, I'd put up a bunch of auctions for this alleged URL with a BIN of say $50 or $100. I'd be rolling in cash...
RE: there's one born every minute
Yeah, just look at the list of bidders! You've got to admire the audacity of the seller. He's done nothing illegal. Unethical? Maybe. There've been bunches of these kinds of autions pulled before. Usually works best with new released gear that is hard to get at the stores. But, I see EOS 300D cameras for sale at lots of discount stores. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: there's one born every minute Hi, some minutes it's rather more than one, apparently. -- Cheers, Bob Friday, December 19, 2003, 7:32:18 PM, you wrote: P. T. Barnum was right. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727; category=48539 William Robb
RE: there's one born every minute
Collectors buy camera boxes. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Robert Leigh Woerner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: there's one born every minute It is still a scam and the guy should be shut down. It is like someone selling a camera box. Regards, Robert
Re: there's one born every minute
http://www.streetprices.com/Electronics/Digital_Cameras/6.3_Megapixels/SP1197239.html?sortdetail=sortdetailbylowprice%2F Len Paris wrote: He probably could have googled for the URL directly. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
That's cool Collin, I have exactly the same issue with my newly acquired one! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:48 PM Subject: Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine. I have one and had to do the same fix to it. Take off the rubber surround. There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place. Just tighten them. That's all. Collin
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Donald A. Morrison wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote: A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine. I have one and had to do the same fix to it. Take off the rubber surround. There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place. Just tighten them. That's all. Collin I tried this and it worked superbly, I was quite surprised how little tightening the screws required to achieve the desired effect. The lens now feels excellent - no slipping at all. Very many thanks for yours and everyones help, Does anyone know if the two-touch F zooms (the 28-80/3.5-4.5 in particular) can be rectified in the same way? Thanks, Kostas
Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
I'll have to look into my lens shen i get home.I still cannot remember any rubber. Dave(senior moments R us)Brooks I tried this and it worked superbly, I was quite surprised how little tightening the screws required to achieve the desired effect. The lens now feels excellent - no slipping at all. Very many thanks for yours and everyones help, Regards, DAM. -- Donald A Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Santa Pics
Hello Pieter, Thanks for pointing that out. The idea makes lots of sense. Something to test and try out for sure. Certainly, potential issues are the opportunity to shoot/review/shoot may not be there in faster moving situations. Also the need and amount of post-processing may increase. On a few number of images this might make lots of sense, but if shooting a whole wedding or something like that... I am going to try the test though. Bruce Friday, December 19, 2003, 11:34:12 AM, you wrote: PN On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. PN A dissenting voice: PN http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
RE: there's one born every minute
Nate found a thread about this auction on DPreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031message=7000753 Someone posted a link to the actual website, which is ExpressCameras.com, and others said that it is an awful dealer that tries to make a profit on things that should be included with the cameras. Read the thread; it's interesting reading.
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
-Original Message- From: Pieter Nagel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml I don't know that I'd call that a dissent, it's a discussion of what a perfect exposure would be. I think an assumption of our discussion has been that we'd *prefer* a perfect exposure, but if we have to err, err on the side of insert your opinion here. tv
RE: Santa Pics
-Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom, I would be very curious to find out your general workflow of editing a wedding after downloading from the cards. What tools, what order, etc. - Use BB Downloader Pro to download the cards, renaming along the way. - Delete the crap using BB. I might also alter the displayed image order a bit if the cameras are out of sync. BB loads a large image pretty quick and allows you to navigate and delete w/ keystrokes. - Rename again using BB. ClientName-Number. - Use Canon File Viewer to set exposure comps and WB's. Process them all as one batch to tiff. - Drag all the tiffs I want to convert to b/w to another folder, rename, process, copy back. - Use REAConverter to make a folder of 300dpi 4x6 sized jpgs. If the client ordered paper proofs, this folder gets ftp'd to the lab. - Use BB to create Web Galleries, run it against the jpgs instead of the tiffs. - Client goes to website, orders a print using PayPal shopping cart, which is included by BB when you created the web galleries. - I get an email listing the order. - Pull the tiffs into PS, do what I need to do, FTP. Lately I've added another step, using BB to convert the noisier images. tv
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
Yes it is best to slightly underexpose on the DSLR. Keeps the threat of blown out (over-exposed) highlights down. Blown out highlights translate to no ink on paper, completely lacking in detail. Under-exposure can usually be made to print normally with a little correction. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:59 PM To: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re[2]: Santa Pics Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated ones or the ones that had auto levels done? I didn't change stops at all. One thought is that the Gossen meter is reading reading slightly off. My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 4:26:42 PM, you wrote: PS Many are very nice, but some appear to be underexposed. Did you give PS your flash time to recycle? Did you change stops? PS Paul PS On Dec 18, 2003, at 6:40 PM, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics
According to Epson, and the pros that run their Print Academy, if you shoot in RAW, you can squeeze out an 11 stop range. I'm trying but it does take some work to get that good. By the way, they get those results using Photoshop 7 and the Epson 2200. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa Pics What is the latitude with digital? Bob -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] He was shooting digital. Generally it's better to underexpose if you're not sure you can nail
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same thing. don't overexpose in digital. Herb - Original Message - From: Pieter Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
RE: Lousy Printing
Been there, done that with Jessops. Never again... I feel your pain! -Original Message- From: Peter Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 December 2003 23:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Lousy Printing I had a sad task to carry out last week. My neighbours 20 year old daughter was killed in a car crash and I was asked to scan and copy a bunch of snapshots so that other family members could have copies. The raw material was not good, a bunch of decidedly average PS shots with every conceivable photographic fault. I scanned them and did the best I could in Photoshop and ended with 60 odd half decent files. I didn't have the time to print them myself so I used Jessops, the major UK photographic high street retailer who had a local branch with a photo lab in store. I gave them my CD, and 3 days later couldn't believe what I got back. For a start, they'd clearly put the files through some sort of contrast enhancing filter before printing them. I could not believe how badly they'd wound up the contrast, turned huge swathes pitch black and burnt out pale areas. I ran a few of the files on my printer tonight and the difference was unbelievable. A 5 year old £120 Epson was producing prints that looked as if they'd been printed properly, whereas a lab set up costing thousands had produced something that looked like someone's first attempt at Cibachrome printing. As if that wasn't bad enough, the cropping was unbelievable. all the files had been cropped to some extent. Some had been cropped ever so slightly, but others seem to have lost 30% of their area. The best was a head and shoulder shot. There was clear space above the head in the file, but the print stopped just above the chest. I now have two things to do tomorrow, firstly off to Jessops to physically insert the photos into the minilab operator, then back home to do the job myself. The moral is, if you want a job doing properly, do it yourself. Peter
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
i doubt power was the problem with solar powered chargers. Herb... - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin Folks, A week ago I saw a projected show by a Norwegian PJ who went to the Amazon basin to shoot a feature on nutty norwegian anglers. Miles away from the nearest power socket. How long do you think his Nikon D1x lasted? If anyone wanna bet, I'll be the bookmaker. :-)
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
on 12/19/03 2:59 AM, Bruce Dayton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? Well, according to what I read on Luminous Landscape (dot-com) you want to expose to the right of the histogram, or to greater exposure side, but without over-exposing. This is because more detail is recorded on the higher end than on the lower end. Of course, don't take my word for it... Here is the article: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml -- Jon Glass Krakow, Poland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools are on the same side.
RE: there's one born every minute
If the buyer was a little more astute, he could have saved himself heap of money with a BIN http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=48539item=2973781218 Bob -Original Message- From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Holy shirt! That must be the stupidest person still able to use eBay. To pay that much just to get the URL. Len
Re[2]: Santa Pics
Kids? I didn't see any kids! Where were they? vbg Bruce Thursday, December 18, 2003, 3:42:06 PM, you wrote: TMP Bruce, I just looked at that site - are ALL of those kids in your FAMILY?!?! TMP OMG, the Daytons are a very busy mob aren't they?!?! TMP tan.
Re: Re[2]: Santa Picsy
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:20:42PM -0500, Herb Chong wrote: you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same thing. don't overexpose in digital. The article says: get as close as you can to overexposing, cause that is good, but don't burn out the highlights, cause that is very bad. Other people in this thread said; burning out the highlights is very bad, so stay as far away as you can from the highlights, and rather underexpose to avoid burning them. Is that a fair summary? And they are not saying the same thing? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Re[2]: Santa Picsy
who said that? Herb - Original Message - From: Pieter Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:13 PM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Picsy Other people in this thread said; burning out the highlights is very bad, so stay as far away as you can from the highlights, and rather underexpose to avoid burning them.
unsubscribe
Will be on vacation on the road for a while. See you next year! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
Dude I was going to but I couldn't get past your poster ;-) - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:29 AM Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts On 18/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Yes, Mr. Cottrell! :-) Ryan No need to stand on formality. Please call me sir. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
As all Poms, they can get arrogant! Especially after England finally won a Rugby Word Cup - of course there in no mention of the Rugby League side. Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 20 December 2003 3:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts Dude I was going to but I couldn't get past your poster ;-) - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:29 AM Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts On 18/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Yes, Mr. Cottrell! :-) Ryan No need to stand on formality. Please call me sir. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Re[2]: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
Right, but they are similar enough to confuse lots of people. In fact, there are 3 versions: - SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 - PENTAX-A 70-200/4 - TAKUMAR-A 70-200/4 Yours regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the other is not SMC. snip Bob But the Takumar-A is a 70-200. Collin _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
