Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

Oh that's great.. I didn't know that was possible. Any more detailed
instructions Alan?

Thanks,
Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder


> Just remove the screen and blow of the dust. You might even fit a MZ-M
> screen for split image.
>
> Alan Chan
> http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
>
> >And about comparing the viewfinder to say a point and shoot, the mz50's
> >viewfinder wasn't too much better. The sample I got to play with had
black
> >specks thru the viewfinder too. I know it doesn't affect the image, but
is
> >it cleanable?
>
> _
> Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet
has
> to offer.
>
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
>   Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
> first two months FREE*.
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

Just to make you feel a little better.
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/MZ-Mscreen0.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/MZ-Mscreen1.jpg
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Thanks, Don.  I'll try it when I'm feeling brave enough.. Badri.
> There's a small release "clip" hiding behind the mirror bumper foam that
> releases the focusing screen.
> A paper clip with a bent end works to release it.
_
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special 
stationery, fonts and colors. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

RE: Meet the (soon to be) new family member.....

[Don Sanderson]

I managed to barely beat Harry M too!
Which one are you?

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Meet the (soon to be) new family member.
> 
> 
> Yea, you outbid me you varmit.  ;)
> 
> rg
> 
> 

> >Anyway I stumbled on this little jewel:
> >
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item
=3830542247
>&rd=1
>
>Pretty isn't she? Hope she works as well as she looks.
>
>Don
>
>  
>

Re: Meet the (soon to be) new family member.....

[Gonz]

Yea, you outbid me you varmit.  ;)
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After hearing you folks praising the MX today and then Graywolf talking
about AF killing the desire/need to learn basic skills I went digging around
for my old MX.
The poor thing is all but dead, a dozen dents, scratched eyepiece and
screen, no meter, DOF preview shot, etc, etc.
Sure sounds and feels good though.
Decided to go looking around a bit and see what I could find to replace it.
As you can probably tell from the lens questions I've been asking lately I
seem to be moving back to MF myself.
Seems that if photography classes insist on full manual cameras for students
perhaps that's what I should use to "hone my skills" as Graywolf mentioned.
Reminded me of some of the things this COF has learned by having to use my
brain and hands instead of automation.
Like how to make change without a cash register that figures it out for me.
The kids at work are amazed that anyone can do that!Sad...
Hell, I still use a pencil and paper instead of a spreadsheet most times,
drives people nuts!
And yes I can still do "long division".
Anyway I stumbled on this little jewel:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=3830542247
&rd=1
Pretty isn't she? Hope she works as well as she looks.
Don
 

Re: FS: Pentax MZ-5n & Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Limited!

[Sid Barras]

Hi Joe,
If no one has replied on the 5n and grip, I'd be willing to take it off 
your hands for $200 plus shipping. I'd love to buy the limited too, but 
its beyond my current financial abilities. (So is the 5n, but I think I 
can hide the purchase from the war department)
Sid B
On Jul 30, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Joe Wilensky wrote:

In beautiful condition, but I need to thin out the collection a bit 
and improve the finances ...

For sale: Pentax MZ-5n (chrome), EX+ condition, includes manual, box, 
all covers, and FG battery grip, too. This camera was once a bit 
dusty, so I had Pentax service it a year ago. Works perfectly. A few 
wear marks on body's sharpest edges. This is the European/Asian 
version of the ZX-5n, identical other than the name designation.

For sale: Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited (chrome), a perfect match 
to the MZ-5n. EX+ condition, includes box, papers, fancy soft lens 
case with drawstring, lens hood, caps. Works perfectly.

I'll sell the camera and lens together for $475 including 
shipping/insurance in the continental U.S.

Separately, I'll sell the MZ-5n and grip for $200 and the Limited for 
$300, plus shipping/insurance.

If you are interested in a different package, I'll offer the MZ-5n 
with an EX+ Pentax SMC-FA 28-70mm f/4 for $275.

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

Greetings from CajunLand USA South Louisiana
Sid Barras

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Butch Black]

Mike wrote:

Too much work, too little time to do enjoyable things.  Did manage to 
spend a nice evening yesterday at a local version of the Proms. Thrashed 
through five strips of gelatin whilst listening to some good music and 
practicing my focusing technique.  I can say categorically that brass 
band musicians are easier than house martins


Were they obese?

If so, then they were a heavy metal band.


Butch
 (sorry, but someone had to say it)

Meet the (soon to be) new family member.....

[Don Sanderson]

After hearing you folks praising the MX today and then Graywolf talking
about AF killing the desire/need to learn basic skills I went digging around
for my old MX.
The poor thing is all but dead, a dozen dents, scratched eyepiece and
screen, no meter, DOF preview shot, etc, etc.
Sure sounds and feels good though.
Decided to go looking around a bit and see what I could find to replace it.
As you can probably tell from the lens questions I've been asking lately I
seem to be moving back to MF myself.
Seems that if photography classes insist on full manual cameras for students
perhaps that's what I should use to "hone my skills" as Graywolf mentioned.
Reminded me of some of the things this COF has learned by having to use my
brain and hands instead of automation.
Like how to make change without a cash register that figures it out for me.
The kids at work are amazed that anyone can do that!Sad...
Hell, I still use a pencil and paper instead of a spreadsheet most times,
drives people nuts!
And yes I can still do "long division".

Anyway I stumbled on this little jewel:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=3830542247
&rd=1

Pretty isn't she? Hope she works as well as she looks.

Don

Re: Off list for a while.

[graywolf]

So long. Don't stay away too long.
--
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I've enjoyed the conversation this weekend. The list has once again 
achieved a measure of sanity. That says a lot about the intelligence and 
emotional stability of the majority. I'll be back again soon, but I have 
other things to deal with now. I hope to have very good news by the time 
I log on again.
Best to all.
Paul Stenquist


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

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[graywolf]

If it is any consolation, I have always hated microprism focusing aids in the 
viewfinder. I do understand that the viewfinder sceen in the ZX-M can be 
changed, but I personally have never used the camera so can not tell you how.

--
Badri A wrote:
Hi, 

I don't suppose there's a (pro) fix to make my (newbie) ZX-M
viewfinder any better?  I've never used any other MF body but I know
from comparing specs that it's small, and not terribly bright.  It's
also got specks of dust on it, but the screen's 'fixed' so I don't
know if it's cleanable.  I love the split-image focussing, but the
microprism collar is useless and a pain.
Thanks
Badri
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:30:00 -0700, Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just remove the screen and blow of the dust. You might even fit a MZ-M
screen for split image.


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

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Badri A]

Thanks, Don.  I'll try it when I'm feeling brave enough.. Badri.

> There's a small release "clip" hiding behind the mirror bumper foam that
> releases the focusing screen.
> A paper clip with a bent end works to release it.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Badri A]

the SF story graywolf mentions is 'A Feeling of Power' by Isaac
Asimov, I think.  A lowly technician 'discovers' division and the
military gets interested in the human algebra project because of the
potential of having 'unmachined' combat vehicles that'd give them the
competitive edge.  Asimov could never resist a little satire, I guess.

RE: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Don Sanderson]

There's a small release "clip" hiding behind the mirror bumper foam that
releases the focusing screen.
A paper clip with a bent end works to release it.
Then you can carefully blow the dust off, just take your time locking it
back up.
You'll fiddle with it for a while and it will eventually pop back in place.
Not hard if you're patient and gentle.
Nothing much else you can do for it though.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Badri A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't suppose there's a (pro) fix to make my (newbie) ZX-M
> viewfinder any better?  I've never used any other MF body but I know
> from comparing specs that it's small, and not terribly bright.  It's
> also got specks of dust on it, but the screen's 'fixed' so I don't
> know if it's cleanable.  I love the split-image focussing, but the
> microprism collar is useless and a pain.
>
> Thanks
> Badri
>
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:30:00 -0700, Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just remove the screen and blow of the dust. You might even fit a MZ-M
> > screen for split image.
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Badri A]

Hi, 

I don't suppose there's a (pro) fix to make my (newbie) ZX-M
viewfinder any better?  I've never used any other MF body but I know
from comparing specs that it's small, and not terribly bright.  It's
also got specks of dust on it, but the screen's 'fixed' so I don't
know if it's cleanable.  I love the split-image focussing, but the
microprism collar is useless and a pain.

Thanks
Badri

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:30:00 -0700, Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just remove the screen and blow of the dust. You might even fit a MZ-M
> screen for split image.

Off list for a while.

[Paul Stenquist]

I've enjoyed the conversation this weekend. The list has once again 
achieved a measure of sanity. That says a lot about the intelligence 
and emotional stability of the majority. I'll be back again soon, but I 
have other things to deal with now. I hope to have very good news by 
the time I log on again.
Best to all.
Paul Stenquist

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Paul Stenquist]

Great post, valid points. Everyone should read this.
Paul
On Aug 1, 2004, at 9:50 PM, graywolf wrote:
I guess, I come across as an awful snob. There are two things to think 
of here.

First, if the camera suits your needs, it suits your needs. There is 
nothing more that needs be said.

Second, I think, a lot of us old timers spent a lot of time perfecting 
skills. Then along came automation that does it nearly as well. We 
kind of resent it when folks make claims that they can do it better 
than we can without any practice at all. Especially, when it is only 
the camera, and not them that is doing it. However, I think that no 
matter how much you practice using your autofocus it still works about 
as well as the first time you used it. Not only that but the old 
skills will eventually be lost for good. That feels bad.

The military claims that almost no one who joins up knows how to shoot 
any more. When you stop and think about the fact that for the first 
400 years on this continent knowing how to shoot well put food on your 
table, and may have saved you life, that is sad. Heck most folks today 
are not too aware that something had to be killed to put meat on their 
table.

Who knows how to use an axe? I have been an outdoorsman most of my 
life, and when I see an expert with an ax at work, I always realize 
that I never really did. As I said it is sad to realize that skills 
are being lost.

Luckily, there are a few dedicated individuals in most areas of 
expertise who find it an interesting challenge to perfect old skills. 
It would be nice if they never needed to reinvent those skills from 
scratch, but that happens all too often.

For a 100 years or so they worked hard on improving the human 
interface of cameras. Then along came automation, and they obviously 
don't feel any need to even try anymore. However, Pentax seems to be 
the one company that still cares. Anyone who has compared the 
viewfinder of the *istD which any of the other DSLR's in the price 
range can confirm that.

It all kind of reminds me of a SF story I once read where the lead 
character was laughed at because he claimed to have discovered a way 
to do division without a calculator. Do they still teach long 
division? I don't know.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[graywolf]

I guess, I come across as an awful snob. There are two things to think of here.
First, if the camera suits your needs, it suits your needs. There is nothing 
more that needs be said.

Second, I think, a lot of us old timers spent a lot of time perfecting skills. 
Then along came automation that does it nearly as well. We kind of resent it 
when folks make claims that they can do it better than we can without any 
practice at all. Especially, when it is only the camera, and not them that is 
doing it. However, I think that no matter how much you practice using your 
autofocus it still works about as well as the first time you used it. Not only 
that but the old skills will eventually be lost for good. That feels bad.

The military claims that almost no one who joins up knows how to shoot any more. 
When you stop and think about the fact that for the first 400 years on this 
continent knowing how to shoot well put food on your table, and may have saved 
you life, that is sad. Heck most folks today are not too aware that something 
had to be killed to put meat on their table.

Who knows how to use an axe? I have been an outdoorsman most of my life, and 
when I see an expert with an ax at work, I always realize that I never really 
did. As I said it is sad to realize that skills are being lost.

Luckily, there are a few dedicated individuals in most areas of expertise who 
find it an interesting challenge to perfect old skills. It would be nice if they 
never needed to reinvent those skills from scratch, but that happens all too often.

For a 100 years or so they worked hard on improving the human interface of 
cameras. Then along came automation, and they obviously don't feel any need to 
even try anymore. However, Pentax seems to be the one company that still cares. 
Anyone who has compared the viewfinder of the *istD which any of the other 
DSLR's in the price range can confirm that.

It all kind of reminds me of a SF story I once read where the lead character was 
laughed at because he claimed to have discovered a way to do division without a 
calculator. Do they still teach long division? I don't know.

--
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Ryan Lee wrote:

Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a 50,
and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
photography as he/she could have been otherwise.

It did not happen to me, that's for sure. Given the AF capability I
did not find it that bad; the -5n is slightly better, I agree. I had
an ME Super for a while and I am not sure it was much better (for
different reasons), particularly not with long slow lenses like my
beloved M75-150/4. I guess (Graywolf) I would think the same about
the MX (which I would not consider even if it was free, as it lacks
basic for my shooting functionality).
Horses for courses.
Kostas

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

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

Just remove the screen and blow of the dust. You might even fit a MZ-M 
screen for split image.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
And about comparing the viewfinder to say a point and shoot, the mz50's
viewfinder wasn't too much better. The sample I got to play with had black
specks thru the viewfinder too. I know it doesn't affect the image, but is
it cleanable?
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

(and MZ-S has the best viewfinder among Pentax AF SLRs).
Except the magnification is really low for manual focus.
Nothing but physics law - smaller surface of matte screen gathers more 
light... It has rather warm cast to the picture.
I think the eyepiece is part of the equation too.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

I do miss the MX viewfinder which is big and clear even with the old screen. 
Not even the LX is as good.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's. You would 
immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo for the rest of 
your life.
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

It has a lot to do with the eyepiece & magnification, then the pentaprism, 
and screen last.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I think the viewfinder screen is one heck of a lot more
important than bells and whistles.  I also think pre-autofocus
viewfinders tend to be a whole lot better.
_
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special 
stationery, fonts and colors. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Alan Chan]

When I bought the Z-1p, MZ-5n was shown to me and the MZ-5n viewfinder was 
much inferior for manual focus. But then again, when compared with pre-AF 
cameras, Z-1p doesn't look good either, thanks to the plastic eyepiece.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
'Closed in'? How do you mean exactly? I love the images I see thru my 5n!
I'd love to check out a PZ-1 if it gets any better. Although very unlikely
I'd consider switching.. Just nice to see what other people like using.
_
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

Re: Vivitar 19mm/3.8

[Keith Whaley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jens said:
A great thing about the Vivitar is that it comes with a built-in shade/hood,
which the A 2.8/20mm doesn't.

You're not talking about the Vivitar 19mm f/3.8, filter size 62mm, here are 
you? Mine did not come with a hood.
No, nor mine...
keith whaley
ERN
who actually used said lens recently, first time for quite a
while.

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[ernreed2]

> Hi,
> 
> Ryan Lee wrote:
> 
> > Two votes for an MX viewfinder (including Alex's).. Maybe I'll try scouting
> > used equipment just for a look and a play.
> 
> Add another one to that.  I have only ever looked through one MX 
> viewfinder and it was a decidedly secondhand one at that.  Nonetheless, 
> it was the best, easiest-focusing mf viewfinder I've ever seen.
> 
> mike
> 

Funny -- I didn't get along with the MX viewfinder at all until I bought a nice 
new LX screen for it from Peter in Sunny Brighton. I also like the LX with a 
new-series viewfinder in it. (Rob was the source of that one.) 

I shoot *with* my glasses on at all times. My astigmatism is too severe to 
allow me to do otherwise.

The diopter ajuster on the Optio 550 doesn't stay put (I'm getting really used 
to quickly resetting it though) and the LCD screen is hard for me to see with 
the glasses (the start of presbyopia?) I only use the LCD for image review or 
for macro shots, anyway; otherwise I turn it off. (Amazing how many people this 
confuses when they want to look at my Optio and find the LCD is off. "Is your 
battery dead?" Have they not noticed the thing has a viewfinder??!!)

I find that in dim situations, like church, where the ZX-5n can't focus easily, 
I can't focus it easily either. So the viewfinder's not THAT good on the ZX-5n.

The PZ-1 has a split-image focus aid for manual focusing. I don't remember how 
easy it is to use with the standard screen. My eyes have become noticeably 
older in the years since I changed that screen anyway. I've rarely attempted to 
use the PZ-1 in church -- too loud. Haven't had a chance to try the *ist D in 
there yet.

Nor have I borrowed my husband's ZX-10 enough to compare its viewfinder to the 
others. It seems to suit him well enough, but he has far better eyesight than I 
do.

ERN

Re: UV filters on sexy lenses

[ernreed2]

Raimo K posted:
> Well, I was not so sure myself - until I managed to bump a sizeable chunk
> out of the skylight filter on my 3.5/35-105 SMC Pentax. I had used the
> filter to correct the bluish cast of the Fujichrome Sensia II. The hood for
> this lens is useless as a hood or protection. Rubber hoods also give scant
> protection.
> My Leica lenses have metal hoods and no filters.

I stopped using UV filters after seeing the huge difference in flare (plenty 
with, none without filter) when trying to photograph an eagle at the local zoo. 
Some of my (Pentax) lenses have metal hoods also.

ERN

RE: PESO - A summer romance

[ernreed2]

Jostein:
> Another pic from our recent family vacation.
> 
> http://www.oksne.net/paw/romance.html

Oh, wow.
Simply gorgeous.

ERN

RE: Vivitar 19mm/3.8

[ernreed2]

Jens said:
> A great thing about the Vivitar is that it comes with a built-in shade/hood,
> which the A 2.8/20mm doesn't.

You're not talking about the Vivitar 19mm f/3.8, filter size 62mm, here are 
you? Mine did not come with a hood.

ERN
who actually used said lens recently, first time for quite a
while.

Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[ernreed2]

Amita asked:
> AG> Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with the
> AG> istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
> AG> I've only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my
> AG> older cameras and my ZX-50.
> 
and Bruce replied:
> Hmmm, I focus manually about 95% of the time.  I have no problems at
> all with the matte screen.  Wonder what the difference is?  What
> lenses are you using?  I wonder if the speed of the lenses has any
> impact?

I use manual focus most of the time on the *ist D also, I think even more than 
I do with my AF film SLRs. I find its screen very easy to focus with.
(Using, most of the time, the 28-70 f/4)

ERN

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[mike wilson]

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I can say categorically that brass
band musicians are easier than house martins

More predictable flight paths? :-)
*-  Compared to the audience, that is, who were all, er, flying high.
(who is feeling silly tonight. Last day of holidays; back to work
tomorrow.)
Sympathy.  I have just started mine.  I go back on 31st August.  Sorry.
mike

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  I can say categorically that brass
> band musicians are easier than house martins

More predictable flight paths? :-)

Jostein

(who is feeling silly tonight. Last day of holidays; back to work
tomorrow.)

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[mike wilson]

Hi,
Ryan Lee wrote:
Two votes for an MX viewfinder (including Alex's).. Maybe I'll try scouting
used equipment just for a look and a play.
Add another one to that.  I have only ever looked through one MX 
viewfinder and it was a decidedly secondhand one at that.  Nonetheless, 
it was the best, easiest-focusing mf viewfinder I've ever seen.

mike

Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour

[Ryan Lee]

Oh shoot.. mid 05.. I have to wait that long before sending you my film to
develop?? ;)

Cheers,
Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour


> Ryan,
>
> The Jobo cost me $2,000 2nd hand about 5 or 6 years ago.  A couple went
for
> not much less on eBay Aus a couple of months back.
>
> The ATL does almost everything.  It tempers the chemistry, it times, it
> agitates and it changes the solutions.  But it simply dumps the solutions,
> and to get the full capacity of colour chemistry you need to catch it as
it
> drains out, and return it to the storage bottles for later use (the bigger
> Jobo Autolabs will do that).  It will only temper the solution to be used
> for the next batch, you need to temper the larger storage bottles outside
> the processor.  If you don't, the processor itself will need to warm the
> solutions up from room temperature, which is slow.  I get them to about 36
> degrees Celsius so the Jobo only has to warm them up 1 or 2 degrees.  You
> also need to have a tempered rinse, to within a degree for C41 or less
than
> half a degree for E6 (0.3 degrees C IIRC).  My water heater could never
stay
> in those limits, so I use a 40l header tank to feed rinse water to the
Jobo,
> it's volume gives it enough thermal mass to stay in range for the length
of
> the process, and a recirculating pump keeps tempered water right up to the
> Jobo's inlet valve.  And, of course, I use filtered water to mix solutions
> and to fill the header tank.
>
> So, it's not dead easy, but it is logical and, for all but the terminally
> clumsy it should be do-able.  The first time you see 'chromes that you've
> processed yourself is when you know it's worth it :-)
>
> Unfortunately my darkroom won't see any action before at least mid '05 :-(
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > lol yeah! Do they x-ray interstate mail? :) I've never developed film
> before
> > (though I've done darkroom printing), but don't they say c41's tricky.
You
> > seem pretty pleased- what's your Jobo ATL1000 worth, and was it worth
it?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ryan
> >
>
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

I heard somewhere the 300D, like the mz50, uses a pentamirror too. That
doesn't sound too good (for them, of course). Anyone had a play?

Regards,
Ryan

PS. Speaking of the D70, I was comparing it to the D100 and even the s2pro
(!). The D70 looked like plenty of camera for the price, and almost seemed
to outshine the D100. Fascinating..

- Original Message - 
From: "Sylwester Pietrzyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder


> On 2004-08-01, at 13:10, Ryan Lee wrote:
>
> > PS Anybody want to compare their ist D viewfinder (woody? tinny?
> > something
> > else perhaps?) to their film viewfinders?
> I did it once. It is slightly smaller and slightly dimmer than the one
> in MZ-S (and MZ-S has the best viewfinder among Pentax AF SLRs).
> Undoubtly *istD has the biggest viewfinder among APS sized CCD DSLRs,
> but it is noticably dimmer if you compare it to competition (like Nikon
> D70). Nothing but physics law - smaller surface of matte screen gathers
> more light... It has rather warm cast to the picture.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Sylwek
>
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

Two votes for an MX viewfinder (including Alex's).. Maybe I'll try scouting
used equipment just for a look and a play.

>You would
> immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo for the rest of
your life.

I hope you don't mean that.. The way it's phrased makes it sound like the MX
would spoil photography for me :)

> Consider what your mythical newbie would be comparing the viewfinder too?
Then
> you may want rethink your scenario.

And about comparing the viewfinder to say a point and shoot, the mz50's
viewfinder wasn't too much better. The sample I got to play with had black
specks thru the viewfinder too. I know it doesn't affect the image, but is
it cleanable?

Cheers,
Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder


> GRIN!
>
> You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's. You would
> immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo for the rest of
your life.
>
> Consider what your mythical newbie would be comparing the viewfinder too?
Then
> you may want rethink your scenario.
>
> --
>
> Ryan Lee wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
> > interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a
50,
> > and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
> > photography as he/she could have been otherwise.
>
>
> -- 
> graywolf
> http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
>
>
>

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[mike wilson]

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Another wonderful picture, you swine 8-)  Think I'll take up 
chromatography..

Um... well thanks, I think...:-)
Are you going for the volatile thing? 
Just drowning in a sea of vapour
Too much work, too little time to do enjoyable things.  Did manage to 
spend a nice evening yesterday at a local version of the Proms. Thrashed 
through five strips of gelatine whilst listening to some good music and 
practising my focusing technique.  I can say categorically that brass 
band musicians are easier than house martins

mike

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[mike wilson]

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Another wonderful picture, you swine 8-)  Think I'll take up 
chromatography..

Um... well thanks, I think...:-)
Are you going for the volatile thing? 
Just drowning in a sea of vapour
Too much work, too little time to do enjoyable things.  Did manage to 
spend a nice evening yesterday at a local version of the Proms. Thrashed 
through five strips of gelatine whilst listening to some good music and 
practising my focusing technique.  I can say categorically that brass 
band musicians are easier than house martins

mike

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[mike wilson]

Jostein wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Another wonderful picture, you swine 8-)  Think I'll take up 
chromatography..

Um... well thanks, I think...:-)
Are you going for the volatile thing? 
Just drowning in a sea of vapour
Too much work, too little time to do enjoyable things.
mike

Re: OT: Wish me Luck

[Paul Stenquist]

Good luck on this one Frank. I share your desires and understand all 
the obstacles.
Paul

On Aug 1, 2004, at 5:12 PM, Juey Chong Ong wrote:
On Jul 27, 2004, at 12:37 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Wish me luck;  I've applied for several
non-photography jobs, this is the first photo job I've
taken a shot at.
Good luck, Frank!
--jc

Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[graywolf]

To adjust the diopter:
Point the camera at something moderately bright that has noting to focus on. A 
evenly lite wall works well.

Adjust the diopter until the viewfinder screen, not the wall looks sharp. 
Luckily modern cameras always seem to have all kinds of distracting things on 
them to focus on.

Anyway, at this point the screen is in focus. Since you actually are focusing 
the image on the screen, not the subject, it should also now be sharp.

Simple as that.
--
Amita Guha wrote:
Do you have the diopter correctly adjusted?

Hmm...not sure. How do I know if it's adjusted properly?

Don't over analyze focus. When it looks sharp, take the picture.

Yep, I've been doing that, and even when I think I'm right, it turns out
I'm not. But I'll try adjusting the diopter. Thanks for the tip.

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

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Bruce Dayton]

I think it is because the lake is big and empty, except for one small
boat.  The possible subject of the couple in the boat is relatively
small and off to the side, suggesting that they are not the main point
of interest, but rather part of a bigger whole.

Bruce


Sunday, August 1, 2004, 2:20:56 AM, you wrote:

J> Hi Bruce,

J> When you mention solitude, I can see what you mean. But I'm not able
J> to single out what causes it Any pointers?

J> Thanks for commenting.

J> Jostein

J> - Original Message - 
J> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
J> To: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
J> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 6:09 AM
J> Subject: Re: PESO - A summer romance


>> Jostein,
>>
>> Yet another wonderful image.  For me, the title doesn't quite fit.
J> I
>> get a different feeling - one of solitude.  The placement of the
J> boat,
>> catching the oars up and the lighting are all great.  Something that
>> could be used for a magazine cover or postcard.
>>
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> Saturday, July 31, 2004, 2:41:59 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> J> Another pic from our recent family vacation.
>>
>> J> http://www.oksne.net/paw/romance.html
>>
>> J> I was actually down by the lake to try snapping some portraits of
J> my
>> J> kids swimming when the couple from the neighbouring cottage
J> passed us
>> J> in their boat.
>>
>> J> All kinds of comments appreciated, as usual.
>>
>> J> Jostein
>>
>>
>>

RE: To AF or not to AF

[John Power]

I have a number of shots taken by friends and relatives, waiters and fellow
tourists, etc., with my AF cameras where they haven't realised that, if you
AF on a space between your real
subjects, you're not going to have them in focus!  

Yes, very good point!  Funny story about this.  I was taking available light
shots at a wedding before the ceremony started.  I saw a man speaking with
the minister, got a good shot of the two of them.  Oops, the *istD was set
to center focus and focused on the wall between and about 20' behind them
and they were out of focus.

Later I learned that the man speaking with the minister was a former husband
of the bride's mother and she definitely didn't want any photos of him!  She
wanted the photo discarded anyway.  I lucked out!

All in all AF really does help in fast-moving situations, like event
photography.  And in dim lighting too!  Plus, with my weak eyes, AF really
helps me out.  But when doing intentionally shallow DOF, landscapes and
macro work I prefer MF.  Not having any problem seeing the focus with the
*istD.  

Oh am I glad that between the time I was young and now (just a couple of
years) they put diopter adjustments right on the cameras!  (They must have
found that the typical buyer was getting older.)  There was a time several
years ago when I picked up an old Ricoh SLR and wondered why I couldn't see
anything in the viewfinder any more.

The suggestion that someone made to move the lens out of focus and then
adjust the diopter quickly until you can see the numbers and the marks in
the viewfinder clearly was a good one.

John Power
Racehorse in the Desert

Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[graywolf]

In fact the first time it goes sharp is the sharpest focus you are going to get. 
The reason for that is because at the same time you are fiddling with the focus, 
your eye is also fiddling with its focus trying to get that blurry image sharp. 
By the time you have rocked through the focus point several times your eye is 
nowhere near its normal focus point.

I was demonstrating my technique for quick focus with my MX (Matt+Grid screen in 
it) to a few folks at GFM. I guess it bares repeating here.

First always turn your focus ring to one extreme or another when you lower your 
camera from your eye. Some folks back in the old days always argued for 
infinity, some for close-focus. I do not think that matters, in fact I turn all 
my lenses full counter-clockwise. What does matter is that you always 
instinctively know which direction you need to turn the ring to bring the image 
into focus.

When you bring the camera to your eye turn the ring until the image is sharp. 
That is the sharpest focus you can get. Often it is faster than auto focus can 
do it.

Do not over run that point. This I admit does take some practice. You expected 
something for nothing, maybe? You do need to work at it a bit.

A point to notice is that you already know which way to turn the ring. Also 
after awhile you know approximately how far you are going to have to turn that 
ring, and you find you have it almost in focus before the camera gets to your eye.

Remember this important rule: Only fiddle when Rome is burning (Sorry).
--
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 

Do you have the diopter correctly adjusted?
Don't over analyze focus. When it looks sharp, take the picture.


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

Re: OT - test, again

[Anthony Farr]

At this time of year it will have been light for over an hour, wouldn't it?

regards,
Anthony Farr

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


> 6am Sunday morning and you expect a reply?
> 
> --
> 

Re: OT - test, again

[graywolf]

6am Sunday morning and you expect a reply?
--
Anthony Farr wrote:
This is sad, I'm talking to myself.
Hellooo.
Did everyone but me unsubscribe and start a new list?
Reminds me of the time my parents moved away while I was at school :-(
Just kidding ;-)
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Got it back in minutes!  And it's in the archive just as quickly.  So
where
is everybody?  Perfect shooting weather in the northern hemisphere, I
suppose :-)
regards,
Anthony Farr


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

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[alex wetmore]

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, graywolf wrote:
> You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's.
> You would immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo
> for the rest of your life.

When I got my MX (just CLA'd) I didn't use the ZX-5n for quite a long
time.  There were many reasons for this, but the viewfinder was one
of them.

I still have both, but don't shoot film anymore.  However the MX would
be the last of my film cameras to be sold.

alex

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[graywolf]

GRIN!
You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's. You would 
immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo for the rest of your life.

Consider what your mythical newbie would be comparing the viewfinder too? Then 
you may want rethink your scenario.

--
Ryan Lee wrote:
Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a 50,
and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
photography as he/she could have been otherwise.

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

To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[Steve Desjardins]

Does anyone here have a high end Canon or Nikon (like a D2H or a 1D II)?
 I suspect that these AF systems are much better and may lead to more of
a "fire and forget" mentality with a little practice.  I MF a lot on my
*ist D since I have some A lenses I really like, but when I do use AF I
always use the single sensor setting and recompose.

I also like to trap focus with some moving subjects.  This wworks well
with my A lenses set on AF. 

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/31/2004 11:45:06 PM >>>
But even the 99% using an AF camera with good or great lens get it
wrong
more often than not.  I have a number of shots taken by friends and
relatives, waiters and fellow tourists, etc., with my AF cameras where
they
haven't realised that, if you AF on a space between your real
subjects,
you're not going to have them in focus!  Camera shake is another
issue:
small and light cameras such as the MZ series need to be held firmly,
not
waved about like a fire-hose.
It's horses for courses, guys: AF for, for example, flocks of
lorikeets
whizzing past (those little beggars go _fast_, and on unpredictable
flight
paths), MF for landscapes, probably pre-focussed MF for many sports and
full
MF for portraits too.  Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the
masters.


John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?


> That is simple, because 99% of their customers have no interest in
learning how
> to use a camera. Hence cameras that use themselves. Great for fairly
sharp,
> fairly well exposed images of the kids. Whis is all that 99% of
camera
buyers
> want no matter how much they spend on a camera.
>
> --
>

RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe:Pentax is Dying?

[Amita Guha]

Yes.

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: 
> lRe:Pentax is Dying?
> 
> 
> Just out of curiouslity, does the focus hexagon appear when 
> you think its in focus?
> 
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/2004 12:37:27 AM >>>
> > MF for landscapes, probably
> > pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits 
> > too.  Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
> 
> Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing 
> manually with the istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, 
> but could that be because I've only had the camera for a 
> couple of months? I do just fine with my older cameras and my ZX-50.
> 

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Steve Desjardins]

How about "Hey, I thought you brought the beer".  

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/2004 12:09:50 AM >>>
Jostein,

Yet another wonderful image.  For me, the title doesn't quite fit.  I
get a different feeling - one of solitude.  The placement of the boat,
catching the oars up and the lighting are all great.  Something that
could be used for a magazine cover or postcard.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Saturday, July 31, 2004, 2:41:59 PM, you wrote:

J> Another pic from our recent family vacation.

J> http://www.oksne.net/paw/romance.html 

J> I was actually down by the lake to try snapping some portraits of
my
J> kids swimming when the couple from the neighbouring cottage passed
us
J> in their boat.

J> All kinds of comments appreciated, as usual.

J> Jostein

RE: PESO - A summer romance

[Steve Desjardins]

A classic shot.  Well composed, exposed, and sharp.  You do such nice
work.  I especially like the high contrast rendering of the boat and the
couple.

RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?

[Steve Desjardins]

Just out of curiouslity, does the focus hexagon appear when you think
its in focus?

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/2004 12:37:27 AM >>>
> MF for landscapes, probably 
> pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits 
> too.  Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.

Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with
the
istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
I've only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with
my
older cameras and my ZX-50.

RE: PAW

[John Power]

Corrected text.

Here is a shot taken at the Pima Air Museum, near Tucson.  I was down there
about a year ago, on a VERY HOT day.  I sought relief in the shade of this
old B-52 and noticed an interesting view with one of the engine pods.

These old warriors probably went on hundreds of training flights before
flying down to Tucson, having their guts stripped out, and then parked in
the desert.

As always, comments, of all type, welcome.  Not an award winning shot.  Just
interesting to me.  Maybe to you.

http://www.solutns.com/jpeg/b52.jpg

Notes:  ZX-L, Fuji Provia 100, Phoenix 19-35mm lens (the cheapie).  The film
had a hard time handling the latitude between the shade and the blistering
dirt.  The area beyond the plane could be darkened in Photoshop a bit.

PAW

[John Power]

Here is a shot taken at the Pima Air Museum, near Tucson.  I was down there
about a year ago, on a VERY HOT day.  I sought relief in the shade of this
old B-52 and noticed an interesting view with one of the engine pods.

This old warriors probably went on hundreds of training flights before
flying down to Tucson, having their guts stripped out, and then parked in
the desert.

As always, comments, of all type, welcome.  Not an award winning shot.  Just
interesting to me.  Maybe to you.

http://www.solutns.com/jpeg/b52.jpg

Notes:  ZX-L, Fuji Provia 100, Phoenix 19-35mm lens (the cheapie).  The film
had a hard time handling the latitude between the shade and the blistering
dirt.  The area beyond the plane could be darkened in Photoshop a bit.

RE: UV filters on sexy lenses

[Amita Guha]

> Having said that, next week I'll probably smash the front 
> glass of a favorite lens.

I did just that in May. Dropped my istD and my Sigma 28-105mm face down
and shattered my UV filter. I've also had salt spray from the sea get on
the filter, which doesn't hurt the filter at all but would have been a
pain to clean off the lens. I'd much rather lose a $10 piece of glass
than lose an expensive lens...

Re: Asahi, not Asahi ??

[Anthony Farr]

This is a repost, my original post seems to have snagged somewhere in
cyberspace.
My apologies if it appears twice.
-

The seller says that the camera is from the '50s, but I doubt it because of
the style and finish.  For instance, it has the deep baseplate and broad
mirror box base that the ES series also had.  Pentaxes in the '50s had a
small metal-finished extension each side of the mirror box, this camera has
the leatherette right up to the mirror box that began with the Spotmatics.
The hot shoe also says 1960s to me.  The lens is definitely late '60s, but
it may not be the camera's original lens.

My guess is that it's either a prototype ES (or Electro Spotmatic), or a
special build meant for difficult handling situations such as subzero temps-
look at the oversized, for the times, dials, shutter button and rewind
crank.  Also interesting is that it lacks the ubiquitous push-up meter
switch where the flash-synch sockets are placed, perhaps the cap-off meter
switch was already implemented, also suggesting a prototype, or a technology
tester not necessarily meant for future production.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Michel Carrère-Gée" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> A strange "no name" SLR
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10576&item=3831027518&rd=1
>
>

Re: OT - test, again

[Anthony Farr]

Careful, I might believe you ;-)

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> We're busy writing private e-mails about you. I can't believe not one
person
> is defending you.
>
> 
>
> Tom Reese
>
>
>

Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour

[Anthony Farr]

Ryan,

The Jobo cost me $2,000 2nd hand about 5 or 6 years ago.  A couple went for
not much less on eBay Aus a couple of months back.

The ATL does almost everything.  It tempers the chemistry, it times, it
agitates and it changes the solutions.  But it simply dumps the solutions,
and to get the full capacity of colour chemistry you need to catch it as it
drains out, and return it to the storage bottles for later use (the bigger
Jobo Autolabs will do that).  It will only temper the solution to be used
for the next batch, you need to temper the larger storage bottles outside
the processor.  If you don't, the processor itself will need to warm the
solutions up from room temperature, which is slow.  I get them to about 36
degrees Celsius so the Jobo only has to warm them up 1 or 2 degrees.  You
also need to have a tempered rinse, to within a degree for C41 or less than
half a degree for E6 (0.3 degrees C IIRC).  My water heater could never stay
in those limits, so I use a 40l header tank to feed rinse water to the Jobo,
it's volume gives it enough thermal mass to stay in range for the length of
the process, and a recirculating pump keeps tempered water right up to the
Jobo's inlet valve.  And, of course, I use filtered water to mix solutions
and to fill the header tank.

So, it's not dead easy, but it is logical and, for all but the terminally
clumsy it should be do-able.  The first time you see 'chromes that you've
processed yourself is when you know it's worth it :-)

Unfortunately my darkroom won't see any action before at least mid '05 :-(

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> lol yeah! Do they x-ray interstate mail? :) I've never developed film
before
> (though I've done darkroom printing), but don't they say c41's tricky. You
> seem pretty pleased- what's your Jobo ATL1000 worth, and was it worth it?
>
> Regards,
> Ryan
>

Re: OT - test, again

[Tom Reese]

Anthony Farr's paranoia acted up and he wrote:

"This is sad, I'm talking to myself.

Hellooo.

Did everyone but me unsubscribe and start a new list?

Reminds me of the time my parents moved away while I was at school :-(

Just kidding ;-)"

We're busy writing private e-mails about you. I can't believe not one person
is defending you.



Tom Reese

Re: Photokina...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jostein" 
Subject: Re: Photokina...



> 
> > Only 9 weeks too go folksany wish lists?
> 
> 1. Tickets to go there... :-)

2. Don't discuss it to death before it happens.

William Robb

Re: UV filters on sexy lenses

[Raimo K]

Well, I was not so sure myself - until I managed to bump a sizeable chunk
out of the skylight filter on my 3.5/35-105 SMC Pentax. I had used the
filter to correct the bluish cast of the Fujichrome Sensia II. The hood for
this lens is useless as a hood or protection. Rubber hoods also give scant
protection.
My Leica lenses have metal hoods and no filters.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho


- Original Message - 
From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: UV filters on sexy lenses


> I've wondered, too, why so many list members use UVs or Skylights
> as "protection".  It seems to come down to shooting style; some
> folks leave lenses out and about while shooting and risk damage.
> I've never felt the need for them.  In fact, I've poked the glass
> out of a few in order to extend rubber hoods a bit more.
>
> Having said that, next week I'll probably smash the front glass
> of a favorite lens.
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > In truth, there's no comparison. In the shot laeled 29, flare has
> > basically ruined the photo. A huge ribbon runs down the middle, the
> > trees are muddy and the result is uneven. In 30, the image is clear and
> > crisp. UV filters are strictly for amateurs and neurotics. Why would
> > anyone buy a great lens and cover it with a mediocre filter. It defies
> > logic.
> snip...
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Lon Williamson]

I think the viewfinder screen is one heck of a lot more
important than bells and whistles.  I also think pre-autofocus
viewfinders tend to be a whole lot better.
Ryan Lee wrote:
I was just comparing the viewfinder between my 5n and a friend's 50.
snip...
Anybody notice the viewfinder difference too? Any thoughts?

Re: Asahi, not Asahi ??

[Dario Bonazza]

Looks like a Chinon body, probably made for Revue, with a Takumar lens on
it.
Cheers,
Dario Bonazza

- Original Message -
From: "Raimo K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Asahi, not Asahi ??


> Strange is correct. Seems not to be a Pentax or Asahi.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michel Carrère-Gée" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 10:15 AM
> Subject: Asahi, not Asahi ??
>
>
> > A strange "no name" SLR
> >
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=10576&item=3831027518
&rd=1
> >
>

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!
Yet another wonderful image.  For me, the title doesn't quite fit.  I
get a different feeling - one of solitude.  The placement of the 
boat,
catching the oars up and the lighting are all great.  Something that
could be used for a magazine cover or postcard.
Jostein, I agree with Bruce. It is classic cover/postcard shot. I 
won't elaborate any more on this ...

Boris

Re: UV filters on sexy lenses

[Lon Williamson]

I've wondered, too, why so many list members use UVs or Skylights
as "protection".  It seems to come down to shooting style; some
folks leave lenses out and about while shooting and risk damage.
I've never felt the need for them.  In fact, I've poked the glass
out of a few in order to extend rubber hoods a bit more.
Having said that, next week I'll probably smash the front glass
of a favorite lens.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
In truth, there's no comparison. In the shot laeled 29, flare has 
basically ruined the photo. A huge ribbon runs down the middle, the 
trees are muddy and the result is uneven. In 30, the image is clear and 
crisp. UV filters are strictly for amateurs and neurotics. Why would 
anyone buy a great lens and cover it with a mediocre filter. It defies 
logic.
snip...

Re: PESO - A summer romance

[Lon Williamson]

From a 1976 custom WhoreMobile to this shot in only about 10 messages.
This group is weird... or mebbe it's just Paul.  Grin.
Nice shot, Jostein.
-Original Message-
From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another pic from our recent family vacation.
http://www.oksne.net/paw/romance.html
snip...

Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour

[Ryan Lee]

lol yeah! Do they x-ray interstate mail? :) I've never developed film before
(though I've done darkroom printing), but don't they say c41's tricky. You
seem pretty pleased- what's your Jobo ATL1000 worth, and was it worth it?

Regards,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour


> It sounds like you should have my darkroom, Ryan. God knows, I'm not using
> it at present.  There's a Jobo ATL1000 sitting idle, and I know for
certain
> that it does the best, cleanest C41 and E6 processing this side of a
> dip'n'dunk machine in a pro-lab.  I'd sell it except that I have plans for
a
> new darkroom when my house renovation finally is finished, it's been over
a
> year of red-tape since the plans were first drawn.
>
> When the darkroom is again in action, it will be either a popular
attraction
> as a rare source of good film processing, or a white elephant because
no-one
> is interested.  But it doesn't matter 'cause it's all paid for long ago,
so
> I might just as well get it running.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (snip)
> > Even though it's
> > still a net loss because of film, developing and digitising costs, it's
> been
> > a great result because I know that going digital is viable because apart
> > from the initial invesment, it cuts overheads down practically 100%..
> >
> > Anyway, this time round I've been maybe a bit too triggerhappy and have
> swum
> > thru 13 rolls of film (4 x Superia 1600 (36), 2 x Fujipress 800 (36), 6
x
> > Superia 400 (24), 1 x Kodak TCN C41 b/w (24)), but in my defense every
> > single turn and step was a photo op! And it -was- 2 days, 2 nights.. And
I
> > justified my probable net loss wouldn't be as great this time
considering
> > the demand shown by preorders!
> >
> > Plus I'm reasonably happy to pay for the bulk of it because it does add
to
> a
> > portfolio.. (give a confused and aimless uni student a break won't ya,
> guv!)
> >
> > Life is good!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ryan
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: OT - test, again
> >
> >
> > > Got it back in minutes!  And it's in the archive just as quickly.  So
> > where
> > > is everybody?  Perfect shooting weather in the northern hemisphere, I
> > > suppose :-)
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Anthony Farr
> > >
> > > - Original Message - 
> > > From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > > The list is like Russian Roulette from where I sit.  I sent a test
> > > yesterday
> > > > that hasn't appeared, yet the trickle of mail I am getting matches
> > what's
> > > > also getting to the archive.
> > > >
> > > > So I've subscribed to the digest as well as the 'live' list, to see
if
> > one
> > > > matches the other.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Anthony Farr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

'Closed in'? How do you mean exactly? I love the images I see thru my 5n!
I'd love to check out a PZ-1 if it gets any better. Although very unlikely
I'd consider switching.. Just nice to see what other people like using.

Cheers,
Ryan


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder


> One of the reasons i went with the PZ-1 over the 5n was the finder.I felt
the 5n was to
> 'closed in' for my
> liking.
> I'll be interested in the *istD response's as i'm very close to looking at
one.
>
> Dave Brooks
>
> > I was just comparing the viewfinder between my 5n and
> a friend's 50. I was a
> > bit amazed to discover that my 5n's viewfinder has gives everything a
rather
> > warm (or woody) cast, while the 50 had a bluish (or tinny) cast, and I
> > didn't get the same satisfaction composing with it (even though it
probably
> > was of no consequence to the produced image).
> >
> > If you're wondering, I did swap lenses to make sure, it wasn't the
lenses.
> >
> > Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
> > interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a
50,
> > and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
> > photography as he/she could have been otherwise.
> >
> > Anybody notice the viewfinder difference too? Any thoughts?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ryan
> >
> > PS Anybody want to compare their ist D viewfinder (woody? tinny?
something
> > else perhaps?) to their film viewfinders?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

Right! I remember reading that but it must have slipped my mind! Thanks.

Ryan

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder


> Doesn't the 5n have a pentaprism, while the 50 has a pentamirror.  I
suspect
> that the journey through the glass gives the viewfinder image of the 5n
the
> warm cast.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (snip)
> >  I was a
> > bit amazed to discover that my 5n's viewfinder has gives everything a
> rather
> > warm (or woody) cast, while the 50 had a bluish (or tinny) cast
> >
> (snip)
>
>
>

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Anthony Farr]

Doesn't the 5n have a pentaprism, while the 50 has a pentamirror.  I suspect
that the journey through the glass gives the viewfinder image of the 5n the
warm cast.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)
>  I was a
> bit amazed to discover that my 5n's viewfinder has gives everything a
rather
> warm (or woody) cast, while the 50 had a bluish (or tinny) cast
>
(snip)

RE: Photokina...

[Tom Reese]

Shaun Canning  asked this about Photokina:

"Only 9 weeks to go folksany wish lists?"

Image stabilization is too much to hope for. 

I'd like some assurance that they aren't dropping most of their lens line.

Tom Reese

Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[brooksdj]

One of the reasons i went with the PZ-1 over the 5n was the finder.I felt the 5n was to
'closed in' for my 
liking.
I'll be interested in the *istD response's as i'm very close to looking at one.

Dave Brooks  

> I was just comparing the viewfinder between my 5n 
and 
a friend's 50. I was a
> bit amazed to discover that my 5n's viewfinder has gives everything a rather
> warm (or woody) cast, while the 50 had a bluish (or tinny) cast, and I
> didn't get the same satisfaction composing with it (even though it probably
> was of no consequence to the produced image).
> 
> If you're wondering, I did swap lenses to make sure, it wasn't the lenses.
> 
> Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
> interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a 50,
> and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
> photography as he/she could have been otherwise.
> 
> Anybody notice the viewfinder difference too? Any thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> Ryan
> 
> PS Anybody want to compare their ist D viewfinder (woody? tinny? something
> else perhaps?) to their film viewfinders?
> 
> 

Re: Ryan's buck-earning endeavour

[Anthony Farr]

It sounds like you should have my darkroom, Ryan. God knows, I'm not using
it at present.  There's a Jobo ATL1000 sitting idle, and I know for certain
that it does the best, cleanest C41 and E6 processing this side of a
dip'n'dunk machine in a pro-lab.  I'd sell it except that I have plans for a
new darkroom when my house renovation finally is finished, it's been over a
year of red-tape since the plans were first drawn.

When the darkroom is again in action, it will be either a popular attraction
as a rare source of good film processing, or a white elephant because no-one
is interested.  But it doesn't matter 'cause it's all paid for long ago, so
I might just as well get it running.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

(snip)
> Even though it's
> still a net loss because of film, developing and digitising costs, it's
been
> a great result because I know that going digital is viable because apart
> from the initial invesment, it cuts overheads down practically 100%..
>
> Anyway, this time round I've been maybe a bit too triggerhappy and have
swum
> thru 13 rolls of film (4 x Superia 1600 (36), 2 x Fujipress 800 (36), 6 x
> Superia 400 (24), 1 x Kodak TCN C41 b/w (24)), but in my defense every
> single turn and step was a photo op! And it -was- 2 days, 2 nights.. And I
> justified my probable net loss wouldn't be as great this time considering
> the demand shown by preorders!
>
> Plus I'm reasonably happy to pay for the bulk of it because it does add to
a
> portfolio.. (give a confused and aimless uni student a break won't ya,
guv!)
>
> Life is good!
>
> Cheers,
> Ryan
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:01 PM
> Subject: Re: OT - test, again
>
>
> > Got it back in minutes!  And it's in the archive just as quickly.  So
> where
> > is everybody?  Perfect shooting weather in the northern hemisphere, I
> > suppose :-)
> >
> > regards,
> > Anthony Farr
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > The list is like Russian Roulette from where I sit.  I sent a test
> > yesterday
> > > that hasn't appeared, yet the trickle of mail I am getting matches
> what's
> > > also getting to the archive.
> > >
> > > So I've subscribed to the digest as well as the 'live' list, to see if
> one
> > > matches the other.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Anthony Farr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder

[Ryan Lee]

I was just comparing the viewfinder between my 5n and a friend's 50. I was a
bit amazed to discover that my 5n's viewfinder has gives everything a rather
warm (or woody) cast, while the 50 had a bluish (or tinny) cast, and I
didn't get the same satisfaction composing with it (even though it probably
was of no consequence to the produced image).

If you're wondering, I did swap lenses to make sure, it wasn't the lenses.

Anyway, I just had the horrible thought that maybe some newbie slightly
interested in photography might pick up a relatively cheap body like a 50,
and because of the less than satisfactory viewfinder, not get as into
photography as he/she could have been otherwise.

Anybody notice the viewfinder difference too? Any thoughts?

Regards,
Ryan

PS Anybody want to compare their ist D viewfinder (woody? tinny? something
else perhaps?) to their film viewfinders?

Ryan's buck-earning endeavour

[Ryan Lee]

Loud and clear Anthony (Re: OT - test, again). I was actually about to go
'where is everybody?' too- I just got back from a Fri/Sat/Sun camping trip
(Northern War) with SCA Australia, and got back only to find 135 messages
(excl. PAW) in my PDML folder.. I was expecting triple!

In other news, not as glamourous as selling single shots, I managed to sell
around 10 cds of photos (about 6 rolls- the series which I posted earlier of
people in medieval garb etc, which was also going on a DVD someone else was
producing) for AUD10 each (interesting bringing a laptop camping to do
Irfanview slideshows and burn CDs..), and have received orders for shots I
took over the weekend before anyone's even seen them yet! Even though it's
still a net loss because of film, developing and digitising costs, it's been
a great result because I know that going digital is viable because apart
from the initial invesment, it cuts overheads down practically 100%..

Anyway, this time round I've been maybe a bit too triggerhappy and have swum
thru 13 rolls of film (4 x Superia 1600 (36), 2 x Fujipress 800 (36), 6 x
Superia 400 (24), 1 x Kodak TCN C41 b/w (24)), but in my defense every
single turn and step was a photo op! And it -was- 2 days, 2 nights.. And I
justified my probable net loss wouldn't be as great this time considering
the demand shown by preorders!

Plus I'm reasonably happy to pay for the bulk of it because it does add to a
portfolio.. (give a confused and aimless uni student a break won't ya, guv!)

Life is good!

Cheers,
Ryan



- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: OT - test, again


> Got it back in minutes!  And it's in the archive just as quickly.  So
where
> is everybody?  Perfect shooting weather in the northern hemisphere, I
> suppose :-)
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The list is like Russian Roulette from where I sit.  I sent a test
> yesterday
> > that hasn't appeared, yet the trickle of mail I am getting matches
what's
> > also getting to the archive.
> >
> > So I've subscribed to the digest as well as the 'live' list, to see if
one
> > matches the other.
> >
> > regards,
> > Anthony Farr
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Re: OT - test, again

[Anthony Farr]

Somebody had to keep the list ticking over.  You can have a turn now.

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Well, your monologue did arrive to my mailbox atleast. You were starting 
> to look a bit stir-crazy, talking to yourself like that. ;-)
> 
> /Henri
> 
> 

Re: OT - test, again

[Henri Toivonen]

Anthony Farr wrote:
You've done nothing wrong, Henri.  In fact, I'm very happy to see someone
else out in listland, I was going a little stir-crazy in solitary
confinement.
The explanation can be read by tracking this thread at:

(the chronological view, aka Date Index, is the most revealing).
regards,
Anthony Farr
 

Well, your monologue did arrive to my mailbox atleast. You were starting 
to look a bit stir-crazy, talking to yourself like that. ;-)

/Henri

Re: OT - test, again

[Anthony Farr]

You've done nothing wrong, Henri.  In fact, I'm very happy to see someone
else out in listland, I was going a little stir-crazy in solitary
confinement.

The explanation can be read by tracking this thread at:


(the chronological view, aka Date Index, is the most revealing).

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Henri Toivonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Anthony Farr wrote:
>
> >Damn!!!  Henri Toivonen got one into the archive.  That's a run of 5
> >messages to me, according to the rule below.  Beat that!
> >
> >regards,
> >Anthony Farr
> >
> >
> Who? Wha? What?
>
> What did I do? :-)
>
> /Henri
>
>

Re: OT - test, again

[Henri Toivonen]

Anthony Farr wrote:
Damn!!!  Henri Toivonen got one into the archive.  That's a run of 5
messages to me, according to the rule below.  Beat that!
regards,
Anthony Farr
 

Who? Wha? What?
What did I do? :-)
/Henri

Re: OT - test, again

[Anthony Farr]

Damn!!!  Henri Toivonen got one into the archive.  That's a run of 5
messages to me, according to the rule below.  Beat that!

regards,
Anthony Farr

- Original Message - 
From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



> The rule is that I have to both receive my previous message back, AND see
it
> in the archives.
>
> regards,
> Anthony Farr
>

Re: Pentax 135/2.5 with malfunction?

[Henri Toivonen]

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Henri Toivonen wrote:
 

Heh, so, I bought a 135/3.5 today for $25. It was so cheap, i couldn't
help myself.
   

Is that the M or the predecessor? They are different.
Kostas
 

It's the M.
/Henri