date:20040806

> Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?

I wouldn't go out of my way to buy one (but certain ones might be
adequate for some particular uses).

> Were they made by Pentax? Specifically the 135mm 2.8?

I have never seen any evidence that any of them were made by Pentax.
And, especially since they were originally sold as "economical"
alternatives to "name-brand" lenses, they would have been unlikely
to have the same "premium" qualities anyway.

> Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend
> 100%?

The short answer -  No.  (Not 100%.)

The longer version (well ~my~ longer version) -

1.  I am fond of many (most, actually) of the older Vivitar Series 1
lenses.  (However, like many other companies, Vivitar ended up
applying the VS1 label to lesser lenses as time went on.)  I guess
that there are ~very~ few manual focus lenses that carried the VS1
tag that could be considered dogs, and most are gems.

2.  The manual focus Tokina AT-X line has always served me well
(and, in fact, I was using one of my favorites, the AT-X 100-300/4
for shooting whales just today) (well, make that yesterday - it's
now after midnight here - ).  There are some really nice lenses
in this lineup.

3.  Tamron has produced some nice lenses, too, although I have less
experience with Tamrons (but, the Tamrons I have tried have seemed
quite good) (except I haven't found the Ka version of the Adaptall 2
mount to be reliable, even though I like the K version just fine).

> And any to totally avoid?

I've found that the lineup of "Joe's" lenses is to be avoided... ;-)

Fred

Re: first question

On 7 Aug 2004 at 0:42, Fred wrote:

> > The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> > shots
> 
> ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
> subject.

I must be really strange, I've managed to pull off all types of shots with my 
125/135mm lenses, portraiture included.


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: cost per mm


> The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in
> the US$100/mm range.
> Good stuff ain't cheap.
> 
> William Robb

Depends.  A number of Pentax's good old lenses are expensive primarily 
because of rarity.  Similar lenses in Nikon mount are more readily 
availible, and thus noticeably cheaper.  The Nikkor 15/3.5 is a ready 
example.  Compare also K105/2.8 (if you can find one) to the equally
legendary Nikkor 105/2.5 (which is still availible new, plus readily 
availible used).

OTOH, one of the great things about Pentax is the ability to get great 
lenses outside of the extreme ranges and pro specs that don't cost too 
much.  You've got to actually try to pay more than $100 for a used 200mm
lens, and good used 28s are equally cheap.   With some other brands you 
can't get both good and cheap at once.

DJE

Re: first question

> The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head
> shots

...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from the
subject.

Fred

Re: first question

> Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a
> 25mm so it looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm.
> (focal length does not change perspective).

...if the 25mm and 85mm lenses are both used from the same distance.

Fred

Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5

Hi, Don.

> Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens
> Christian seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of
> people being fond of it.

I think that both extremes that you mention are fairly "common".

> I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given,
> contrast and sharpness seem good though.

And, because of these factors, it can make a pretty decent lens for
portraits, except for certain outdoor situations, perhaps.

> I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this.

I'd rather use the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 than the A 135/2.8.

> The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of
> course handle "sun in its face" much better.

I did some comparison shooting with the K 135/2.5 (my second
favorite 135) and the Tak Bayonet 135/2.5, and it was actually not
too easy to find a situation where the "cheapie" 135/2.5 was
woefully worse for flare.  There is a difference in coatings (and,
perhaps, internal blackening, and/or baffling - I don't know), but
the Tak Bayonet is not an uncoated piece of Coke bottle glass,
either.

> I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a
> "cheaply built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent
> to me.

It's really not too bad, all in all, but the K 135/2.5 simply feels
a lot nicer in the hand, for my tastes.  (YMMV)

> Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being
> unfairly treated?

It's easy to "kick around" an inexpensive lens, simply because it's
not a "premium" lens.  However, considering the price that they are
going for, I think that the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 gives a lot of
"bang for the buck".

If only it didn't have those silly multicolored markings on the
barrel...  

Fred

Re: What lens do you carry


OK, I'm really late to this topic...

> FA* 24 f2.0 (I would like to exchange this for a DA 20 f1.8 or 2.0.)

OK, if Pentax makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it.
If Canon makes such a lens I will buy it and a DSLR to fit it.  
Both seem unlikely.  Nobody makes primes anymore except at the extremes
of focal lengths, and 20 isn't extreme on a DSLR.

Only Sigma and Olympus have made such a lens.  Neither is well regarded 
from what I can tell.  Perhaps the DA compromise would allow one to be
made small, affordable, and of reasonable quality.

> To further help my back, I have retired my old, standard style carrying 
> bag. I realized that it distributes the weight outward, which pulls on 
> my lower back. I now use one of the narrow but deep bags (Tamrac Pro 5), 

OK, my standard Pentax kit is a spotmaticII with 20/4.5, 28/3.5, 50/1.4,
105/2.8, and 200/4.0 lenses in a bag I made up from a military-surplus
satchel bag.  It's sort of half a Domke in size and carrying capacity.
The camera and a handheld meter can tuck into the ends of the bag.

My kick-around Nikon kit is the same focal lengths, but (believe it or 
not) the M-size versions of the lenses so it fits in one of those little
"field and stream" bags that is about the size of a CD wallet.  I normally
wear the bag clipped around my waist.  
The camera (Nikkormat EL) does not fit, of course, nor does the 50mm.

I'm still casting about a bit for a K-mount kit.  I can muster M28/3.5, 
M50/2, and M135/3.5 with an ME super if I want to minimize size.  I can 
put together K30, M50/1.4, and M150/4 (I'd rather have the K versions of 
both...) with a KX if I'm looking for a little more quality.  Both rigs 
leave me feeling a little weak on the long and short ends, plus I view
the 135 or 150 as a compromise and would be happier with 105 and 200 but 
that I can't justify either lens financially right now.  If I were really 
serious about a K-mount kit, I'd duplicate the Nikon kit with Pentax M 
lenses and pack it in the same little bag--assuming I could FIND the
appropriate M lenses!

In all these kits, it's the 20mm end that is the weakest.  SMC-T 20/4.5
isnt' great, and it's big.  20/3.5 Nikkor isn't great, but at least it's 
small.  20/4 M is impossible to find and more expensive than the other 
20s.  All the 28s, 50s, 105s, and 200s are really nice lenses--among the
best primes made by Pentax and Nikon. 

On the job, its three zooms (17-35,35-70,70-200) and a 14, and yes it does
rip my shoulder off!

DJE

Re: one more question

2004-08-06 Thread Michel Carrère-Gée

Paul McEvoy a écrit :
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the 
ability to use the light meter?  I'm a little confused about that.

No !
You  can use real aperture metering.

Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5

I fail to see what "growing up"  has to do with inquiring about whether 
or not there exists a lens that gives even better results. I can see 
however, what "growing up" has to do with being an asshole.
Norm

Antonio wrote:
Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results then
why should you care what anyone else thinks? Grow up and go and take some
photos for christs sake.
On 7/8/04 3:51 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly
treated?
What do you all think, any good or not?

Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5

> Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp
> results then why should you care what anyone else thinks?

Maybe we should abolish the PDML, then, and spend ~all~ of our time
shooting...  (???)

> Grow up and go and take some photos for christs sake.

You managed to be disrespectful to both Don and Christ in the same
sentence.

Fred

RE: first question

Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a 25mm so it
looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal length does
not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in portraits, being
one of the reasons for using short telephotos for portraits, where you don't
want too much DOF, like a perfectly sharp nose or ears.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 7. august 2004 04:06
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question



- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: first question


>
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and
shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
> with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!

> That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so
much it
> looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't
the DOF be
> different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop)
vs. the
> true 85mm shot?

Well, no. It is true in practice.
Cropping has nothing to do with it.
If the cropped 28mm shot was taken at the same aperture as the
uncropped 35mm shot, the DOF would be about the same as well.
Not that DOF has anything to do with perspective.

William Robb

Re: Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5

Don, if your experience tells you that it gives very good/sharp results then
why should you care what anyone else thinks? Grow up and go and take some
photos for christs sake.

A.


On 7/8/04 3:51 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results.
> Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian
> seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond
> of it.
> I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, contrast
> and sharpness seem good though.
> I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this.
> The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of course handle
> "sun in its face" much better.
> I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a "cheaply
> built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent to me.
> 
> Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly
> treated?
> 
> What do you all think, any good or not?
> 
> Don
> 
>

Re: 85 or 135 for portraits?

JCO, I think it is you who is wrong. Perspective or AOV changes with the
lens you use, everyone knows that. If you think you can just use a different
focal lenght lens and just stand in a different postion and get exactly the
same image then you are clearly delusional.

Antonio. 

On 6/8/04 11:51 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Antonio, You wrote: "Long lenses flatten perspective, wide lenses open
> it up."
> CLASSIC MYTH, BUT DEAD WRONG!
> 
> Rectilinear (non-fisheye) Lenses have ZERO effect on perspective, camera
> position controls that.
> The point I was and am making regarding portrait lenses (it applies to
> everything
> actually) is that once you get the proper distance from the subject for
> the best perspective,
> you then can use a 85mm for a upperbody/head and shouders shot OR a
> 135mm for
> a very tight head shot. The selection of the lens is only for framing,
> not
> perspective. There is no "perfect" portrait lens focal length it is a
> range
> of lenses from roughly 75mm to 150mm with 105mm being a good "general
> purpose"
> portrait lens but by no means the "right" one for every shot.
> JCO
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 85 or 135 for portraits?
> 
> 
> What about AOV? The main reason I love my 85mm for portaits is the AOV
> it provides. Shure I could stand a bit further back with a 135mm, and
> even get the same DOF by using a slightly larger f stop, but the AOV
> would still be different. If lens choice were merely a matter of where
> to you want to stand relative to your subject then we could all save a
> lot of money on lenses. Long lenses flatten perspective, wide lenses
> open it up.
> 
> Antonio
> 
> 
> On 6/8/04 11:11 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> My point is that a natural perspective is achieved by being the right
>> DISTANCE from the subject of the portrait, the right framing is
>> achieved via the lens selection. I do not see where the cropping
>> comments are coming from. I was not talking about or implying the use
>> of any cropping.
>> 
>> Yes, there will be less DOF with a 135mm vs a 85mm from the same
>> distance to subject and using same aperture due to higher
>> magnification but that can be matched via stopping down the 135mm or
>> opening up 85mm to match if it is critical
>

Re: OT: Annsan is with a tough crowd

2004-08-06 Thread ernreed2

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3542570.stm
> 

(Replying to the title): I saw another version of the story earlier and also 
thought of her.
And actually a pretty similar thought.

ERN

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

On 7 Aug 2004 at 13:10, Kevin Waterson wrote:

> Do you have a number for it?
> I use a Manfrotto 680B Monopod

225 for one which connects to the big hex plate and 323 for the small 
rectangular plates, they come with a spare QR plate also and are very well 
priced from recollection.

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: PESO: Grace...

2004-08-06 Thread Butch Black

My vote is #3

Butch

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

2004-08-06 Thread Kevin Waterson

This one time, at band camp, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 6 Aug 2004 at 18:56, Otis Wright wrote:
> 
> > The quick release feature is certainly a strong plus.  If  I used the 
> > monopod more.
> 
> Manfrotto have standard QR bases that will screw straight into the top of the 
> 334B or similar monos.

Do you have a number for it?
I use a Manfrotto 680B Monopod

Kind regards
Kevin

-- 
 __  
(_ \ 
 _) )            
|  /  / _  ) / _  | / ___) / _  )
| |  ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / 
|_|   \) \_||_| \) \)
Kevin Waterson
Port Macquarie, Australia

OT: Annsan is with a tough crowd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3542570.stm

RE: PAW - Gail

2004-08-06 Thread Butch Black

Fine shot Shel, the series must be wonderful!

Don

Agreed. When is the coffee table book coming out?

Butch

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Butch Black


Call me stupid, but what the hell is a "histogram"?
Norm


A telegram 10 years late

Butch

Re: Tokina 80-200/2.8

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Tokina 80-200/2.8

> I had the AT-X 80-200 F2.8 MF for a while in PK. Yes it is a very
nice
> lens but the Tamron Adaptall 80-200 f2.8 MF is even nicer. Better
build,
> even sharper but slightly larger. I havent tried it on DSLR though.

A friend had one on his Nikon. It is a most excellent lens, better
than the Tokina in most every respect, I think.
I don't know how it does on digital either. I must say I was
pleasantly surprised by the Tokina's lack of CA.

William Robb

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?


- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" 
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?



> > In this it has much in
> > common with hardcore pornography.
> 
> Rubbish.

Absolutely. 

William Robb

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?


- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Rubenstein"
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? 


> No question about it. This is the Pentax Dilldock Mailing list.

http://www.volcanorunning.com/runs/Sisters/

William Robb

Re: cost per mm

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: cost per mm

>
> The current Leica 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit M ASPH retails for well over
US$100/mm and
> that's without including the required finder.

The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right in
the US$100/mm range.
Good stuff ain't cheap.

William Robb

Re: first question


- Original Message - 
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: Re: first question


>
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and
shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
> with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!

> That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so
much it
> looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't
the DOF be
> different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop)
vs. the
> true 85mm shot?

Well, no. It is true in practice.
Cropping has nothing to do with it.
If the cropped 28mm shot was taken at the same aperture as the
uncropped 35mm shot, the DOF would be about the same as well.
Not that DOF has anything to do with perspective.

William Robb

Re: cost per mm

On 6 Aug 2004 at 16:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On the cost per mm basis, I'd nominate some of the Leica R-mount 
> telephotos (they were giving away a CAR free with one of them for a while
> when I was in college) or the Nikkor 13/5.6 which was one of those "send 
> us the money, we'll build it" kind of lenses.  Actually, the 6mm Nikkor 
> circular fisheye (220 degree angle of view!!!) probably wins by being both very
> short and hideously expensive.  I'll bet it tops $100 per mm, perhaps even $1000
> per mm.

The current Leica 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit M ASPH retails for well over US$100/mm and 
that's without including the required finder.


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

Takumar (Bayonet) 135/2.5

2004-08-06 Thread Don Sanderson

I've used this lens and got what I thought were very good/sharp results.
Though the common opinion seems to be that it is a terrible lens Christian
seems to like it and I've read several other accounts of people being fond
of it.
I admit that flare will be a problem without SMC, that's a given, contrast
and sharpness seem good though.
I've owned several 135/2.8s that were MUCH worse than this.
The FA 138/2.8 actually doesn't seem a lot sharper, it does of course handle
"sun in its face" much better.
I have trouble buying the statement that this was designed as a "cheaply
built consumer lens", the build quality seems excellent to me.

Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly
treated?

What do you all think, any good or not?

Don

Re: photojournalism - examples please!

Markus, is that your photo or someone else's?
Norm
Markus Maurer wrote:
Have a look at an example of good photo journalism imho:
The photographer is unknown to me, the Book is called "Zurich against
Zurich" - Zürich gegen Zürich:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2587369

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

On 6 Aug 2004 at 18:56, Otis Wright wrote:

> The quick release feature is certainly a strong plus.  If  I used the 
> monopod more.

Manfrotto have standard QR bases that will screw straight into the top of the 
334B or similar monos.


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: one more question

I don't believe so.
Norm
Paul McEvoy wrote:
if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the 
ability to use the light meter?  I'm a little confused about that.

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Pål  We have something in common!
Norm
Pål Jensen wrote:
I like beer

Re: photojournalism (was about HCB)

>Edwin wrote:

>Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism.  

>Pal's REPLY:

>. However, my issue was 
>that
> when artistic factors supposedly are indeed put at the forefront for 
>judging
> images lasting values beyond their immediate context, then one should 
>expect artistic values to be present in the imges.

Artistic factors are almost never put at the forefront for judging images
in photojournalistic contests.  The judging criteria almost always put
"news value" and "human impact" up at the top and "artistic value" down
at the bottom.  Immediate context (i.e. newsworthyness) is usually 
very important in judging.  

Years later, however, when the context is forgotten or dimmed in the 
memory, the photo-J shots which still hold up are the ones which either
have great universal human connection ("migrant mother" or "the critic")
or are high in artistic value.  Once their news value "expires" they
only communicate in universals.  Since they are usually shot for the 
moment and not for the ages, many of them do indeed come off poorly
down the road.  Magazine photography is in my experience often stronger 
here because it tends to go a bit more in depth and capture more insights 
on the human condition than newspaper photography which often captures 
only the news.  Good photographers can manage both. 

>My issue is the pretentiosness of much of this type of photography,
>not to bash the whole field and their masters. 

The field gets very little respect, which may have something to do with 
it.  Certainly there are very few photojournalists who realistically are
producing work that can be evaluated meaningfully in the same context as
many other forms of art.  I'd suggest Sebastio Salgado, but I'd also 
suggest that he is very arty for a journalist, and most of us couldn't get 
away with shooting like that on the job!  

>The difference between this and a picture of a butterfly or a sunset
> is that they don't pretend to be something else.

A fair argument.  It might also explain why "serious" photographers so
often brush off photos which are simply beautiful, such as butterflies
and sunsets.

Personally, I shoot truth for a living and beauty for fun.

DJE

RE: PESO:more from my journeys on the MS "Silvretta" 1981

hi Norm
thanks for your email, I am glad that you like the pics.
Considering that it was the first time I had a camera in my hands  I am a
still a bit impressed with the
chosen compositions despite the technical shortcomings :-)
So, would you like to see more of them?

happy pentaxing
Markus


-
> From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PESO:more form my journeys on th MS "Silvretta" 1981
>
>
> Interesting pictures Markus, thanks for sharing.
> Norm
>
>
>

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588518

Re: Oregon and Mount Hood

2004-08-06 Thread Jim Apilado

You can visit Trillium Lake where you get a different view of Mt. Hood.
Visit Timberline Lodge, too.  If I were coming down I-5 (from Washington
State?),  I would take I-84 east to Hood River, Oregon and then drive south
on Highway 35.  You can also get to Lost Lake that way, too.
Too bad you didn't come down today, Friday.  You could have stopped at the
Portland, Oregon Visitors Association for more information.  I volunteer
there on Fridays.

Jim A.

> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:03:38 -0600
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Oregon and Mount Hood
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:03:44 -0400
> 
> I'm considering taking a trip to Lost Lake at Mt. Hood in Oregon this
> Sunday.  I'll be coming into the Portland area, heading south on I-5.
> 
> Aside from Lost Lake, are there any other recommendations in the immediate
> vicinity (15-mile radius)of Mt. Hood?  Thanks.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
>

photojournalism - examples please!

I read with great interest what people here say about HCB and
photojournalism.
Of course, good or bad sample photo links would add a lot for me and make
some point of views clearer and spicier too :-)

I'm positive influenced on photo journalism, because one of my personal
favorite photos from my younger days
is a press photo published in a Keystone book back in 1981 ;-) Okay, that's
not the real reason, but a good one!

I would love to and surely could learn a lot from HBC and other
photographers, sometimes it is hard to teach yourself
everything.
I often catch the right moments, but all of my photos still have technical
shortcomings, so they remain (just)loved snapshots for me.

Have a look at an example of good photo journalism imho:
The photographer is unknown to me, the Book is called "Zurich against
Zurich" - Zürich gegen Zürich:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2587369


1981 Zurich, a protest march of 6000 demonstrants against the subsidize of
the local Opera with 60 million Swiss francs and no money or space for
alternative culture in return are stopped on the bridge near Lake Zurich.
300 Police men are prepared
to enforce law and order. A well known evangelic priest (Ernst Sieber)
achieves an armistice agreement for 10 minutes and everything went by
peaceful means *this* time. The demonstrations of the youth where the most
violent and longest in the history of Switzerland later


greetings
Markus

>

Focusing screen for ZX-30

2004-08-06 Thread glenn murphy

I realize that many of you would suggest that I just get a real camera, 
but I was wondering if anyone on the list might know a part# and or 
vendor to get a replacement focusing screen for a ZX-30. I scratched 
mine badly while trying to remove some foreign objects, and it is now 
really annoying to look through it, and I imagine it will also cause 
problems with the auto-focus and metering systems. I've also thought of 
trying to get a used "parts" camera and was curious if any of the other 
models in the ZX line used the same screen as the ZX-30. Any advice 
would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Glenn

Re: PESO: Grace...

2004-08-06 Thread Badri A

How about a collage, they're all damn good :)  If you're only going to
use one, I'd pick # 2.  All three are cute but the direct eye contact
in # 2 makes it my pick.

Good job!
Badri

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Badri A

I don't see how the marketing of photojournalism as art or otherwise
has anything to do with the merit of the photographer, HCB or anyone
else.  Any reasonably discerning viewer would know to judge the piece
in question based on what it is, not what it is claimed to be.   Do
you really believe what the ads tell you? How does it matter if the
consuming majority or the media or the pretentious little photographer
himself calls it the next best thing after the Mona Lisa?  You can
resent it but should it affect your judgement of the artwork?

I know the evaluation of art is subjective, but I thought that means
it depends on the what the viewer 'feels' about it, not what he or she
thinks of the artist.

Badri

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 23:08:55 +0200, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure, but that doesn't prevent such images being prized and judged on
artistic merrits. At photographs are being "marketed" or published as
"art" in spite of being accidental snapshots, not a product of an
unique or sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes highly
speculative, as often is the case with excessive violence in the
media.
> 
> 
> Pål

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

If he's water skiing his name is Skip.

Tom C.


From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:46:24 -0400
And Bob is what you call the same guy in the water.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> 'Art' is what you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on the 
wall.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 
19:23:20
> >-0400
> >
> >it's spawned a school of photographers who strive ever to find meaning
and
> >make a social comment and denigrate anything that doesn't. it leads to
> >things like an exhibit i saw recently of identically composed images 
from
> >directly above the openings of every trash can on 42nd Street in NYC.
> >someone thought it was art enough to exhibit in a public space. is it
art?
> >undoubtedly. is it good art? you decide.
> >
> >Herb...
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> >
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, HCB was a fantastic photographer but his 
followers
> >into the "street photography" thing has created the most clichè-filled
body
> >garbage in photography. Shooting someone poor and you suddenly made a
> >social
> >statement. Give me a break! Even dirty porn pictures makes more 
relevant
> >statements.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

I don't know about that... :) I just wonder where the tripod goes. I imagine 
it could be good for closeup water shots, as long as flash was used.


Tom C.
From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:35:41 -0400
Yeah, but I wonder if its SMC?
Kenneth Waller
> Shel wrote:
> >
> >As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
with
> >(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
> >
>
> You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
>
> Tom C.

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

And Bob is what you call the same guy in the water.

Kenneth Waller

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

Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?


> 'Art' is what you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on the wall.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> >From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:23:20
> >-0400
> >
> >it's spawned a school of photographers who strive ever to find meaning
and
> >make a social comment and denigrate anything that doesn't. it leads to
> >things like an exhibit i saw recently of identically composed images from
> >directly above the openings of every trash can on 42nd Street in NYC.
> >someone thought it was art enough to exhibit in a public space. is it
art?
> >undoubtedly. is it good art? you decide.
> >
> >Herb...
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:09 PM
> >Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
> >
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong, HCB was a fantastic photographer but his followers
> >into the "street photography" thing has created the most clichè-filled
body
> >garbage in photography. Shooting someone poor and you suddenly made a
> >social
> >statement. Give me a break! Even dirty porn pictures makes more relevant
> >statements.
> >
> >
>
>

RE: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Don Sanderson

Is this what's known as the A* Macro? I think I read something about Aloe in
the coating.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 6:36 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
>
>
> Yeah, but I wonder if its SMC?
>
>
> Kenneth Waller
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?
>
>
> > Shel wrote:
> > >
> > >As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
> with
> > >(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
> > >
> >
> > You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
> >
> > Tom C.
>
>

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

Yeah, but I wonder if its SMC?


Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB?


> Shel wrote:
> >
> >As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
with
> >(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
> >
>
> You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
>
> Tom C.

FS Friday

2004-08-06 Thread Mark Dalal

Hey Folks,

Unemployment sucks so I've got lotsa stuff for sale.

1) Pentax ZX-7, Excellent condition. Hardly any signs
of use. Mechanically perfect. Comes w/ AF Quantaray
28-90 zoom (some scuffs on the body - glass clean),
55mm skylight filter, 55mm circular polarizer, Cambron
AF 1.4 Teleconverter (mint), Manual, and carry bag.
$125 shipped in the US.

2) Pentax ME Super w/ M50/1.7 (and UV filter),
recently CLA'D, user cosmetic condition, no dents or
dings but lots of scuffing. The one mechanical problem
is that the little white button that allows the dial
ring to turn is a pain to press down. Lens is in
average condition, a little dust on the inside, the
coating is intact, tack sharp results like a M50/1.7
should give you. $60 shipped in the US.

3) SMC-K 28/3.5, yes the legendary one, little bit of
wear on the edge of the barrel. Glass is clean and
clear. Comes with both caps. $50 shipped in the US.

4) Minolta Scan Dual II film scanner. Excellent
cosmetic condition. Perfect mechanical condition.
Comes with original box, manuals, and film holders.
$165 shipped in the US.

PayPal preferred but cashier's check and money order
okay. Pictures are available. Contact me off list.

Thanks,

Mark



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

But it is always easier to shoot the messenger...

A.

On 6/8/04 11:29 pm, "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> the violence is not in the media, it is in the world.

Re: 85 or 135 for portraits?

What about AOV? The main reason I love my 85mm for portaits is the AOV it
provides. Shure I could stand a bit further back with a 135mm, and even get
the same DOF by using a slightly larger f stop, but the AOV would still be
different. If lens choice were merely a matter of where to you want to stand
relative to your subject then we could all save a lot of money on lenses.
Long lenses flatten perspective, wide lenses open it up.

Antonio

On 6/8/04 11:11 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My point is that a natural perspective is achieved by being
> the right DISTANCE from the subject of the portrait, the right
> framing is achieved via the lens selection. I do not see where
> the cropping comments are coming from. I was not talking about
> or implying the use of any cropping.
> 
> Yes, there will be less DOF with a 135mm vs a 85mm from the same
> distance to subject and using same aperture due to higher magnification
> but that can be matched via stopping down the 135mm or opening up
> 85mm to match if it is critical

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Hi,

> Of course there are good reason for photograph terrible deeds but
> when these photographs are being "marketed" or published as "art" in
> spite of being accidental snapshots, not a product of an unique or
> sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes highly speculative,

perhaps you could back up your claims by citing some specific examples
of journalistic photos that are marketed or published as art but are in
fact accidental snapshots.

> as
> often is the case with excessive violence in the media.

the violence is not in the media, it is in the world.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

photojournalism (was about HCB)



Pal said:

>The problem I have with photo journalism is that a larger percentage of 
>it sucks more than any other kind of photography I can think of. 

This is a question of perspective.  Speaking as a photojournalist I'd say
that a larger percentage of wedding photography sucks because it all looks 
the same.  The same might be said for product photography.  Most nature 
photography sucks because it doesn't have people in it, just rocks and
trees.  How interesting is that Ansel Adams guy anyway since everything he 
did was in black and white?  You get my point.

>If you look at  many of
> the price winning photograph in photojournalism the only merrit seem to 
>be
> showing something terrible with no other artistic values. 

Artistic value is not at the top of the list for photojournalism.  By the
standards of photojournalism a perfectly composed and exposed photograph
of my sister's 3rd birthday is not as good as a grainy, blurry photo of 
the assassination of JFK.  Mind you, this is frustrating to those of us
who are in the profession.  It's not that composition and other "artistic"
features are not valued, its simply that news value is more important.
If you happen to be on a small-time beat, you rarely get prizewinning 
photos because nothing particularly newsworthy happens no matter how good
you might be as a photographer.  A lot of day-in day-out photojournalism 
is actually better "artistically" than the big-time prizewinners, since
it shows what the photographers can actually do with their craft when
they don't have to get the big-news shot.  Guys get paid for consistently
bringing back the big news, though.  
It's not nearly as easy as it might seem.  Most "great" photographers would 
not fare well photographically or physically if dropped into the 
situations that photojournalists often wind up in.  Often getting any
shot at all is an accomplishment, and that explains why some technically
mediocre photographs are deemed important. 
A lot of the "craft" portion of photojournalism is also pretty 
subtle, and often overlooked by the reader.  This is sometimes the intent.

I HAVE noted that styles of photojournalism differ among cultures, 
countries, and venues.  Some DO seem to go in more for the shocking
disasters.  The work I have seen from the modern American greats
(Carol Guzy, James Nachtwey, Tim McCurry) shows significantly more depth 
and craft.

Its also worth noting that photojournalists have less control over the 
circumstances of their photography than almost any other kind of 
photographer.  This does not help the technical or artistic merits
of photojournalism at all.  This is in some portion deliberate, as having 
control over the subject and circumstances tends to erode the credibility 
of the photographer as a reporter of the unadulterated truth.

>Also, the proponents of the related field of "street photography" 
>(whatever that is) are often full of pretense as if their style of 
>photography 
>is inherently a kind of art form that is somehow above anything else. 
>In my opinion, the oposite is closer to the truth, something thats 
>indicated with the equipment fetishism connected to it. 

I must admit I've never understood "street photography".  It is in some
ways, as I understand it, almost the antithesis of photojournalism.
I've never tried it, though, so I can't really say much about it.

DJE

RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

That still isnt $100 a mm now is it??? The most expensive lenses per mm
are the super wide angles. I paid $50 per mm for my 15mm F3.5 SMCT,
($750).

JCO

-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

Actually, I read somewhere that  Canon has an AF lens in the 1200 range
that costs 50-70 thousand dollars.  I found it on there site, but there
was no price given.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/6/2004 3:09:43 PM >>>
I wouldn't pay $100 a millimeter for ANY lens even a super wide angle!
:)

JCO

-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

Hi,

Jim Apilado wrote:

> I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!

You paid $50,000 for a lens?  Will you be my friend?

mike

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread John Forbes

Coming back to the "no-cropping" issue.  Surely there was a practical  
aspect to that.  HCB did not usually print his own pictures, and as a  
photo-journalist might at times have had no input into the printing at  
all. That being the case, a permanent injunction against cropping would  
have ensured that the finished print at least had some resemblance to the  
scene he photographed.

Had he done his own printing, I wonder whether the no-cropping rule would  
have held.

John
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

85 or 135 for portraits?

I did not get Jens Bladt's message below directly via the PDML,
only as part of someone else's reply.
but if it was a reply to me I do not understand your comments.

My point is that a natural perspective is achieved by being
the right DISTANCE from the subject of the portrait, the right
framing is achieved via the lens selection. I do not see where
the cropping comments are coming from. I was not talking about
or implying the use of any cropping. 

Yes, there will be less DOF with a 135mm vs a 85mm from the same
distance to subject and using same aperture due to higher magnification
but that can be matched via stopping down the 135mm or opening up
85mm to match if it is critical

JCO

===
On 6/8/04 10:40 pm, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much 
> it looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't 
> the DOF be different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm 
> look-alike-crop) vs. the true 85mm shot? Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> 
> 
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: RE: first question
> 
> 
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and 
> shoulders/upper body shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very 
> tight head shot BOTH with identical perspective and taken from same 
> camera position!
> 
> JCO

   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Antonio wrote:

Each to his own, reading your posts on this topic it is obvious that you
dont like people at all, although I suspect that necrofilia might be just up
your street ...


REPLY:

I like beer but I don't photograph it, I drink it..
I have nothing against people photography. What I have something against is the 
emperors new clothes aspect of much of this type of photography.
HCB is of course an exception. 


Pål

RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

2004-08-06 Thread Steve Desjardins

Actually, I read somewhere that  Canon has an AF lens in the 1200 range
that costs 50-70 thousand dollars.  I found it on there site, but there
was no price given.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/6/2004 3:09:43 PM >>>
I wouldn't pay $100 a millimeter for ANY lens even a super wide angle!
:)

JCO

-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

Hi,

Jim Apilado wrote:

> I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!

You paid $50,000 for a lens?  Will you be my friend?

mike

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Bob:

Photojournalism has nothing to do with artistic values, it is about reporting
news in the most effective way possible.

Any artistic value that photojournalism acquires is secondary.



REPLY:

Sure, but that doesn't prevent such images being prized and judged on artistic 
merrits. At least thats the pretense. When such pictures often have no artistic merrit 
whasoever, the comparison with hard core pornography is relevant, although I suspect 
pornographers are generally more sensitive than simply "who can make the dirtiest 
picture". 
Of course there are good reason for photograph terrible deeds but when these 
photographs are being "marketed" or published as "art" in spite of being accidental 
snapshots, not a product of an unique or sensitive vision, the whole thing becomes 
highly speculative, as often is the case with excessive violence in the media.



Pål

Re: PESO: Grace...

2004-08-06 Thread Bruce Dayton

Hello Tim,

I vote for #3.  Cute shots, all of them.  I doubt she would be
disappointed with any choice.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Friday, August 6, 2004, 1:37:37 PM, you wrote:

TS> Hello all...

TS> Last month, I had my youngest daughter spend some time in front of the
TS> camera with the intention of giving an enlargement to my wife as an
TS> anniversary present. I've gotta hand it to pros to do this for a living: the
TS> patience of a saint is required to get good photos of babies.

TS> Anyway, the time seems to have been well spent, and now I need some help
TS> choosing which frame I enlarge:

TS> 

TS> There's I've narrowed it down to three, although I'm probably not going to
TS> pick the more "humorous" one. Let me know which you think is the best of the
TS> bunch.

TS> Tech specs: ZX-M, SMC-A 50/1.4, Portra 400 B&W, natural lighting, Noritsu
TS> hi-res scans.

TS> t

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

2004-08-06 Thread Bruce Dayton

Well, I'm in between you two.  I use a head on the monopod for two
purposes - one is quick release, the other is for vertical shots with
lenses that do not have a tripod mount.

The head I use is very minimalist - Manfrotto 3229 - just swivels one
way.  So it functions almost like no head unless one wants to switch
to vertical, then loosen thumb screw and swivel to vertical and
tighten.  The quick release can be handy, too.

Bruce

Friday, August 6, 2004, 1:23:19 PM, you wrote:

OW> graywolf wrote:

>> I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.
>>
>> I do not agree.

OW> Understand.However, I have yet to "need" one.  I like the simplicity
OW> of just the monopod (nice walking stick :-\ ), and for what I do, it
OW> works just fine without a head.   Have looked at heads from time to
OW> time, but on the theory it woiuld just sit on my shelf with a lot of
OW> other toys I don't use, I haven't picked one up yet!

OW> Regards,

OW> Otis Wright

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Steve Desjardins

Ouch.

>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/6/2004 4:17:19 PM >>>
Shel wrote:
>
>As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers
with
>(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
>

You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.

Tom C.

Re: first question

Dont forget the different AOV between an 85mm and 135mm lens - I am getting
rid of my SMC 135/2.5 - nice as it is I just dont use it. The SMC 85/1.8 and
105/2.8 cover that range very nicely for me. In fact I have ended up selling
all the 135mm lenses I have owned over the years - it just seems that focal
lengh is too long for portraits and too short for telephoto.

Antonio


On 6/8/04 10:40 pm, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it
> looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be
> different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the
> true 85mm shot?
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
> 
> 
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: RE: first question
> 
> 
> Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
> the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper
> body
> shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
> with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!
> 
> JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: first question
> 
> 
> 
>> should
>> be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't
> seem
>> to
>> find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There
> 
>> are
>> a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?
> 
> The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
> some sorts of portraits.  The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce
> a
> little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we
> are
> used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses"
> the
> relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or
> attractive
> to most people.  For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard
> portrait lens, rather than 100.  Much longer than 105mm and you start to
> get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the
> facial features.
> 
> SNIPPED
> 
> 
>

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Each to his own, reading your posts on this topic it is obvious that you
dont like people at all, although I suspect that necrofilia might be just up
your street ...

> "Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything". Pål

Re: first question

That's true - in theory. But who would crop a 28 or 35mm shot so much it
looks like it was shot with a 85mm ? And annother thing. Wouldn't the DOF be
different? I mean the cropped 28mm picture (85mm look-alike-crop) vs. the
true 85mm shot?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 21:27
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: first question


Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper
body
shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!

JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: first question



>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't
seem
>to
>find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There

>are
>a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
some sorts of portraits.  The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce
a
little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we
are
used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses"
the
relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or
attractive
to most people.  For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard
portrait lens, rather than 100.  Much longer than 105mm and you start to
get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the
facial features.

SNIPPED

PESO: Grace...

2004-08-06 Thread Tim Sherburne

Hello all...

Last month, I had my youngest daughter spend some time in front of the
camera with the intention of giving an enlargement to my wife as an
anniversary present. I've gotta hand it to pros to do this for a living: the
patience of a saint is required to get good photos of babies.

Anyway, the time seems to have been well spent, and now I need some help
choosing which frame I enlarge:



There's I've narrowed it down to three, although I'm probably not going to
pick the more "humorous" one. Let me know which you think is the best of the
bunch.

Tech specs: ZX-M, SMC-A 50/1.4, Portra 400 B&W, natural lighting, Noritsu
hi-res scans.

t 
 
-- 
Tim Sherburne
Director of Technology
360-260-1995 or 800-833-4678
HOSTS Learning - www.hosts.com

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

No really, creativity is not limited by the aspect ratio of your camera
given you can crop a square from a rectangle and/or a recgangle from a
square. In over 30 years of shooting I have never once lamented the aspect
ratio of the camera I was using, it really is a non issue.

Antonio

On 6/8/04 6:36 pm, "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yes, and no.
> 
> Granted you can be as creative as you like within a given format, and
> part of creativity can be choosing you composition and scenes to fit the
> format you have chosen.
>

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

2004-08-06 Thread Otis Wright


graywolf wrote:
I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.
I do not agree.
Understand.However, I have yet to "need" one.  I like the simplicity 
of just the monopod (nice walking stick :-\ ), and for what I do, it  
works just fine without a head.   Have looked at heads from time to 
time, but on the theory it woiuld just sit on my shelf with a lot of 
other toys I don't use, I haven't picked one up yet!

Regards,
Otis Wright

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Hi,

Friday, August 6, 2004, 8:24:37 PM, Pål wrote:

> If you look at many of the price winning photograph in
> photojournalism the only merrit seem to be showing something
> terrible with no other artistic values.

Photojournalism has nothing to do with artistic values, it is about reporting
news in the most effective way possible.

Any artistic value that photojournalism acquires is secondary.

Claiming that photojournalism should have artistic values is like
claiming that the written columns in your newspaper should be
comparable with T S Eliot's poetry.

> In this it has much in
> common with hardcore pornography.

Rubbish.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Shel wrote:
As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?
You can get an a*e with a macro lens now? Cool.
Tom C.

RE: first question

I will sell you my Tamron adaptall 28mm f2.8 in excellent condition if you
can get an adaptall mount your self. I never ever use it, because I also
have a Pentax A 28mm. My adaptall mount I will keep - it is sitting on my
3.5/75-150mm Tamron, which is quite good for candid portraits.

Why don't you make me an offer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?

Unfortuneately I already sold my M 2.0/85mm as well as my A 2.8/135mm a few
weeks ago.
Cheers
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 20:48
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question



>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem
>to
>find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There
>are
>a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for
some sorts of portraits.  The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a
little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we are
used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses" the
relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive
to most people.  For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard
portrait lens, rather than 100.  Much longer than 105mm and you start to
get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the
facial features.

If you are actually looking for a telephoto lens rather than a "portrait"
lens, I might recommend a 200mm instead.  They are cheap and plentiful.

Pentax made a couple of 85s, all of which are a bit spendy and hard to
find, to wit:
85mm f/1.8 SMC ("K") which is very rare and sought after, thus expensive
and hard to find.
85mm f/1.4 A* and 85mm f/1.4 FA*, both very nice lenses but WAY too
expensive to cut your teeth on.
85mm f/2.0 M, which is small, light, and somewhat affordable.  It has a
mediocre reputation, primarily due to a bit of softness at large
apertures.  Depending on what your portrait preferences are, this may not
be an issue.  This is the lens you are most likely to find on the market.

Pentax made a couple of 100/105s, all good, and also relatively expensive
and hard to find.
100mm f/2.8 M, which seems to go for about $175 in used camera shops and
has a good reputation.
105mm f/2.8 SMC ("K"), which is rare and sought after.  I have not seen
one of these on the used market in a while.
100mm f/2.8 and f/4 macros, which have a good reputation but macros are
likely to be larger and more expensive than would be ideal for portrait
work, and by definition a macro lens is optimized to be equally sharp
across the field in one flat plane (so you can photograph stamps and the
like) which may well mean that theya are less well optimized for
portraiture of 3D objects at longer ranges.

Pentax made a couple of 120mm lenses, but I have never seen one on the
used market.  I think they were designed for portraiture.

Given that the 135/3.5 M lens is cheap, good, and readily availible, it
might be a good alternative to finding or paying for one of the above.
Two 135s to avoid would be the 135/2.8 A and the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5,
which have poor reputations.  They might serve, but you can do better for
not
much extra money.

>As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or
>is 28mm just as good?

As a novice, I'd steer you aggressively towards the 28.  Optically, 28s
are better than 24s almost uniformly, plus they are substantially cheaper
and easier to find.  I'd recommend the 28/3.5 M as the best choice for
"good and cheap".  I find 24mm to be a bit of a challenge compositionally
because of the wide angle of view.  You have to get very close to make
smaller subjects fill the frame, and perspective distortion is very easy
to achieve whether you want it or not.   I have always had a 24mm or 20mm
lens in my bag, but I find the 28mm is still my standard wide-angle.
Mind you, 24 IS noticeably wider.  Often, this is not a good thing until
and unless you know what to do with it.

DJE

RE: first question

Don't forget the camera position, not the lens determines
the perspective. So a 85mm might be ideal for a head and shoulders/upper
body
shot while a 135mm might me perfect for a very tight head shot BOTH
with identical perspective and taken from same camera position!

JCO
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: first question



>should
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't
seem 
>to 
>find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There

>are 
>a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for 
some sorts of portraits.  The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce
a 
little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we
are 
used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses"
the 
relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or
attractive 
to most people.  For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard 
portrait lens, rather than 100.  Much longer than 105mm and you start to
get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the 
facial features. 

SNIPPED

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

2004-08-06 Thread Kenneth Waller


"Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything". Pål

Well stated

Kenneth Waller


-Original Message-
>From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? 
>Shel wrote:

>As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
>(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?


>REPLY:

>Thse assholes are at least not pretentious assholes claiming they make a statement 
>socially, or about the >meaning of life and the fate of the universe with their 
>contentsless and boring images.

>Don't get me wrong, HCB was a fantastic photographer but his followers into the 
>"street photography" thing has >created the most clichè-filled body garbage in 
>photography. Shooting someone poor and you suddenly made a >social statement. Give me 
>a break! Even dirty porn pictures makes more relevant statements. 

>Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything. 

>Pål






PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Melchi wrote:

Personally, I love photojournalism (good photojournalism) and I think it represents 
the highest form of photographic art. This despite the fact that I rarely do any 
photojournalistic photography and when I do, I don't do it very well. Most people who 
are into photojournalism will probably find something they like in HCB's work; I like 
much of it, but some of it does nothing for me. But to each his own. On photo.net, 
Mike Johnston railed against scenics, some people hate studio work, some people 
dislike "straight" photography in general, or color photography, or black and white 
photography, ..., etc.


REPLY:

The problem I have with photo journalism is that a larger percentage of it sucks more 
than any other kind of photography I can think of. If you look at many of the price 
winning photograph in photojournalism the only merrit seem to be showing something 
terrible with no other artistic values. In this it has much in common with hardcore 
pornography. However, pornographers are not prone to utter pretentious drivel 
something thats quite refreshing! 
Also, the proponents of the related field of "street photography" (whatever that is) 
are often full of pretense as if their style of photography is inherently a kind of 
art form that is somehow above anything else. In my opinion, the oposite is closer to 
the truth, something thats indicated with the equipment fetishism connected to it. 


Pål

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Hey for once I agree with Pål! Mostly.

Tom C.

From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So What's So Great About HCB? Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:09:35 
+0200

Shel wrote:
As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?

REPLY:
Thse assholes are at least not pretentious assholes claiming they make a 
statement socially, or about the meaning of life and the fate of the 
universe with their contentsless and boring images.

Don't get me wrong, HCB was a fantastic photographer but his followers into 
the "street photography" thing has created the most clichè-filled body 
garbage in photography. Shooting someone poor and you suddenly made a 
social statement. Give me a break! Even dirty porn pictures makes more 
relevant statements.

Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything.
Pål

Re: first question


>should 
>be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem 
>to 
>find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There 
>are 
>a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

The normal "portrait lens" range is 85-120mm, but a 135 might work for 
some sorts of portraits.  The issue is that a 50mm lens tends to produce a 
little bit of "wide angle distortion" of features compared to what we are 
used to, whereas the slightly longer focal length of 85-120 "compresses" the 
relative size of the nose and ears back to what looks normal or attractive 
to most people.  For many many people an 85mm lens is the standard 
portrait lens, rather than 100.  Much longer than 105mm and you start to
get a portrait that some people see as unnaturally "compressed" in the 
facial features. 

If you are actually looking for a telephoto lens rather than a "portrait" 
lens, I might recommend a 200mm instead.  They are cheap and plentiful.

Pentax made a couple of 85s, all of which are a bit spendy and hard to 
find, to wit:
85mm f/1.8 SMC ("K") which is very rare and sought after, thus expensive 
and hard to find.
85mm f/1.4 A* and 85mm f/1.4 FA*, both very nice lenses but WAY too 
expensive to cut your teeth on.
85mm f/2.0 M, which is small, light, and somewhat affordable.  It has a 
mediocre reputation, primarily due to a bit of softness at large 
apertures.  Depending on what your portrait preferences are, this may not 
be an issue.  This is the lens you are most likely to find on the market.

Pentax made a couple of 100/105s, all good, and also relatively expensive 
and hard to find.
100mm f/2.8 M, which seems to go for about $175 in used camera shops and
has a good reputation.
105mm f/2.8 SMC ("K"), which is rare and sought after.  I have not seen 
one of these on the used market in a while.
100mm f/2.8 and f/4 macros, which have a good reputation but macros are 
likely to be larger and more expensive than would be ideal for portrait 
work, and by definition a macro lens is optimized to be equally sharp 
across the field in one flat plane (so you can photograph stamps and the 
like) which may well mean that theya are less well optimized for 
portraiture of 3D objects at longer ranges.

Pentax made a couple of 120mm lenses, but I have never seen one on the 
used market.  I think they were designed for portraiture.

Given that the 135/3.5 M lens is cheap, good, and readily availible, it 
might be a good alternative to finding or paying for one of the above.
Two 135s to avoid would be the 135/2.8 A and the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5, 
which have poor reputations.  They might serve, but you can do better for not 
much extra money.

>As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or 
>is 28mm just as good?

As a novice, I'd steer you aggressively towards the 28.  Optically, 28s 
are better than 24s almost uniformly, plus they are substantially cheaper 
and easier to find.  I'd recommend the 28/3.5 M as the best choice for 
"good and cheap".  I find 24mm to be a bit of a challenge compositionally
because of the wide angle of view.  You have to get very close to make 
smaller subjects fill the frame, and perspective distortion is very easy 
to achieve whether you want it or not.   I have always had a 24mm or 20mm
lens in my bag, but I find the 28mm is still my standard wide-angle.
Mind you, 24 IS noticeably wider.  Often, this is not a good thing until 
and unless you know what to do with it.

DJE

Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

2004-08-06 Thread Gonz

You beat me to it!
lol
mike wilson wrote:
Hi,
Jim Apilado wrote:
I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!  

You paid $50,000 for a lens?  Will you be my friend?
mike

Re: Come on Nguyen!

Hi,

> Things are slow right now because they are preparing for the Ulan Bator rollout.

...of the Genghist-D.

...specially adapted for shooting from horseback.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

RE: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

I wouldn't pay $100 a millimeter for ANY lens even a super wide angle!
:)

JCO

-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

Hi,

Jim Apilado wrote:

> I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!

You paid $50,000 for a lens?  Will you be my friend?

mike

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Shel wrote:

As opposed to assholes with macros taking closeups of bugs and flowers with
(D)SLR's that only show a portion of the frame?



REPLY:

Thse assholes are at least not pretentious assholes claiming they make a statement 
socially, or about the meaning of life and the fate of the universe with their 
contentsless and boring images.

Don't get me wrong, HCB was a fantastic photographer but his followers into the 
"street photography" thing has created the most clichè-filled body garbage in 
photography. Shooting someone poor and you suddenly made a social statement. Give me a 
break! Even dirty porn pictures makes more relevant statements. 

Give me a sunset any day. It doesn't pretend anything. 

Pål

Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

2004-08-06 Thread mike wilson

Hi,
Jim Apilado wrote:
I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!  
You paid $50,000 for a lens?  Will you be my friend?
mike

RE: first question

Third party a 100% recommendation?? Well, nothing is 100%, not even Pentax.
They all make lenses for different purposes, or valids. So check out tests
(i.e. www.photodo.com). But I kinda agree with Norm.

But, anyway, I beleive I can recommend Tamrons (i.e. Adaptall mounts and
especially "SP" ones), and Tokina (especially ATX-zooms) - as well as Kenko
converters.

If money is an big issue - why don't you buy a Pentax 105WR:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=626&item=3829349944&r
d=1&ssPageName=WDVW
You may actually never notice the photographs were not made with an SLR.
They are quite afforable at ebay - perhaps 50 USD. It's a brilliant camera
for travelling - and it's water resistant.
All the best
Jens

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 20:42
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: first question

The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif
your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the
price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on
Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass.

I don't know about 3rd party, don't use them, but you can get  good
135mm and 28mm M series lenses pretty cheap.
Norm

Paul McEvoy wrote:

> First of all, thanks for the awesome help.
>
> Of course your help leads me to having other questions:
>
> Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?  Were they made by Pentax?
> Specifically the 135mm 2.8?
>
> Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend
> 100%?  And any to totally avoid?
>
> Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash?
>
> To answer Norm's questions
> 1) What's your price range?
> Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap.  I'd like to make out under
> $400 for everything including tripod, case, etc.
> 2) Are you concerned about weight?
> I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day
> trips.  So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be
> totally weight down.
>
> Again, thanks a million.  Everybody had something useful to say.  I do
> appreciate it.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

Re: first question

2004-08-06 Thread mike wilson

Hi,
Paul McEvoy wrote:
I'm new here 
Greetings.
As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or 
is 28mm just as good?
Pentax used to make a 24-35 zoom.  It's not fast and there is some 
distortion at wider angles but it is sublimely sharp.  Should be 
available in "user" condition for about $70 - 100.  I highly recommend it.

For your longer lens, you could try one of the "off brand" makers such 
as Tamron, Tokina or Sigma.  They all made manual focus, ~f2.5, 90~105mm 
macro lenses that should be available for the same price.  You get two 
competences (mild telephoto and macro) for the one price.

Good luck.
mike

Re: first question

The M series lenses are all pretty small, light and inexpensiveif 
your looking for a 135mm, don't waste your time with the Sears, the 
price difference between it and a Pentax is not that great. M135's on 
Ebay are common and inexpensive ($60) and have great glass.

I don't know about 3rd party, don't use them, but you can get  good 
135mm and 28mm M series lenses pretty cheap.
Norm

Paul McEvoy wrote:
First of all, thanks for the awesome help.
Of course your help leads me to having other questions:
Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?  Were they made by Pentax?  
Specifically the 135mm 2.8?

Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 
100%?  And any to totally avoid?

Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash?
To answer Norm's questions
1) What's your price range?
Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap.  I'd like to make out under 
$400 for everything including tripod, case, etc.
2) Are you concerned about weight?
I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day 
trips.  So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be 
totally weight down.

Again, thanks a million.  Everybody had something useful to say.  I do 
appreciate it.

Paul

Re: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5

2004-08-06 Thread Jim Apilado

I got one of these lenses a few years ago for $100 a millimeter!  I used it
a few times but found it just too heavy for my Tiltall tripod.  I got good
results, however.  I got the cannon to add to my collection of SMC Takumar
lenses.  I personally like the SMC 300mm Takumar because it has auto
aperture.  The 400mm SMC Takumar is also good - and much lighter.
Would you see another if you didn't buy it?  I once saw a 1000mm SMC Pentax
K mount lens.  Haven't seen another.  Had it been an SMC Takumar I would
have purchased it.
Good luck!

Jim A.

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 09:06:46 -0500 (CDT)
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: feedback wanted--SMC Takumar 500/4.5
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:34:44 -0400
> 
> 
> I stumbled upon a store offering a 500/4.5 SMC Takumar screw-mount lens
> for $700 in very good shape the other day.  I'm a little nervous about
> buying it, for a couple of reasons.
> 
> 1) From what I've seen of K-mount 500s and the few M42 500s I've seen $700
> appears to be a fair price, but it is a little steeper than I'd like.
> Is this a reasonable price?  If I don't buy it, will I ever see another
> one for sale outside of e-bay?  I'd actually prefer one a little more
> banged up to get the price down.
> 
> 2) 4 elements in 4 groups, with no mention of ED glass or anything.  This
> makes me very leery of optical quality compared to the Nikkor big glass
> that I am used to (which normally has at least twice as many elements,
> with 3-4 of them being ED).  Of course the 200/3.5 Takumar has a very
> similar construction, and it isn't at all bad optically.
> Can anyone speak to the optical quality of this design,
> especially if you've experienced modern Canon/Nikon 300/400/500/600 ED
> fast lenses?  I've seen some suggestions that the standard glass, simple
> design is going to produce chromatic abberation or color fringing and
> this is going to really annoy any digital camera it gets mounted on.
> 
> 3) No internal focusing and a focusing ring behind the tripod mount
> suggests that this lens is going to be a bit cumbersome to follow-focus,
> even without the annoyance of trying to focus an f/4.5 lens on the dim
> spotmatic screens.  Given that the only uses I can imagine having for a
> 500/4.5 involve things that move, this strikes me as a possible
> showstopper.
> 
> On a related note, anybody know who made the Sears 300/5.5?  The off-brand
> lenses page notes a couple of 300/5.5s on the market at one time, and I'd
> have to assume that they were actually all the same design, made by
> one of the Tokina/Sigma/Tamron/Kiron crowd.  Anybody used one of these
> things by any name?  It's cheap enough to be tempting if it doens't
> absolutely stink.
> 
> DJE
>

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

2004-08-06 Thread wendy

The following message was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 
6 Aug 2004 13:19:44 -0400.
> 
> From: graywolf 
> 
> I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.
> 
> I do not agree.

That's allowed 


> Since the way I use a monopod is to slope it back towards me while I lean 

> slightly forward thus creating a tripod with it and my legs, I certainly 
need a 
> head with one. I do find that method to be a whole lot more stable than 
simply 
> using it straight up an down which simply holds the camera steady in one 

> plane while allowing to to wobble in the other two planes.
> 

For what I'm doing, I want the wobble. My targets are constantly moving. 
I'm only using the monopod 'cos the 10D and IS/USM lens is so bloomin' heavy. 
:-)

Wendy

one more question

2004-08-06 Thread Paul McEvoy

if you use a screw mount adapter on a k mount body do you lose the ability 
to use the light meter?  I'm a little confused about that.

Thanks
Paul

Re: Come on Nguyen!

2004-08-06 Thread jtainter

Just a wee note for the sake of it: I dropped what used to be Jaume
Lahuerta's AF500FTZ and broke the IR cover and the battery door, so I
got a local shop to order them for me. While I was at it, I ordered
the hood for the 24-90. It was still May when I did that. The IR cover
arrived fairly promptly, but the rest...

Come Nguyen, you know you can do it!

Kostas :-)




Sorry, Kostas. Nguyen only assembles lenses. All other assembly is done in the 
Philippines, where there are three employees. Ramon and Gloria assemble gear. Manolo 
handles all packing and shipping.

Things are slow right now because they are preparing for the Ulan Bator rollout.

Joe

RE: first question

2004-08-06 Thread Paul McEvoy

First of all, thanks for the awesome help.
Of course your help leads me to having other questions:
Are the Sears K Mount lenses worth buying?  Were they made by Pentax?  
Specifically the 135mm 2.8?

Are there any 3rd party lens manufacturers that you can recomend 100%?  And 
any to totally avoid?

Any recomendations for a usable and affordable flash?
To answer Norm's questions
1) What's your price range?
Hmmm...trying to keep it pretty cheap.  I'd like to make out under $400 for 
everything including tripod, case, etc.
2) Are you concerned about weight?
I'll be driving mostly, but maybe doing some light backpacking and day 
trips.  So not terribly concerned, but also I would rather not be totally 
weight down.

Again, thanks a million.  Everybody had something useful to say.  I do 
appreciate it.

Paul

RE: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

I agree, graywolf. Also when I am walking in nature the terrain may not be
flat and I may not be able to hold the monopod straight all the time.
Jens

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 18:08
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

I am always reading this, "you don't need a head on a monopod" thing.

I do not agree.

Since the way I use a monopod is to slope it back towards me while I lean
slightly forward thus creating a tripod with it and my legs, I certainly
need a
head with one. I do find that method to be a whole lot more stable than
simply
using it straight up an down which simply holds the camera steady in one
plane
while allowing to to wobble in the other two planes.

--

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The following message was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
Fri,
> 6 Aug 2004 03:18:22 -0400.
>
>
>>Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out
there
>>using, and why that particular head?
>>
>>Kind regards
>>Kevin
>>
>
>
> None. I just mount the lens/camera directly onto the 'pod.
> When I went to buy my manfrotto monopod, I fully intended buying a head
too.
> The man in the shop told me I didn't need one (pretty odd for a
salesman!).
> It's true, I didn't need one. I'm primarily using it for dogsports and the
> lenses I use have rotating tripod mounts. The only time I would probably
> want to use a head is if I knew I wanted to shoot vertically and the lens
> I was using didn't have a mount (e.g. with the FA 300/4.5).
> For that I would use my 486RC2 which usually lives on my 055S
> I'd quite like one of the joystick ballheads or the grip action head
though.
>
> Wendy
>
>
>

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

RE: first question

Hi Paul, and welcome to you.
It sounds reasonable to me to use film for a trip like that.
A 135mm is a fin e portrait lens for outdoor purposes. Indoo it's often to
long - a 105 or 85 mm might be better there.
For inddor a 24mm is good, cause you can frame all the people at the dinner
table - a 28mm or 35 can't really do that. But for Outdoor use the 28mm or
35mm is fine. In the 1970'ies a 28mm or 35mm, a 50mm and a 135mm would be a
fine standard outfit.
Today it's more like a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm, perhaps supplemented by a
24mm and a 200mm along the way. So, the 80-200 zoom could be a very nice
choise - perhaps along with a wideangle zoom 28-70 or 35-80mm - but I  don't
specificly know this 80-200mm lens. Others may.

Have a nice trip, and be sure to post some shots when you get back.
All the best
Jens

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul McEvoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. august 2004 18:19
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: first question


Hello there,

I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of
questions.  I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of
pictures.  And hopefully good pictures.  I was originally planning on buying
a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I might
learn a lot more from using film.  I just bought a K 1000 off ebay with the
50/1:2 lens.  I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round things
out.

It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly.  But
I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent
photographer too.  I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and
Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and
make some mistakes along the way with it.

I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens.  I read that I should
be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't seem to
find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw mounts.  There are
a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is
28mm just as good?

And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens?

My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times.  I
appreciate any help you can give me.

Thanks
Paul

For Sale Friday : Macro Auto Bellows with Lenses

FYI,

This ends tonight:

NEW Pentax Screwmount Bellows and TWO Macro lens M42
NEW IN BOX Auto Bellows and High Quality Optics! Item number: 3831257254


http://jcoconnell.com/JCO_AUCT.HTM



   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com

Re: So What's So Great About HCB?

Hi,

> I got this offlist e-mail from a lurker (doesn't that sound bad?).  He asked
> that I forward it to the list.  So here you go.

[...]

> Thank you,
> Melchi

Thank you. I hope you will start to post more often to the list,
rather than remain a lurker. We need more people who can express
themselves as well and as intelligently as you have done.

I would like to add one more comment to yours. I know some people who
simply do not understand Picasso, and do not understand why he is
considered a great artist. I can find no way of explaining his genius
to such people - they simply don't get it. I believe the same thing
applies to Cartier-Bresson - some people will never understand what
makes him great, and attempts to rationalise it will always fail with
such people.

This may sound like intellectual snobbery, but I don't mean it to
be. There are some artists and photographers that I will never
understand, but when people whose opinion I respect tell me that they
are great, then I have to accept that, and my own inability, and try
to work at a it a little harder.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

You may search eBay for SMC-M 28/2.8, SMC-A 28/2.8, SMC-M 100/2.8, SMC-A
100/2.8, SMC-A 70-210/4. SMC-M 135/3.5 is good, cheap, and plentiful as
well, but you may find the gap between 50mm and 135mm a little big. SMC-A
35-105/3.5 is a very good zoom worth to consider too. All these are common
on eBay except the SMC-A 100/2.8.

Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of
questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of
pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on
buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I decided I
might learn a lot more from using film. I just bought a K 1000 off ebay
with the 50/1:2 lens. I'm interested in getting some more lenses to round
things out.

It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly.
But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a competent
photographer too. I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip (cross the US and
Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some good equipment now and
make some mistakes along the way with it.

I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens. I read that I
should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I can't
seem to find much on ebay. Actually none, except for some screw mounts.
There are a lot of 135mm lenses. Would the do similar things?

As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or is
28mm just as good?

And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens?
My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times. I
appreciate any help you can give me.

Thanks
Paul
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard 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: first question

2004-08-06 Thread graywolf

You could not go far wrong with an M28/3.5 and an M135/3.5 as a starter outfit. 
Cheap, excellent optics.

The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight head shots, but 
then 1/2 length or more works will with your 50mm, thus only compromising on 
head and shoulder shots.  The 28mm is a compromise between a 24 and a 35mm, 
meaning you can mostly use it where you would use either of them.  Anyway 
millions of photographers have done excellent work with just those three lenses 
in their kits.

Another posiblity to consider is to just work with that 50mm lens for awhile. 
There is a lot to learn, and limiting yourself until you have gotten most of it 
down pat is helpful. The late Henry Carter Bresson who has been the subject of 
several posts recently used just a 50mm most of the time (Whatever, I think of 
the hype surrounding him, his work certainly stands on its own).

--
Paul McEvoy wrote:
Hello there,
I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of 
questions.  I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of 
pictures.  And hopefully good pictures.  I was originally planning on 
buying a Nikon Digital SLR but after reading around for a while I 
decided I might learn a lot more from using film.  I just bought a K 
1000 off ebay with the 50/1:2 lens.  I'm interested in getting some more 
lenses to round things out.

It needs to be said that I have almost no idea what I'm doing, frankly.  
But I am a writer and think that it would serve me well to be a 
competent photographer too.  I'm leaving pretty soon for this trip 
(cross the US and Canada by very small car), so I'm trying to get some 
good equipment now and make some mistakes along the way with it.

I'm looking for a wide angle lens and a portrait lens.  I read that I 
should be looking for a 100mm prime lens for the portrait lens, but I 
can't seem to find much on ebay.  Actually none, except for some screw 
mounts.  There are a lot of 135mm lenses.  Would the do similar things?

As far as the wide angle goes is it worth trying to hunt down a 24mm or 
is 28mm just as good?

And is the Pentax k mount 80-200mm zoom a good lens?
My apologies if these are questions you've all heard a thousand times.  
I appreciate any help you can give me.

Thanks
Paul

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

RE: PESO: Meerkat Portrait / Powwow

Hi Jerome
I like the clean look of your website, the navigation and the photos of
course too.
I run my monitor at 1280x960 and I think it would be good if the main page
would fit on one side at
maybe a bit less than 1024X768 resolution.
Then, most of the surfers would see all of it at once without having to
scroll down.
happy pentaxing
Markus

> ... In fact, enjoy the rest of the website at your leisure as well. I
> finally found a little time to update it some, so let me know what you
> think.
>
> http://www.exposedfilm.net
>
> Hasta Luego,
>  jerome

PESO:more form my journeys on th MS "Silvretta" 1981

Hi Pentax lovers
I really hope you enjoy seeing this pictures as much as I am rediscovering
them after more than 20 years.
I will post some more of (then) hidden China and Australia and Suez and crew
members at work later, if nobody complains.
The first series of photos was made with a compact Olympus XA camera with
35mm lens, later after dry dock in Honking I had my first ME Super with a
standard 50mm lens and a small dedicated flash.

I was first working as a Messboy on the Swiss freighter MS "Caribia" in 1977
at 17 and then as Steward on the Swiss MS "Silvretta" in 1981 at the age of
21. That means serving the crew and later the Officers.

1   my cabin (all crew member cabins have the same dimensions, the Officer's
cabins are, of course, larger:
You see 3 very important things among others : The fridge, the Grundig
World Receiver Radio and some good booze :-)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588518


2   the Panama channel takes 8 hours to pass, mostly at night,  the voyage
from England to Panama took us 14 days:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588524

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588525



3   Anchorage on the Mississippi river some miles away from New Orleans
loading goods for a chinese charter company:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588521

4   Stupid men including me better run fast - no comment:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588527


5   a small town in China, Police and military controlled everything. We where
only allowed to go to a certain Restaurant,
and a Seamen's Shop and they did not give us chinese money too. People only
spoke chinese, so it was nearly impossible  to get in contact. More photos
follow soon:

We don't need no stinking cars:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588512

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588517



6   and a cliche shot for the romantic:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2588528



more soon in selected Pentax theaters only
Comments are very welcome.

Markus

Re: PAW - My Son's First

It was the Super Program, I was afraid the tripod might fall over with 
the 6x7 and injure him  I put it on the tripod and asked him where he 
wanted it then he did the rest... Unfortunately, he's seen a few of 
Frank's photos.
Norm

Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'm pretty sure Frank is older than that.
Actually considering the point of the post, just thinking of a
photograph as something that takes time to setup could be a valuable
lesson.  What camera was it?  Not the 67?  That thing is bigger than
most 3 year olds.

Re: Pentax Zx-D in Korea

2004-08-06 Thread ernreed2

> Not only that, but they did a bad job of changing the name everywhere. 
> They tried to fix the image of the camera box by manipulating the image, 
> so they fixed the sides, but they completely forgot to fix the name on 
> the top of the box!!  LOL.
> 
> rg

But IMO it *is* a better name ... :-)

ERN

Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)

2004-08-06 Thread Dario Bonazza

It came from that series I shot last February at Imola track, but is not one
of those I already published in my website:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/f1_04e.htm

Here is the Manfrotto magazine page, including the picture:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/neotec.jpg

Dario

- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)


> Great, Dario. Can we get to see the photograph/fferrari?
> Jens
>
> Jens Bladt
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 6. august 2004 15:12
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Re: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
>
>
> Glad to hear that.
> BTW, it happens that I do copywriting work for Bogen Imaging Italy
> (distributors for Manfrotto and other stuff), for their InVista magazine.
In
> this coming issue, just printed, a Ferrari picture by me has been
published
> too. Not sure if I've been paid for that, since we agreed a flat rate for
> the whole job.
>
> Dario Bonazza
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 2:43 PM
> Subject: RE: OT: Manfrotto Monopod enabled (334B)
>
>
> > I have put myself on a budget, so I am just using an old Velbon head
> > (traditional video pan-and-tilt), I got from a broken tripod. It's fine
> when
> > I use it with the tilting handle pointing the same way as the lens.
> >
> > For my normal Manfrotto tripod (190B) I use a Bogen/Manfrotto 3030 head.
> >
> >
> > BTW: Manfrotte has a truly GREAT SERVICE organization:
> >
> > By accident, I damaged the 3/8" thread. So, yesterday I wrote the
> > Manfrotto.com webmaster if he/she could direct me to where I might get a
> > spare part for the monopod. This morning the Danish Manfrotto
> representative
> > emails me at work, saying he got the part (the wheel with the spring
> system
> > and the 1/4" and 3/8" thread) - it will cost me 12 USD (shipping
> included) -
> > and he'd mail it to me as soon as I have transfered funds. Result: I
will
> > probably get it tuesday in the mail - that is only 3 working days after
> may
> > first mail to manfrotto.com!!!
> >
> > So guys, if you ever need a tripod, light stand etc. - make shure to
check
> > out all Manfrotto options first!!!
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Jens Bladt
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
>

Re: Pentax Zx-D in Korea

2004-08-06 Thread Gonz

Not only that, but they did a bad job of changing the name everywhere. 
They tried to fix the image of the camera box by manipulating the image, 
so they fixed the sides, but they completely forgot to fix the name on 
the top of the box!!  LOL.

rg
Michel Carrère-Gée wrote:
Dario Bonazza a écrit :
http://www.chalkak.co.kr/board1/view.html?bID=Breview&number=433
 

Translated by Babelfish:
http://babel.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chalkak.co.kr%2Fboard1%2Fview.html%3FbID%3DBreview%26number%3D433&lp=ko_en 

Only a renammed *ist D  !

RE: PESO:life is colorful