Re: PAW - Not everyone sells their stuff on eBay
I've been refused entry to Israel due to my fanily's connection with Meyer Lansky. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I almost wish to challenge you to come to Israel and try your magic > here. At least I would get to meet you in person ... > >
OT: Minilab question
I was about to pick up some photo CDs from my one hour lab and found out that their machine broke down. I asked to look at my negs and they looked a bit dusty. A question for anyone who's worked in a minilab- does the typical machine (Kodak Express) used to scan negs to transfer them to CD have anything built in to remove dust from the negs? Cheers, Ryan
RE: Teleconverter Crap
Teleconverters are about weight and bulk, not about cost. If you travel through Africa on a motorbike to take photograps, it's a good idea to carry some nice 2.8 high quality lenses along with a teleconverter. Then you can leave maybe 2 or 3 heavy lenses at home. But using the converter with a relatively cheap 4-5.6 lens to save cost is nonsence. If you choose cheap, slow lenses, just buy one more and forget about converters. Just my opinion. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Whittingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2004 20:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Teleconverter Crap > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > teleconverters to very rare use. > > 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > Regards, > Bob... > -- > "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. > We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have > no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without > resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed > to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is > about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we > should live for." - Blakely --- End of Original Message ---
Re: PAW
My allergies are acting up. Jim A. > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:18:22 -0600 > To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: PAW > Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 00:18:24 -0400 > > Rip it apart... > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg > > William Robb >
RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Thanks, Don. This focal length is great for sports, street events, theatre and concerts etc. It's a very good lens - but slow (4-5.6) - if you can live with the small aperture it's a brilliant choise. I paid almost 300 USD for mine 5 yeras ago in near mint condition, which was considered cheep. I would prefere a 2.8, though. But that would be expensive. The Tokina ATX 2.8/80-200 is app. 1000 USD here. Tamron makes the SP AF70-210mm F/2.8 LD(IF), which is supposed to be very good. Its app. 800 USD. Pentax makes a SMC FA ED IF 2.8/80-200mm - or is it discontinued? But Pentax is often way to expensive for me - this lens is app. 5000 USD here (list price). All the best. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 6. juli 2004 01:25 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm Beautiful pics Jens! I've been looking at the SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm. Now I'm seriously looking! Hope I can learn to use it as well as you! Don > -Original Message- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm > > > Hi Boris > That is really very sharp! Very nice photograph, Boris. > My Pentax shots were made - not at f11 but more like 4-5.6. And the > autofocus caught the wrong point, I guess: > http://www.fotokritik.dk/visstort.html?pic=80252 > > Not too bad for full aperure, I think. More of my Pentax photographs came > out usable, than the Sony shots, made the same day. The Sony has > too slow AF > for action-shots like these. > > I guess the optics were calculated by Carl Zeiss, not manufactured by Carl > Zeiss. Unlike the optics in the later SONY DSC F828. > All the best > Jens > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 5. juli 2004 22:39 > Til: Jens Bladt > Emne: Re: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm > > > Hi! > > JB> Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: > JB> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html > > JB> This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, > JB> published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html > > Jens, isn't it correct that Sony boasts Carl Zeiss optic? > > Here is one shot of mine with Pentax lens: > http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43209 > > Boris > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > >
RE: PAW
Just in case my message got lost in my earlier message, I like this shot a lot ... its simplicity allows one to walk right into it, become a part of the environment, feel the gentle breeze and enjoy the fresh, slightly heavy air. Ahhh ... another Haiku photograph ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7/5/2004 9:19:17 PM > Subject: PAW > > Rip it apart... > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg > > William Robb
RE: PAW
Hi Bill, I'm inclined to agree with el gringo (who the hell is THAT! Maybe a friend of That Guy? ) Yes, the tree or bush is obviously obscuring a boring sky and a putrid-green grass. The field of yellow should be orange, the sky darker, the foreground foreshadowed, and the depth of field minimized. In fact, you should have used a different lens, different camera, moved to Kentucky, and made a wide-angle shot of some toothells trailer park trash surrounded by rusting cars up on blocks and a three legged dog chained to a tree stump. I can see where you were headed with this, however, you should have made a right turn at Winnipeg instead of a left at the 7-11. Other than those small nits, it's perfect, and I like it ... really do. Shel > [Original Message] > From: El Gringo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7/5/2004 9:34:28 PM > Subject: RE: PAW > > I like what you were going for. If the sky was blue, and not cloudy, and > the grass in the foreground cleaner, I'd be inclined to like it. As it > stands, its rather boring. Also, I think I would ditch the tree there, and > focus on the horizontal aspects. > > -el gringo > > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:18 AM > To: Pentax Discuss > Subject: PAW > > > Rip it apart... > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg > > William Robb
Re: PAW
William Robb wrote: > > Rip it apart... > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg > > William Robb Now where did I put my scissors It's lovely, Wheatfield - is that mustard growing? (the mustard growing, the wind blowing) I'm sleepy annsan
Film Scanner
Not happy with lo-res scans on CDs and the labs want an outrageous price for hi-res scans. Thinking about getting a Pacific Imaging 3650 Pro - Anyone have any experience or insights into this? Paul
RE: PAW
I like what you were going for. If the sky was blue, and not cloudy, and the grass in the foreground cleaner, I'd be inclined to like it. As it stands, its rather boring. Also, I think I would ditch the tree there, and focus on the horizontal aspects. -el gringo -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:18 AM To: Pentax Discuss Subject: PAW Rip it apart... http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg William Robb
RE: Sigma 12-24
For an ultra wide zoom going from 12-24 I suppose its decent. It's pretty soft obviously... Looking at your shots it appears that F11 is significantly softer than F16, which is unacceptable IMO. The trees and foliage quickly become green mats rather than delineated leaves and twigs. Having to shoot at F16 to get fairly sharp pictures is not worth the price of this lens IMO. The 16-45 is cheaper and has a much more useful range. I thought this would be a nice focal length, but is clearly too difficult to produce to be of use to most people. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sigma 12-24 i've taken a few pictures now with my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 lens in Pentax mount and so far it seems to be a better one that the Sigma 15-30 i used to have. sharpness is better and there isn't any significant chromatic abberation. here is a selection of shots taken with it. these are lowest compression conversions from RAW as done by Photo Laboratory and average about 4 megabytes/shot. i made an exposure adjustment to one of the images, but otherwise are as shot with all default conversion options. flare is not good, but at least it's predictable when it will happen. unlike the Sigma 15-30, there is no chance of using any filter on the front lens cover ring. it vignettes noticeably until zoomed to at least the 20mm mark with just the ring attached. not being able to use a filter is limiting, but not as limiting as it could be. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/ as an aside, every time i use Pentax Photo Browser and Photo Laboratory, i tell myself never again. however, it's the only program that knows how to read the lens information from the EXIF. Herb
Re: PAW and WORD WARS- Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 THUMBS UP !!
Boris Liberman wrote: > > Hi! > > AS> Gotta help with my photo career , no? > > AS> Got mixed reviews in papers but wow - two thumbs > AS> up from the TV guys! > > AS> Here is a thing I slapped quickly together for my > AS> Scrabble friends - > AS> IN the film, they used a few pictures I put > AS> together on a borrowed camera > AS> when Joe Edley came to Washington Square park > AS> (rare occurance) > > AS> so this is called Friday in the Park with Joel. > > AS> http://users.rcn.com/annsan/fridayintheparkwithjoel.jpg > > AnnSan , you have amazing sense of background. All those shots have > clear and rather calm background which does not distract from the main > subjects. As a result of that, the sense of presence is very strong. > > I do play little scrabble myself (called Erudit in Russian) but only > in my mother's tongue, not any other language... > > Boris > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Thanks, Boris - glad you liked the snaps -- I once came across a Russian set and sold it on ebay, I think The amazing thing is the number of super strong Thai players - who speak little if any English and win tournaments in English! The distribution and amount of tiles in RUssian surely must be quite different than ours. annsan
PAW
Rip it apart... http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/paw/IMGP3990.jpg William Robb
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
graywolf wrote: I knew I'd regret my confession! a > > anndigisan! > > -- > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > > > YOu guys will hurl abuse at me for this, I know, > > but on eof my friends who had > > come over to watch with me had a Canon (G-1?) > > digital and I ended up confiscating it > > to shoot - I must have spat out about 50 shots and > > jsut barely started to get the hang of > > anticipating because of shutter lag in the last > > few minutes of the show. I didnt look > > at the screen at all, closed it and shot as I > > would with a film camera. > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
graywolf wrote: > > I stopped at Wal-Mart today and bought a couple of those throw away plastic > ponchos (87 cents each). One for the camera kit, one for the fanny pack I often > wear when out walking. Hopefully that will solve that problem. > > Seven years is not enough for you to be claiming mom-ship over me, young lady. > Maybe big sister (grin). Well, perhaps not in age, just attitude :) However, I did, just recently, since GFM actually, > finally manage to walk 5 miles again, which the readers of my journal know, I > have been working on for more than a year (wow, what a lot of commas in this > sentence). It will take awhile, I guess, longer before I can do it comfortably. > A mere decade ago I could do 30 miles a day with a 50 pound pack for months on > end. Shows how a minor illness can bring us down (tiny sad smile). > > -- Ok ya got me beat on past history - Most I ever did was about 10 miles with a day pack. (5 up a mountain with about 25 lbs) Getting back up to 5 is good - buying a poncho is good keep being good ann (no mom) san > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > anyway - glad you survived, Tom -- > > Now you need to get on a nice healthy regimen so > > that you CAN run out of the rain without worry :) > > > > Mom > > er I mean > > annsan > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: PAW - SF MOMA Photo
Yes, there is ... I screwed up. I intended to post an adjusted version and it looks like I didn't. Thanks for catching that, Boris. But y'know, going back now and comparing the two side by side, I'm not sure if I don't like the tilted one a little better. It has a "softer" quality to me. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/sfmoma2.html > > Fascinating. Is there a reason for slight tilt to the left?
Re: PAW - SF MOMA Photo
Hi! SB> Here's another from our day at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. I SB> don't know if it needs a title, but a few crossed my mind ... anyway, SB> regardless of what it's called, maybe you'll find it interesting or worthy SB> of a second look SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/sfmoma2.html Fascinating. Is there a reason for slight tilt to the left? On the other hand, this is very interesting... I don't think I can express it any reasonably, but I rather like it. However, Shel, I think that the fact that it was shot in SF MOMA and the title are inseparable from the picture. If you were to omit any of the two, it could have different effect, at least on me. Just my cents. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW - Not everyone sells their stuff on eBay
Hi! SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/sale/craig-ss01.html SB> You'll have to exit your browser manually when you're done with the pics. SB> 3 pics, each about 190K. How so? SB> I may add a few more to this little story later on. Time to go to work SB> Seems you did not. I almost wish to challenge you to come to Israel and try your magic here. At least I would get to meet you in person ... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW and WORD WARS- Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 THUMBS UP !!
Hi! AS> Gotta help with my photo career , no? AS> Got mixed reviews in papers but wow - two thumbs AS> up from the TV guys! AS> Here is a thing I slapped quickly together for my AS> Scrabble friends - AS> IN the film, they used a few pictures I put AS> together on a borrowed camera AS> when Joe Edley came to Washington Square park AS> (rare occurance) AS> so this is called Friday in the Park with Joel. AS> http://users.rcn.com/annsan/fridayintheparkwithjoel.jpg AnnSan , you have amazing sense of background. All those shots have clear and rather calm background which does not distract from the main subjects. As a result of that, the sense of presence is very strong. I do play little scrabble myself (called Erudit in Russian) but only in my mother's tongue, not any other language... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Metering lesson: multi replies
"I thought the idea of CW metering was to help expose subjects that may be a bit dark and bring out the shadowish areas a bit more." No, it is program metering that favors shadows. It is designed so that point-and-shooters can take pix of backlit relatives and still have the faces come out. In high-contrast lighting, though, it causes overexposure and blown-out highlights. That is why I usually use center weighted. Joe
Re: 43 Limited
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:50, Alan Chan wrote: > I much prefer if it didn't have a fixed hood as well. It forces me to use > the lousy push-on cap. The fixed hood saved my 31LTD, it's a pity Kennedys had to straighten it out to replace it as I didn't get a picture of it in it's bent state. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited
I much prefer if it didn't have a fixed hood as well. It forces me to use the lousy push-on cap. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Unless the 28 is one stellar lens, the 31 is better. They really got it right with this lens. My only quibbles are with it's physical size (It's a pretty big lens), filter thread (58mm), and silly little built in hood that precluded the use of a handled polarizer, which is what I like using. --- I use a polarizer with my FA 31. It is more awkward than one would like. I often wonder what I will do when the lens cap finally get lost or crushed. I suppose one could get a screw-in cap. Joe
Re: lens cleaning
For some reason when I read this a scenario popped up in my head. You are about to take a photo when a truck (sorry Cotty, lorry) goes by spashing oily, muddy, water, and fresh tar onto your lens. Just a minute ago You had blown your runny nose into that clean handkerchief... Now you know why old time press photographers used the end of their ties (that is how all those old press camera lenses got scratched up). 35mm took over when news photographers quit having to wear suits, and thus no longer had suit coat pockets to carry film holders in. Aside to Tom, use Pentax microfiber lens cloths (I have two). That way you can claim Pentax has to replace the lens coatings for free. -- Cotty wrote: In answer to your question re lens cleaning. I use a clean handkerchief and all the hot breath I can muster. Right on the front element. Gives me a [physical attribution deleted] ! -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
anndigisan! -- Ann Sanfedele wrote: YOu guys will hurl abuse at me for this, I know, but on eof my friends who had come over to watch with me had a Canon (G-1?) digital and I ended up confiscating it to shoot - I must have spat out about 50 shots and jsut barely started to get the hang of anticipating because of shutter lag in the last few minutes of the show. I didnt look at the screen at all, closed it and shot as I would with a film camera. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
I stopped at Wal-Mart today and bought a couple of those throw away plastic ponchos (87 cents each). One for the camera kit, one for the fanny pack I often wear when out walking. Hopefully that will solve that problem. Seven years is not enough for you to be claiming mom-ship over me, young lady. Maybe big sister (grin). However, I did, just recently, since GFM actually, finally manage to walk 5 miles again, which the readers of my journal know, I have been working on for more than a year (wow, what a lot of commas in this sentence). It will take awhile, I guess, longer before I can do it comfortably. A mere decade ago I could do 30 miles a day with a 50 pound pack for months on end. Shows how a minor illness can bring us down (tiny sad smile). -- Ann Sanfedele wrote: anyway - glad you survived, Tom -- Now you need to get on a nice healthy regimen so that you CAN run out of the rain without worry :) Mom er I mean annsan -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
On 5 Jul 2004 at 20:05, Fred wrote: > >> Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite... > > > I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) > > Er, no, not yet, Rob. But, if I ever do spring for it, I'll have > you to blame/thank, for sure... > > I really would like to try the lens, Rob, but it's somewhat down on > the priorities list (with the *ist-D higher on the list, for sure). > > I'm curious, though, at this point - I wonder just how many PDML-ers > are using the Voigtlander 125/2.5 ? Obviously I do :-) Seriously I don't regret buying it of selling my A100/2.8 for a second, it's become a favourite coupled to my *ist D and it gets a lot of use. I retired both my A100/2.8 and K135/2.5 after purchasing it, it covers all that these two lenses combined could do with gusto and I actually came out of the shuffle with money back in my pocket. For anyone who hasn't seen the lens (sorry Fred :-) : http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/P5240482m.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/P5240483m.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/P5240484m.jpg http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/P5240485m.jpg Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: Re: 43 Limited > I much prefer if it didn't have a fixed hood as well. It forces me to use > the lousy push-on cap. But it is an esthetically pleasing lens cap. William Robb
Re: PAW - Ferris Wheel at Dusk
Very nice. Very cheerful. Thanks. Paul On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Larry Hodgson wrote: Here's a little evening color. Taken with *istD on aperature priority. Hope this inspires a cheerful mode. Larry from Prescott http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/65382/1/5810092/Original
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 5 Jul 2004 at 18:35, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > He had what I would have called a smart card but > > he called it something else and didnt > > know the term "smart Card" - it was holding all > > his pics from a recent trip to New Mexico. > > The files are 1 mg... I'm guessing these are not > > very good for enlarging. Don't know when > > I'll get to see what I did as he forgot the cables > > needed for me to upload them here. > > My prediction is that you'll probably get to see them before you see mine (from > 2001), I really must fire up my scanner :-( > > Rob Studdert > Well I didn't want to ssay anything but :) ann
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
>> Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite... > I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) Er, no, not yet, Rob. But, if I ever do spring for it, I'll have you to blame/thank, for sure... I really would like to try the lens, Rob, but it's somewhat down on the priorities list (with the *ist-D higher on the list, for sure). I'm curious, though, at this point - I wonder just how many PDML-ers are using the Voigtlander 125/2.5 ? Fred
Re: lens cleaning
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:38, Keith Whaley wrote: > Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat. I'm sure that coatings aren't a precious as many people make out, I'm not at all scared to rip into my late Leica lenses with anything that's on hand especially after reading the following little passage in "Leica Fotography International": http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/_igp4889.jpg I expect that late Pentax coatings are of similar durability. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
Gak! Don't say that Rob, I'm lusting after too much expensive stuff already! (-: David Rob Studdert wrote: On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:39, Alan Chan wrote: I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it. Har, David Nelson will probably have a play with it this week, if he is a convert then you'll have two of us to deal with. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited
I much prefer if it didn't have a fixed hood as well. It forces me to use the lousy push-on cap. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Unless the 28 is one stellar lens, the 31 is better. They really got it right with this lens. My only quibbles are with it's physical size (It's a pretty big lens), filter thread (58mm), and silly little built in hood that precluded the use of a handled polarizer, which is what I like using. _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:39, Alan Chan wrote: > >I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) > > Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it. Har, David Nelson will probably have a play with it this week, if he is a convert then you'll have two of us to deal with. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: lens cleaning
- Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" Subject: Re: lens cleaning > Photo Life was from what country? I"ve been buying photo mags for quite > a few years, and I'm not sure it rings a bell... > Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat. Canada. Our cigarettes may burn cooler than yours. William Robb
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: lens cleaning
Photo Life was from what country? I"ve been buying photo mags for quite a few years, and I'm not sure it rings a bell... Small matter, as I just want it for record... amazing feat. Thanks again, keith Rob Studdert wrote: On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Keith Whaley wrote: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/LXad4.jpg Now, THAT's impressive! I've bookmarked it for my Pentax files. Thsnks! Hi Keith, I should have taken the time to properly attribute it. It was sent to me some time back by a lister Greg E and it was borrowed from the Feb 81 issue of Photo Life (purely for reference of course). I won't leave it on line for more than a day or two. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: lens cleaning
- Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" Subject: Re: lens cleaning > Your three reptiles??? > > Three entire species... WW
Re: 43 Limited
- Original Message - From: "Krisjanis Linkevics" Subject: Re: 43 Limited > > I was considering the 31ltd for quite some time. But then I have the > FA28/2.8AL and I just can't justify having two lenses that close (and that > 31 is one expensive lens) Unless the 28 is one stellar lens, the 31 is better. They really got it right with this lens. My only quibbles are with it's physical size (It's a pretty big lens), filter thread (58mm), and silly little built in hood that precluded the use of a handled polarizer, which is what I like using. William Robb
Re: lens cleaning
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:21, Keith Whaley wrote: > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/LXad4.jpg > > Now, THAT's impressive! > I've bookmarked it for my Pentax files. Thsnks! Hi Keith, I should have taken the time to properly attribute it. It was sent to me some time back by a lister Greg E and it was borrowed from the Feb 81 issue of Photo Life (purely for reference of course). I won't leave it on line for more than a day or two. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Beautiful pics Jens! I've been looking at the SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm. Now I'm seriously looking! Hope I can learn to use it as well as you! Don > -Original Message- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm > > > Hi Boris > That is really very sharp! Very nice photograph, Boris. > My Pentax shots were made - not at f11 but more like 4-5.6. And the > autofocus caught the wrong point, I guess: > http://www.fotokritik.dk/visstort.html?pic=80252 > > Not too bad for full aperure, I think. More of my Pentax photographs came > out usable, than the Sony shots, made the same day. The Sony has > too slow AF > for action-shots like these. > > I guess the optics were calculated by Carl Zeiss, not manufactured by Carl > Zeiss. Unlike the optics in the later SONY DSC F828. > All the best > Jens > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 5. juli 2004 22:39 > Til: Jens Bladt > Emne: Re: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm > > > Hi! > > JB> Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: > JB> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html > > JB> This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, > JB> published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html > > Jens, isn't it correct that Sony boasts Carl Zeiss optic? > > Here is one shot of mine with Pentax lens: > http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43209 > > Boris > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > >
Re: lens cleaning
Rob Studdert wrote: On 5 Jul 2004 at 15:08, William Robb wrote: No. True story from when I worked for a camera retailer. The reps were putting on a dog and pony show for us. The Pentax rep had a 50mm lens sitting on the table that he was inviting smokers to but their cigarettes onto. It was an excellent demonstration of how tough the coatings are. Documentation to prop up Bills anecdote: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/LXad4.jpg Now, THAT's impressive! I've bookmarked it for my Pentax files. Thsnks! keith whaley Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Hi Boris! I have a chance to get a SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm at at a fairly reasonable price. Just want to confirm that this is the lens you used in the Parrot pic. It's positively stunning! Don > -Original Message- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 3:39 PM > To: Jens Bladt > Subject: Re: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm > > > Hi! > > JB> Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: > JB> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html > > JB> This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, > JB> published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html > > Jens, isn't it correct that Sony boasts Carl Zeiss optic? > > Here is one shot of mine with Pentax lens: > http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43209 > > Boris > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) >
Re: Happy 4th July!
Hi, >> I think this whole finger thing came from wars between the French and >> the British during medieval times. Evidently the French would remove >> this finger form British prisoners so they couldn't use a long bow >> correctly, the British would brandish the middle finger to indicate its >> continued presence and a foreshadowing of arrows to come. It may all be >> apocryphal, but I like the story anyway. In those days they were English, not British. > It's a nice story, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. > (For a start, the English brandish two fingers, not just one.) The business about cutting off bow fingers as the origin of the English flicking a V seems to be quite well attested. I have seen it mentioned by professional historians. The Franks had a law dating to the dark ages which made it a punishable offence to cut off a bowman's draw fingers. As far as I can tell, showing someone your middle finger as an insult is a fairly recent thing here in Britain. I don't remember people doing it when I was young, and I remember thinking it was an American import when I started to see it more often. But I do remember how rude it was to flick Vs. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: A Day at the (Bike) Races
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > After the > shot at the finish line, it's my favourite for a > couple of reasons: First, I quite consciously had the > sign in there. Second, I like the way the line of > riders arcs through the frame - that was conscious as > well; I took about 3 or 4 shots at that location with > that lens over successive laps. The line was never > the same in each lap, but that one was just as I > hoped. This is why it is my favorite as well. Nice work, frank, and some of those shots were actually sharp! Christian
RE: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening
Brilliant photographs (PAW 7-8), Dario. And amazing colours. all the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2004 23:05 Til: Dario Bonazza Emne: Re: PAW 07: Before the rain at evening Hi! DB> http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/paw07e.htm DB> There were a lot of mistakes when taking this snap taken while walking in DB> Verona last night. DB> Given available light, I could use 400 ISO (not 800) and a slower shutter DB> speed. Furthermore, I set -0.5 EV compensation (because it was late evening, DB> hence some darkness could give the taste, I thought). DB> On the contrary, when viewing the picture at home I realized I like a DB> brighter scene. The result: well visible noise in this image. However, I DB> quite like it anyway. Dario, I think you shouldn't have written most of the above. You know, this is very fine and very wet image and the technotalk kind of diminishes its beauty. You know, like looking at something great while author stands nearby talking to someone else explaining them that this is all came out totally by mistake... Reminds me of some wonderful Moscow thunderstorms... Thanks. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Hi Boris That is really very sharp! Very nice photograph, Boris. My Pentax shots were made - not at f11 but more like 4-5.6. And the autofocus caught the wrong point, I guess: http://www.fotokritik.dk/visstort.html?pic=80252 Not too bad for full aperure, I think. More of my Pentax photographs came out usable, than the Sony shots, made the same day. The Sony has too slow AF for action-shots like these. I guess the optics were calculated by Carl Zeiss, not manufactured by Carl Zeiss. Unlike the optics in the later SONY DSC F828. All the best Jens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. juli 2004 22:39 Til: Jens Bladt Emne: Re: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm Hi! JB> Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: JB> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html JB> This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, JB> published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html Jens, isn't it correct that Sony boasts Carl Zeiss optic? Here is one shot of mine with Pentax lens: http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43209 Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: lens cleaning
On 5 Jul 2004 at 15:08, William Robb wrote: > No. > True story from when I worked for a camera retailer. > The reps were putting on a dog and pony show for us. The Pentax rep > had a 50mm lens sitting on the table that he was inviting smokers to > but their cigarettes onto. > It was an excellent demonstration of how tough the coatings are. Documentation to prop up Bills anecdote: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/LXad4.jpg Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Quality of pentax teleconverters.
On 5 Jul 2004 at 9:56, Verge Scott wrote: > Well for now I'll look into getting the AF adaptor > 1.7 because I'm used to that and it will give me some > autofocus. I wish they weren't so hard to find and > expensive, but what can you do. You just need to keep your eyes open, set up some automated searches on the bay and you'll find one between US$80 and US$120 in next to no time. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
On 5 Jul 2004 at 13:48, Fred wrote: > Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite... I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: lens cleaning
William Robb wrote: > > > Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX > > market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of > reptiles)? > > He'll have to pry my three out of my cold dead fingers to do it. > > > William Robb Your three reptiles??? annsan
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
On 5 Jul 2004 at 18:35, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > He had what I would have called a smart card but > he called it something else and didnt > know the term "smart Card" - it was holding all > his pics from a recent trip to New Mexico. > The files are 1 mg... I'm guessing these are not > very good for enlarging. Don't know when > I'll get to see what I did as he forgot the cables > needed for me to upload them here. My prediction is that you'll probably get to see them before you see mine (from 2001), I really must fire up my scanner :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Happy 4th July!
It's a nice story, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. (For a start, the English brandish two fingers, not just one.) > I think this whole finger thing came from wars between the French and > the British during medieval times. Evidently the French would remove > this finger form British prisoners so they couldn't use a long bow > correctly, the British would brandish the middle finger to indicate its > continued presence and a foreshadowing of arrows to come. It may all be > apocryphal, but I like the story anyway. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/05/04 03:59PM >>> > Nice. > > John > > On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:31:59 +0100, mike wilson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Norm Baugher wrote: > > > >> Not quite as good as Crecy, eh? > >> Cotty wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/7/04, Norm Baugher, discombobulated, offered: > And I'd just like to give the finger to all you Brits! > VBG > Norm > >>> > >>> We take your finger, chop it off, glue on a new and better > supersonic > >>> one > >>> (although costing twice as much), and give it straight back to > you! > > > > During the D-Day ceremonies last month, one of the announcers kept > > referring to the village they were held in as "Arrowmunchers". I > > wondered if it was a 15th century version of "cheese-eating surrender > > > monkeys" > > > > mike > > > > > > > > -- > Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > >
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 5 Jul 2004 at 18:47, Arnold Stark wrote: > So what is the lens that survived the "distillation" process in the > 40-55mm focal length range? I retained the 31, and a series of 50mm lenses, the 43 would have filled a gap that really wasn't there for me photographically. 24mm is a problem FL for me now. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 43 Limited
On 6 Jul 2004 at 0:34, Krisjanis Linkevics wrote: > I was considering the 31ltd for quite some time. But then I have the > FA28/2.8AL and I just can't justify having two lenses that close (and that 31 is > one expensive lens) The 31mm is one lens I definitely didn't regret buying, it's one of my most used on both film and digital bodies and it displaced from my line-up my well used A28/2 and my not so well used A35/2. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
graywolf wrote: > . > It seems that my beliefs about mountain survival need to be reaccessed. I have > always known mountain weather can be dangerous, but I would never have though > that a 1/4 mile walk from the house in sunny weather could have turned so > suddenly to nearly a life threatening situation. If I had been much farther from > the house in my present health. I doubt I would have made it back. It seems like > I may need to carry my mountain survival kit any time I go farther than the > trash dumpster on foot. > > So that was my 4th of July adventure. What was yours? > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html NOT nearly so exciting. But, as Rob Studdart will attest, my roof has a wonderful view of the fireworks here. YOu guys will hurl abuse at me for this, I know, but on eof my friends who had come over to watch with me had a Canon (G-1?) digital and I ended up confiscating it to shoot - I must have spat out about 50 shots and jsut barely started to get the hang of anticipating because of shutter lag in the last few minutes of the show. I didnt look at the screen at all, closed it and shot as I would with a film camera. He had what I would have called a smart card but he called it something else and didnt know the term "smart Card" - it was holding all his pics from a recent trip to New Mexico. The files are 1 mg... I'm guessing these are not very good for enlarging. Don't know when I'll get to see what I did as he forgot the cables needed for me to upload them here. The sad thing is, and this is really sad -- I was bidding on a MZ-5 on ebay - was planning to leap in at the last minute - and forgot the time when I was reviewing the digital snaps I took. anyway - glad you survived, Tom -- Now you need to get on a nice healthy regimen so that you CAN run out of the rain without worry :) Mom er I mean annsan
Re: PAW: Best Buddies
Hi! MD> One for the peanut gallery: MD> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2417479 MD> Yes, I'm getting a little stir crazy. You might... Mark, I think the right one is a little underexposed. At least so it comes across on my screen. But my monitor is profiled by my eyes and hands, so take my words with grain of salt... I am sure Galia would have liked this if she saw it... I do mean that as a compliment though. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW: Lady Stirling
Stirling is a fine old burgh in Scotland. No doubt there was/is a Lord Stirling, and Lady Stirling would be his wife. http://homepages.tesco.net/~scotlandweb/oldstg/pb6.html John On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 22:44:03 +0200, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi! AG> Grab shot taken from a pier on Long Island this weekend. cropped: AG> http://www.sunny16.net/photos/paw/2004-05-30.html Amita, I should ask here what exactly "Stirling" means? I see that there is a message here that I cannot decipher because of the language/culture barrier. Thanks. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PAW Before the fishermen
Hi! RS> This PAW is the product of an experiment the focus of which was to preserve the RS> colours of the sun rise and sky in the image without sacrificing all detail in RS> its foreground. RS> To form the image I selectively combined two shots from a +_1 stop bracket in RS> Photoshop. I pasted the darker image over the brightest image, registered the RS> images (set top layer opacity temporarily to 50%) and then set about RS> selectively erasing the areas of the darker image (good sky) with a feathered RS> brush at 25% opacity until I came up this: RS> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2412599&size=lg RS> It's not perfect but it gives me a lot of ideas for future images along the RS> same vein particularly given that it was only hand held. Indeed this is digital photography in it earnest, so to say. I am afraid personally I am too lazy to learn all the tools that I have... Rob, while you were at it, could you have removed the greenish kinda ghost just on the left bottom of the sun? The whole picture is almost black and white sans the sun and this greenish blob does not belong... It is really great stuff you share with us. Thanks. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gaurav's PAW #6: Morning Cuppa
Hi! GA> Yet another of my ordinary shots. Posting to get constructive feedback :-) GA> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2097641&size=lg Gaurav, I think it is worth considering cropping off a little on the right. It wouldn't seem to hurt the composition. Another almost random thought - have you considered naming it "Toyota Day"? The newspaper seems more prominent than the cuppa ... Nonetheless this is quite fine a shot. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW: Lady Stirling
Hi! AG> Grab shot taken from a pier on Long Island this weekend. cropped: AG> http://www.sunny16.net/photos/paw/2004-05-30.html Amita, I should ask here what exactly "Stirling" means? I see that there is a message here that I cannot decipher because of the language/culture barrier. Thanks. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW - Historic Picture (at least for me)
Hi! DZ> After almost 15 years of marriage I've finally taken a picture of my DZ> wife that she actually likes! DZ> http://www.radix.net/~drzz/paw/karen1.html I have only one subject for portraiture, but she never really resists ... I think it is a fine portrait as far as I can try and read your wife's character from the depiction. I am rather distracted by highlight on the background, but I am usually too picky. DZ> It's probably not my favorite, but who am I to argue? Besides, I have DZ> great new argument: "See it took a camera that cost more than $1200 to DZ> capture all the nuances of your beauty. If I had some better lenses, DZ> then I could really do you justice. All the experts on the PDML agree DZ> that the most flattering protrait lens ever is the SMCP-A* 300mm f/2.8. DZ> Can I have one please, please?" DZ> You all are going to back me up on that one, aren't you? :) I like the argument though ... Julia is chuckling... Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Hi! JB> Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: JB> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html JB> This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, JB> published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html Jens, isn't it correct that Sony boasts Carl Zeiss optic? Here is one shot of mine with Pentax lens: http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43209 Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: lens cleaning
ROR is quite good. Much prefer ClearSight, however. A little easier to use, also one can get some very high quality lens cleaning accessories, such as a SUPER cloth. http://www.clearsightusa.com/ ROR and ClearSight are both fine, and both will do a good job. The Filter Connection also sells a very fine cleaning fluid that I've been quite happy with. Those are the three I recommend with CleatSight as #1 and the others tied for #2. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 7/5/2004 11:53:12 AM > Subject: Re: lens cleaning > > Lens cleaning tissues are to be avoided. Use some kind of lens cleaning > fluid with the microfiber cloth. The best is ROR, Residual Oil Remover. > William Robb turned me on to that. It's great.
RE: Digital Cameras On TV Tonight in the UK
Surely the comparison of the 'Pro' digital camera against the film mega enlargement should have been against an MF camera - which such a studio shot would have been taken on if it was a real film shoot? The film enlargement was better anyway ;-) Malcolm
Re: lens cleaning
Lens cleaning tissues are to be avoided. Use some kind of lens cleaning fluid with the microfiber cloth. The best is ROR, Residual Oil Remover. William Robb turned me on to that. It's great. Paul On Jul 5, 2004, at 3:08 PM, Tom Reese wrote: I've been using a very soft brush for the dust etc and then using a microfiber cloth to clean the raindrop marks etc. Does anyone have any other methods that they use? Is the microfiber cloth slowly wiping away my SMC? Should I be using that lens cleaner liquid stuff? Should I be using a lens cleaner pen (rubbing an eraser across the front of my lens seems like a bad idea)? Are those lens cleaning tissues to be avoided? Is Frank Theriault really an RCMP undercover agent? Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of reptiles)? Will John Mustarde ever be assigned to cover the hot dog eating championship? Will the London fog ever clear enough for Cotty to learn what depth of field means? These questions (and many others) will (hopefully some of them anyway) be answered on the next episode of PDML. Tom Reese
PAW - Ferris Wheel at Dusk
Here's a little evening color. Taken with *istD on aperature priority. Hope this inspires a cheerful mode. Larry from Prescott http://tripodman.smugmug.com/gallery/65382/1/5810092/Original
Re: lens cleaning
On 5/7/04, Tom Reese, discombobulated, offered: >I've been using a very soft brush for the dust etc and then using a >microfiber cloth to clean the raindrop marks etc. Does anyone have any other >methods that they use Yes. >Is the microfiber cloth slowly wiping away my SMC? Unknown. >Should I be using that lens cleaner liquid stuff? Maybe. >Should I be using a lens >cleaner pen (rubbing an eraser across the front of my lens seems like a bad >idea)? Sounds dodgy to me. >Are those lens cleaning tissues to be avoided? I slipped on one once, won't go near em. >Is Frank Theriault >really an RCMP undercover agent? He wears suspenders and a brr >Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX >market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of reptiles)? Undoubtedly. >Will >John Mustarde ever be assigned to cover the hot dog eating championship? If he does he will use a Tokina 300 2.8 at some point. >Will the London fog ever clear enough for Cotty to learn what depth of field >means? Contrary to popular belief, fog is relatively rare in the UK! However, the fog inside my head is worse than ever > >These questions (and many others) will (hopefully some of them anyway) be >answered on the next episode of PDML. In answer to your question re lens cleaning. I use a clean handkerchief and all the hot breath I can muster. Right on the front element. Gives me a [physical attribution deleted] ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
lens cleaning
I've been using a very soft brush for the dust etc and then using a microfiber cloth to clean the raindrop marks etc. Does anyone have any other methods that they use? Is the microfiber cloth slowly wiping away my SMC? Should I be using that lens cleaner liquid stuff? Should I be using a lens cleaner pen (rubbing an eraser across the front of my lens seems like a bad idea)? Are those lens cleaning tissues to be avoided? Is Frank Theriault really an RCMP undercover agent? Will Cesar ever completely corner the LX market (and cause the extinction of 45 different species of reptiles)? Will John Mustarde ever be assigned to cover the hot dog eating championship? Will the London fog ever clear enough for Cotty to learn what depth of field means? These questions (and many others) will (hopefully some of them anyway) be answered on the next episode of PDML. Tom Reese
PAW: Sustenance and Symbol
Forgot the url: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2500081&size=lg
Re: Teleconverter Crap
> 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) I don't recall anyone mentioning wide angle. > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. It's a good job the 600mm f4's can be obtained so readily and cheap then! A 420 f5.6 really isn't bad at all, my combination is as sharp as the same manufacturers 400 f5.6 prime. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. Useful for those starting out on a low budjet, they can upgrade later. John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 10:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Teleconverter Crap > Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > > 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine > putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal > lens.) > 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can > put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying > to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. > 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you > want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy > ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. > 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your > youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the > teleconverters to very rare use. > > 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters > on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. > > Regards, > Bob... > -- > "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. > We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have > no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without > resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed > to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is > about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we > should live for." - Blakely --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Digital Cameras On TV Tonight in the UK
On 5/7/04, Rob Brigham, discombobulated, offered: >Digital Cameras On Channel Five Tonight > > > > >Quote from the forum AV Resources... 5.7.04 > >19:30 The Gadget Show (Entertainment) >Entertainment show devoted to boys who love their toys. This week's show >is all about the world's fastest-selling gadget: the digital camera. >Suzi Perry runs a series of real life tests to see which is actually the >best: digital or film. And Tom Dunmore, Editor of 'Stuff' magazine, will >tell us which he thinks are the best digital cameras out there. >(Subtitles, Stereo) > >I wonder what their conclusion will be? Should be good for a hoot, but >don't take it seriously or you will probably end up frustrated! > Thanks Rob I'll have a look Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Teleconverter Crap
"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bob's laws of teleconverter use: > >1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine >putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal lens.) >2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can put a 2X >converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying to get a sharp >focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. >3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you want a >proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy ~85mm and ~100mm >lenses. >4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your >youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the >teleconverters to very rare use. >5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters on ebay >to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. I agree with all of 'em except #5. I use mine fairly frequently with my 300/2.8. (I don't do enough portrait work for #4 to apply to me: I just get by with the 80-200/2.8, which is a really good portrait lens if you can live with the relatively slow f/2.8 max aperture.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >So a very quick search of the usual used sites found me a Kiron manual >focus 105/f2.8 Macro Reputedly one of the really great macro lenses. >The 25-year-old Kiron cost about a hundred bucks, which was the going >rate and not some super lucky bargain. KEH has one in "bargain" condition for $126.00 in Olympus mount. I expect it would be more expensive in Nikon or Pentax mounts, since it would be a much more viable product in a lens mount that's still being produced. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
> From the replies I've seen, there is no reasonable price for this > lens - it sells for unreasonable prices. John is correct. The price of the lens is driven by scarcity, which affects both collectors (who want 'em for and/or despite of their scarcity) and users (who want 'em because they're darn fine macro lenses). > If one really wants a lens to use and not to fondle or make the > heart burst with pride at one's excellent taste in lenses, then > any of the 90-105mm f2.8 MF or AF lenses should be a good choice. > I've not heard any bad about any of them. I have to agree with John here also. I've tried quite a few of the Pentax and 3rd-party 90mm, 100mm, and 105mm macros lenses with f/2.5 and f/2.8 apertures (and f/4, too), and I've never seen one that wasn't at least very good. Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite... Fred
Re: OT: For Shel
You tell me your bank details first... Norm Baugher wrote: Sure Mike, what's your work address? Norm mike wilson wrote: Can you try sending the bank details to my work address, please? Thanks,
Re: 43 Limited
Am Sun, 4 Jul 2004 15:13:29 +0200 schrieb Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The 43 Limited was designed in the old fashioned way without > computer (well, mostly) in order to get that pre computer look from the > images the lens produce. What do you mean by that? Sorry, but I'm shure that this is pure nonsense. Alex -- Alexander Selzer http://www.grosskabinett.de/
Re: Teleconverter Crap
Bob's laws of teleconverter use: 1.Using a teleconverter with a wide angle lens is nutsoid. (imagine putting a 2X on a 24 or 28mm f/2.8 to obtain a really slow normal lens.) 2.Teleconverters are really only useful on fast lenses. You can put a 2X converter on a 300 f/4, but then you get a 600 f/8. Trying to get a sharp focus at f/8 sucks, at least for my old eyes. 3.Teleconverters are really useful on "normal" lenses when you want a proper perspective for portraits and are too cheap to buy ~85mm and ~100mm lenses. 4.In order to get the DOF control, you will eventually sell your youngest child to buy both an ~85mm & ~100mm lenses thus relegating the teleconverters to very rare use. 5.Eventually, you will put the (now little used) teleconverters on ebay to get the cash to help redeem your youngest child. Regards, Bob... -- "They called my parent's generation 'The Greatest Generation' for a reason. We have become a nation of narcissistic whiners and wienies who have no sense of history and no vision of the future. We are without resolve, and having forgotten first principles, we are easily swayed to embrace lies expressed to us in trite slogans. We think life is about us, forgetting that it is the generations to come that we should live for." - Blakely
Digital Cameras On TV Tonight in the UK
Digital Cameras On Channel Five Tonight Quote from the forum AV Resources... 5.7.04 19:30 The Gadget Show (Entertainment) Entertainment show devoted to boys who love their toys. This week's show is all about the world's fastest-selling gadget: the digital camera. Suzi Perry runs a series of real life tests to see which is actually the best: digital or film. And Tom Dunmore, Editor of 'Stuff' magazine, will tell us which he thinks are the best digital cameras out there. (Subtitles, Stereo) I wonder what their conclusion will be? Should be good for a hoot, but don't take it seriously or you will probably end up frustrated!
Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:37:35 +0200, you wrote: >Hi all, > >just checking, anyone know what a reasonable price is for an SMC A 100 2.8 >macro? > >Frank >From the replies I've seen, there is no reasonable price for this lens - it sells for unreasonable prices. If one really wants a lens to use and not to fondle or make the heart burst with pride at one's excellent taste in lenses, then any of the 90-105mm f2.8 MF or AF lenses should be a good choice. I've not heard any bad about any of them. When I added a Nikon camera to my kit, I wanted a 100mm Macro lens that went to 1:1 magnification. Being broke because of the expensive D100 purchase, I did not want the Nikon AF version. I already had a nice Pentax FA 100/2.8 Macro that cost close to $500. So a very quick search of the usual used sites found me a Kiron manual focus 105/f2.8 Macro in Nikon mount. It is every bit as good as my Pentax FA 100/2.8 Macro, except for lack of autofocus. But the difference in price? The 25-year-old Kiron cost about a hundred bucks, which was the going rate and not some super lucky bargain. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains
> > - Original Message - > From: "graywolf" > Subject: Holiday photo adventure in the mountains > > > So that was my 4th of July adventure. What was yours? I note that you set out to shoot a red, white & blue topic :-) > > > We went grocery shopping. July 4th doesn't mean as much to us as it > does to you. > > William Robb Round here, even most of the grocery shops were closed. We spent the day cutting and painting baseboard, mounting & wiring up speakers, etc. - generally putting the living room back together after a serious redecoration (complete repaint plus new Pergo floor). Oh, and watching Wimbledon coverage recorded on our newest toy; the HD DirecTiVo. That (and the TV set) are about the only pieces connected up at present - that's another fun little project for me. Well over 100 connections overall - just the TV alone has 24 wires (it actually has 32 connectors , but we don't use the other eight).
RE: Quality of pentax teleconverters.
Yeah its too bad they don't pass through the AF stuff, you would think they would redo them, keep the same optics to keep the development costs down but just add the pass through for the AF. Well for now I'll look into getting the AF adaptor 1.7 because I'm used to that and it will give me some autofocus. I wish they weren't so hard to find and expensive, but what can you do. --- Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4 Jul 2004 at 21:25, Verge Scott wrote: > > > Actually from the testing I have read good 1.4 > > teleconverters can actually be very good and > almost > > indistinguishable at times. If used with a high > > quality prime lens also. > > Quite correct, 30 years ago this wasn't the case, > now a lot of the Prime/TC > combos even wide open deliver near the resolution of > the best colour films. > > > I just wasn't sure about the pentax ones cause > I've > > only read about some nikon and canon and the > > kenko/tamron ones. > > I had a Kenko 7 element AF (pass-though) TC for a > short while, up against the > current Pentax TC it really delivered poor contrast > (regardless of the lenses > taking aperture), I suspect the Pentax AR coatings > help a great deal. > > > So has anyone seen any tests of the pentax ones? > > Yes but not in conjunction with the lens you intend > to use. It's hard to go > wrong with the 1.4X-S and the 2X-S TC they are > pretty good and contrary to some > reports the 1.7AF TC is a very good performer also. > I've sold my nX-S TCs but I > retained the 1.7AF and the two nX-L TCs, I'm pretty > pleased with them. Really > their biggest downfall is that they don't support > the AF function on AF lenses. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: PAW: Waiting for the trailer
> frank theriault wrote: > > Wonderful photo. You've really captured the > > exhaustion of a day's competition (not to mention > > travel and preparation). You've also capturered the > > bond between these two women, leaning on each other > > for (it appears) emotional as well as physical > > support. > > > > I agree: leave in the woman on the phone. > > Too bad > she's behind the bars, but she's a part of the > > post-show "action". > > > > I Think having her behind the bars ADDS to the > context of thephoto not just > the balance visually. They are 'trapped' waiting. > > Nice one, Dave! > > annsan > Thanks Ann. I needed that today.:-) Dave
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
So what is the lens that survived the "distillation" process in the 40-55mm focal length range? Actually, the choice of a lens depends much on the choice of the other lenses. If you like the 35/f2, the 43 would be too close, wouldn't it? If you have a 28mm wide-angle, the 43 fits much better. Naturally, the type of camera is important, too. Arnold Rob Studdert wrote: My current lens kit has been formed by a process of "distillation" and the 43mm LTD wasn't "magic" enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black.
Re: PAW
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, John Mustarde wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > Very good shots, there were enough photo ops on this one hike to last > a month of Sundays. I enjoyed browsing this paw as much as any in the > past year. But you left me wanting for info - who are the folks, and > why only one coloring book. They are the friends who I went hiking with. Kathy is on the left, Christine (my wife) was on the right. Why only one coloring book? Not sure, they only picked up one. That was while we were getting breakfast before the hike. I'm glad that you enjoyed the photos. alex
Re: PAW
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Very good shots, there were enough photo ops on this one hike to last a month of Sundays. I enjoyed browsing this paw as much as any in the past year. But you left me wanting for info - who are the folks, and why only one coloring book. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: PAW
Wow, nice stuff. I like the "leaves" picture too. I like the look of the images by that DA lens. Damn. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: tan unsubscribing...
Sorry to hear about your troubles. Rmemeber that the PDML will still be here if you want to argue to death about stuff that doesn't matter . . . ;-)
Re: film codes
D'oh... Sorry, Derby. Of course you didn't mean the DX coding. This link may help you out: http://www.srv.net/~vail/filmdata.htm cheers, Jostein Quoting Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, Derby. > > Try this: http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2131/dx-code.html > > It came up as the top rated hit in google when searching for "DX film > codes". > > Google is your friend. :-) > > Jostein > > > Quoting Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Retro film question here. > > > > Does anyone know of a site that has a list of film type codes - the > > markings on the edge of negs and trannies.? > > > > D > > > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc > > http://derby.agreatserver.com/ (galleries) > > http://derby.150m.com/ (blog) > > > > > > > > > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
RS> My current lens kit has been formed by a process of "distillation" and the 43mm RS> LTD wasn't "magic" enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black. De gustibus non est disputandum. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: Quality of pentax teleconverters.
On 4 Jul 2004 at 21:25, Verge Scott wrote: > Actually from the testing I have read good 1.4 > teleconverters can actually be very good and almost > indistinguishable at times. If used with a high > quality prime lens also. Quite correct, 30 years ago this wasn't the case, now a lot of the Prime/TC combos even wide open deliver near the resolution of the best colour films. > I just wasn't sure about the pentax ones cause I've > only read about some nikon and canon and the > kenko/tamron ones. I had a Kenko 7 element AF (pass-though) TC for a short while, up against the current Pentax TC it really delivered poor contrast (regardless of the lenses taking aperture), I suspect the Pentax AR coatings help a great deal. > So has anyone seen any tests of the pentax ones? Yes but not in conjunction with the lens you intend to use. It's hard to go wrong with the 1.4X-S and the 2X-S TC they are pretty good and contrary to some reports the 1.7AF TC is a very good performer also. I've sold my nX-S TCs but I retained the 1.7AF and the two nX-L TCs, I'm pretty pleased with them. Really their biggest downfall is that they don't support the AF function on AF lenses. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: film codes
On 5 Jul 2004 at 21:31, Derby Chang wrote: > Retro film question here. > > Does anyone know of a site that has a list of film type codes - the > markings on the edge of negs and trannies.? I think this is about the closest you'll get: http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc15.htm#topic14 Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
PAW
These are from a hike on Noble Knob near Mt Ranier that I took on Saturday July 3rd, 2004. Shot with the *ist D and DA 16-45/4 (I also carried my FA 35/2 and M 135/3.5 that day, but never used those). I like the texture in this one a lot: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3665.jpg There are a lot of landscape/scenic shots there, but I think that this is my favorite of them: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3679.jpg I also like this one, because it was a better indication of the weather for most of the hike, and the wildflowers were a big part of the hike and are front and center: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3521.jpg The whole gallery is here, but I really need to cull some more images (shot 200, down to 87, would like to be down to 25 or less) to make it more browsable: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/ alex
Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
On 5 Jul 2004 at 12:22, Arnold Stark wrote: > Hi, > > I confirm that wide open the FA43 is as "sharp" as the other Pentax > normal lenses. Stopped down to f5.6-11 it is on the same level, too. > However, at f2.8 an f4 it seems to be sharper. > > However, the magic of this lens is not only about sharpness, its > compactness, or its build quality. The magic is also about the vividness > and three-dimensionality of the images, the ghostless SMC coating, and > the circular rendering of light sources at night. > > Plus it is the perfect match for my silver MZ-S. My current lens kit has been formed by a process of "distillation" and the 43mm LTD wasn't "magic" enough to entice me to keep it even in glorious jet black. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Quality of pentax teleconverters.
Great thanks for the info guys and I would love that scan. --- John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Despite not being a fan of teleconverters I always > seem to be in posession > of at least one. Early on I had a Vivitar 2x tele, > the less said about this > the better, bud it was adequate for the use I gave > it. > > I later bought a Teleplus MC7 2X this was much > better and gave very good > results (for a tele) with my K 300mm f4, it was KA > fit and also worked nicely > with Pentax-A 70-210 f4 zoom, results always seemed > better with the primes > than zooms though. Even wide open the 300mm f4 was > very acceptable even > beyond 10" x 8" > > Currently I have a SMC Pentax T-6 2X - results are > quite pleasing with Pentax- > M 200mm f4 & 135 f3.5 but I would recommend stopping > down 1-2 stops to keep > the edges sharp (recommended in the instruction > sheet). I think the Teleplus > has the edge on this! > > Also a Sigma 1.4 EX APO which I use regular with a > 300mm f4 Sigma APO lens, > results are a revelation with this lens for a > Teleconverter. I believe it > also works well with the 70-200 f2.8 hard to tell > the difference in prints > whether you're using the converter or not. Should > work well with Pentax > lenses but I'm not sure about compatibility and > proximity to rear elements on > some lenses. Seriously recommended all the same, > never found anything better > but then again it is 1.4X and not 2X!!! > > Recently purchased a Pentax-A 2X-S only had it about > a week so I haven't got > around to trying it yet. It looks very impressive, > largest rear element I've > ever seen on a 35mm 2X teleconverter. The > instruction sheet makes no mention > of stopping the lens down for optimum rersults, > sounds promising?! Completely > different design from T-6 2X, I'm wondering if it > will manage better > performance than the Teleplus which was quite > remarkable for an aftermarket > job. Plan to give it an outing with my Pentax-A 200 > f4 at some point. > > Hope this is of some help. > > BTW I would love a scan if that is not too much > trouble please. > > John Whittingham > > Technician > > -- Original Message --- > From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 14:35:49 +0200 > Subject: Re: Quality of pentax teleconverters. > > > on 05.07.04 6:25, Verge Scott at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > So has anyone seen any tests of the pentax ones? > > I've seen that in German Foto Magazin - AFAIR they > have been rated much > > higher than anything from Sigma or Tamron > (something like 9.6 vs. > > 8.4 for optics of respectively Pentax and > Sigma/Tamron TCs). Both > > Pentax TCs have been similar in quality to their > counterparts from > > Nikon or Canon. If you want, I can send you a scan > of full table > > with summary from this magazine. > > > > -- > > Best Regards > > Sylwek > --- End of Original Message --- > > __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: tan unsubscribing...
All the best, and hope to see you back asap. Dario - Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Net [EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: tan unsubscribing... > > hi everyone, > > well, i am not sure if any of you have noticed, but i have been really quiet > on-list since returning from the US. there is alot of heavy stuff going > down in my personal life at the moment, and i am now going to have to > unsubscribe from the list, come tomorrow morning. i will be back, i promise > (well, i hope), but i have no idea when or how this might occur. i will > have my laptop with me, and will hopefully be able to check my emails > regularly, but i have no guarantee of this and so i don't want the PDML > emails to pile up and start bouncing back to our poor suffering list guy. > in the meantime, please feel free to email me off list, if anyone needs me > for anything. > > hugs to everyone, > tan. >
Re: tan unsubscribing...
Sorry to hear that. Hope you return soon! DagT På 5. jul. 2004 kl. 01.53 skrev Tanya Mayer Photography: hi everyone, well, i am not sure if any of you have noticed, but i have been really quiet on-list since returning from the US. there is alot of heavy stuff going down in my personal life at the moment, and i am now going to have to unsubscribe from the list, come tomorrow morning. i will be back, i promise (well, i hope), but i have no idea when or how this might occur. i will have my laptop with me, and will hopefully be able to check my emails regularly, but i have no guarantee of this and so i don't want the PDML emails to pile up and start bouncing back to our poor suffering list guy. in the meantime, please feel free to email me off list, if anyone needs me for anything. hugs to everyone, tan.
RE: 6x7 'X' setting
Based on some bad past experiences with cameras, kinda makes you wonder why all cameras with rotating shutter speed dials didn't have a lock on them, at least a lock for the "X" position at a minimum. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 5:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 6x7 'X' setting > > > > William Robb wrote: > > One thing to note, the shutter speed dial is quite easy to knock off > it's setting if you have the speed adaptor ring mounted (I think it > only came with the meter prism though). Check you shutter speeds > frequently if you are using the speed ring. > > William Robb > > Ain't that the truth.:-) Dave(been there)Brooks
Re: 6x7 'X' setting
> > > > William Robb wrote: > > One thing to note, the shutter speed dial is quite easy to knock off > it's setting if you have the speed adaptor ring mounted (I think it > only came with the meter prism though). > Check you shutter speeds frequently if you are using the speed ring. > > William Robb > > Ain't that the truth.:-) Dave(been there)Brooks
Re: tan unsubscribing...
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > > hi everyone, > > well, i am not sure if any of you have noticed, but i have been really quiet > on-list since returning from the US. there is alot of heavy stuff going > down in my personal life at the moment, and i am now going to have to > unsubscribe from the list, come tomorrow morning. i will be back, i promise > (well, i hope), but i have no idea when or how this might occur. i will > have my laptop with me, and will hopefully be able to check my emails > regularly, but i have no guarantee of this and so i don't want the PDML > emails to pile up and start bouncing back to our poor suffering list guy. > in the meantime, please feel free to email me off list, if anyone needs me > for anything. > > hugs to everyone, > tan. Hugs, Tan Glad I got to meet ya at GFM - hope the Appalacian nature sounds help soothe... annsan
