Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
AC even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give AC that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). Well, they didn't mine. Photodo is, by now, old, they do not explain enough how they test the lenses, and where did they get the lenses (some of them are discontinued). The worst is they claim to be scientific, by using MTF testing, but that's cr*p still untill you know precisely how they tested it. Lens testing is a bunch of cr*p, unless you do a real world test with your lenses, and still it doesn't tell so much about other sample of the lens, with some new lenses having quite loose tolerances. And some of the long discontinued lenses - how many samples did they test, anyway? Just one? etc. That to say, that was a comment made on photodo and lens testing, not at you :-) From all the past, I respect you quite a lot. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
ND I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood ND opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By ND comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from the archives probably. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Hello whereever possible, I replaced my FA lenses with F lenses because of the better build quality, the better materials, the better feel, and also the better mechanics. It is true that the focusing ring of F lenses is narrow. However, once you get used to the narrowness, the actual focussing feel is at least as good as with the FA lenses. For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. Yes, there are holes in the F series primes line-up. However, that does not reduce the value of the F primes that exist. I own the F28/f2.8, F50/f1.4, F50/f1.7, F50/f2.8, F100/f2.8, F135/f2.8, F*300/f4.5, and I am happy with all of them. The only one that was updatet optically by an FA lens was the 28. Also, I do not agree with the statement Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Which cheesy zooms do you mean? The F24-50 is optically identical to the A24-50 The F28-80 is optically identical to the A28-80 and way better than the FA28-80s. OK, the A28-135/f4 was not replaced by an F lens, however, the FA28-200 was not a replacemet, either. The F35-70 is optically identical to the A35-70/f3.5-4.5 The F35-105/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A35-105/f3.5, however, it is not a bad zoom at all The F35-135 is optically identical to the A35-135 The F70-210/f4-5.6 was slower than the great A70-210/f4, however, it is of the same quality. The F*250-600/f5.6 was an improvement over the K135-600/f6.7. Speeking of cheesy zooms, the ones that come to my mind are the FA28-80/f3.5-4.5, FA70-200/F4-5.6, and the FA28-200. Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: I haven't run anything like a proper test, but so far I'd agree with you on the F* 300/4.5. I suspect it will test better than the other slow 300s I have to put against it. IMHO no 300/4.5 is going to work well on a 2x converter (too dark), and from what I've heard most 2x converters cause a loss of quality that most professionals find intolerable. F lenses are hard to find used, and presumably impossible to find new. They aren't exactly attractive, and they don't have the build quality of even the A lenses. Manual focus with them is not great (in common with early AF lenses from other manufacturers). Most of the good ones appear to be optically identical to the A versions. All of these seem to be valid reasons why the F lenses are unpopular. Personally, my gripe with F lenses is that they are for the most part cheesy zooms--a lot of the good stuff either died off in the K or A era or was only updated as FA rather than F. Given the lens focal lengths and apertures that I would like to carry, there are almost no F versions (no wides wider than 28, no 28/2.0, no 35, only a soft-focus 85, no 200, only the 600/4 for big glass). There are A versions, and often FA versions. Really the only NEW F primes I can think of are the 300/4.5 and the 135/2.8, both of which are well regarded, and the 600/4 which we understandably don't hear much about. DJE
RE: M 75-150 and social theory
This is a very nice portrait focal length. I own a Tamron 3.5 in this interval. It's a really ideal interval for portraits. This M lens have been discussed here earlier. AFAIR it's rated quite good. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 07:18 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: M 75-150 and social theory I decided that I was going to get an M 75-150, as it looks like a useful lens and the going price is below my toy threshold. For something like $50, I can take the risk that it is mediocre. I decided to check with stan halpin's site to make sure it wasn't unanimously rated a dog. 5 out of 6 comments there suggest that it has good sharpness and contrast and is an excellent lens. And then there's Shel, who is not at all positive about it, claiming it is soft and big and bulky. From what I can see of Shel's tastes, I can discount the big and bulky for my uses--he seems to like SMALL. I can't believe any lens with a 49mm filter is big and bulky, compared to the Nikkor behemoths I lug around on the job. OTOH I have found myself normally in agreement with Shel's assessment of the optical performance of lenses. So, what's going on here? Did Shel get a bad sample? Do the other five guys just have very low standards? Is the lens worse than most primes (which Shel seems to like) but better than most zooms? I wouldn't expect it to be equal to the M 150/3.5, for example, but given that Pentax made an 85, 100, 135, and 150 in the M series you'd think there was SOME reason for the zoom. Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations? As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th dentist does not recommend sugarless gum... DJE
RE: Pentax F-series lenses??
There will always be discussions about lens tests. However, measuring resolution in lp/mm is a good starting point - after all, we all want to know to which degree detail can be recorded on film. If you don't trust tests, I guess it's a good idea to test it your self. Or have someone photograph a test target or a newspaper page a various apertures/focal lengths at a given distance in daylight - then judge for your self. You are the final judge. If you think it's good enough, then it is. I know photodo gave - for instance the FA 70-200mm - bad grades. I have owned this lens - and it really WAS bad. The F 4-5.6/70-210 was rated quite high in German Fotomagazin as well as by photodo. And it really is quite good, although a little slow for some of my needs (concert shots etc.). I wish there was some kind of standard independent testing organisation, who could test all new (and some old) lenses. In the old days, Fotomagazine did a good job. After the death of the guy who invented the test, I don't know. I guess the problem is that photographic magazines are NOT independent, because their main source of income is the photographic manufacturers. We should actually form some kind of user organisation to provide the necessary tests. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 08:44 Til: Nenad Djurdjevic Emne: Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? ND I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood ND opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By ND comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that Just do not believe all lens tests. Simple. Judge for yourself. There were big discussions about photodo some years back here IIRC, but it's lost from the archives probably. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?)
I fear manufacturers development departments are not good at thinking 'outside of the box' and the short product cycles have cut down available time to let foreigners test prototypes - to make the developers aware of things they just did not 'see'. If we leave behind the 'film based' thinking, then ISO, aperture and shutter speed have a comparable influence on the final image and all three values should be equally easy to adjust and be equally displayed. What was a combination of two values now is a ISO-speed-aperture triangle (well, it always was...). If it gets darker I can adjust ISO to get the best noise/shutter speed/aperture compromise, if I need shallow DOF I decrease ISO so that I can shoot wide open, if I need a very high shutter speed I can increase ISO until I get 1/6000 and so on. I don't think it is an adequate solution having to turn two dials to adjust ISO and then afterwards not even being able to see what was set (without hitting another button). Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Neither my Nikon D100 nor my Nikon D1H display ISO in any of the normal displays. It'd be real tempting to say manufacturers didn't anticipate the desire to see the freely-changeable ISO number in the normal displays of a digital camera, except that my Nikon F5 DOES show ISO in the rear display. Still, perhaps the amateurs use DX coding mentality is to blame. Does the *istD have an auto ISO feature? Some of the other low and/or mid-level DSLRs do, presumably because film speed confuse tyros. OTOH, I rarely shoot more than a couple of frames at an inappropriate ISO before my brain tells me that the settings are fishy and I check to see where the camera is set. I'd expect most of you have good enough eye-meters that you aren't going to shoot at 1600 ISO by accident for long. DJE
Re: OT - test
1 rule for the in crow eh, another for the rest Antonio On 25 Jun 2004, at 01:20, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Get a grip antonio, they aren't hurting anyone's feelings with THEIR posts, and besides, I've been laughing along with them with every post. tan. -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 25 June 2004 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT - test Sheesh, and you guys have a go at me for being OT? Why dont you email each other with your private chit chat? A. On 25 Jun 2004, at 00:55, Cotty wrote: On 24/6/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: Kripes, Cotty, For that kind of money, just pay to fly me over the pond: I'll whisper my posts into your ear... LOL. Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy and crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European football championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful territory with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 hours (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful! Anyway, off to bed. Cheerio mate. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - test
Good thing England lost that game, else you had another night in a pub coming in a few days, with even more shoulder pain. On Friday 25 June 2004 00:55, Cotty wrote: FJW On 24/6/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: FJW FJW Kripes, Cotty, FJW FJW For that kind of money, just pay to fly me over the pond: FJW FJW I'll whisper my posts into your ear... FJW FJW LOL. FJW FJW Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy and FJW crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European football FJW championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful territory FJW with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 hours FJW (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin FJW and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful! FJW FJW Anyway, off to bed. FJW FJW Cheerio mate. FJW FJW FJW FJW FJW Cheers, FJW Cotty FJW FJW FJW ___/\__ FJW || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche FJW ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps FJW _ FJW FJW FJW FJW -- Frits Wüthrich
unsubscribe
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:46 AM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #670 -- Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 670 Today's Topics: Re: The Last Two Days [ William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne) [ Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] M 75-150 and social theory[ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? [ Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: M 75-150 and social theory[ Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Pentax F-series lenses?? [ Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open le [ keller.schaefer keller.schaefer@ ] Re: OT - test [ Antonio Aparicio [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] -- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:22:46 -0600 From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Last Two Days Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: The Last Two Days Peter, I was having a fine day until Cesar and Jostein decided to gang up on me, and be real mean and all that stuff... :-( Watch it, next thing you know, Frank will inflict a drive by shouting on you. William Robb -- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:27:59 +0800 From: Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit alex wetmore wrote: I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. -- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:55:43 +0100 From: Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anders Hultman wrote: Bus terminals, ferry terminals and even train terminals have already been mentioned. May I remind you that the telecom industry calls the cell phones we carry around terminals as well. The socket where you connect the speaker cables to your ampifier are called terminals, and some of us computer users sit in front of terminals, too. The key word is crash. If your computer crashes, it's a damn nuisance. If your plane/ferry etc crashes, it could ruin your *whole* day or be, er, terminal. Malcolm -- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:55:54 -0500 From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Its a piece of junk. (F35-135/3.5-4.5) Sorry, just my opinion. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alex wetmore wrote: I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is
Re: OT - test
Open letter to Cotty! Why _ever_ do those cameras weigh 25 lbs? You would think that with the advances in image recording technology in the past 10 years, they'd be able to shrink the size of those cameras considerably! I know the weight helps steady things, but that's what we have IS for! So it seems to me. Have you taken out stock in the makers of arnica gel? g keith Frits Wüthrich wrote: Good thing England lost that game, else you had another night in a pub coming in a few days, with even more shoulder pain. On Friday 25 June 2004 00:55, Cotty wrote: FJW Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy and FJW crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European football FJW championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful territory FJW with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 hours FJW (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin FJW and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful! FJW FJW Anyway, off to bed. FJW FJW Cheerio mate.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
the 24 is very sharp at the center but has chromatic abberation. that's the reason i don't use it, not sharpness. people usually don't distinguish the two factors. most of my other glass is Pentax A* and FA* prime lenses. what isn't, is still all Pentax glass. the FA* 80-200/2.8 is the sharpest of the lot except for my FA 50/2.8 macro, but i haven't tested against the FA 50/1.4. it's considerably sharper than the DA 16-45/4, noticeably better than the M* 300/4, FA* 400/5.6, and A* 400/2.8. the FA 24-90 isn't as good as the DA 16-45/4. i've tried a number of the older highly regarded lenses by people here and think they are merely adequate. i've not tried any of the Limiteds enough to have an opinion on relative sharpness. is it better than other brands of equivalent zooms? i'l let you know in about 5 months. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:03 AM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? From what I've heard of that lens, and what I've seen of other 24s (especially f/2 versions) that is not saying much. Most ultrawides stink, especially at wide apertures and towards the edges.
Re: The Last Two Days
Bill, On a bike, would it be more appropriately called a ride-by shouting? I like the general concept, though... vbg -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Last Two Days Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 22:22:46 -0600 - Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: The Last Two Days Peter, I was having a fine day until Cesar and Jostein decided to gang up on me, and be real mean and all that stuff... :-( Watch it, next thing you know, Frank will inflict a drive by shouting on you. William Robb _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
Thanks, Gianfranco, I'm glad you liked it, and I'm humbled by your comparison. More Dogs and Their People PAWs to come in the following weeks (or maybe days - who knows?). thanks, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] A portfolio like that would be interesting indeed, at least for me. Julian Holding Fritz makes me feel a bit sad, in a soft, almost sweet way. It seems life a frame of a François Truffaut movie (Julian performing the part of Antoine Doinel - he in fact reminds me of Jean-Pierre Léaud...). Fritz seems a bit worried about something, but that adds a bit of a story to the picture. I like it. Well done. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite right: Does one stop faster really make it worth paying 10 times more money and putting up with 4 times the weight? For example the difference between the FA28-70f4 and the FA28-70f2.8 is only one stop (the difference between setting the ISO from 200 to 400 on the *istD) and the difference optically is apparently minimal (3.3 and 3.5 according to www.photodo.com) Photodo is a joke. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Mark Roberts wrote: Photodo is a joke. It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I can only quote their ratings. ;-) Regards Nenad
FS: F 17-28/3.5-4.5 (fish-eye)
no scratches, no dents, all original packaging. 300$ will ship anywhere. pictures available upon request. location: Latvia. Krisjanis
Re: *istD CCD cleaning
Hi, alex wetmore wrote: On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is that the Eclipse cleaning fluid can only be sent surface mail so I probably still have a month to wait. what exactly is it? some sort of hydrocarbon? It says it contains methonal. It smells a lot like methanol. I expect it is repackaged methonal for a lot of extra money. I assume you mean Methanol (methyl alcohol). Methanal is something else. Methanol is a deeply unpleasant chemical. In quite small doses, it will cause you to go blind. It can be absorbed through the skin and lungs, as well as by drinking. The only reason meths (a mixture of methyl and ethanol [ethyl alcohol] sold for cleaning and fuel) drinkers don't die immediately is that the antidote for methanol poisoning is ethanol. It takes tham years to give themselves a fatal dose, by which time the direct effects of the alcohols have usually done most of the work anyway. I can see no good reason (except cheapness) for using methanol in a cleaning fluid when there are much safer and equally effective alternatives. mike
Re: Disappearing gear
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I don't kow if anybody noticed it, but it dissappeared from Pentax Germany (Europe) pricelist just like MZ-S and few others before. IT makes me wonder - what are they preparing? DA tele zoom in similar range but in smaller case and lighter? FAAA* lenses with USM and IS for FF Papa-D? New anti-fungus unguent? My guess is simply that no-one is buying high-end Pentax gear, so Pentax is no longer producing things like the MZ-S and the FA 80-200/2.8 Pentax users seem more inclined to buy 80-200/4.5-6.7 kinda lenses, and Pentax's market share is so weak already that this is where they have to focus. It could be, but it does not fit with the quality of the new 14mm, which seems to be to well built to be aimed at the mass market. It's possible that an IS/USM version is forthcoming, but I honestly don't think Pentax can afford to compete against Canon/Nikon in that arena and won't put the money into developing such a thing. Or they have found that these lenses have weaknesses that become evident on dslr's, so they are planning to release improved versions. With or without IS/USM. DagT
Re: M 75-150 and social theory
I had this lens, and liked it. It was small, very small, but produced good results. Of course maybe I got a best-of-the-flock specimen while Shel had a bad one. It was sharp, and while not super contrasty, it was still good in contrast. I have many slides shot with it, it was excellent travel lens in the mountains. The primes I had alongside were better, but still, it IMO is better than consumer zooms. Only think I disliked was the push-pull design, which (although damped well) exhibited zoomcreep when held vertically (which is a pita on a tripod shooting something straight up or down). But plain rubber band can solve it, and the AF Nikkor 2.8/80-200 (1 ring) had much much much worse zoom creep. It also has rotating front, which is pita with polariser. But I do not use polarisers much, so I didn't mind. The built-in hood is just for fun though. I can recommend this lens. It was perfect on MX, along with a wide prime or 24-35. The Tamron SP 70-210 3.5 is slightly better, and the 2.8 pro zooms are better, but not by that much. And it has better coating than the Tamron. It's also very well built. Test it if you can before buying, as indeed some old lenses can be mistreated. Fra
Re: OT - test
C Oh yeah, is it working fine. It's really weird to be getting PDML C messages in real time. Hah! So can we except to read more cottisms now on PDML ;-) ? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?)
ein Neither my Nikon D100 nor my Nikon D1H display ISO in any of the ein normal displays. It'd be real tempting to say manufacturers didn't ein anticipate the desire to see the freely-changeable ISO number in ein the normal displays of a digital camera, except that my Nikon F5 Even the D1H? They at least added it in the D2, which shows it. Personally, I would much like to see ISO and WB in the viewfinder (although I do not qualify, as I use different DSLR than IstD g) Still, anything to better the IstD is good :) Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
- Original Message - From: Nenad Djurdjevic Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Mark Roberts wrote: Photodo is a joke. It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I can only quote their ratings. ;-) Their ratings are meaningless, in that their test procedures are suspect and their results have been proven innacurate time and again. Quoting their ratings is like quoting the Cheese Shop sketch, good for a laugh, but not very useful on a photography list. William Robb
Re: M 75-150 and social theory
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M 75-150 and social theory Anybody want to explain Shel, or the M 75-150, or the social dynamics of some very divergent comments in Stan's collection of lens evaluations? As I said, I'm getting the lens anyway, but I'm curious why the 5th dentist does not recommend sugarless gum... Shel's idea of a good lens is a Leitz Summicron. It's hard to be a good lens compared to that. William Robb
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get such shots, I want one. Jostein Quoting Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. Herb - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: *istD CCD cleaning
This one time, at band camp, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see no good reason (except cheapness) for using methanol in a cleaning fluid when there are much safer and equally effective alternatives. What is better? Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Well, they are a lot better than your own tests - which are trully useless. On 25 Jun 2004, at 14:24, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Nenad Djurdjevic Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Mark Roberts wrote: Photodo is a joke. It may be. But as I have not got a FA28-70/2.8 to compare to my FA28-70/4 I can only quote their ratings. ;-) Their ratings are meaningless, in that their test procedures are suspect and their results have been proven innacurate time and again. Quoting their ratings is like quoting the Cheese Shop sketch, good for a laugh, but not very useful on a photography list. William Robb
FS - various gear
All prices in Australian dollars (AU$1 = US$0.68) 1) Pentax (P)Z1 Camera: with dateback and operating manual, only had light amateur use, no scratches, exc cond. AU$400 Note: While Z1 has slightly slower motordrive than Z1p, no in-built flash compensation and no panorama switch (a useless function IMHO) - it does have an interval timer which the Z1p doesn't! 2) Rare Pentax FDP gripstrap fits (P)Z1 and (P)Z1p, improves handling markedly, boxed, exc cond. AU$70 3) Pentax FA28-70 f4, boxed, as new with all original packaging etc, c/w 52mm Hoya Pro-1 UV filter with 12 layer coating (why have an SMC lens but an inferior filter!) AU$190 4) Pentax M75-150 f4 lens, exc. cond, professionally modified for use with matrix metering (a completely reversible modification) with 49mm UV filter AU$150 5) Pentax A501.4 with dedicated Pentax hard case, absolutely mint, as new cond. with 49mm UV filter AU$210 6) Lowepro Orion waistbag (not backpack version), exc.cond. AU$25 6) Olympus XA and A11 flash in Olympus Hard case with instructions, mint cond. (I know it's not Pentax so sorry if I offend anyone) AU$120 If anyone is interested in any of the above please contact me off list and bear in mind that I am in Australia and prices are in Australian dollars. I can provide photos of all of the gear.
Re: Pentax spotted on the screen redux
My favorite part (besides Rebecca in various stages of undress) is when Antonio is using his 645N, takes a picture, runs over to his Mac and umm, plugs the camera in and DOWNLOADS the picture and prints it! I'd recommend the movie to anyone who likes weird plot twists, lots of sex and Pentax cameras (there's a few Canons too). Christian -Original Message- From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Jun 24, 2004 6:25 PM To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pentax spotted on the screen redux My TiVo box decided to record Femme Fatale. As there wasn't much else on, and it had a decent cast, I decided to give it a try. At one point, Antoni Banderas' character is trying to get a photograph of Rebecca Romijn-Stamos' character, using a PZ-1p and an FA* 80-200/2.8!
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
On 24/6/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: Oh, come on, Shel. Some of my photos are pretty well focused. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2378683 You just haven't commented on all of them is all. I don't go out of my way to ~not~ focus properly. Realising Shel's comments were probably satirical, can I play devil's advocate for a minute? Focus didn't seem to bother HCB and he got by okay. The feeling and emotion from the photo is there or it isn't. I don't see how focus can take precedence over that? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - test
On 25/6/04, Frits Wüthrich, discombobulated, offered: Good thing England lost that game, else you had another night in a pub coming in a few days, with even more shoulder pain. Funny, I thought exactly the same thing ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
FS Friday: SMC-F 24-50/4 wide zoom lens
Hello PDML, For sale, rare, wide-angle autofocus zoom lens SMC Pentax-F 24-50mm 1:4 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3823717946 Worldwide shipping. Auction ends on Tuesday. Regards, Jerry
RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne)
Malcolm Smith pointed out: The key word is crash. If your computer crashes, it's a damn nuisance. If your plane/ferry etc crashes, it could ruin your *whole* day or be, er, terminal. A computer crash is _usually_ only a nuisance of varying degree. Search the web for the origin of the saying, always mount a scratch monkey. There's a reason the Space Shuttle has five different computers, rather than a single one. (Okay, more than one reason, but you get the point.) Though, oddly enough, the situations where a computer crash is likely to be terminal don't usually happen at a terminal... -- Glenn
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). Photodo just measures sharpness. A lot of list members seem to cherish Pentax lenses for the harder to quantify qualities such as smooth bokeh and good contrast. Photodo doesn't measure these things, so their numbers might not be so important if that is what you are looking for. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: alex wetmore wrote: I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. On the other hand it is cheap, so I'm picking one up from KEH to try it out. This lens was last made in 1989, and it seems like zoom optics have come a long way since then. Does it have a rotating front element? alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some Sigma lenses do. In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about 5 years. The contact cement between two elements fails, leaving you with a low contrast and not very sharp 28-70/4. alex
Postscript to my Tamron 90mm saga
I thought you guys be interested in hearing that I finally got my lens issue resolved. The seller had been travelling, but when she got back, she told me to go ahead and return the lens. She gave me my money back minus $10 for shipping. I have decided not to buy any more lenses for now, because my husband and I are going to try to buy a place to live, and that will take some time and money, so I probably won't be shooting much this summer. However, that hasn't stopped my husband from continuing to buy lenses! G Have a good weekend, everyone! Amita
Re: OT - test
Well I can answer that one. They don't weigh 25 lbs. The big fast zoom lens, and big heavy batteries (remember they need to run that thing for up to a couple of hours) are most of that weight. The rest is simply ruggedness. Those camcorders get thrown around and beat up a lot. Something like Adelheid's nifty Canon XL-1 (6 lbs or so) would not last 6 months in heavy news use. And the advances in technology did lighten them they used to weigh 45-50 lbs. -- Keith Whaley wrote: Open letter to Cotty! Why _ever_ do those cameras weigh 25 lbs? You would think that with the advances in image recording technology in the past 10 years, they'd be able to shrink the size of those cameras considerably! I know the weight helps steady things, but that's what we have IS for! So it seems to me. Have you taken out stock in the makers of arnica gel? g keith Frits Wüthrich wrote: Good thing England lost that game, else you had another night in a pub coming in a few days, with even more shoulder pain. On Friday 25 June 2004 00:55, Cotty wrote: FJW Right now I could do with a shoulder massage. Been filming in a rowdy and FJW crowded pub in Oxford, watching England go out of the European football FJW championships :-( It gets past fun and into downright painful territory FJW with that bloody camera (25 lbs) sitting up there for more than 2 hours FJW (match, plus extra time plus penalty shoot out). I've had some aspirin FJW and arnica gel rubbed in but boy that's painful! FJW FJW Anyway, off to bed. FJW FJW Cheerio mate. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
On gear repairs
As some of you may have read, I broke my FA*400/5.6 a couple of weeks ago, and the light meter on MZ-S went wonky in multi-segment mode. When I got home, I also noticed that my FA50/1.4 had accumulated some bright white specs of dust inside, and needed cleaning. So I turned it in with the two other items and included the *istD for cleaning as well. To take the latter first, it took the repairman less than an hour to clean the 50mm and the *istD to brilliance. The MZ-S also had an easy fix, to my surprise. Apparently, the metering sensor had come loose and moved out of position. Part of the sensor was obscured, and caused readings about 5 stops off the actual value. He promised me it was now securely attached. The lens will also be revived. None of the optical elements were damaged, but the entire lens tube was bent as I suspected. However, the price of replacing the tube is considerably less than buying a new one. On a sidenote, I also made my first sale of an enlargement from the GFM trip today. So all is well that ends well I suppose...:-) Jostein -
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Um. That should read ..taken with the FA*80-200/2.8, of course. Jostein - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get such shots, I want one. Jostein Quoting Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. Herb - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, keeping with the innovative approach you've taken, I'd suggest a more creative - no, let's call it innovative - crop. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/julianfritz.html IMHO, that looks like a mockup. It doesn't do any good to fiddle with art. :-) Jostein
FS: SMCK 400mm f5.6
This lens is still available if any of you *istD'ers care to have a telephoto w/ a 600mm's field of view. Has case, caps and a few 77mm filters is in excellent condition. A much less expensive option to those f2.8 long teles while still producing excellent images w/o much lost convenience against auto focus gear. SMCK 400mm f5.6 US$250 plus freight costs Bill mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Julian Holding Fritz
Nice capture, Frank. I think the dog's expression is very articulate. Something like annoyed but patient, maybe. And I think this picture scores on the OOF dog. It underlines the impression (together with the standing man in the background) of them going somewhere. On a bumpy bus ride, maybe. As Cotty pointed at too, it simply works. Jostein - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:40 PM Subject: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz Just a guy holding a dog. Not even his dog (Fritz belongs to Helene). If you knew Julian, you'd know this is actually him (hard to explain): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2471920 I've got lots of people and dogs shots. Some of folks and dogs I know, some of strangers on the street. Time to start organizing them in a portfolio. So, the next two or three PAWs will be dogs and people. Comments are always appreciated. The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I wrote: What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. alex wrote: It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. As far as build quality goes, I think a lot of the bad reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Does it have a rotating front element? Yes it does.
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
Explain, please? What do you mean by that comment? Shel [Original Message] From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/julianfritz.html IMHO, that looks like a mockup.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I wrote: What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. alex wrote: It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. As far as build quality goes, I think a lot of the bad reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Does it have a rotating front element? Yes it does.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Since the lens in question hasn't been made in 15 years the chances of finding a like new speciman is low. I don't like the manual focus feel on the F lenses that I've tried. All have been consumer grade zooms, but this seems to be one too, so I'm not expecting much. A DA version of this lens could be made smaller, and the build quality of the DA 16-45 is better than any F lens that I've used and many of the FA lenses. I like the Quick Focus Clutch mechanism too. alex
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
Mockup as in quick'n'dirty and tongue-in-cheek. Suited the cheekiness of your comment, though. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz Explain, please? What do you mean by that comment? Shel [Original Message] From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/julianfritz.html IMHO, that looks like a mockup.
Re: unsubscribe
Try again, mate. You should send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject: unsubscribe. Jostein - Original Message - From: John Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 6:45 PM Subject: unsubscribe Trying this way. John aka jmb
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A* 400/2.8 Wow! Heresy Alert !!! vbg Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
While an overall impression can be delivered in a single number, you'd need commentary to determine how that overall impression was reached. ...and every user would want to determine his/her own method of averaging or combining ratings to come up with that number... Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
I concur. The SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. rg Alan Chan wrote: I had the SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 which I think is a great zoom lens. I did some outdoor test near infinity against the 3rd generation AF Nikkor 80-200/2.8 few years ago. To my surprised, their sharpness were so close I thought I did something wrong (Nikkor was sharper, but not by much). I even used one of those Pentax vibrators like Super A for trhe test, and Nikon F90X. I also owned the Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D and did some tests against the Pentax too between 2-3 metres with flash. The Nikkor was way softer and inferior than the Pentax at all focal lengths and apertures (though the Nikkor had more pleasing colour). It was like the Nikkor required 3 stops difference to achieve the same level of sharpness as the Pentax did. Since there are non-SMC variants which are similar to the SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4, I suspect photdo mixed them up and thought it was SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4. Afterall, there is no SMC PENTAX-A 70-200/4 as they suggested. If the dog lens like Nikkor AF 70-210/4-5.6D could achieve 2.8, no way the Pentax got 2.2 only. They must make some mistake along the way. Simply as that. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I have never owned a A70-210/4 but I notice everyone seems to have agood opinion of it even though www.photodo.com gives it only a grade 2.2. By comparison the F 70-210/4-5.6 is given a rating of 3.4. Could it be that the A70-210/4 was good for its time but has been eclipsed by better technology? _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
FS: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander Perkeo 120 folder
For sale: Pentax SF1n, beautiful condition. I can't tell this one from new. Perfect working condition -- definitely a low-mileage body. Includes eyecup cover, hot shoe cover, cable release cover, along with everready case, strap and extra AA battery grip. Also includes original manual. Choice of SMC-F 50mm f/1.7 lens or SMC-F 28-80 zoom (the SMC one, not the Pentax F/Takumar F version), or both. I'll include a battery as well. Price: $150 body alone, $180 with 50mm lens, $200 with 28-80, or $225 with both lenses. Or make me an offer. Also for sale, a very pretty Voigtlander Perkeo I folder 120 camera, with the more desireable Color Skopar 80mm f/3.5 lens (a four-element, highly regarded design). I had this camera CLA'd last year. Bellows are fine. This model has no rangefinder or meter. Operating very well and takes beautiful images -- folds down into a size that's barely taller than a Kodak Retina. Includes most of the everready case (only missing the snap flap on the rear that holds it closed. But you may find it more pocketable without the case and with a strap that screws into the tripod socket. Price: $75. Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Communication and Marketing Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873
PAW: A boy and his dog.
After viewing Julian Holding Fritz and all the other recent photos of cute dogs and cute kids, I decided to post my own favorite snapshot of this genre: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2385946size=lg I could never take a candid, or semi-candid, photograph of my sun. As soon as he knew there was a camera, he would stare at the lens until the camera was put away. I do have pictures of the back of his head, when I snuck up on him, but generally it's the deer in the headlights pose or none at all. (Of course, now he walks around with his digital camera telling everyone, Don't look at me, just pretend I'm not here.)
RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne)
Yes. Terminal often has the connotation of fatal. People may speak of a disease as being terminal. Maybe I'm missing something here, not having English as my first language. Is the world terminal sinister in any way? Yes, I know it means the end of something and that that something could be a persons life, as well as a ferry line or a communications circuit, but why the fuzz? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt! Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* [80]-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html And the AF Adapter 1.7X worked very well with that lens on a couple of those shots, too. Fred
Re: On gear repairs
Wow, that's a bad run of problems. Given what it could have cost, you did pretty well.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Dang. Those are beautiful shots. rg Jostein wrote: Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* 70-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html I remember thinking, back then, that if that lens is 10% the reason he can get such shots, I want one. Jostein Quoting Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]: well, it's better than every other one of my lenses in terms of sharpness except the FA 50/2.8 macro. my FA 50/1.4 is too new to compare against. at all zoom positions, it's sharper than the FA* 24/2. Herb - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:34 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
Gosch - that's beautiful photographs! Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 19:13 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Anyone remember the Chinese PUG contributor Aconquija? He/she submitted to many of the galleries in 2002, and all the submissions except one were taken with the FA* [80]-200/2.8. Here are links to the ones with this lens: http://pug.komkon.org/02nov/birch.html http://pug.komkon.org/02sep/paradise.html http://pug.komkon.org/02aug/grass.html http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/lotus.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/sp.html http://pug.komkon.org/02apr/tulip.html And the AF Adapter 1.7X worked very well with that lens on a couple of those shots, too. Fred
PAW - Snail's pace
I was walking in the evening a few days ago and it started raining. I noticed a number snails moving out of the grass onto the wet road. Taking my *ist D out of the plastic shopping bag (yes I was prepared) and getting down on the road I took this with an A50 1.7. http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ I'm not completely happy with this. I got most of the snail in focus, but the center of the shell is a bit off, as is the end of one stalk In addition, there are some blown highlights on the shell. The big problem though is that I find the out of focus gravel to be distracting. Any ideas? I tried selecting the blurred positions and doing a Gaussian blur to soften them a bit, but the contrast with the sharp gravel path was too much. Any suggestions? I am planning a series of BW's of snails playing saxophones for money in Lexington, but they're not ready yet . . . ;-)
RE: PAW - Snail's pace
I agree about the unsharp gravel (tarmac). The limit between the sharp and unsharp tarmac is so well defined that you could actually take it out (in Danish:free scrape) and replace it with blue sky or what ever. I think it's a nice photograph of a snail. The tarmac makes me think about nature vs. man-made stuff etc. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. juni 2004 19:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: PAW - Snail's pace I was walking in the evening a few days ago and it started raining. I noticed a number snails moving out of the grass onto the wet road. Taking my *ist D out of the plastic shopping bag (yes I was prepared) and getting down on the road I took this with an A50 1.7. http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ I'm not completely happy with this. I got most of the snail in focus, but the center of the shell is a bit off, as is the end of one stalk In addition, there are some blown highlights on the shell. The big problem though is that I find the out of focus gravel to be distracting. Any ideas? I tried selecting the blurred positions and doing a Gaussian blur to soften them a bit, but the contrast with the sharp gravel path was too much. Any suggestions? I am planning a series of BW's of snails playing saxophones for money in Lexington, but they're not ready yet . . . ;-)
RE: Terminals (was SpaceShipOne)
Anders Hultman wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here, not having English as my first language. Is the world terminal sinister in any way? Yes, I know it means the end of something and that that something could be a persons life, as well as a ferry line or a communications circuit, but why the fuzz? As we know, flying is a very safe method of transport but many people have a terrible fear of it. Commencing and completing a flight at something called a terminal is not particularly useful in removing these fears, so yes, the word does appear a little sinister. The word is so ingrained though, what other word could be used instead that sounds user friendly? I think perhaps this thread is 'terminal'! Malcolm
Re: PAW - Snail's pace
Steve, I think you have done well for a hand held shot, and I don't find the OOF parts of the snail that distracting. Your situation is pretty much like one I had with a shot of a swallowtail butterfly from Shenandoah. I ended up cropping. Have you considered that for the snail shot? I'll see if I can put up the butterfly later tonight. Jostein - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 7:36 PM Subject: PAW - Snail's pace I was walking in the evening a few days ago and it started raining. I noticed a number snails moving out of the grass onto the wet road. Taking my *ist D out of the plastic shopping bag (yes I was prepared) and getting down on the road I took this with an A50 1.7. http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ I'm not completely happy with this. I got most of the snail in focus, but the center of the shell is a bit off, as is the end of one stalk In addition, there are some blown highlights on the shell. The big problem though is that I find the out of focus gravel to be distracting. Any ideas? I tried selecting the blurred positions and doing a Gaussian blur to soften them a bit, but the contrast with the sharp gravel path was too much. Any suggestions? I am planning a series of BW's of snails playing saxophones for money in Lexington, but they're not ready yet . . . ;-)
Re: PAW - Snail's pace
Trying cropping it just a bit at the bottom, to remove the reddish stone and the two bright stones at lower right. It makes the backgound compete less with themodel. Steve Desjardins wrote: I was walking in the evening a few days ago and it started raining. I noticed a number snails moving out of the grass onto the wet road. Taking my *ist D out of the plastic shopping bag (yes I was prepared) and getting down on the road I took this with an A50 1.7. http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ I'm not completely happy with this. I got most of the snail in focus, but the center of the shell is a bit off, as is the end of one stalk In addition, there are some blown highlights on the shell. The big problem though is that I find the out of focus gravel to be distracting. Any ideas? I tried selecting the blurred positions and doing a Gaussian blur to soften them a bit, but the contrast with the sharp gravel path was too much. Any suggestions? I am planning a series of BW's of snails playing saxophones for money in Lexington, but they're not ready yet . . . ;-)
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
For me, the F series is the K series of the Pentax auto focus lenses. ...and if you're a lover of nice manual focus lenses, that's kinda sad... g That's probably a pretty good analogy, though. Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
I concur. The SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - g). However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the pinching of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good light bucket. Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X PRO (g) 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Fred wrote: I concur. The SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - g). Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? g keith whaley However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the pinching of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good light bucket. Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X PRO (g) 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement)
http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/relic-1.jpg I'm thinking of using this for my Fair picture this year in the Relics of Yesteryear catagory.(Unless i get a good one from the Ressor 200 year family reunion next weekend).:-) For the most part i have taken what would be standard shots of old farm equipment or cars.Usually get a placing but i'm trying to get better / different shots for this catagory. I am trying to show (and it may be obvious) that the country is being over run by the push of urbanization,with this shot. I found this near our office,were the toll Hwy No. 407 runs through what used to be 2 lovely equestrian facilities in Thornhill Ontario. Any comments on artistic merits are welcome. Actually, any comments are.LOL As always,enjoy and thanks for looking. Dave Brooks
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? g keith whaley Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. Andre
OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
Sorry to waste yet more bandwidth on OT stuff. Can anyone in the USA or anywhere else for that matter recommend a decent (ok no wise cracks!) country music station that can be heard online for free? My mrs loves country and would like to be able to listen online now that we are broadband-enabled Thanks Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
FS Friday: Medium Format Gear
Hi gang, FOR SALE: Fuji GA645zi: Autofocus (with manual override), zoom 55-90, black titanium body, motorized advance, data imprinting, easy loading system and a large list of pluses. A lovely compact and light pro medium format camera. A couple of reviews: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0105/cameracorner.htm http://www.photographic.com/filmcameras/21/index.html If interested, contact me offlist. Regards and thanks, = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: OT - test
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Cotty wrote: Why Frank, all your posts I have printed off and sent to a specialist signwriter and glass-blower who constructs 20 - foot high billboards in glowing neon and rabbit fur of your missives, that are then paraded endlessly outside my house by a fleet of purpose-made trucks. I bet that you lot think he's joking. S
Re: Disappearing gear
DagT mused: Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My guess is simply that no-one is buying high-end Pentax gear, so Pentax is no longer producing things like the MZ-S and the FA 80-200/2.8 Or they have found that these lenses have weaknesses that become evident on dslr's, so they are planning to release improved versions. With or without IS/USM. I haven't found any weaknesses with the 80-200/2.8 on the *ist-D; it's still my favourite lens. But I'd almost certainly buy a smaller, lighter, 50-150/f2.8 (or similar) with no power zoom motors, etc. Add IS and/or USM, and it's a slam dunk. I'm even resigned to the fact that it might well be a DA lens, with all that entails (smaller image circle, no aperture ring, etc.)
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Okay, that's one opinion... Any others? keith Andre Langevin wrote: Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? g keith whaley Bad construction and a lot of flare. Stay away from non-SMC lenses. Andre
Re: OT - test
Open letter to Cotty! Why _ever_ do those cameras weigh 25 lbs? You would think that with the advances in image recording technology in the past 10 years, they'd be able to shrink the size of those cameras considerably! At Portland last weekend I noticed a small remote camera perched on top of the catch fencing. The camera body was about the size of a three-pack of video tapes, and the lens assembly was around the size of a coke can. Closer inspection revealed this to be an HDTV camera. It was externally powered (which is how I first spotted it), and had no record capability, but I was still impressed by the small size as compared to a BetaCam.
Re: OT - test
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Cotty wrote: You asked about size. Other things that stipulate a camera's size: acquisition format (tape, basically). Betacam is made by Sony and a camera tape is physically identical in size to the old Betamax tapes you may recall that died after JVC won the domestic market in videotape all those years ago. Panasonic is another contender with its DVC Pro, and they are smaller tapes, as is Sony's own DV Cam. Surprisingly the high end cameras using these latter two formats are not much smaller than a Betacam. Hmmm, I've been playing with a Sony DCR-VX2000E lately, which is the standard camera the BBC's issuing its video journalists with right now (a video journalist is one person doing all the jobs of a reporter, camera operator, sound operator and producer...) - it's a hell of a lot lighter than beta; perhaps 12lb including a mounted shotgun mike and two-hour battery? It's not rugged though; that's probably the difference. I guess there's news and there's news :-) Betacam is definitely broadcast-quality though; the smaller formats aren't really. (Disclaimer - I now work for the BBC and therefore consider myself entirely qualified to bore the list with this kind of thing ;-) ) S
RE: PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement)
First, I like what you've tried to do, juxtaposing the old relic with the new office building. From there the photo goes rapidly downhill. The tonality for BW is terrible, the image is flat, not particularly sharp (and, in this case, that's a detriment), lacking in detail, and poorly composed. The tree branches are useless, adding nothing to the photograph, and are intrusive, diminishing your clever idea. There's no detail in the tire (or whatever that blackish thing is) at the lower rightof this this old farm implement. The blades of grass just run together rather than showing individual stalks, and the detail on the old machine is there but not clearly discernable. What kind of film did you use? Who processed it? How many other shots did you take of this scene? How do the others look? I'd suggest redoing this one, or going back and shooting at least an entire roll or more from different angles, maybe at a different time of the day. This looks like you saw something, jumped out of your car, walked over, and made a quick snap or two. I wish I could be more positive about this one, Dave. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/25/2004 12:20:59 PM Subject: PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement) http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/relic-1.jpg
Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz
I was really tired and cranky last night, and just wasn't seeing Shel's humour for what it was. I thought he was being somewhat mocking, when he clearly wasn't. Or, if he was, he was laughing ~with~ me; after all, who makes more fun of my OOF stuff than me? vbg Thanks for your words, though, Cotty. Appreciated. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW: Julian Holding Fritz Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:02:47 +0100 On 24/6/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, offered: Oh, come on, Shel. Some of my photos are pretty well focused. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2378683 You just haven't commented on all of them is all. I don't go out of my way to ~not~ focus properly. Realising Shel's comments were probably satirical, can I play devil's advocate for a minute? Focus didn't seem to bother HCB and he got by okay. The feeling and emotion from the photo is there or it isn't. I don't see how focus can take precedence over that? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Disappearing gear
På 25. jun. 2004 kl. 21.50 skrev John Francis: DagT mused: Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My guess is simply that no-one is buying high-end Pentax gear, so Pentax is no longer producing things like the MZ-S and the FA 80-200/2.8 Or they have found that these lenses have weaknesses that become evident on dslr's, so they are planning to release improved versions. With or without IS/USM. I haven't found any weaknesses with the 80-200/2.8 on the *ist-D; it's still my favourite lens. But I'd almost certainly buy a smaller, lighter, 50-150/f2.8 (or similar) with no power zoom motors, etc. Add IS and/or USM, and it's a slam dunk. I'm even resigned to the fact that it might well be a DA lens, with all that entails (smaller image circle, no aperture ring, etc.) Well, even though I prefer primes a 2.8 zoom could be interesting, but not in the 50-90mm range. In this range I prefer the 50 and 85 1.4 (or 77mm). The 85 1.4 would be smaller in the DA version, but not much smaller than the 77. A compact DA 100-300 would be nice. I do like the build of the 14mm, though (even without aperture ring) after just two days, so more lenses of this type is tempting. It will see a lot of use the next few days, so I´ll see if I change my mind. DagT
Re: OT - test
Hi, Friday, June 25, 2004, 8:43:04 PM, Steve wrote: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Cotty wrote: Why Frank, all your posts I have printed off and sent to a specialist signwriter and glass-blower who constructs 20 - foot high billboards in glowing neon and rabbit fur of your missives, that are then paraded endlessly outside my house by a fleet of purpose-made trucks. I bet that you lot think he's joking. If anybody doubts it, they should take a look at Cotty's Oxford house: http://www.headington.org.uk/history/misc/shark.htm -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT - test
On 25/6/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: Why Frank, all your posts I have printed off and sent to a specialist signwriter and glass-blower who constructs 20 - foot high billboards in glowing neon and rabbit fur of your missives, that are then paraded endlessly outside my house by a fleet of purpose-made trucks. I bet that you lot think he's joking. LOL!!! Excuse me, on of the truck drivers needs the bathroom... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - test
On 25/6/04, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, offered: Hmmm, I've been playing with a Sony DCR-VX2000E lately, which is the standard camera the BBC's issuing its video journalists with right now (a video journalist is one person doing all the jobs of a reporter, camera operator, sound operator and producer...) - it's a hell of a lot lighter than beta; perhaps 12lb including a mounted shotgun mike and two-hour battery? It's not rugged though; that's probably the difference. I guess there's news and there's news :-) Plus, it is being used by people who generally haven't got a clue as to what they are doing. If you've never seen a VJ at a press conference, they're the one who is red in the face from huffing and puffing to and fro, trying to get shots, trying to take notes, trying to arrange interviews, trying to organise playouts/dispatch riders, trying to figure the camera out, trying to get it all together - - and doing a pretty miserable job of it all. Meanwhile, reporter + camera persons are (respectively) doing the organising + getting the footage all in double quick time. I kid you not: the VJ is the first to arrive and the last to depart a presser, and the result sucks big time. But the people who have the power to make these things happen, the people in charge of TV companies now are not program makers, they are corporate execs who could be in charge of a telecoms co, a fast food chain, a retail chain, anything you care to mention. It's all about money. Quality is taking a back seat. Nearly. /rant Betacam is definitely broadcast-quality though; the smaller formats aren't really. (Disclaimer - I now work for the BBC and therefore consider myself entirely qualified to bore the list with this kind of thing ;-) ) Steve, if you want to improve the TV news, forget about consolidating staff positions through hardware, instead - make things faster. Instant broadcast quality live pics and sound from anywhere via mobile technology with minimal fuss will be a big step forward. Forget landlines etc, it needs to be completely standalone, operating in the field, no mid-points, but no satellites either- too expensive. maybe new mpeg compression or something? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - test
On 25/6/04, John Francis, discombobulated, offered: Why _ever_ do those cameras weigh 25 lbs? You would think that with the advances in image recording technology in the past 10 years, they'd be able to shrink the size of those cameras considerably! At Portland last weekend I noticed a small remote camera perched on top of the catch fencing. The camera body was about the size of a three-pack of video tapes, and the lens assembly was around the size of a coke can. Closer inspection revealed this to be an HDTV camera. It was externally powered (which is how I first spotted it), and had no record capability, but I was still impressed by the small size as compared to a BetaCam. As a remote camera, it will have had limited features compared to a jack- of-all-trades news camera. TV is all about horses for coarses... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Disappearing gear
On 25/6/04, John Francis, discombobulated, offered: But I'd almost certainly buy a smaller, lighter, 50-150/f2.8 (or similar) with no power zoom motors, etc. Add IS and/or USM, and it's a slam dunk. I'm even resigned to the fact that it might well be a DA lens, with all that entails (smaller image circle, no aperture ring, etc.) So I presume you'll be switching brands when that becomes available John? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
Try XM Radio: http://www.xmradio.com/programming/neighborhood.jsp?hood=country XM is one of two nationally broadcast satellite radio services. They each have a ton of choices for programming mostly commercial free for a monthly service fee around ten dollars. XM can apparently be sampled online for free. I love the idea of digital radio but can't justify spending the money since I get radio for free, like to listen to National Public Radio, and have a lot of CDs. If I drove cross country much, it'd be in my car for sure. CW - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 3:30 PM Subject: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations Sorry to waste yet more bandwidth on OT stuff. Can anyone in the USA or anywhere else for that matter recommend a decent (ok no wise cracks!) country music station that can be heard online for free? My mrs loves country and would like to be able to listen online now that we are broadband-enabled Thanks Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.709 / Virus Database: 465 - Release Date: 6/24/2004
Re: OT - test
On 25/6/04, Bob W, discombobulated, offered: Why Frank, all your posts I have printed off and sent to a specialist signwriter and glass-blower who constructs 20 - foot high billboards in glowing neon and rabbit fur of your missives, that are then paraded endlessly outside my house by a fleet of purpose-made trucks. I bet that you lot think he's joking. If anybody doubts it, they should take a look at Cotty's Oxford house: http://www.headington.org.uk/history/misc/shark.htm ROTFL It's true! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
On 25/6/04, cbwaters, discombobulated, offered: Try XM Radio: http://www.xmradio.com/programming/neighborhood.jsp?hood=country XM is one of two nationally broadcast satellite radio services. They each have a ton of choices for programming mostly commercial free for a monthly service fee around ten dollars. XM can apparently be sampled online for free. I love the idea of digital radio but can't justify spending the money since I get radio for free, like to listen to National Public Radio, and have a lot of CDs. If I drove cross country much, it'd be in my car for sure. CW Thanks Cor Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement)
Kind of characteristic of Infra-Red film, Shel. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: First, I like what you've tried to do, juxtaposing the old relic with the new office building. From there the photo goes rapidly downhill. The tonality for BW is terrible, the image is flat, not particularly sharp (and, in this case, that's a detriment), lacking in detail, and poorly composed. The tree branches are useless, adding nothing to the photograph, and are intrusive, diminishing your clever idea. There's no detail in the tire (or whatever that blackish thing is) at the lower rightof this this old farm implement. The blades of grass just run together rather than showing individual stalks, and the detail on the old machine is there but not clearly discernable. What kind of film did you use? Who processed it? How many other shots did you take of this scene? How do the others look? I'd suggest redoing this one, or going back and shooting at least an entire roll or more from different angles, maybe at a different time of the day. This looks like you saw something, jumped out of your car, walked over, and made a quick snap or two. I wish I could be more positive about this one, Dave. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/25/2004 12:20:59 PM Subject: PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement) http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/relic-1.jpg -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
Music to hate yourself by? I have always subscribed to the idea that music should make you feel better, not make you want to kill yourself. But, as they say, to each his own. (And, no, this is not a wisecrack from my point of view.) -- Cotty wrote: Sorry to waste yet more bandwidth on OT stuff. Can anyone in the USA or anywhere else for that matter recommend a decent (ok no wise cracks!) country music station that can be heard online for free? My mrs loves country and would like to be able to listen online now that we are broadband-enabled Thanks Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
On 25/6/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: Music to hate yourself by? I have always subscribed to the idea that music should make you feel better, not make you want to kill yourself. But, as they say, to each his own. (And, no, this is not a wisecrack from my point of view.) Say after me, GW, 'I regret writing that post' Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT - Online Country Radio in USA - recommendations
cbwaters wrote: Try XM Radio: http://www.xmradio.com/programming/neighborhood.jsp?hood=country XM is one of two nationally broadcast satellite radio services. They each have a ton of choices for programming mostly commercial free for a monthly service fee around ten dollars. XM can apparently be sampled online for free. I love the idea of digital radio but can't justify spending the money since I get radio for free, like to listen to National Public Radio, and have a lot of CDs. If I drove cross country much, it'd be in my car for sure. CW www.shoutcast.com They have almost all the stations. /Henri
Long term digital storage solutions
Until now, I have been storing camera original files on CD. However, based on what I have read here, I have just bought a 160 GB hard drive, and am currently duping across all the CDs so that I have 2 copies if each file. Cost including delivery in UK £67 from www.dabs.com - boy do Mac merchants rip people off. The same drive from a Mac store was over a hundred squid! Barstewards. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
Keith Whaley wrote: Fred wrote: I concur. The SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4 has been a very sharp and good performer overall for me. I've not purchased the 80-200 2.8 because this lens is so good that its hard to justify the expense and size for just one more stop and probably marginal sharpness improvement. I'm quite happy with the A 70-210/4, and I've never been able to justify a jen-you-wine Pentax 80-200/2.8 (although, if price were no object, then justification would come quite easily - g). Have you any idea how the Pentax-A 70-200mm f/4.0 compares? Only a silly 10mm shorter! Who'd know? g I didn't know there was a A 70-200/4. There is only the FA 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site. keith whaley However, I've been quite pleased with the ol' manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8, and have used it quite a bit when the extra speed justified lugging it around instead of the 70-210/4 (and the extra speed also justified the pinching of the zoom range - although most of us usually tend to think of a 80-200 zoom as being about the same as an 70-210 zoom for range, a 2.5-to-1 zoom range is ~not~ the same as a 3-to-1 zoom range). No, it's not SMC, but it is (in telescope terms) a pretty good light bucket. Recently I've also gotten hold of a Tokina AT-X PRO (g) 80-200/2.8 autofocus lens (which is optically ~not~ the same as the manual focus version), but I haven't had a chance to use it much yet. Does anyone have any comments to offer on this critter, either in comparison to the manual focus AT-X, or to Pentax glass? Fred
Re: Pentax F-series lenses??
I didn't know there was a A 70-200/4. There is only the FA 70-200/4-5.6 in Boz's site. Look for it under the non-SMC lenses page. Fred
Re: PAW:Relic in IR(does this make a statement)
First, I like what you tried to do here. The main comp is ok, as a concept. But the branches are a distraction though, and it would have been nicer in plain BW film instead of IR, IMHO. This would have allowed a darker sky, maybe?, with filters I suppose. The sky is too close to the color of the grass, some contrast would have been nice. Try it with some nice BW film and lose the branches, and you'll have a great pic. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/relic-1.jpg I'm thinking of using this for my Fair picture this year in the Relics of Yesteryear catagory.(Unless i get a good one from the Ressor 200 year family reunion next weekend).:-) For the most part i have taken what would be standard shots of old farm equipment or cars.Usually get a placing but i'm trying to get better / different shots for this catagory. I am trying to show (and it may be obvious) that the country is being over run by the push of urbanization,with this shot. I found this near our office,were the toll Hwy No. 407 runs through what used to be 2 lovely equestrian facilities in Thornhill Ontario. Any comments on artistic merits are welcome. Actually, any comments are.LOL As always,enjoy and thanks for looking. Dave Brooks
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon and Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. -That Guy Alan Chan wrote: That raises another question. Are the bokeh and contrast of Pentax lenses really that good as some might suggested in general? I personally feel the bokeh of most Pentax lenses that I have used are okay, but not that great except maybe a few. Many have the bright-ring bokeh chatacteristics. Contax Zeiss lenses, in general, have better colour, contrast and bokeh imho. But then this is not a Contax list. :-)
Re: Pentax 100mm Macro vs Sigma 105mm Macro
Nick, I'm in agreement there. When outfitting my *istD, I chose the new Tamron 90/2.8 Macro over the Pentax. I used to own the FA 100/2.8 Macro and while it is a fine lens, I'm not seeing any discernable difference between them in regards to image quality. But the Tamron is lighter to work with, manually focuses much better and is overall smoother handling. I am pleased with my purchase and would do it again, given the opportunity. Bruce Friday, June 25, 2004, 4:29:53 PM, you wrote: NC I had the Pentax F 100mm f/2.8 macro and the Tamrom 90mm NC f/2.8 macro, and I sold the Pentax. It wasn't noticeably sharper NC than the Tamron, but was a fair bit heavier. The Tamron is also NC streets ahead with regards to manual focusing which is very NC important in macro photography, due to its much larger focusing NC ring and its clutch mechanism. NC Nick NC -Original Message- NC From: Dr. Shaun Canning[EMAIL PROTECTED] NC Sent: 22/06/04 23:13:09 NC To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] NC Subject: Re: Pentax 100mm Macro vs Sigma 105mm Macro NC Don't even think about it...buy the FA macro. It is head and shoulders NC above the 3rd party stuff. NC Cheers NC Shaun NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NC Has any one had experience with both of these lenses? NC Has anyone seen a comparison or done a comparison between these NC lenses? I haven't been able to find a head to head comparison. NC NC I'm looking to get a macro lens and while all I have are NC Pentax lenses, I might consider a third party lens if there isn't NC much difference performance-wise and build quality. And I can NC save about $150. NC NC Thanks in advance. NC NC -- NC John Lingelbach NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] NC You're dumb as a mule and just as NC ugly! And if a strange man asks NC to give you a ride, I'd say take NC it! - Grandpa Simpson to a Young NC Homer NC NC NC NC
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
using the *istD, lenses that were adequate on film (using Provia 100F) were no longer adequate for me. they were not sharp enough, even for 8x10 work prints. that's why i got rid of most of them and have been acquring mostly * lenses. the one inexpensive Pentax lens i have is the FA 80-320, but i barely use it. even on back country trips, i would rather take the FA* 80-200 than lose the quality it offers, even though it weighs a lot more and needs a bigger tripod. after buying the *istD, the entire bottom half of the Pentax line became mostly useless to me because of image quality. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued My personal experiences with pentax and non-pentax lenses similar to the ones you mention suggests that a lens could be better than they are and still not as good as the best on the market. I'd expect the 80-200 to outperform the longer glass and wide-tele zooms. I'm curious how it compares to, say, K 85/1.8, A* 85/1.4, K105/2.8, any good K/M/F 135, K150/4 or M150/3.5, A* or FA* 200/2.8. I've used most of those lenses and I find newer 70-200s to be better, at least in terms of sharpness.
Re: Disappearing gear
it has the same feel as the DA 16-45 when manual focusing? Herb - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Disappearing gear I do like the build of the 14mm, though (even without aperture ring) after just two days, so more lenses of this type is tempting. It will see a lot of use the next few days, so I´ll see if I change my mind.
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued
it's what i see when i am making my 11x14 prints. of the long lenses mentioned, it is the closest to the FA* 80-200/2.8 though. the M* 300/4 was a disappointment. whenever i have these long lenses mounted, it's to shoot wide open, so wide open performance is what counts. being able to stop down to f5.6 or f8 for most shots is what makes the FA* 80-200/2.8 significantly better instead of just better. the FA* 400/5.6 is a touch softer than the A* 400/2.8 wide open and a bit less contrasty. Herb - Original Message - From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued the FA* 80-200/2.8 is [...] considerably sharper than the [...] A* 400/2.8 Wow! Heresy Alert !!! vbg Fred
Re: Long term digital storage solutions
i have two 200G backup drives for my photos to mirror the 200G that is actually in the computer. i duplicate the internal drive to one of the externals. periodically, about once every 2 weeks, i swap the external drive with its offsite version. i do the same thing with my boot/system drive, except that it is a 120G drive with a pair of 120G backups. i have a DVD writer too, but i haven't yet felt the necessity of using it to produce archive copies. a good day's shooting results in about 4G of files and i need a DVD to hold that on one disk. Herb - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:39 PM Subject: Long term digital storage solutions Until now, I have been storing camera original files on CD. However, based on what I have read here, I have just bought a 160 GB hard drive, and am currently duping across all the CDs so that I have 2 copies if each file.
