Re: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (was:: Zoom Lens for ist-D)

[Dario Bonazza]

Joe,

OK, as soon as I'll get the Sigma 70-200, I'll setup another test, using
maximum care about focusing, shake and so on.

Ciao,

Dario

- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:38 AM
Subject: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (was:: Zoom Lens for ist-D)


> Dario and Jim,
>
> I am puzzled by your findings on this lens. These are the first negative
> comments I have seen on it. I suppose there could be much sample
> variation in it, but I would wonder then how it got its fine reputation.
> Here's an extract from my recent post, comparing it to the Sigma 70-200
> f2.8 on the *ist D:
>
> "Next I tested it against the Sigma. Both at 200 mm. on the tripod.
> Across the board, the old SMC F has a warmer rendition and better
> contrast than the Sigma. Now the surprise: At 200 mm. wide open (f5.6),
> the old Pentax consumer lens was slightly sharper than the Sigma "pro"
> lens at 5.6. At f8 and 11 the Sigma was sharper, but again the Pentax's
> rendition was warmer and with better contrast."
>
> Dario, your images at 190 mm. look like there could have been
> camera/lens shake. Putting this lens and the *ist D on a tripod gives
> you a light combination, which I found can still wobble. Did you use the
> 2-second delay and shoot on a day with no wind?
>
> Also, if you used AF, was it central sensor or did you let the camera
> choose? This lens has a very long (for AF lenses) AF throw. I find that
> even at long distances, they lens will consider differences of even a
> meter or so to be out of focus, and refocus itself. If the camera picked
> the sensor, much of your image could be out of focus with this lens.
>
> I think a better test would be to photograph a brick wall from about 20
> meters at f5.6 and 8.0. I did something similar to this.
>
> That said, the 70-210 is not very good close up.
>
> Joe
>

Re: Transit of Venus

[Bob W]

Hi,

Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 6:25:18 AM, Anders wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Steve Sharpe wrote:

>> I'm going to try through my Celestron 5...though it is raining here
>> right now...

> It's raining here too, but I have just gotten access to a fast car and a
> driver, and will soon ride some 100 miles west to try to catch it there.

well, just for once the UK has bright clear skies on the day of a
celestial display. I have just been outside and projected it through
Pentax(!) binoculars onto a piece of white card. Venus was clearly
visible, and was indeed in transition, so now I can tick my 'See Venus
in transit' box.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: I'm Back (GFM aftermath)

[Eactivist]

Well, I survived. Despite several disasters, well, mishaps, well, bad things. 
Not sure what quite to call them. Unpleasant travel experiences?

Seeing everyone was fun, though.

Marnie aka Doe  I just got back from St. Louis, visiting a friend on the way 
home.

Joe's ultrawides test

[edwin]

> From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
> F4.0 and 5.6. The Sigma is noticeably sharper than the FA 24. The DA 
> 16-45 at 20 mm. is also much sharper than the FA 24, and runs so close 
> to the Sigma that I cannot pick a winner.

24s, especially fast 24s, appear to be rather hard to build.  I've heard
unflattering things about the FA 24, and plenty of folks (me among them)
have harsh words for the Nikkor AIS 24/2.0 (which was not updated in 
autofocus mount...).  The 24mm Takumar screwmount is better than the 20 
but noticeably worse wide open and towards the edges than a 28 or 35.
Apparently technology hasn't made great inroads here since the takumar 
days. 

> Yes, the DA 16-45 is noticeably sharper than the FA* 24 at those stops. 
> Take note, those who still claim that primes are always sharper.

To be fair, you'd need a DA 20 prime to test against.  Still, modern
zooms are quite good if the designers don't compromise on price.
I'd put my 70-200 against almost any prime in that focal length range.

> What did strike me about the FA* 24, though, is how consistent the 
> images were from f2.0 through 5.6. There was little difference between 
> wide open and stopped down. I haven't seen too many lenses like that. I 
> often shoot wide-angle primes indoors without flash, so I need them to 
> be sharp at large apertures. The FA* 24 is nearly as sharp at f2.0 as it 
> is at smaller apertures.

The "must have" solution is a Canon EOS1DS and 24/1.4, or simply a film 
camera.  Presumably neither of these is an acceptable option.  I'm stuck
in exactly the same boat.

> Conclusion: Ths Sigma's poor performance wide open, along with its size 
> and weight, mean that it will not be part of my traveling kit.

It might be argued that a 20/1.8 that is no good wide open is hardly worth
having instead of a 20/2.8.  Why not the FA 20/2.8?

Nice to see a review of the Sigma 20, though.  I've been eyeing it for 
essentially the same reasons, and the fact that it is cheaper than any
manufacturer's 20/2.8 has always worried me. 

> I need Pentax to come out with a fast (f2.0 or better) DA prime in a 
> focal length between 16 and 20 mm. Have the lens assembler in Vietnam 
> put one together, Pentax, and I will buy it.

I'm not sure you want to pay what it costs to make a 20/2.0 that is 
actually good optically.  What little I found on the 21/2.0 Olympus lens 
was not very complementary, and as far as I know they are the only other 
company besides Sigma to try it.  I'll bet that a good 20/2.0 could be 
made, even by Pentax, but that it would be big, heavy, and expensive.   
Consider that the 28/1.4 Nikkor--which is quite good--costs $1600 and is 
the size and weight of an 85/1.4.  Presumably a 20/2.0 would be at least 
as hard to do right.

DJE

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Mark Dalal]

From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > I hope they'll market their cameras at walmart cause none of the camera
> > shops in San Antonio are carrying much of Pentax SLR products. I've yet
to
> > actually see the *istD in person.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> Think you meant "neither" of the camera shops, Mark

Well, I was being gracious and counting Ritz/Wolf Camera 

> if Boyd's is still hanging on ...
> (sigh)

Boyd's seems to be hangin' on. It's good place to get lens caps, filters,
film, and occasionally, used gear. They had short-dated Fuji Super HQ 200
film for $1.00 a roll when I went two weeks ago. Photo Express did an
excellent job printing it. I think they survive cause Camera Exchange can't
seem to hire someone who doesn't treat you like an idiot and is as retail as
retail gets. I went with a coworker and they were charging her $8.00 a roll
for NPH. Good grief!

Mark

Re: Transit of Venus

[Anders Hultman]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Steve Sharpe wrote:

> I'm going to try through my Celestron 5...though it is raining here 
> right now...

It's raining here too, but I have just gotten access to a fast car and a
driver, and will soon ride some 100 miles west to try to catch it there.

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Re: OT -- Handedness (was RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D))

[Treena]

My, this thread took an interesting turn ... Does this mean you can - gasp -
shoot with three cameras at once?!
- Original Message - 
From: "D. Glenn Arthur Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: OT -- Handedness (was RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D))


> > > Rather less strange is that I like to fight "Florentine" -- with
> > > a sword in each hand.  I don't coordinate the two blades as well
> > > as I'd like (I'm not "la Cuisinarte", alas); it's more that I like
> > > being able to change hands at will without having to transfer
> > > the sword from one hand to the other -- this way all I do is
> > > alter my stance to effect the change.
> >
> > but how do you swing from chandeliers with both hands full like that?
>
> I have an extraordinarily talented mouth.
>
> 
>
> -- Glenn
>
>

Re: Soligor lens

[Michel Carrère-Gée]

Henri Toivonen a écrit :
Guys, what can you tell me about this lens?
http://www.bicekru.org/~eatfrog/soligor.jpg
Is it even K-mount?
That seems a KA mount.

RE: grit in lens

[Amita Guha]

> That's all stands of course unless you paid really attractive 
> price for the item.

That's the thing, I got the lens for about $200 less than retail, so I
didn't want to let it go. Anyway, the problem seems to have corrected
itself. I spent some time turning the focusing ring and blowing and
brushing the barrel. There was definitely something in there but I think
it's mostly gone now. Thank you for the help, guys! :)

Amita

Re: grit in lens

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

AG> I just received a Tamron 90mm Macro that I bought on ebay. It was
AG> supposed to be in "like new" condition. Turns out there is some sort of
AG> grit in the barrel, under the focusing ring. I asked the seller if she
AG> took the camera to the beach or something. Now I'm either going to have
AG> to return it to her, or get it serviced by Tamron. Anyone know how much
AG> Tamron might charge to clean sand out of a lens?

AG> Grrr

Amita, may I suggest that you return the lens and look for another
one? I think these lenses are not that rare that you would have to go
all the way through the trouble of having it serviced like that. At
least here in Israel, I'd rather not let anyone but myself handle my
gear.

Aren't you living in NYC? If so, perhaps a visit to KEH and Adorama's
second-hand gear dept' is due...

That's all stands of course unless you paid really attractive price
for the item.

Just my cents.


Boris
([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: SMC F 70-210 f4.0-5.6 (was:: Zoom Lens for ist-D)

[Fred]

> I am puzzled by your findings on this lens. These are the first
> negative comments I have seen on it.

I had also been disappointed with the F 70-210/4-5.6.  Since it had
gotten pretty good comments, I was expecting it to be better than my
A 70-210/4, but it wasn't even as good (except maybe at the shorter
end).  However, I figured I just had a bad sample or something.  Now
I see that I might not be crazy after all.  (Well, I still might be,
but not for this reason.)

Fred

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[ernreed2]

> From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > True enough, but if they're bringing out a camera to compete with the
> > Digital Rebel they will have
> > to compete in places like WalMart.  There's no way around it.
> 
> I hope they'll market their cameras at walmart cause none of the camera
> shops in San Antonio are carrying much of Pentax SLR products. I've yet to
> actually see the *istD in person.
> 
> Mark
> 

Think you meant "neither" of the camera shops, Mark -- if Boyd's is still 
hanging on ...
(sigh)

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[ernreed2]

Mr Robb said, among other things:
> True enough. I do think though, that they are going to have to turn
> themselves into a brand with Leica style cachet appeal to survive.

Wouldn't their prices have to go up a Whole Lot to achieve that?

ERN

Re: grit in lens

[Andre Langevin]

I just received a Tamron 90mm Macro that I bought on ebay. It was
supposed to be in "like new" condition. Turns out there is some sort of
grit in the barrel, under the focusing ring. I asked the seller if she
took the camera to the beach or something. Now I'm either going to have
to return it to her, or get it serviced by Tamron. Anyone know how much
Tamron might charge to clean sand out of a lens?
Grrr
Amita
Well... it does not have to go to Tamron.  Any knowledgeable 
repairman can relube the lens helicoid.  You would also be able to 
ask for a smoother or stiffer focusing feeling.  A standard price for 
that work would be around US$40 here in Quebec.  And the lens would 
also be free of internal dust (between the lens groups at least) 
after this job.

Andre

Re: Transit of Venus

[Steve Sharpe]

I'm going to try through my Celestron 5...though it is raining here 
right now...

At 11:34 PM +0200 6/7/04, Anders Hultman wrote:
Will anyone here try to photograph the Transit of Venus that will take
place in some eight hours? (05:19 to 11:22 GMT)
The weather forecast here in Stockholm doesn't look to good, so I may well
miss it, but if the sky is clear tomorrow, I will set up a tripod and a
400 mm lens with proper protection.
No person alive has ever seen one, since the last time was in 1882.
Next chance will be in 2012 and the time after that will be in 2117.
anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

--
Steve
•
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Mark Dalal]

From: "Gonz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Its a bit of a drive, but at least at one point Precision Camera in
> Austin had them.  I bought mine over the net however, the price
> discrepancy was too much to ignore.

That is a drive. Not too bad but still a good 90 minutes. Definitely
important before dropping $1300 on a camera.

Mark

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Peter J. Alling]

While I believe Pentax is a publicly traded company, I think I read 
somewhere that a majority of their stock is closely held.  It's tough to 
buy and
dismember companies like that.  I used to work for one.  The CEO owned 
51% of the voting stock outright, made a corporate takeover impossible.

Dr. Shaun Canning wrote:
Pentax would be a prime candidate for acquisition right now. They are 
profitable to a point, but small enough to acquire and dismember. A 
juggernaught like Canon could easily do so. Nikon, however, are in 
trouble (well at least their parent company is in financial trouble - 
they lost 3 or 4 billion USD this last year).

Cheers
Shaun
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR

Based on the fact that they haven't introduced a new ltd. lens

lately it
may be a great finish.

True enough. I do think though, that they are going to have to turn
themselves into a brand with Leica style cachet appeal to survive.
OTOH, perhaps they can do quite well at present levels of sales,
though I suspect that those numbers will continue to erode. Canon is
just too much of a steamroller right now to not crush the smaller
players that get in the way.
William Robb

RE: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv

[tom]

> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> On 7 Jun 2004 at 2:56, tom wrote:
> 
> > Damn I'm tired. Here are some pics from tan's *ist-D -
> > 
> > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm
> 
> Great pics, I'm sad I missed it.
> 
> What the hell did Tan do to Norm? :-)

She has that effect on some people. 

I think Cesar tried to take his shirt off at some point but we were able to
stop him.

tv

Re: photography vs Cameras

[John Francis]

> 
> As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl
> photographer) has always been in the "let the camera do the technical
> stuff" camp.

Currently he uses F100s - before that he was using the N90s.  I don't
kn ow what he was using at the time of the "Afghan Girl" shot - that was
taken 20 years ago, which is somewhat before the N90 was released :-)

Herb Keppler mentions this in his Photo Industry Reporter column today

  

But Steve McCurry isn't yet prepared to go digital - in fact he's still
shooting Kodachrome for most of his stuff (although I've seen reports
that include Provia and E100s among his regular emulsions).

> I'm more intrigued by the "technology inhibits greatness" argument that
> someone implied.  Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage 
> of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there 
> are more photographers total.

I'd question that assumption.  I'd be more inclined to assume that the
number of great photographers today is pretty much the same as it was 20,
40 or even 60 years ago.  It's the same in any field; there's a number of
top-level practitioners who can excel in the field. They'll stand out from
the rest, whether they are outnumbered a millionfold or only a hundredfold.

>  Given that web publishing is cheap and 
> easy, we should be able to see lots of great photography.  The argument, 
> apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that
> intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness.

I'd see a couple of flaws in that argument.  For one, just because a
cursory web search doesn't turn up immediate examples doesn't mean that
there aren't any great images out there.  For another thing, it often
takes time before great practitioners of any art are recognised as such.

RE: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv

[tom]

You know if this had been my shot I would have done a macro on my big toe or
something.

> -Original Message-
> From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:52 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv 
> 
> dammit tom!  stop with the feet!
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/040606-060242-4852_std.htm
> 
> Christian Skofteland
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

RE: My favorite GFM photo

[Jostein]

Hi Yefei,

The colours were vivid because the Blue ridge mountains is a humid
place. It had rained heavily the night before, so everything was wet and
had Velvia colours.

It just happened to be that way...:-)

Jostein

> -Original Message-
> From: Yefei He [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: My favorite GFM photo
> 
> 
> Hi, Bill,
> 
> Why does the picture look like it's taken out of "Shrek 2"? :-) 
> It does give me a feeling of a computer generated image. Too 
> sharp? Too clean? Too vivid? I'm sure if some of the grass is 
> withering brown instead of lush green, I will feel differently. 
> Looks like I'm more accustomed to harsher confines than the eden 
> that is GFM in early June.
> 
> Yefei 
>  
> > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:41:12 -0400
> > From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "PDML" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: My favorite GFM photo
> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > 
> > The subject says it all.
> > 
> > http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=Show
> > Photo&PhotoID=81
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> 
> 

Re: OT -- Handedness (was RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D))

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

> > Rather less strange is that I like to fight "Florentine" -- with
> > a sword in each hand.  I don't coordinate the two blades as well
> > as I'd like (I'm not "la Cuisinarte", alas); it's more that I like 
> > being able to change hands at will without having to transfer
> > the sword from one hand to the other -- this way all I do is
> > alter my stance to effect the change.
> 
> but how do you swing from chandeliers with both hands full like that?

I have an extraordinarily talented mouth.



-- Glenn

Re: My favorite GFM photo

[Bill Owens]

> Hi, Bill,
>
> Why does the picture look like it's taken out of "Shrek 2"? :-)
> It does give me a feeling of a computer generated image. Too
> sharp? Too clean? Too vivid? I'm sure if some of the grass is
> withering brown instead of lush green, I will feel differently.
> Looks like I'm more accustomed to harsher confines than the eden
> that is GFM in early June.
>
> Yefei

You must be accustomed to harsher confines.  The grass was really about that
green, especially after rain.

Bill

Advertising Pentax in Australia

[John Coyle]

Good Lord! Thought I'd never see it!  Just logged on to Kennedy's web site,
and there's a flash promotion of the *ist D running over their home page.
The words are good too... now, let's see about the price!

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[John Francis]

> 
> On 7 Jun 2004 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >  I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality.  Hopefully, 
> >  experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst
> >  of the DSLRs in image sharpness.
> 
> According to reviewers or users? I've no problems with it's sharpness, with the 
> right lens it's down to theoretical limits and in at least one test that I've 
> seen it showed the least problems with aliasing of all its contemporary 
> competition.

There's a significant group of people who feel that the *ist-D is arguably the
*best* of the DSLRs in image sharpness.  More is *not* synonymous with better.

If you _want_ the significantly-sharpened-straight-out-of-the-camera you are
forced to accept from other DSLRs you can always crank the in-camera sharpening
up to the maximum value.  But if you're going to do any sort of image editing
between exposure and print or display you're far better off turning sharpening
down (or, at the least, leaving it at the default setting) and applying any
sharpening filters as the final step.  You have to (re-)sharpen anyway if you
resize the image, and there's no point in introducing extra sharpening artifacts.

Re: What I asked for

[Herb Chong]

i'm running the first firmware update, but this happened with the original
firmware. now that i have the 4G Microdrive, i haven't run out yet, although
i have come close. shoot a burst of 5 with room for 3 and see what happens.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: What I asked for


> My *ist D has the latest firmware installed and it both locks the shutter
and
> displays the message "CF Card Full" on the rear LCD when the card is full.
> Turning the front or rear control dial will blank the display but the
message
> reappears as soon as the shutter is depressed again.

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Herb Chong]

Leica isn't a great example anymore. they are in financial straits and
unless the new digital "real" Leicas ( i.e. M and R series) deliver all that
is expected, they are going to have to make significant cost cuts to stay in
business. Pentax has significant other, non-photographic, profitable
businesses to fall back on and could abandon consumer camera equipment and
still stay in business.you could even get some yourself some day soon.
Pentax is poised to become a world leader in artificial ceramic bones.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR


> At this point, Pentax needs to develop its brand as a cachet brand rather
> than mainstream, much like what Leica has survived on for the past 4
> decades.

Re: What I asked for

[Herb Chong]

people used to say that about me whenever i tried some new program they
wrote. it would invariably crash when i tried something obvious that they
never thought of.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: What I asked for


> Herb, what is it about you that attracts lemon Pentax Gear?

Re: What I asked for

[Herb Chong]

i shoot RAW and it happens to me most often when i shoot a burst right at
the end. this happens with the 1G cards because i run out more often. i
haven't yet run out of storage on my 4G Microdrive because i haven't yet
filled it in a single day's shooting.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "George Sinos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: What I asked for


> Herb, I took a quick glance at the manual to see if any of the custom
> functions controlled this behavior.  I didn't see anything that looked
> obvious.  One enables shutter release when there is no card in the
> camera.  Another enables shutter release when the internal flash is
charging.

Re: photography vs Cameras

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: photography vs Cameras



>
>The ethical
> standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get
what
> you want without cheating has improved.

Umm, have you not been watching CNN lately?
I think the world as a whole is becoming less ethical, and
journalism, while not leading the herd, is certainly somewhere in the
pack.

William Robb

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Timothy Sherburne"
Subject: Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD


>
> How do you think it compares to the DA 16-45?

Well, I think they are two very different lenses, one being a
fisheye, the other a rectilinear zoom.
OTOH, they 16-45 seemed like a pretty good lens for the few minutes I
had one on the camera.
Quite big though.

William Robb


>
> > I was quite impressed with the Zenitar. I thought it was quite
sharp,
> > and it didn't seem at all prone to flare. My only complaint was
that
> > it's colour rendition was almost cartoonlike.
> > Very contrasty lens.
> > I found a Tak 17mm fisheye, and sold the Zenitar, as I couldn't
> > justify keeping two fisheye lenses.
> >
>
>

grit in lens

[Amita Guha]

I just received a Tamron 90mm Macro that I bought on ebay. It was
supposed to be in "like new" condition. Turns out there is some sort of
grit in the barrel, under the focusing ring. I asked the seller if she
took the camera to the beach or something. Now I'm either going to have
to return it to her, or get it serviced by Tamron. Anyone know how much
Tamron might charge to clean sand out of a lens?

Grrr

Amita

Re: photography vs cameras

[Bob W]

Hi,

>> Ethiopia has superb food!

> I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some
> organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians.

Not all Ethiopians are in Ethiopia, and not all Ethiopians in Ethiopia
starve during famines.

Nevertheless, the famines are real, and real people do die. The money
people send makes a real difference and it saves lives, not just in
Ethiopia. If you have the money you should send it.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Transit of Venus

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 Jun 2004 at 23:37, Bob W wrote:

> you can see a re-animated movie of the last one here:
> http://sunearth1.gsfc.nasa.gov/sunearthday/2004/index_vthome.htm

Or a live webcast from:

http://www.transit.csiro.au/

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

OT: A Night In Pittsburgh

[frank theriault]

Got to Mark's place a coupla hours ago.  Just met his lovely SO, Lisa, and 
we're now off to dinner (their treat ).

Hopefully, when we get back, Mark can post some images of GFM from his *ist 
D.

Lovely drive from NC to PA.  That's some beautiful country, there.  Took 
loads of "from the car" pics with the Leica, which should be a laugh to see.

Off to dinner I go...
cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 Jun 2004 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality.  Hopefully, 
>  experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst
>  of the DSLRs in image sharpness.

According to reviewers or users? I've no problems with it's sharpness, with the 
right lens it's down to theoretical limits and in at least one test that I've 
seen it showed the least problems with aliasing of all its contemporary 
competition.

> -a buffer size and write speed such that it handles at least as fast
>  as a Spotmatic.  Really almost ANY DSLR ought to shoot faster than
>  you can operate a wind-lever.  I'd expect a 3-4 shot buffer to keep
>  costs down.  For photography of things rather than people the buffer/
>  write speed is less of an issue.

Read speed of the sensor is the most likely I/O bottle-neck.

> -CF card slot, for compatability.  I've got a lot of CF for my
>  Nikon DSLRs, P&Ss, and other electronic technology.  Honestly I wouldn't
>  be entirely surprised if Pentax went with SD instead to cut size.  I 
>  might be able to accept that as flash memory keeps getting cheaper.

Any manufacturer who produces a DSLR without CF storage capabilities deserves 
to fail in the market.


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: My favorite GFM photo

[frank theriault]

Don't laugh, John,
We actually did have a bazooka with us.  Photos to follow (I just have to 
remember who took the pic of the bazooka.  Me and Jostein were holding it).

cheers,
frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer



From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My favorite GFM photo
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
>
> The subject says it all.
>
> 
http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=81
>
> Bill

"They're coming right at us!"

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: photography vs chickens

[frank theriault]

okay, Bob,
I was willing to go along with it until the "cooped minds" part.
Aaag!!
-frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer



From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I don't think you can appeal to evolution here. Evolution tells us
that chickenhood is not a fixed state, not a destination or a Platonic
ideal, but part of a seamless continuum, identified retrospectively.
Chickenhood is a realm of infinite possibilities, never-ending
branches exploring the boundaries of identity, pecking at the
futility of definitions plucked from our cooped minds.
--
Cheers,
 Chuck Darwin
_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: photography vs Cameras

[edwin]

>From: George Sinos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>Eliminating the technology threshold opens up the field to more folks 
>that 
>are good at seeing the image but not good technologists.  

The "leaves you free to concentrate on framing" theory.  I find 
increasingly that pros are trusting automation to handle the technical 
stuff because what really matters is content.  More of my co-workers now
use matrix-metering, AF, etc.

As I understand it, Steve McCurry (the National Geographic afghan girl
photographer) has always been in the "let the camera do the technical
stuff" camp.  I certainly have known pros with great image-capturing
talent who were shaky technically.

I'm more intrigued by the "technology inhibits greatness" argument that
someone implied.  Assuming that great photographers are a given percentage 
of the total, there should be MORE great photographers now because there 
are more photographers total.  Given that web publishing is cheap and 
easy, we should be able to see lots of great photograpny.  The argument, 
apparently, is that we don't and therefore it can be suspected that
intelligent cameras are inhibiting greatness.  I'm not sure I agree that
we don't see more great photography, but I might believe that not having
to really learn the technical basis of photography might stunt a 
photographer's development of his craft.  The idea that you don't have to 
learn anything to get decent pictures may keep you from getting involved
and aggressively working on technique.

>From what I can see, in the areas where technology and automation are
a big win in speed and ease of use, the photography HAS gotten a lot
better.  The standards in sports action and photojournalism have gotten
a LOT higher.  I'll betcha that the pictures that the average guy takes
of his kids are better too, with AF that works and auto flash.  Remember 
that a lot of the historic "great photos" were POSED, because you almost 
had to back then to guarantee you got what you wanted.  That's fine for 
some kinds of work, but a moral slippery slope for others.  The ethical
standards have probably improved as the technical ability to get what
you want without cheating has improved.

In other sub-genres of photography where technical skill is still 
necessary (studio lights don't have a "program mode") or speed of
working isn't an issue there is probably less positive impact of 
technology.  Smarter cameras probably won't help develop the next
Ansel Adams, and may actually work against it.   They can be a real
boon for the Weegees of the world.

DJE 

reverse ekphrastic offensive

[edwin]

OK, after some time defending myself on the "rich suburban mom" thing
(mosty pointing out that it was uttered in the gear/skill/results context 
not the pro/amateur/uses context) I figured I'd actually address the
pro/amateur/uses thing by refering to a concept I bumped into in
my abortive graduate work in visual communications.  (What actually got 
aborted was the program, not my studies...)

The concept is "ekphrasis", which is loosely defined as detailed literary
description of an actual thing which is intended to bring the subject 
before the mind's eye of the listener.  The context in which I encountered 
it was that they have ekphrastic descriptions of some paintings from 
antiquity, and recently they found the actual paintings.  Lo and 
behold, some of the stories depicted by the paintings and referred to
by the ekphrastic descriptions have bits that are not in the actual 
paintings.
The paintings were being used by the authors as visual prompters to
help them remember the stories depicted in the paintings.  The authors
were bringing their own knowledge of the stories to bear in writing their
descriptions.  The actual subjects were not the paintings, but a story
known to the teller.

This is often the key difference between photography intended for private 
consumption and that intended for public consumption (as journalism, 
advertising, art, etc). 

Many pictures taken for private use are used as visual "hooks" to hang 
memories on, and some or much of their value stems from what the viewer 
brings to it from their own specific experience and knowledge of the 
subject.  A photograph used this way does not have to be particularly good 
technically, nor does it have to be composed to tell the story.  It will 
be a successful picture if the viewer can use it to remember the event 
portrayed, or if through knowledge of the subject the viewer feels that 
the moment captured is somehow especially true, or flattering, or 
whatever.  Without specific knowledge of the subject, such photographs 
often do not work well.  Looking over someone else's wedding album--
especially if you don't know anybody in it--is horribly dull no matter
how much the album means to its owner.
>From what I can tell, most amateur snapshots are of this type--pictures OF 
things, but not necessarily pictures which SAY things.  I've taken my 
share of them, and I still do take such pictures for myself.

By contrast, photographs taken as art, journalism, advertising, etc rather
precisely work as they are intended to because the viewer does not have 
specific experience and knowledge of the subject.  They can call on the 
viewer's general knowlege of similar subjects and the human condition in 
general, but any details must be explicitly communicated visually.
The visual statement must stand alone using only what is in the frame
to move the viewer with its beauty, insight, etc.  Visual professionals
must be strong communicators foremost.

This need for an explicit statement requires precise composition to 
juxtapose elements, eliminate elements, etc.  It requires sufficient 
technical merit for the viewer to make out what is intended or the 
picture is hard to "read" correctly.  Many such photographs make 
use of symbolic elements to add "strength" to a photo which often has
no direct personal connection to the viewer.  In my abortive graduate 
studies, I found that removing the ability to identify people or places
(by tight cropping, silhouetting, etc) tended to cause viewers to 
understand the photograph as a symbolic statement about the human 
condition rather than a specific statement about the subjects.  
Historically, people have felt this sort of photograph to be compelling
even when they do not have a personal connection to the subject. 
Most of the "great" photographs are quite abstract and general, probably
because they do not require any specific knowledge of the circumstances
under which they were taken to appreciate.
Photographs of the communicative sort are successful not because of what 
the viewer brings to the picture, but because of what they bring away from 
it.

One of the hardest things to do in editing and sharing pictures is to
remember that most often the viewer does not bring to the photo what
you did.  The fact that the moment of exposure was particularly important
to you somehow doesn't matter much if the content of the photo doesn't 
SHOW what was important.

I often see examples of this at work, where reporters will take a camera 
to an event and take pictures.  They KNOW what is important, and they 
usually manage to point the camera at the right thing.  Rarely, however,
do they manage to take a picture that shows the reader what was important
without having to tell them with words as well.  It is all too easy to
point your camera at a story without producing a photograph that tells
that story.  If you know the story, the photo will still be useful to you
in recalling the story, but to a viewer withou

Re: photography vs chickens

[Tom C]

The Chicken Zone...
Well a wild turkey at least...
http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=250177
Tom C.


From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: photography vs chickens
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:09:38 +0100
Hi,
>> No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg.  It's obvious the 
chicken
>> came first.

> If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that 
the
> egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, 
a
> hen.

I don't think you can appeal to evolution here. Evolution tells us
that chickenhood is not a fixed state, not a destination or a Platonic
ideal, but part of a seamless continuum, identified retrospectively.
Chickenhood is a realm of infinite possibilities, never-ending
branches exploring the boundaries of identity, pecking at the
futility of definitions plucked from our cooped minds.
--
Cheers,
 Chuck Darwin

Re: photography vs cameras

[graywolf]

I've heard they didn't have any food, but of course that was from some 
organization that wanted me to send money to feed the starving Ethiopians.

--
Bob W wrote:
Ethiopia has superb food!
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Transit of Venus

[Bob W]

Hi,

Monday, June 7, 2004, 11:12:48 PM, Gianfranco wrote:

> Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Will anyone here try to photograph the Transit of Venus that
> will take
>> place in some eight hours? (05:19 to 11:22 GMT)
>> 
>> The weather forecast here in Stockholm doesn't look to good,
> so I may well
>> miss it, but if the sky is clear tomorrow, I will set up a
> tripod and a
>> 400 mm lens with proper protection.

you can see a re-animated movie of the last one here:
http://sunearth1.gsfc.nasa.gov/sunearthday/2004/index_vthome.htm

next to the Grandfather of All Moustachios

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[graywolf]

Except that the majority of its stock is closely held. There is no way outsiders 
can gain controlling interest from what I hear.

--
Dr. Shaun Canning wrote:
Pentax would be a prime candidate for acquisition right now. They are 
profitable to a point, but small enough to acquire and dismember. A 
juggernaught like Canon could easily do so. Nikon, however, are in 
trouble (well at least their parent company is in financial trouble - 
they lost 3 or 4 billion USD this last year).

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: Transit of Venus

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

Anders Hultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Will anyone here try to photograph the Transit of Venus that
will take
> place in some eight hours? (05:19 to 11:22 GMT)
> 
> The weather forecast here in Stockholm doesn't look to good,
so I may well
> miss it, but if the sky is clear tomorrow, I will set up a
tripod and a
> 400 mm lens with proper protection.

Hi Anders,

I'll try to, although I'm not sure I'll be able to follow the
whole transit.
I did experiment an interesting setup few years ago (a solar
eclipse, maybe in 1999?) with a Tokina 600 f/8 (not a mirror
lens) plus 2x multiplier (a bit of vignetting, but with a black
background there is no way to tell...). I bought for the purpose
a series of Cokin filters including a solar one. I had to build
a mount for the filters by miself, though.
I still have to decide on which film I'll record the event.

Ciao,

Gianfranco

=
_




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

Re: photography vs chickens

[Bob W]

Hi,

>> No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg.  It's obvious the chicken
>> came first.

> If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
> egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
> hen.

I don't think you can appeal to evolution here. Evolution tells us
that chickenhood is not a fixed state, not a destination or a Platonic
ideal, but part of a seamless continuum, identified retrospectively.

Chickenhood is a realm of infinite possibilities, never-ending
branches exploring the boundaries of identity, pecking at the
futility of definitions plucked from our cooped minds.

-- 
Cheers,
 Chuck Darwin

Re: photography vs cameras

[Tom C]

If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.
That's why I said the chicken... :)

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[cbwaters]

That's a pity Jim.  I've seen several list members using screw-mount gear
(the lenses they LOVE) on a wonderful new digital camera.  Works pretty well
for those of us who have tried it...

CW

- Original Message - 
From: "Jim Apilado"
 I
> know about the firmware upgrade that will allow the use of the older K and
M
> lenses, but that never really satisfied me.
>
> Jim A.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Gonz]

Its a bit of a drive, but at least at one point Precision Camera in 
Austin had them.  I bought mine over the net however, the price 
discrepancy was too much to ignore.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
True enough, but if they're bringing out a camera to compete with the
Digital Rebel they will have
to compete in places like WalMart.  There's no way around it.

I hope they'll market their cameras at walmart cause none of the camera
shops in San Antonio are carrying much of Pentax SLR products. I've yet to
actually see the *istD in person.
Mark

Re: photography vs cameras

[Bob W]

Hi,

>> No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg.  It's obvious the chicken
>> came first.

> If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
> egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
> hen.

There is a very fine Ethiopian dish called Doro Wat which includes
both chicken and egg. I once asked an Ethiopian cook which came first,
and she informed that it was chicken. I consider her reply to be
definitive.

Ethiopia has superb food!

http://www.cafelalibela.com/menu.html
http://www.ethiopiancuisine.com/menuentrees.htm

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: PAW 08: After the rain at night

[Gonz]

I like this one better than #7.  Its very warm and it has presence, 
makes you feel like you are there.  I love the architecture of those old 
buildings.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw08e.htm
Well, this picture was taken the same night of the previous one (PAW 7),
just one hour or so later.
Looks like another postcard, just showing the good capability of the camera
in low light, I'm afraid.
All these pictures were taken shooting handheld (OK, while taking this one
at 1/8 sec. I stabilized my elbow against a wall ;-)
Morecommentswelcome.
Dario Bonazza

Transit of Venus

[Anders Hultman]

Will anyone here try to photograph the Transit of Venus that will take
place in some eight hours? (05:19 to 11:22 GMT)

The weather forecast here in Stockholm doesn't look to good, so I may well
miss it, but if the sky is clear tomorrow, I will set up a tripod and a
400 mm lens with proper protection.

No person alive has ever seen one, since the last time was in 1882.
Next chance will be in 2012 and the time after that will be in 2117.

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Dr. Shaun Canning]

Pentax would be a prime candidate for acquisition right now. They are 
profitable to a point, but small enough to acquire and dismember. A 
juggernaught like Canon could easily do so. Nikon, however, are in 
trouble (well at least their parent company is in financial trouble - 
they lost 3 or 4 billion USD this last year).

Cheers
Shaun
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR


Based on the fact that they haven't introduced a new ltd. lens
lately it
may be a great finish.

True enough. I do think though, that they are going to have to turn
themselves into a brand with Leica style cachet appeal to survive.
OTOH, perhaps they can do quite well at present levels of sales,
though I suspect that those numbers will continue to erode. Canon is
just too much of a steamroller right now to not crush the smaller
players that get in the way.
William Robb

--

Dr. Shaun Canning
Archaeologist
Cultural Heritage Services
P.O. Box 21, Dampier,
6713.
0414-967644
Http://www.heritageservices.com.au

Re: photography vs cameras

[Anders Hultman]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Tom C wrote:

> No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg.  It's obvious the chicken 
> came first.

If you accept the evolution theory, the answer would actually be that the
egg came first. It was laid by an animal that was nearly, but not quite, a
hen.

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/
med dagens bild och allt!

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Jim Colwell]

I agree with Dario Bonazza's comments that the SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 is
probably not the best choice for a new/old lens (for any camera).  I've had
two of them, and neither performed as well as I expected - all reviews of
this lens that I have found seem to be very favourable. I have tried many
other zooms of similar focal range which I feel are much better, including: 

Vivitar Series 1 Macro VMC [Komine] 70-210/2.8-4
Vivitar Series 1 Macro VMC [Kino] 70-210/3.5
Tamron SP  tt (mod. 52A) 70-210/3.5-4
Sigma   DL Macro Super 1:2 70-300/4.0-5.6

I'm not sure about the Kiron 80-200/4.5, as I haven't had it very long.

Jim
www.jcolwell.ca

Decisions Decisions

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Argh.  Take the camera an unexplained gut feeling tells me is the one
I want with me this evening (Program Plus), the one that still has five
frames left on the already loaded roll (PZ-10), or both (which seems 
like overkill for letting a couple of friends take me on a couple of
errands)?

-- Glenn

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Tom C]

I do typically try to avoid the staff.  They may have one of the best 
overall selections of photography gear in Seattle, but snobbishness turns me 
off.  It almost seems like it's their corporate culture.


Tom C.


From: alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Tom C wrote:
> That's impressive that Glazers is carrying it.  When I went there to 
look at
> a PZ-1p years ago I was uniformly snubbed.

They still snub the Pentax, they just carry it.  I typically don't
shop there because I'm unimpressed with their staff.  I do tend to buy
paper there though because they have inkjet paper options that I've
seen nowhere else.
They weren't interested when I pointed out that the lens should really
be left in the A mode when they hand the camera to people for testing
purposes.  They also didn't seem very interested in selling me the
24-90/3.5-4.5.
alex

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[Tom C]

But what in life is 100% fully backwards compatible?
Tom C.


From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: baby-D wish/expect list
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:58:14 -0700
Compatibility has been the major issue for me since the *ist D came out.  I
know about the firmware upgrade that will allow the use of the older K and 
M
lenses, but that never really satisfied me.

Jim A.
>
> -at least as much old-lens compatability as the *istD.  I'm not sure
> that metering a $900 camera with a handheld meter because I have a
> screwmount or K lens on it would be acceptable.  It's pretty limiting
> to meter the spotmatics handheld (because half of my meters don't work,
> and I can't evaluate a full-frame averaging meter well anyway).
> I'm not sure I'd expect this.  Entry-level buyers can be assumed not
> to have older Pentax gear, and lack of old-gear compatability would
> push Pentax veterans to the more expensive *istD.
>
>>
>

Re: photography vs cameras

[Bob Blakely]

In the beginning..., the chicken was the egg! Self replicating molecules...

Regards,
Bob...

From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> No, not intending to debate the chicken or egg.  It's obvious the chicken
> came first.

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[Tom C]

It's the K-mount.  I simply have not not paid enough attention to the list.  
All this stuff was probably discussed in the first 3-months the *istD was 
out.  I didn't know it existed until January.


Tom C.


From: Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 12:05:15 -0700
Tom - Are you using the screwmount version, or the K mount version?
t
On 6/6/04 16:53, Tom C wrote:
> W. Robb kindly informed me of the following...
>
>> Tom, upgrade the camera's firmware to the most recent (I think it is
>> rev1.11). This allows the >camera to operate quite nicely with non A
>> lenses, as it makes metering possible. Also, make sure >that the custom
>> function to allow shutter release with the lens off A is enabled.
>
> With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the Zenitar... 
not
> the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier
>> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0400
>>
>>> I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not
>>> work on the *istD.
>>>   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.
>>
>> Thanks for letting me know that before I bought the lens, Tom! :)
>>
>> You might be interested to know that I tried Adorama's fisheye
>> attachment in the store, and it does indeed look like a true fisheye at
>> around 28mm or wider. However, on the istD you'd probably have to put 
it
>> on something like an 18mm or wider.
>>
>> Amita
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[Timothy Sherburne]

How do you think it compares to the DA 16-45?

t

On 6/6/04 16:58, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C"
> Subject: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD
> 
> 
> 
>> With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the
> Zenitar... not
>> the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.
> 
> I was quite impressed with the Zenitar. I thought it was quite sharp,
> and it didn't seem at all prone to flare. My only complaint was that
> it's colour rendition was almost cartoonlike.
> Very contrasty lens.
> I found a Tak 17mm fisheye, and sold the Zenitar, as I couldn't
> justify keeping two fisheye lenses.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Regarding Zenitar & NON-A lenses on *istD

[Timothy Sherburne]

Tom - Are you using the screwmount version, or the K mount version?

t

On 6/6/04 16:53, Tom C wrote:

> W. Robb kindly informed me of the following...
> 
>> Tom, upgrade the camera's firmware to the most recent (I think it is
>> rev1.11). This allows the >camera to operate quite nicely with non A
>> lenses, as it makes metering possible. Also, make sure >that the custom
>> function to allow shutter release with the lens off A is enabled.
> 
> With that said, I'm pretty happy with the quality from the Zenitar... not
> the best I'm sure, but a lot of bang for the buck.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: RE: PAWS Trip to Mt. Rainier
>> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:39:58 -0400
>> 
>>> I unhappily learned that my Zenitar 16mm fisheye will not
>>> work on the *istD.
>>>   No 'A' setting on aperture ring.
>> 
>> Thanks for letting me know that before I bought the lens, Tom! :)
>> 
>> You might be interested to know that I tried Adorama's fisheye
>> attachment in the store, and it does indeed look like a true fisheye at
>> around 28mm or wider. However, on the istD you'd probably have to put it
>> on something like an 18mm or wider.
>> 
>> Amita
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: photography vs cameras

[Tom C]

That's because you probably already have a spouse better than you need. :)

Tom C.


From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:43:24 -0400
You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80-400 sitting on the table
in our area, so I was able to pick it up and "dry fire" a bit.  It's a
big thing, but fits nice in your hands.  Of course, if I wanted a camera
like this I'd have to switch since Pentax will never make  a pro model
like this.  OTOH, the *istD/D100/10D is perfectly fine for what I do, so
there's no point in switching so I have the possibility f making an
upgrade to a $3500-5000 camera that I will never buy.  Despite the
logic, it's still sort of a temptation in a technofetish sort of way.
It could also improve my shots with the VR;  Cotty showed us this on his
Canon lens and it was impressive.
My point is that folks with the money will buy better equipment than
they need, be it cameras or cars or houses or spouses, etc.  I would too
(except for the spouse part, honey).  ;-)
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/04 11:45PM >>>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400
From: "Shawn K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I said:
>"I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's
team
>at
>a high school track meet today.  She was using A Nikon D2h and
300/2.8
>with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than
what
>I as a pro was carrying.  Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced
>she
>got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures ("here's Jake before his
>race"...).  That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring
to.
>This sort of thing is only annoying because of what I could have done
>with that same equipment..."
to which Shawn said:
>This is an interesting attitude, because in the beginning part of your
>post
>you mention how no one cares about quality anymore, and its depressing
to
>see third party zooms attached to expensive 1,000+ bodies.  Well here
we
>have the very scenario you apparently wish for and now that annoys
you.
Not quite.  Shel said "garbage in, garbage out" -bad gear has killed
great photography.  I'm normally the gear-nut, but my point was that
even somebody with the best possible gear was producing what appeared
to
be mediocre photography, and was presumably satisfied by her results.
Photography is simply becoming less elitist in its uses as more
gear becomes affordable to more people.
>personally think it's nice that a suburban mom spends her money on
such
>quality equipment, and that she cares enough about her son to want the
>very best pictures possible of him...
Bravo mom, yes, but the frustration is that photographer skill is
usually
much more important than equipment quality in producing quality
images.
If the goal is more close-up, focused pictures then the gear helps and
is
of service to tyros.  Cameras, and computers, are slowly getting to the
point where they DO help unskilled people produce better results, but
not
nearly as fast as the ad campaigns would have you believe.  Both still
take skill to get good results.
If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000
would
buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer.
Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of
resent
the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality
camera.  Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other
professions.  Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't
make any sense of my Ford Escort.
The sad-and-funny reaction to guys who put a $300 lens on a $1000
camera
is that most serious photographers would do better with a $1000 lens
on
a $300 camera.  Most of them would do better with a $300 lens on a $300
camera than some putz with money does with a $1000 lens on a $1000
camera,
except at some optical-quality level.
>Also, all this ruckus about AF is rather old news as well.  Ditching
a
>system because they don't have one particular AF lens you want is
>idiotic.
Not if your income or enjoyment of photography depends on it it is
not.
The guys who are complaining that Pentax does not make a particular
600mm
lens or a 10MP DSLR are not the average amateur.
DJE

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[Jim Apilado]

Compatibility has been the major issue for me since the *ist D came out.  I
know about the firmware upgrade that will allow the use of the older K and M
lenses, but that never really satisfied me.

Jim A.


> 
> -at least as much old-lens compatability as the *istD.  I'm not sure
> that metering a $900 camera with a handheld meter because I have a
> screwmount or K lens on it would be acceptable.  It's pretty limiting
> to meter the spotmatics handheld (because half of my meters don't work,
> and I can't evaluate a full-frame averaging meter well anyway).
> I'm not sure I'd expect this.  Entry-level buyers can be assumed not
> to have older Pentax gear, and lack of old-gear compatability would
> push Pentax veterans to the more expensive *istD.
> 
>> 
> 

Re: photography vs cameras

[Steve Desjardins]

You know, at GFM someone had a D2H with a VR 80-400 sitting on the table
in our area, so I was able to pick it up and "dry fire" a bit.  It's a
big thing, but fits nice in your hands.  Of course, if I wanted a camera
like this I'd have to switch since Pentax will never make  a pro model
like this.  OTOH, the *istD/D100/10D is perfectly fine for what I do, so
there's no point in switching so I have the possibility f making an
upgrade to a $3500-5000 camera that I will never buy.  Despite the
logic, it's still sort of a temptation in a technofetish sort of way. 
It could also improve my shots with the VR;  Cotty showed us this on his
Canon lens and it was impressive.

My point is that folks with the money will buy better equipment than
they need, be it cameras or cars or houses or spouses, etc.  I would too
(except for the spouse part, honey).  ;-)


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/03/04 11:45PM >>>

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 16:44:58 -0400
From: "Shawn K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I said:

>"I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's
team 
>at
>a high school track meet today.  She was using A Nikon D2h and
300/2.8
>with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than
what
>I as a pro was carrying.  Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced

>she
>got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures ("here's Jake before his
>race"...).  That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring
to.

>This sort of thing is only annoying because of what I could have done
>with that same equipment..."

to which Shawn said:

>This is an interesting attitude, because in the beginning part of your

>post
>you mention how no one cares about quality anymore, and its depressing
to
>see third party zooms attached to expensive 1,000+ bodies.  Well here
we
>have the very scenario you apparently wish for and now that annoys
you.  

Not quite.  Shel said "garbage in, garbage out" -bad gear has killed 
great photography.  I'm normally the gear-nut, but my point was that 
even somebody with the best possible gear was producing what appeared
to 
be mediocre photography, and was presumably satisfied by her results. 

Photography is simply becoming less elitist in its uses as more 
gear becomes affordable to more people.

>personally think it's nice that a suburban mom spends her money on
such
>quality equipment, and that she cares enough about her son to want the

>very best pictures possible of him... 

Bravo mom, yes, but the frustration is that photographer skill is
usually
much more important than equipment quality in producing quality
images.
If the goal is more close-up, focused pictures then the gear helps and
is
of service to tyros.  Cameras, and computers, are slowly getting to the

point where they DO help unskilled people produce better results, but
not 
nearly as fast as the ad campaigns would have you believe.  Both still

take skill to get good results.  
If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000
would 
buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. 
Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of
resent 
the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality

camera.  Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other 
professions.  Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't
make any sense of my Ford Escort.   

The sad-and-funny reaction to guys who put a $300 lens on a $1000
camera
is that most serious photographers would do better with a $1000 lens
on
a $300 camera.  Most of them would do better with a $300 lens on a $300

camera than some putz with money does with a $1000 lens on a $1000
camera, 
except at some optical-quality level.
 
>Also, all this ruckus about AF is rather old news as well.  Ditching
a
>system because they don't have one particular AF lens you want is 
>idiotic.

Not if your income or enjoyment of photography depends on it it is
not.
The guys who are complaining that Pentax does not make a particular
600mm
lens or a 10MP DSLR are not the average amateur.  

DJE

Re: Papa-D

[Bill Owens]

Most of my night time flash shots on GFM were made w/o autofocus assist.
Although it sometime took awhile, the *ist D focused in near total darkness.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Papa-D


> I've never used the P.-1P but I do use only the central sensor on the
> *istD.  I've heard that the  P.-1P had a AF bigger motor, so it could
> very well be faster.  The central sensor of the *istD is a cross sensor,
> however, so that should mean less camera titling.
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/04/04 05:25PM >>>
> Got it, John. Thanks.
>
> As for autofocus: For my purposes (emphasis) the *ist D's autofocus is
>
> far inferior to that of the PZ-1p.
>
> Joe
>

Re: Papa-D

[Steve Desjardins]

I've never used the P.-1P but I do use only the central sensor on the
*istD.  I've heard that the  P.-1P had a AF bigger motor, so it could
very well be faster.  The central sensor of the *istD is a cross sensor,
however, so that should mean less camera titling.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/04/04 05:25PM >>>
Got it, John. Thanks.

As for autofocus: For my purposes (emphasis) the *ist D's autofocus is

far inferior to that of the PZ-1p.

Joe

Re: Attn: GFM Attendees

[Bruce Dayton]

Joe,

I was able to talk to Don Nelsen (Pentax Rep) about the FA 77 Limited.
He said that as far as he knows, the 77 is current and knows of no
plans to discontinue it.  He said that they probably did a production
run that has since sold out and will more runs in the future.  Not to
despair, just be a bit patient.

I was very comfortable with his reply and felt that he was sincere in
his answer.

With Pentax, patience is a virtue.  Just think how much more you'll
appreciate it once you finally get one.  :)


Bruce


Saturday, June 5, 2004, 7:04:07 PM, you wrote:

JT> Sorry if folks get this twice. It seems that some posts are whimsically
JT> not going through.

JT> Joe

JT>  Original Message 
JT> From: - Sat Jun 05 14:48:47 2004
JT> X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
JT> X-Mozilla-Status2: 
JT> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JT> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 14:48:44 -0600
JT> From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JT> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JT> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; CDonDemand; 
JT> rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3
JT> X-Accept-Language: en-us
JT> MIME-Version: 1.0
JT> To: pdml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JT> Subject: Attn: GFM Attendees
JT> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
JT> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

JT> Hope you're all having a great time.

JT> If any of you logs on tonight and gets this (and is sober), would you
JT> ask the Pentax rep whether the FA 77 will still be produced?

JT> Thanks,

JT> Joe

PAW - Mountain Man

[Steve Desjardins]

This came out so well I simply couldn't resist posting it.

http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/


Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: baby-D wish/expect list

[alex wetmore]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -at least 4MP.  I'd expect the same 6MP sony sensor as the *istD.  If
>  there's a better sensor availible Pentax would be wise to upgrade the
>  *istD with it and put the cheap, well-understood sony one in the baby.
>  Nobody seems to be jumping on the Foveon sensor.
>  I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality.  Hopefully,
>  experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst
>  of the DSLRs in image sharpness.

The sharpness is all software.  It is the same sensor as the D100 and
I think the D70.

Too much sharpness makes it hard to do processing later on (and it
increases noise), too little and people complain.

> -easily accessible manual exposure and metering.  In the name of
>  user-friendliness the current baby DSLRs are a bit weak here.  I wouldn't
>  be surprised if Pentax is too, on the theory that the average $900 DSLR
>  buyer won't want manual anything.

I expect that it will have the *ist (not *ist D) controls.  One control
wheel instead of two.

> -at least as much old-lens compatability as the *istD.  I'm not sure
>  that metering a $900 camera with a handheld meter because I have a
>  screwmount or K lens on it would be acceptable.

I expect that it won't have the "Green button" solution that the *ist
D has for metering with K/M lenses.

> -reasonable ISO range.  Assuming the standard Sony sensor, I'd expect
>  about the same as the *istD has, perhaps less at the top end.  I've got
>  no need for ISO 50 or 100 unless they are coupled with higher quality
>  as they are in film.

I wouldn't be too surprised if they dropped ISO 3200 just as Canon did
in the D-Rebel.

> -something new cosmetically, such as a new color or the slanted top
>  of the MZ-S.  Pentax is still a leader in such things.  Consider
>  that Hasselblads now come in primary colors--why not DSLRs?
>  Nikons are resolutely black, and the Canon 300D has hijacked that Pentax
>  chrome/titanium color.  Maybe gold-tone?

Ugh, I hope not.  The color of the 300D makes it look really cheap.
I like the *ist D black.  I was fine with the MZ-5n silver/black.

> -An upgraded *istD at the same time.  Pentax COULD still do something
>  aggressive and improve it's "$1500" price-point DSLR to be superior
>  in some noticeable way to its Nikon, Canon, and Sigma rivals.
>  I'd expect Nikon to get there first, now that the D70 has basically
>  taken over from the D100 (Nikon D70/D100 > Canon 300D/10D, in terms
>  of relative quality of siblings).  Realistically, the baby-D is going
>  to have to be quite cheap or pretty competitive with the *istD to
>  make it competitive with the D70.  I'd expect Pentax brand-loyalty
>  to be a less-important factor in baby-D sales than *istD sales.

Common sense would say that the *ist D would need to be rev'd pretty
quickly since it isn't that much more expensive (25%) and on paper
will probably have many of the same features.

On the other hand Canon still seems to be selling the 10D and has
waited a while to rev it even though the same is true for the 10D and
300D.

I think Pentax is stuck with what Sony or other companies are doing for
APS sized DSLR sensors.  I haven't read of anything being available
better than the 6mp sensor being used now.

alex

Re: I survived GFM!!

[Peter J. Alling]

Frank,
You'll never find me,  Bwahh Haa Haa Hah  even if I sent you detailed instructions
with a map.  There are still Girl Scouts wandering around out there 
trying to sell me cookies, or find their way home. 

frank theriault wrote:
Peter,
Just in case I can't get back into Canada, what's your address again?
-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The 
pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer



From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I survived GFM!!
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:58:00 -0400
Glad to hear you survived, I wasn't sure they'd let you into the 
country.  Now you only have to prove
your a Canadian to get back home.

frank theriault wrote:
I have no idea if anyone else who was @ GFM has posted yet, 'cause I 
just re-subbed.

It all wound down a few hours ago.  I'm at a cabin near West 
Jefferson North Carolina, spending the night before heading up to 
Pittsburgh with Mark Roberts, thence to Toronto.

'T'was a great weekend!  Everyone who said they'd be there was.  I 
won't list everyone, but the overseas contingent were there:  Cotty, 
Tan, Jostein, Adelheid.  Lots of Yanks, too.

They mostly tolerated me and my meanderings, along with my phuzzy 
photos.  In fact, I think I ~didn't~ win a prize in the 
nature/landscape/flower/wildlife photo contest, only because the 
judges weren't attuned to my "style" (such as it is).  What is it 
with these outdoors types and their fetish for sharpness?  Not to 
mention, I had to shoot the contest in colour (horrors!) 

Seriously, I can't begin to tell y'all how much fun I had.  Everyone 
I met from the list was terrific - just like on the list, only 
moreso.  And, yes, Cesar really does have that many cameras, and 
yes, two LXen really are snakeskin covered.

So, tell me, anyone from GFM post yet?
Anyway, Mark and I may try to get some pics posted tonight (but may 
not be able to), however, tomorrow night from Pittsburgh for sure.

cheers,
frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The 
pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 




_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 

Soligor lens

[Henri Toivonen]

Guys, what can you tell me about this lens?
http://www.bicekru.org/~eatfrog/soligor.jpg
Is it even K-mount?
/Henri

Re: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv

[ernreed2]

> Damn I'm tired. Here are some pics from tan's *ist-D -
> 
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm
> 
> Tan says hi.
> 
> tv
> 


OT? Last I heard, the *istD WAS a Pentax camera.
Well, I guess it must be 'cause you're tired. Never
mind.

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

on 07.06.04 16:11, William Robb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I tried an FA 80-300 (?) on my istD one day. It seemed decent enough.
I tried it too yesterday and compared to F 100-300/4.5-5.6 and Sigma APO
Macro 70-300/4-5.6. Pentax glass has better contrast and sharpness than
Sigma. But they have still to be stopped down to at least F8 to tell that
both contrast and sharpness are good. Unfortunately both lenses suffer from
quite significant chromatic abberations (Sigma was slightly better in this
regard), which can be visible on prints bigger than 15x21 cm.

-- 
Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR


> Based on the fact that they haven't introduced a new ltd. lens
lately it
> may be a great finish.

True enough. I do think though, that they are going to have to turn
themselves into a brand with Leica style cachet appeal to survive.
OTOH, perhaps they can do quite well at present levels of sales,
though I suspect that those numbers will continue to erode. Canon is
just too much of a steamroller right now to not crush the smaller
players that get in the way.

William Robb

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Jim Apilado]

People come up and admire my Leica M4.  They believe I am a "great"
photographer because I have a Leica in my hands.  They don't react to me
when I hold my LX.  I can't see the name Pentax getting any special
recognition for its name.

Jim A.

> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 23:29:57 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:33:53 -0400
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Peter J. Alling"
> Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR
> 
> 
>> The product isn't the problem, it's getting distribution.  I stopped
>> into the local Wallmart today. they
>> had the Canon Digital Rebel in stock and on display.  There were no
>> Pentax cameras there at all.  If they
>> don't get exposure they won't sell any.
> 
> Don't use Wal-Mart as a guide in this case. They buy based on price, not
> brand.
> Canon is big enough to be able to volume discount more than Pentax is.
> 
> At this point, Pentax needs to develop its brand as a cachet brand rather
> than mainstream, much like what Leica has survived on for the past 4
> decades.
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 

Re: OT: Mazdas vs cameras

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike.wilson"
Subject: Re: OT: Mazdas vs cameras



>
> This is on an engine rated at 1300cc?  In 1972, in the UK, that
would
> get you a Ford Escort or Vauxhall Viva with maybe 55BHP.  The
Triumph
> Spitfire, a sports car of the period, was rated about the same.
> Although they also used about half the fuel.
>

1150CC actually.
My cold weather starting procedure was crank the engine on full choke
while pumping the primer bulb for about 15 seconds, then change the
leading spark plugs for dry ones.
At that point, the engine would start just fine.

The Spitfire was 170HP? I thought they used the same (more or less)
Morris engine that was in the MGB?

William Robb

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From:
Subject: Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations



>
> I bought, last October, a used Super Multi Coated Tak 200 f 4 and i
think its the best
> lens is have ever
> owned.Nice and crisp shots with this one.Only complaint is the
built in hood.Its kinda
> floppy but there is
> one spot it seems to catch,just have to fiddle with it is all.No
biggy.:-)

I have the same lens. Bought it from a seller in Oregon, then had to
spend a pile of money to CLA it (which the seller was more than happy
to pay for, I am happy to report).
The hood is awful on mine, but the optics are quite good.
I think its another case of calling a not bad lens a dawg simply
because there is a better one available. Even my 75mm, which does
have it's problems, churns out extremely sharp and contrasty images.
I just have to be careful not to point it at the sun.

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wilson"
Subject: Zoom Lens for ist-D


> I am interested in purchasing a zoom lens for the ist -D from 70 -
to about
> 300.  I was wondering whether it was worth purchasing the FA-J
75-300 or do
> people think there are better options.

I tried an FA 80-300 (?) on my istD one day. It seemed decent enough.

William Robb

Re: What I asked for

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" 
Subject: Re: What I asked for



> 
> Does Canada really want Red Green representing it? 
>

Beats the heck out of Adrienne Clarkson

William Robb

Re: photography vs cameras

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lon Williamson"
Subject: Re: photography vs cameras


> I dunno.  It's possible to turn this arguement upside down.
> Photoshop is not exactly an easy take.  Read any understandable
> smart flash manuals recently?  One hundred plus pages of Japanese-
> To-English that makes you think that flash is one hell of a lot
> smarter than you are.  Cameras and lenses that _crash_, for Pete's
> Sake..

So you now need to be a computer whiz rather than a photographic
technologist to be a competent photographer.
Kinda changes the whole concept of photography, no?
It's a trend I started noticing when the AF SLR's started hitting the
market.
The cameras got more difficult in direct proportion to the
photographic skills they were replacing.

William Robb

I am still with the group.

[Cesar Matamoros II]

Just a jot to let those interested know that I am safe and sound at work.

Got in at midnight - 1 a.m. GFMtn time .  Feeling pretty good with three
hours of sleep, and just having finished a run.  Thanks to Cory for letting
me ride from Atlanta to the event.

Forgot to unsubscribe - hectic at work - I have to start wading through over
500 messages.  There goes the theory that the big posters would be at GFMtn
:-)

My commentary will be forthcoming - along with photos, though I feel that
they will be ignored since they may not be that timely...

Thanks to all for putting on a great event.

Awesome event!  Oh, was there a nature photo contest going on too :-)

More later, eventually.

Cèsar

Panama City, Florida

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Peter J. Alling]

Based on the fact that they haven't introduced a new ltd. lens lately it 
may be a great finish.

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Dr. Shaun Canning" 
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR

 

Well they had better give us some products worthy of lusting after like
Leica have for eons...
   

Have you looked at the 31mm abd 77mm lenses? 
It's a great start.

William Robb
 

Re: Dpreview - New SLR

[Peter J. Alling]

True enough, but if they're bringing out a camera to compete with the 
Digital Rebel they will have
to compete in places like WalMart.  There's no way around it.

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Dpreview - New SLR

 

The product isn't the problem, it's getting distribution.  I stopped
into the local Wallmart today. they
had the Canon Digital Rebel in stock and on display.  There were no
Pentax cameras there at all.  If they
don't get exposure they won't sell any.
   

Don't use Wal-Mart as a guide in this case. They buy based on price, not
brand.
Canon is big enough to be able to volume discount more than Pentax is.
At this point, Pentax needs to develop its brand as a cachet brand rather
than mainstream, much like what Leica has survived on for the past 4
decades.
William Robb

 

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Dario Bonazza wrote:

> I won't advice you to choose the F 70-210mm for the *ist D, because of its
> bad performance at longer focal lengths (two different samples of that lens
> tested before I could believe such a poor quality).
> See test images:
> http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm

Good grief! It's like it's out of focus! Thanks for this Dario.

Kostas

Re: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening

[Dario Bonazza]

I agree with you Rob. In fact, I already cropped the original image a bit
for reducing the empty low-left corner (but it wasn't enough).

Dario

- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening


> On 7 Jun 2004 at 12:58, Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> > http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw07e.htm
> >
> > There were a lot of mistakes when taking this snap taken while walking
in
> > Verona last night.
> > Given available light, I could use 400 ISO (not 800) and a slower
shutter
> > speed. Furthermore, I set -0.5 EV compensation (because it was late
evening,
> > hence some darkness could give the taste, I thought). On the contrary,
when
> > viewing the picture at home I realized I like a brighter scene. The
result: well
> > visible noise in this image. However, I quite like it anyway.
>
> I quite like the mood created by the lighting in this scene, the contrast
of
> the light buildings against the dark sky is particularly striking. My only
> criticism is that I feel the lower left corner is a bit too vacant. I am
also
> drawn to the bicycle but I find it too small in the frame, if you had
moved a
> little down the street so as to enlarge the bicycle the shot may have been
> quite a lot stronger. It's still very pleasant though and definitely
somewhere
> I'd love to be able to shoot one day.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Dario Bonazza]

I won't advice you to choose the F 70-210mm for the *ist D, because of its
bad performance at longer focal lengths (two different samples of that lens
tested before I could believe such a poor quality).
See test images:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm

Dario Bonazza

- Original Message -
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D


> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> > I am interested in purchasing a zoom lens for the ist -D from 70 - to
about
> > 300.  I was wondering whether it was worth purchasing the FA-J 75-300 or
do
> > people think there are better options.
>
> A look at stans-photography.info has convinced me that, when it comes
> to such zooms, Pentax has a very expensive and heavy proposition
> (70-200/2.8) new. Otherwise, either the SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 or the
> early M80-200/4.5 are better optically than the current consumer
> zooms.
>
> HTH,
> Kostas
>

Re: Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Charles Wilson wrote:

> I am interested in purchasing a zoom lens for the ist -D from 70 - to about
> 300.  I was wondering whether it was worth purchasing the FA-J 75-300 or do
> people think there are better options.

A look at stans-photography.info has convinced me that, when it comes
to such zooms, Pentax has a very expensive and heavy proposition
(70-200/2.8) new. Otherwise, either the SMC-F 70-210/4-5.6 or the
early M80-200/4.5 are better optically than the current consumer
zooms.

HTH,
Kostas

Re: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 Jun 2004 at 2:56, tom wrote:

> Damn I'm tired. Here are some pics from tan's *ist-D -
> 
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm

Great pics, I'm sad I missed it.

What the hell did Tan do to Norm? :-)

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 Jun 2004 at 12:58, Dario Bonazza wrote:

> http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw07e.htm
> 
> There were a lot of mistakes when taking this snap taken while walking in
> Verona last night.
> Given available light, I could use 400 ISO (not 800) and a slower shutter
> speed. Furthermore, I set -0.5 EV compensation (because it was late evening,
> hence some darkness could give the taste, I thought). On the contrary, when
> viewing the picture at home I realized I like a brighter scene. The result: well
> visible noise in this image. However, I quite like it anyway.

I quite like the mood created by the lighting in this scene, the contrast of 
the light buildings against the dark sky is particularly striking. My only 
criticism is that I feel the lower left corner is a bit too vacant. I am also 
drawn to the bicycle but I find it too small in the frame, if you had moved a 
little down the street so as to enlarge the bicycle the shot may have been 
quite a lot stronger. It's still very pleasant though and definitely somewhere 
I'd love to be able to shoot one day.

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Back home again

[graywolf]

No, you are the prize. GRIN
frank theriault wrote:
Am I eligible for the contest?
-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: Back home again
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:54:56 -0400
There will be a prize for anyone who can identify Frank in that image.
--
Bill Owens wrote:
Just got home from a fantastic weekend with PDML'ers on Grandfather
Mountain.  There will be more later (we're exhausted) and I'm sure 
over the
next few days more attendees will be signing on with comments.  We 
have to
unpack, but here is a link to yesterday's group photo.

http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=80 

Bill

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 
2months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 


--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

Re: What I asked for

[Antonio Aparicio]

Collin,
Pentax have been out of the game for at least a decade, maybe longer. 
They are just a niche player now - 100k units sounds pretty respectable 
to me.

Antonio
On 7 Jun 2004, at 14:29, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
What I asked for was a business solution.
Nikon is doing this.
Canon & Pentax aren't -- yet.
Right now Canon is marketing-driven, giving away bodies & lenses just 
to own the digital marketplace.  They're succeeding.

The market sales curve is steep right now -- sales are booming.
Industry prediction for 2005 is roughly 4 million DSLRs.  If Pentax 
sells 100k, that petty.  They need to sell 500k just to remain a 
viable player, and that means agressive marketing and ramped-up R&D & 
production.  And that requires spending money.

Selling 100K units is just not enough to sustain growth in a boom.  
Pentax needs to either (a) come out with both quality  amateur pro 
digital equipment, and quickly, or (b) give up.

Collin (sorry to be so pessimistic but it's Monday and I've not been 
in the darkroom for over a month) Brendemuehl

---
Does Canada really want Red Green representing it?


Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net

Re: What I asked for

[Collin Brendemuehl]

What I asked for was a business solution.
Nikon is doing this.
Canon & Pentax aren't -- yet.
Right now Canon is marketing-driven, giving away bodies & lenses just to own the 
digital marketplace.  They're succeeding.

The market sales curve is steep right now -- sales are booming.
Industry prediction for 2005 is roughly 4 million DSLRs.  If Pentax sells 100k, that 
petty.  They need to sell 500k just to remain a viable player, and that means 
agressive marketing and ramped-up R&D & production.  And that requires spending money.

Selling 100K units is just not enough to sustain growth in a boom.  Pentax needs to 
either (a) come out with both quality  amateur pro digital equipment, and quickly, or 
(b) give up.

Collin (sorry to be so pessimistic but it's Monday and I've not been in the darkroom 
for over a month) Brendemuehl

--- 

Does Canada really want Red Green representing it? 





Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net


 
   

Re: Back home again

[frank theriault]

Am I eligible for the contest?
-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: Back home again
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:54:56 -0400
There will be a prize for anyone who can identify Frank in that image.
--
Bill Owens wrote:
Just got home from a fantastic weekend with PDML'ers on Grandfather
Mountain.  There will be more later (we're exhausted) and I'm sure over 
the
next few days more attendees will be signing on with comments.  We have to
unpack, but here is a link to yesterday's group photo.

http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=80
Bill

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html

_
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Re: I survived GFM!!

[frank theriault]

Peter,
Just in case I can't get back into Canada, what's your address again?
-frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The pessimist 
fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer



From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I survived GFM!!
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 23:58:00 -0400
Glad to hear you survived, I wasn't sure they'd let you into the country.  
Now you only have to prove
your a Canadian to get back home.

frank theriault wrote:
I have no idea if anyone else who was @ GFM has posted yet, 'cause I just 
re-subbed.

It all wound down a few hours ago.  I'm at a cabin near West Jefferson 
North Carolina, spending the night before heading up to Pittsburgh with 
Mark Roberts, thence to Toronto.

'T'was a great weekend!  Everyone who said they'd be there was.  I won't 
list everyone, but the overseas contingent were there:  Cotty, Tan, 
Jostein, Adelheid.  Lots of Yanks, too.

They mostly tolerated me and my meanderings, along with my phuzzy photos.  
In fact, I think I ~didn't~ win a prize in the 
nature/landscape/flower/wildlife photo contest, only because the judges 
weren't attuned to my "style" (such as it is).  What is it with these 
outdoors types and their fetish for sharpness?  Not to mention, I had to 
shoot the contest in colour (horrors!) 

Seriously, I can't begin to tell y'all how much fun I had.  Everyone I met 
from the list was terrific - just like on the list, only moreso.  And, 
yes, Cesar really does have that many cameras, and yes, two LXen really 
are snakeskin covered.

So, tell me, anyone from GFM post yet?
Anyway, Mark and I may try to get some pics posted tonight (but may not be 
able to), however, tomorrow night from Pittsburgh for sure.

cheers,
frank

"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds.  The 
pessimist fears it is true."  -J. Robert Oppenheimer

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Zoom Lens for ist-D

[Charles Wilson]

I am interested in purchasing a zoom lens for the ist -D from 70 - to about
300.  I was wondering whether it was worth purchasing the FA-J 75-300 or do
people think there are better options.

Regards


Charles Wilson

A good step

[Collin Brendemuehl]

Pentax' "Remote Assistant" mentioned on dpreview.com

"Direct uploading and filing of captured images onto the computer's hard disk drive, 
without having to store them on the camera's memory card."

--- 

Brought to you by the Red Green Duct Tape Users Group 





Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net


 
   

Re: 6x7 Lens Recommendations

[brooksdj]

> 
> - Original Message - 
>from Bill Robb
> 
> They are all pretty good.
> The old Tak 75mm f/4.5 is prone to flare, but is very sharp, the new
> 75mm f/2.8 is most excellent, according to Aaron Reynolds (former
> list member from Ontario).

He still rants and raves about it Bill

> I don't know about the 55mm lenses, the SMC 45mm f/4 is superb,
> though Rob Studdert didn't think it was as good as he would have
> liked.
> I don't recall what it was he didn't like.
> The 135 macro is excellent, as is the 150mm in either of it's
> emulations.
> The 165mm LS and 90mm LS are also both excellent lenses.
> The 200mm Tak isn't the greatest, the new SMC one is apparently very
> good indeed, as is the SMC 300mm f/4.

I bought, last October, a used Super Multi Coated Tak 200 f 4 and i think its the best
lens is have ever 
owned.Nice and crisp shots with this one.Only complaint is the built in hood.Its kinda
floppy but there is 
one spot it seems to catch,just have to fiddle with it is all.No biggy.:-)

Dave Brooks
> 
> William Robb
> 
> 

Re: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

on 07.06.04 12:58, Dario Bonazza at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw07e.htm
Dario, I like photos before/ater the rain, when the sky is dark but ground
gets some lighting like a buildings on your photo. And these peacful people
wandering around not aware of the upcoming rain! Noise doesn't matter for me
- it is just a good addition to build a mood on this photo - it looks rather
like a grain. Anyway I like it!

-- 
Best Regards
Sylwek

PAW 08: After the rain at night

[Dario Bonazza]

http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw08e.htm

Well, this picture was taken the same night of the previous one (PAW 7),
just one hour or so later.
Looks like another postcard, just showing the good capability of the camera
in low light, I'm afraid.
All these pictures were taken shooting handheld (OK, while taking this one
at 1/8 sec. I stabilized my elbow against a wall ;-)

Morecommentswelcome.

Dario Bonazza