Re: 50mm lenses. ....Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
Fred, for me there is more goinging on between the diffent 50's than resolution alone. For me (and this is just an opinion here) resolution is just an indication of whether a lens is gonnna be a poor performer or not. I.e. Just something to check isnt too bad. But the real qualities of a lens, i.e. The ones that are going to affect the image most are colour and image rendition. Like penis size, resolution can be completely misleading as to real world performance. Antonio. On 11/8/04 4:55 am, "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I did some (limited, of course) testing of a number of samples a few > years back: > > http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm > > Fred
Re: 50mm lenses. ....Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
I agree Rob. I dont own the 1.2 but have found that A50/1.4 and A50/1.7 are very different lenses in terms of image renditio as well as sharpness. A50/1.7 is a fine, very sharp lens at most apetures but seems to lack the 3-D quality of the A50/1.4. For me it is almost as if the A50/1.7 is TOO sharp for most uses. I dont know , the images just seem a bit flatter with the 1.7. Sharp but flat. Wheras the 1.4 produces very nicely rendered and deep images (if that is possible). Would love to see some pictures taken with A50/1.2 to compare. A. On 11/8/04 2:26 am, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tested my Screw 55/1.8, A50/1.7, A50/1.4 and A50/1.2 lenses then other day > and I my assessment is similar to most peoples WRT sharpness. However that > factor is far outweighed in my opinion by the variation in rendition due to > the > differences in the lenses characteristics. I found even at mid-range apertures > each of the lenses have their own image characteristics which are most visible > at the edges of the frame. Each is good for particular uses, I find it so > strange that people seem to dismiss the A50/1.2 on the basis that it's not as > "good" wide open as a A50/2 or A50/1.7. Sure it's different but still highly > usable as photographic tool. > > I will try to get some sample images up to show what I mean next week.
RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax
What's the barrel distortion like on them? -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2004 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax On 11 Aug 2004 at 7:39, Jens Bladt wrote: > Pentax ca be a very useful tool for terrorists. Quite. http://www.aohc.it/cameras/s123gun.gif 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: Pentax *FA "star' lenses
Although most are still available in the US right now, does anyone know if they are still in production? Robert James
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I'm sure most of us agree to th opposite. Sertainly a 100 mm gives you less DOF than a 50 mm. That's why smaller formats - lika many digital cameras - have larger DOF, provided the same angle of view is obtained by a shorter focal length. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. august 2004 02:49 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: 50 or 100 mm W R O N G ! ! the 100mm will have exact same DOF as the 50mm at the same magnification and aperture. focal length has no effect on DOF, it is determined solely by magnification and aperture. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm the 100mm has a shallower DOF and a greater working distance for a given magnification. as for terminology, it's convention and there is no rule. i've always seen microphotography as taken with a microscope as the lens system. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: 50 or 100 mm > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What > difference does it make then? > > And another thing about macro; when objects become larger than life > size, someone said that it is called micro rather than macro. Is that > true?
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The MICRO/MACRO thing is a marketing > term with no real hard fast definition. > JCO > It's mostly true that the consumer end of the market doesn't appreciate the definitions of MICRO and MACRO. As an illustration, for many years Nikon has labelled its macro lenses as Micro-Nikkors, when it is patently obvious that they are intended neither for microphotography or photomicrography. There are definitions, but the crossover points between one type of photography and the next are blurred. PHOTOMICROGRAPHY is photography at extreme ranges of magnication, eg. through a microscope, or with specialised objectives such as Zeiss Proxars. MICROPHOTOGRAPHY is photography in extreme ranges of reduction, such as the microdot of spy movie notoriety. PHOTOMACROGRAPHY is the correct term for what is commonly but erroneously called macrophotography. It is generally accepted, as others have noted, to fall within the range of 0.5X to 10X magnification. MACROPHOTOGRAPHY is something I can't readily define, because my photography college notes are long gone. Rest assured that something about it is big, I vaguely remember that it involves very, very big sheets of sensitized material (and thus opposite to microphotography). I also suspect that the last usage is for all purposes obselete, and the word "macrophotography" has been popularly transferred to the definition of "photomacrography". Just my curmudgeonly contribution in the absence of anything on this matter from Greywolf. regards, Anthony Farr
RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax
Pentax ca be a very useful tool for terrorists. As for anybody else. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. august 2004 05:36 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax OH, I'm in trouble now! I've been roaming the country shooting highways, bridges, barns, capitols and courthouses with a PZ-1 and an *istD. Pentax cameras and a foreign accent. Good thing I never went near New Jersey. ERN > Looks like my big fat Z-1p is the primary target. Luckily I have a blue > snake skin silver Super Program as backup. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >This morning on one of the tabloid/news shows (ABC or NBC, I forget which), > >there was a short piece on an anti-terrorism training video put together by > >the New Jersey Port Authority. As far as I could tell, it is a "What to > >look for" video. What caught my eye was a close-up (face and camera only) > >of a "terrorist" supposedly photographing a "target" with a camera clearly > >labeled Pentax. > > > >Okay...there's no such thing as bad publicity. > > > >Or maybe you don't want to photograph tall buildings, dams, financial > >institutions or the like with a Pentax. > > > >Joe > > _ > Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound > e-mail and attachments. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en- ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MS NIS_ Taglines > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the > first two months FREE*. >
RE: Cropping exercise
I wouldn't crop it. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. august 2004 23:13 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Cropping exercise How would you guys crop this: http://www.pbase.com/image/32383741 ? Thanks.
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Not all macro photos are artistic renditions of flowers and bugs. In my distant past I worked with scientists in the back-rooms of a museum, to photograph biological specimens, fossils and more. Not only did we include a scale in the frame, but we also used a range of fixed magnification (or reduction) ratios, to enable easier batch printing later in the darkroom. Had we framed each shot for best composition on an ad hoc basis, then each and every print would have needed individual scaling under the enlarger. Way back in my ancient past I briefly worked a humungous microfilm camera, a 35mm (unperforated rolls) Fuji. Here too, only a few specific reduction ratios were ever used, and the camera was programmed to go straight to those reductions, skipping over the infinite range of settings between each preset ratio. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing > scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. > It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close > enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us > worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: > does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro > that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro > that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully > 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension > tube. > Just my two cents > Vic > >
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Rob Studdert: In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes I set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. (...) The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images synchronously. Thank you for the information and the comparison pictures. I'm going away for a short trip now, but I've downloaded and saved the pictures and will have a thorough look at them when I get back! anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > I've tried that a few times, never worked, always thought it was just > the beer. The beer makes you think bigger than 1:1, but perform at about 1:3. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Alan Chan" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. This is what I have heard. William Robb
RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax
Lucky for me the story ran when it did. I brushed against John Kerry while taking these shots with my *ist D (while wearing a Pentax baseball cap) 3 weeks ago and the serious looking secret service guys didn't even tackle me! http://home.comcast.net/~j2photography/miscellaneous.htm Joel
Re: HOPP:Minolta Girl - she nearly broke a Pentax users heart
Hum..? This reminds me I have known a couple of pretty women who used Minoltas myself (sorry, no photos available). Must be a trend of some sort. -- Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Markus, I found the only solo shot of her I had on the computer. The rest of them are of the two of us from different events - she tends to be at my right hand at the numerous events I volunteer for. This was a shot taken of a 4x print with a Nikon CoolPix 995. A cheap scanner no doubt. The original was taken with a Pentax 645n. Actually taken during the test roll when considering buying the 645n from a photographer who was going digital (with Canon). I did end up buying the camera. Story behind the photo - which is what always comes to mind of the photos I take - I went into my photo store, where she used to work, and still had a couple of shots to take on the roll. Looking around the store, definitely not much of interest to take a shot of. So, I felt I had to ask her. She agreed to a quick shot. She is not camera shy, at least around me... And she is an awesome photographer in her own right. She has modeled in the past, and can definitely continue to do so now. So, here is a portrait shot, which does not do her justice: http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=9 61 Comments always welcomed and pertinent ones will be passed along, César Panama City, Florida P.S. Awaiting the possible arrival of Tropical Storm/Hurricane Bonnie upon our shores... so I may be home for a bit. -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:06 AM Markus, Since you asked nicely I will try to comply. Give me a bit though, I have to see what I have digitally of her, without me in the shot :-) I may have a snapshot somewhere on this computer. I will try to get it on the web if this computer continues to behave nicely. Cesar Panama City, Florida P.S. I can see how your Minolta girl could break a heart. -Original Message- From: Ohrbit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 8:21 PM Starting to scan some very old photo prints and negatives, I have rediscovered one shoot of "Minolta Girl". I think it was Frank and Ceasar(who really knows the original one) and Cotty as well mentioning this mysterious women from time to time and after GFM. She emigrated to the islands of Gran Canaria and this photo was made on one of the very rare occasions when she was photographing on a walk at lake Zurich in 1983. I carried the Pentax ME Super and had miore than one eye on her :-) I called it a HOPP: historical old Pentax photo http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2584625 Feel free to supply a photo of "the real one" please! tnanks Markus -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
lithium battery in Sekonic meter?
I have a Sekonic L-328 meter, which seems to need a battery every few months, and I'm wondering whether it would operate properly with a lithium AA battery. Are the voltage and voltage characteristics similar enough to alkaline batteries for it to meter correctly? Thanks. Pat White
interesting topic in dpreview about sensor costs
Made for good reading. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028&message=9839762 __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: Beware of Photographers Carrying Pentax
OH, I'm in trouble now! I've been roaming the country shooting highways, bridges, barns, capitols and courthouses with a PZ-1 and an *istD. Pentax cameras and a foreign accent. Good thing I never went near New Jersey. ERN > Looks like my big fat Z-1p is the primary target. Luckily I have a blue > snake skin silver Super Program as backup. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >This morning on one of the tabloid/news shows (ABC or NBC, I forget which), > >there was a short piece on an anti-terrorism training video put together by > >the New Jersey Port Authority. As far as I could tell, it is a "What to > >look for" video. What caught my eye was a close-up (face and camera only) > >of a "terrorist" supposedly photographing a "target" with a camera clearly > >labeled Pentax. > > > >Okay...there's no such thing as bad publicity. > > > >Or maybe you don't want to photograph tall buildings, dams, financial > >institutions or the like with a Pentax. > > > >Joe > > _ > Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound > e-mail and attachments. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en- ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_ Taglines > Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the > first two months FREE*. >
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I personally don't care if you believe me. I don't just make this stuff up. But if you expect me to explain optical design theories in a few sentences you arent being realistic. If you want a hint the reason the symmetricals are so much better for 1:1 is many of the optical errors completely cancel out at 1:1 unlike an unsymmetrical design. Some of the very finest Apo process lenses for 1:1 are only four to six element symmetricals. Even the 4 element ones are legendary and go back many years. As for the *istD being unable to tell the difference between very good and really great lenses, that just shows the sensor isnt very good it doesn't prove the lenses are the same or "just as good" for someone who wants to get the most out of 35mm format by using extremely fine grain films. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm On 10 Aug 2004 at 21:10, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I just told you in last post, late model 6 element german enlarging > lenses on a bellows. There is nothing "Stupid" about stating the > facts. If you want to get the "best" out of 35mm or current digital > you still need the best lenses. We werent talking "good enough" we > were talking what is better and best! For your information I've shot a high contrast test chart with the A50/2.8 + *ist D and from f2.8 to f16 the images are indistinguishable, at f22 there is a hint of loss of sharpness. These are the facts. So have much more resolution is required? > If you want to do 1:1, the best lenses are the ones > designed for 1:1, not the pseudo zooms. I'm sorry > if I am bursting your bubble but so be it. You're are not bursting my bubble, maybe if you could substantiate your claims with some examples your rhetoric would be more believable? 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: I think I Need a Break
Wait Frank, we're just about to start a discussion about Rick James dying. Norm (check ya offlist) frank theriault wrote: Well, boys and girls, I think it's time for a break. As you may have noticed, I haven't been posting much lately. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that I've quite frankly become bored and disinterested with equipment.
PESO: Old Man Tree
I sent this e-mail this morning but it didn't show on the list. John Power -Original Message- From: John Power [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:18 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: PESO: Old Man Tree Very nice, Bruce. I rotated it 1.5 degrees CCW, looks like 1.25 would have been about right. You going to put this in your office along with your many other excellent images? I particularly like your shots of GFM that I saw here. http://www.solutns.com/jpeg/bkd_0280_stdb.jpg Thanks for posting. John Power Racehorse in the desert -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Old Man Tree After dropping my daughter off at a music camp up in the mountains last week, I took a stroll around a river and meadow. This caught my eye. www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0280.htm *IstD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld ISO 200, manual focus Your reaction and thoughts are welcomed. Thanks, Bruce
Re: 50 or 100 mm
> Not intending to single anyone out... ;-) Fred
Re: PESO: Old Man Tree
Bruce, I'll comment. The tree is a strong element on the right of the photo. I like the mood and bit of blue on the left. I'd wish for more details in the tree bark. It looks a bit washed out to me. Regards, Bob S. Bruce wrote: > After dropping my daughter off at a music camp up in the > mountains last week, I took a stroll around a river and > meadow. This caught my eye. > > www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0280.htm
RE: PESO - Come Fly With Me
No, it was behind a house near a swap meet. I had seen it there for quite a few years. I walked over and took the photo one day when I was down in that area.. I'll try to darken it a bit. John Power Biltmore Photo -Original Message- From: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PESO - Come Fly With Me Hi John I would certainly not say "no" to try it! Did you fly that plane? a nice shoot, maybe you could darken it a bit... greetings Markus > > > Ready to take a ride on this nice plane? Comments welcome of course. > > > > John Power > > Racehorse in the desert. > > > > Pentax ZX-l, Sigma 15mm fisheye, Provia 100 > > > > http://www.solutns.com/jpeg/flying2.jpg > > >
Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
> I'm guessing the only difference is the newer > styling and "A" setting on the A lens. There's a coating difference, it would seem, too. Fred
Re: 50mm lenses. ....Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
> I don't have many samples of each, but I have almost a dozen 50mm > lenses in various places around the house, so I have been able to > test (as much as I test anything) more than one sample of most > emulations. I did some (limited, of course) testing of a number of samples a few years back: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/resolutn.htm Fred
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 20:26, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > One anecdote does not science make. Just because > you are very satisfied with a given lens doesn't mean > there isnt something better out there that will > perform better given toughter test conditions like much > higher resolution films/sensors and/or more flare prone shooting > conditons. I suggest you try some of the newer > 6 element MC enlarging lenses at close range with a bellows & > really fine grain film for comparison and also > with some really bright reflections in the image > to test the flare resistance. If you are satisfied > that is all that really matters but it doesn't mean > that is as good as it gets. Also, if you are into > 1:1 is is a known fact that the symmetrical designs > are much better for 1:1 than any non symmetrical > could ever hope to achieve. They make lenses JUST > FOR 1:1 that suck at infinity wide open but will crush everything > else at that 1:1 magnification. John this is just getting stupid now. I suspect most people here are talking real-world and Pentax and likely K-mount and screw at the peripheries. I (like most other people here I assume) couldn't be bothered with too much BS to get what is generally a very acceptable image from my K mount lenses. Pentax lenses with FREE elements are high contrast and damn near flare free and provide more sharpness than the *ist D and most all readily available mainstream films can resolve, what more do you want? How many late macro lenses have you used? 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: 50mm lenses. ....Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
On 10 Aug 2004 at 18:00, William Robb wrote: > The A 50mm f/1.2 is pretty soft wide open (though much better than > the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 that I replaced with the Pentax lens), and is > only ok until about f/8, at which point it is very good indeed. I tested my Screw 55/1.8, A50/1.7, A50/1.4 and A50/1.2 lenses then other day and I my assessment is similar to most peoples WRT sharpness. However that factor is far outweighed in my opinion by the variation in rendition due to the differences in the lenses characteristics. I found even at mid-range apertures each of the lenses have their own image characteristics which are most visible at the edges of the frame. Each is good for particular uses, I find it so strange that people seem to dismiss the A50/1.2 on the basis that it's not as "good" wide open as a A50/2 or A50/1.7. Sure it's different but still highly usable as photographic tool. I will try to get some sample images up to show what I mean next week. 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: 50 or 100 mm
One anecdote does not science make. Just because you are very satisfied with a given lens doesn't mean there isnt something better out there that will perform better given toughter test conditions like much higher resolution films/sensors and/or more flare prone shooting conditons. I suggest you try some of the newer 6 element MC enlarging lenses at close range with a bellows & really fine grain film for comparison and also with some really bright reflections in the image to test the flare resistance. If you are satisfied that is all that really matters but it doesn't mean that is as good as it gets. Also, if you are into 1:1 is is a known fact that the symmetrical designs are much better for 1:1 than any non symmetrical could ever hope to achieve. They make lenses JUST FOR 1:1 that suck at infinity wide open but will crush everything else at that 1:1 magnification. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, > > William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > > > there is absolutely nothing wrong with > >the lens design. > > > > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something "wrong" > with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. The optical > designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly every parameter > and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros have "absolutely nothing wrong" > with them is going a little to far IMHO. Adding all those extra > elements to achieve wider focus range is going to improve some > parameters most notably infinity performance at wider apertures but at > the same time degrade > others > like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the > designers and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to > the customer > or they would not have done it. Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Let Rob to educate you with his SL125/2.5 then. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb _ 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: 50 or 100 mm
Or simply buy one of those Canon/Minolta super macro lenses, just don't look at the price tag. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan If you want bigger than 1;1 you should be reversing the lens anyway. William Robb _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. 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: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 16:35, Anders Hultman wrote: > If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens > and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be > different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? Practically there will be little difference (and virtually nil if you are are looking to replace your 50mm bellows with a regular 50mm macro aside from the operation differences). The long and short of it (pun intended of course) is that when using a short FL macro you will be relatively closer to the subject, this means that lighting may be made more difficult, your subject may be disturbed by the proximity of the lens and you may not be able to isolate the subject as effectively due to the relatively wider AOV. On the positive side shake is diminished somewhat and the maximum apertures are fastest with short lenses so they are generally easier to use and more forgiving when shooting hand held especially when using available light. Longer lenses provide greater working distance and a tend to isolate the subject more effectively however they are far more difficult to hand hold effectively. I guess this is why macro lenses around 100mm are so popular as they offer a reasonable compromise between all the factors mentioned above. In order to show the visible (but sometimes subtle) differences that FL makes I set up a semi-scientific macro test (2:1) using 50, 125 and 200 macro lenses. All shots were made at f5.6 at a mag factor of 2x and the tripod was slid out from the subject until focus was achieved The framing isn't perfect between each frame but it's good enough to highlight the differences. You will see more background details in the 50mm shot and you will see the perspective distortion flattening out in the 200mm shot. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5685.jpg A50/2.8 Macro http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5686.jpg V125/2.5 Macro http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp5688.jpg A*200/4 Macro (w/mirror pre-fire) The easiest way to compare the images is to DL them and use an image browser with sync capabilities like ThumbsPlus, then you can pan around in the images synchronously. Looking at these images again I wish I also had a 28mm (or wider) macro lens for use in instances where working distance isn't critical. I'll leave these images on line for a couple of days. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, > > William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > > > there is absolutely nothing wrong with > >the lens design. > > > > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something > "wrong" with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. > The optical designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly > every parameter and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros > have "absolutely nothing wrong" with them is going a little > to far IMHO. Adding all those extra elements to achieve > wider focus range is going to improve some parameters most notably > infinity performance at wider apertures but at the same time degrade > others > like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the > designers > and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to the customer > or they would not have done it. Allow me to rephrase that then. Based on my single A100mm f/2.8 lens sample, I have found nothing to complain about regarding the lens design in question. It is as sharp a lens as I have seen (I have seen a lot of very good lenses BTW), has excellent contrast, and flare has never been a problem. For me, there is nothing wrong with the lens design, since I have yet to find a better performing lens in it's focal length and focusing range. Happy now? William Robb
50mm lenses. ....Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update)
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program (update) > Well, when I actually TESTED my 50s I found that the M 50/2 is a really > good performer, plus it's cheap and very small. None of the above can > be said for A 50/1.2 from what I've heard (I sold mine a while back, > before I had a chance to test it.) The A 50mm f/1.2 is pretty soft wide open (though much better than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 that I replaced with the Pentax lens), and is only ok until about f/8, at which point it is very good indeed. > > So, while you might pick up a faster Pentax 50 which is a LITTLE better > (I'd suggest A/1.4 or A/1.7--at least the M50/1.4 is an older design and > reputedly not as good) I don't think you'll be disappointed by the A 50/2 > (assuming it is the same as M50/2) and I'd recommend putting money towards > a better telephoto or wider wide if you find the need for that. All the Pentax 50mm lenses in the f/1.4 to f/2 range are good lenses (perhaps the K55mm f/1.8 is the exception, it isn't all that wonderful until well stopped down). Of all the ones I have, I think the K 50mm f/1.4 is the "sharpest", the M 50mm f/1.4 is the "creamiest" (for lack of a better term), the FA 50mm f/1.4 seems most excellent, but I haven't shot a lot with it yet, and the 1.7s and f/2s in whatever series all seem very good as well. I don't have many samples of each, but I have almost a dozen 50mm lenses in various places around the house, so I have been able to test (as much as I test anything) more than one sample of most emulations. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Anders Hultman" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > William Robb: > > >Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the > >original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a > >bellows. > >For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more > >magnification than the 100 at any given extension. > > You mean if I both use the built-in macro capabilities *and* a bellows too? Yes. > > Mostly, 1:1 is what I want, actually, or else many things I shoot > won't fit in the frame anymore, but it's good to have the option to > magnify more. With my current setup I can go to slightly less than > 3:1. If you want bigger than 1;1 you should be reversing the lens anyway. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
Proof that even God has bad days. John On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:18:29 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/8/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, offered: If you need the AOV of a 50mm, the 100mm is absolutely useless. If you need the working distance of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. This is why God invented zooms :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Perseids this Week
On 10/8/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: >Just a reminder that the Perseid Meteor shower peaks this week on the >11th/12th. There will be little moon interference...so if you've got clear >skies... > > >Tom C. Depends on how much I've had to drink. Not unknown for a bare butt or two to hang out an upstairs window round these parts... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: SMC-D-FA 100/2.8
Yes, that looks correct to me. On Tuesday 10 August 2004 23:56, Doug Franklin wrote: FJW> Hi Frits, FJW> FJW> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:17:03 +0200, Frits Wthrich wrote: FJW> FJW> > TTL exposure measuring with open aperture FJW> FJW> > FJW> > TTL Offenblendenmessung FJW> FJW> So, approximately: FJW> FJW> messung == (exposure) metering FJW> blenden == aperture FJW> offen == open FJW> ? FJW> FJW> FJW> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: HOPP:Minolta Girl - she nearly broke a Pentax users heart
On 10/8/04, Cesar Matamoros II, discombobulated, offered: >Starting to scan some very old photo prints and negatives, I have >rediscovered one shoot of "Minolta Girl". >I think it was Frank and Ceasar(who really knows the original one) and Cotty >as well mentioning this mysterious women from time to time and after GFM. > >She emigrated to the islands of Gran Canaria and this photo was made on one >of the very rare occasions when she was photographing on a walk at lake >Zurich in 1983. I carried the Pentax ME Super and had miore than one eye on >her :-) Fame at last. I am mysteriously linked to Minolta Girl who sounds sensuous and intriguing. I have not one clue how this could be but am enjoying it immensely. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On 10/8/04, J. C. O'Connell, discombobulated, offered: >If you need the AOV of a 50mm, >the 100mm is absolutely useless. > >If you need the working distance >of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. This is why God invented zooms :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: PAW: More Flowers...
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Alan Chan wrote: Would be nice if the lower right corner could be avoid, and a little colour adjustment in Photoshop. :-) I tried cropping out the yellow in the middle top and the white in the bottom corner, but i preferred this to the thinner image. I;ve had a bit more of a play, and come up with this: http://www.cowfish.org.uk/paw/flowers2.html which i think i like, although the yellow is still distracting. as for colour adjustment - in what way would you adjust them? My monitor claims to be calibrated, but isn't very good (i'm the process of trying to convince a friend of mine that he wants to buy an lcd and sell me is 21" nice sony :), but the colours look the same as on my print here. I'll have a look at my slightly better screen at work tomorrow. thanks billy -- "If you work in the Leicester Square MacDonalds, you can look out of the window and watch the parking meters earn more money per hour than you" Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk
Re: SMC-D-FA 100/2.8
Hi Frits, On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:17:03 +0200, Frits Wthrich wrote: > TTL exposure measuring with open aperture > FJW> > TTL Offenblendenmessung So, approximately: messung == (exposure) metering blenden == aperture offen == open ? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: SPLOSdb price updates to 2004-06-30
Thanks Jim! I've made a lot of use of the database lately. Appreciate your efforts a lot. Don > -Original Message- > From: Jim Colwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:39 PM > To: pdml > Subject: SPLOSdb price updates to 2004-06-30 > > > The SMC Pentax Lenses and Other Stuff database (SPLOSdb) has > updated prices > for many (not all) lenses, as of 2004-06-30. A few more lenses have been > added in the Big4 and otherLenses categories. Lens rarity and > availability > data have not been updated (I just don't have the time). The > site pages are > pretty much identical, except for a new link with the title > "Database Price > Updates". The major documentation and .csv files have not been updated. > > Jim > www.jcolwell.ca > > >
RE: PAW: More Flowers...
Would be nice if the lower right corner could be avoid, and a little colour adjustment in Photoshop. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I don't take many pictures of flowers (mainly as they never seem to turn out well, but am still playing with this whole nature photography thing), but these aren't real, so they don't count :) http://cowfish.org.uk/paw/flowers.html comments always welcome billy _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
PAW: More Flowers...
I don't take many pictures of flowers (mainly as they never seem to turn out well, but am still playing with this whole nature photography thing), but these aren't real, so they don't count :) http://cowfish.org.uk/paw/flowers.html comments always welcome billy -- The great thing about Tarantino is, of course, his chin. He's like an evil moon. Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk
Re: Aaron Reynolds
Heck, that's nothing. I hand hold my 600mm on Bulb! Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Aaron Reynolds > I do to Bill .I 'm still good for 1/60 anyway.lol > > Dave > > > For those curious souls, I am in contact with the > man himself from > > time to time. > > Life is still good, the store goes on. > > He is still shooting with the 6x7, and sneers at all things digital. > > Oh yes, he specifically wanted me to mention that it is still hand > > holdable at 1/30th. with no voodoo or trickery involved. > > > > He and his lovely wife are expecting their first born to arrive > > sometime later this year. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > >
SPLOSdb price updates to 2004-06-30
The SMC Pentax Lenses and Other Stuff database (SPLOSdb) has updated prices for many (not all) lenses, as of 2004-06-30. A few more lenses have been added in the Big4 and otherLenses categories. Lens rarity and availability data have not been updated (I just don't have the time). The site pages are pretty much identical, except for a new link with the title "Database Price Updates". The major documentation and .csv files have not been updated. Jim www.jcolwell.ca
RE: Super Program counter
Of course. It is a common design on many Pentax cameras. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Actually I'm thinking of the much smaller one that works the little anti-reverse pawl associated with the reset lever. The reset lever is de-actuated by the tab on the film door. I'll get one apart and see if I can get a pic. I believe the one you pictured is used to reset the counter to 0. Here is the spring I'm referring to, but this is on an ME Super, the SP may be different: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/spring.jpg it's the one the pencil point is laying on. Don _ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: Super Program counter
Actually I'm thinking of the much smaller one that works the little anti-reverse pawl associated with the reset lever. The reset lever is de-actuated by the tab on the film door. I'll get one apart and see if I can get a pic. I believe the one you pictured is used to reset the counter to 0. Here is the spring I'm referring to, but this is on an ME Super, the SP may be different: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/spring.jpg it's the one the pencil point is laying on. Don > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Super Program counter > > > >I have one of these I need to take apart this weekend to glue the > >"illuminator window" back in, perhaps I can take some pics of the spring. > > Could it be this one? > http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/spring.jpg > > >Alan Chan (I think it's Alan) may have some other thoughts, sounds like > >he's > >worked on more Pentax's than I have. > > Unfortunately I have not come accross any faulty Super Program so I have > never repaired that part of the camera. Counter spring (pic above) is the > only thing come to mind. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the > Internet has > to offer. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1 > 034&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: Super Program counter
Actually I'm thinking of the much smaller one that works the little anti-reverse pawl associated with the reset lever. The reset lever is de-actuated by the tab on the film door. I'll get one apart and see if I can get a pic. I believe the one you pictured is used to reset the counter to 0. Here is the spring I'm referring to, but this is on an ME Super, the SP may be different: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/spring.jpg it's the one the pencil point is laying on. Don > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Super Program counter > > > >I have one of these I need to take apart this weekend to glue the > >"illuminator window" back in, perhaps I can take some pics of the spring. > > Could it be this one? > http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/spring.jpg > > >Alan Chan (I think it's Alan) may have some other thoughts, sounds like > >he's > >worked on more Pentax's than I have. > > Unfortunately I have not come accross any faulty Super Program so I have > never repaired that part of the camera. Counter spring (pic above) is the > only thing come to mind. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the > Internet has > to offer. > http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1 > 034&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: FWIW
I don't think it's comparing apples to apples, though. If you attempt to work out the cost per wafer (multiply the given unit cost by the number of working units) you end up with a figure around $2745 for the three larger sizes, where the wafer fab is the most expensive step. On the three smaller sizes, though, the total cost is much higher ($11750, $13700, and $18650 respectively), so the final price is obviously constrained by something other than the wafer fabrication step. So the quoted figures are comparing figures derived from one cost estimate (for the larger chips) to figures based on a different estimate for a different step in the process. That said, however, the overall qualitative conclusion (that costs rise prohibitively as the chip size increases) is correct. Changing the costs of the other processes may shift the per-unit cost a handful of dollars either way. This is significant when you're talking about a $8.19 part, but doesn't make much difference on a $2745 item. > Seen on the Pentax group on dpreview. > > Joe > > - > > I thought I'd do the maths. Well, I borrowed the company cost model for estimating > silicon chip cost, and got it to do the math. > > Some things to understand - this isn't REAL: the cost model is not up to date with > all the latest information and anyway it relates to a particular silicon fabrication > plant which certainly isn't suitable for making CCD imagers (though it might at a > push make CMOS ones). Also, I had to lie to the model - tell it that the chip had > repairable structures - since it has no way of accepting chips that aren't perfect: > in a conventional IC, if one thing is broken, that's it: in an image sensor, if one > or even five pixels are broken, then provided they're not badly broken - sell it! I > hope that saying things are repairable gets it over the hump (anyway, without this > the larger imagers do not yield at all...) but it may be wrong in magnitude. > > And I couldn't derive values for process improvements. If you make the same silicon > chip over a number of years, then you get better at doing it - the defectivity > number falls. For the big chips, I couldn't do this since I needed the best > defectivity at the beginning - this represents the state of the art after 2-3 years > of production. > > Anyway, the overall shape of the numbers is convincing and some of the modelling is > just pure maths like the number of possible die per wafer. I used 12" wafers, since > again the largest sensors simply didn't yield well enough - thus, this modelling > already assumes that larger sensors will move to more modern fab lines. (On 8" or > smaller wafers, then all costs will rise...) > > 1/2.7" - 5.27x3.96mm - 2910 raw die per wafer, 2277 working die per wafer (78.3% > yield) - cost: $8.19 > > 1/1.8" - 7.18x5.32mm - 1593 raw die per wafer, 1036 working die per wafer (65.1% > yield) - cost: $13.23 > > 2/3" - 8.8x6.6mm - 1045 raw die per wafer, 551 working die per wafer (52.8% yield) - > cost $21.32 > > APS C - 23.7x15.6mm - 61 raw die per wafer, 9 working die per wafer (15.6% yield) - > cost $309 > > 1.3x crop - 27x18mm - 42 raw die per wafer, 3 working die per wafer (8.1% yield) - > cost $920 > > FF - 36x24mm - 23 raw die per wafer, 2 working die per wafer (11.6% yield) - cost > $1373 > > If that doesn't look bad enough, I had to reduce the defectivity by a factor of 2 > for the Full Frame sensor: otherwise, the model only gave a yield of 1.8% (i.e. no > working die per wafer on average). I was sort of happy to do this on the assumption > that it translates into many more pixels that don't work on an FF sensor than on the > others. Clearly, one might say even more dead pixels are acceptable and ask for > further modelling with changed defectivity assumptions, but remember that this > number doesn't only relate to dead pixels - the electronics of the sensor has to > work, too: if there's a fault that takes out a whole row or column, then the sensor > is probably useless. This is actually a pretty rosy view of the cost of an FF sensor > - if I'd only reduced the defectivity by 1.5, then the cost is $2745 (yield falls to > 6.1%). And the whole notion of repair (which is assumed in this model) is a bit > bogus - you can't fix a dead pixel like you can a dead RAM cell by swapping in n e! > w lines... > > Of course, a sensor manufacturer may end up with very different numbers - there's > packaging and test which might be very different from my assumptions for example, > and someone has to weld the anti-alias filter on. (packaging and test raise the cost > of the smaller die quite a bit...) This is cost, too - if you want to do research > and development, that's more money. > > I guess I'm not holding my breath for a Full Frame camera to be affordable. Even a > 1.3x crop factor looks quite expensive! > > Hope this is helpful. And again, I repeat the caveat - this is only a
RE: Super Program counter
Quite possible those were serviced because the rubber cap should be glued onto the plastic lever first, let dried, then assembled to the camera. It's not your fault though!! I have found many used Pentax cameras were ruined simply because some technicans used their own way to fix them. The most common is the missing/mixing washers (they actually have at least 4 different thickness, could be even more) between the body & front lens assembly. This shortens the lens to film plane distance, and renders the wide angle distance scale useless. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Well I'll be darned. I just tried that on the Super A and the plastic came right off! This is the FIRST one that somebody hadn't put so much glue on that you could do that. Every other one I've had the rubber was VERY firmly glued to the brass nut! Thanks Alan! Don _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Aaron Reynolds
I do to Bill .I 'm still good for 1/60 anyway.lol Dave > For those curious souls, I am in contact with the man himself from > time to time. > Life is still good, the store goes on. > He is still shooting with the 6x7, and sneers at all things digital. > Oh yes, he specifically wanted me to mention that it is still hand > holdable at 1/30th. with no voodoo or trickery involved. > > He and his lovely wife are expecting their first born to arrive > sometime later this year. > > > William Robb > >
RE: Super Program counter
Well I'll be darned. I just tried that on the Super A and the plastic came right off! This is the FIRST one that somebody hadn't put so much glue on that you could do that. Every other one I've had the rubber was VERY firmly glued to the brass nut! Thanks Alan! Don > -Original Message- > From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Super Program counter > > > >In my experience the most common problem is a tiny spring that > comes loose > >inside. > > Or the film counter spring simply broke. > > >The hardest part is removing the rubber cap on the advance lever without > >damaging it, it's glued on.This cap has to come off to remove the top > >cover. > > Actually you don't need to remove the rubber cap when trying to > remove the > plastic lever. Just push it a little forward will do. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > _ > Don't just Search. Find! > http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new > MSN Search! Check it out! >
Re: Super Program counter
Thus spake William Robb: > Something I discovered: If you unscrew the bulb a couple of turns > then it doesn't come on at all, and then I don't have to be curious > about whether it shuts off. I can sell you a special bulb that works this way even if it is screwed all the way into the socket. I've got one like that in my fridge right now, as a matter of fact. > Of course, I could be reversing the operation, and now it does come > on when the door is shut. > I hate appliances. > WW Anyone remember the old Infocom games? In one of the later games there was a refrigerator in a grue's house. The light, of course, went out when you opened the refrigerator door.
RE: Super Program counter
I have one of these I need to take apart this weekend to glue the "illuminator window" back in, perhaps I can take some pics of the spring. Could it be this one? http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/spring.jpg Alan Chan (I think it's Alan) may have some other thoughts, sounds like he's worked on more Pentax's than I have. Unfortunately I have not come accross any faulty Super Program so I have never repaired that part of the camera. Counter spring (pic above) is the only thing come to mind. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Regarding the pseudo-zoom Macros, William Robb wrote ( edited ) : > there is absolutely nothing wrong with >the lens design. > I am sorry but that couldn't be more wrong. There is something "wrong" with every lens ever made, none of them are perfect. The optical designers have to make lots of compromises in nearly every parameter and to say that the pseudo-zoom macros have "absolutely nothing wrong" with them is going a little to far IMHO. Adding all those extra elements to achieve wider focus range is going to improve some parameters most notably infinity performance at wider apertures but at the same time degrade others like contrast and flare and quality control. It is a choice the designers and marketing dept felt was worthwhile or more valuable to the customer or they would not have done it. JCO
RE: Super Program counter
In my experience the most common problem is a tiny spring that comes loose inside. Or the film counter spring simply broke. The hardest part is removing the rubber cap on the advance lever without damaging it, it's glued on.This cap has to come off to remove the top cover. Actually you don't need to remove the rubber cap when trying to remove the plastic lever. Just push it a little forward will do. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
Re: PESO Two non-HCB style pics
Hmmm... I went to your folder, looked at the thumbnails, and the first two pics I clicked were ABBAlanche and Helly. Then, after looking again at the thumbs, I clicked on Seated @ 1/4. So now you know what attracts a caveman. cheers !
Re: Super Program counter
- Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: Super Program counter > Thanks Kenneth, I'll give it a try. Something I discovered: If you unscrew the bulb a couple of turns then it doesn't come on at all, and then I don't have to be curious about whether it shuts off. Of course, I could be reversing the operation, and now it does come on when the door is shut. I hate appliances. WW William Robb > > Kenneth Waller wrote: > > >Prop a match book between the door and fridge - that should keep the light on. > > >
Re: Super Program counter
- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" Subject: Re: Super Program counter > I'd check but I think your's will exhibit the same behavior. I was hoping the new one would work better. WW
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "John C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? > Make the comparisons and get back to me. My SMC Takumar bellows 100 doesn't see much use since I bought the 100 macro. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > > > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > > are incredibly good lenses. > > I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the > > A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens > > performance throughout the focal range. > > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > > lens design. > > You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL What was I thinking? William Robb
Re: FWIW
Very, very interesting! I had little feel for most of this. Yes, I know most of the processes, and terminology, but how many per wafer and the yield therefrom — well, I just had no idea. thanks for forwarding it... keith whaley jtainter wrote: Seen on the Pentax group on dpreview. Joe - I thought I'd do the maths. Well, I borrowed the company cost model for estimating silicon chip cost, and got it to do the math. Some things to understand - this isn't REAL: the cost model is not up to date with all the latest information and anyway it relates to a particular silicon fabrication plant which certainly isn't suitable for making CCD imagers (though it might at a push make CMOS ones). Also, I had to lie to the model - tell it that the chip had repairable structures - since it has no way of accepting chips that aren't perfect: in a conventional IC, if one thing is broken, that's it: in an image sensor, if one or even five pixels are broken, then provided they're not badly broken - sell it! I hope that saying things are repairable gets it over the hump (anyway, without this the larger imagers do not yield at all...) but it may be wrong in magnitude. And I couldn't derive values for process improvements. If you make the same silicon chip over a number of years, then you get better at doing it - the defectivity number falls. For the big chips, I couldn't do this since I needed the best defectivity at the beginning - this represents the state of the art after 2-3 years of production. Anyway, the overall shape of the numbers is convincing and some of the modelling is just pure maths like the number of possible die per wafer. I used 12" wafers, since again the largest sensors simply didn't yield well enough - thus, this modelling already assumes that larger sensors will move to more modern fab lines. (On 8" or smaller wafers, then all costs will rise...) 1/2.7" - 5.27x3.96mm - 2910 raw die per wafer, 2277 working die per wafer (78.3% yield) - cost: $8.19 1/1.8" - 7.18x5.32mm - 1593 raw die per wafer, 1036 working die per wafer (65.1% yield) - cost: $13.23 2/3" - 8.8x6.6mm - 1045 raw die per wafer, 551 working die per wafer (52.8% yield) - cost $21.32 APS C - 23.7x15.6mm - 61 raw die per wafer, 9 working die per wafer (15.6% yield) - cost $309 1.3x crop - 27x18mm - 42 raw die per wafer, 3 working die per wafer (8.1% yield) - cost $920 FF - 36x24mm - 23 raw die per wafer, 2 working die per wafer (11.6% yield) - cost $1373 If that doesn't look bad enough, I had to reduce the defectivity by a factor of 2 for the Full Frame sensor: otherwise, the model only gave a yield of 1.8% (i.e. no working die per wafer on average). I was sort of happy to do this on the assumption that it translates into many more pixels that don't work on an FF sensor than on the others. Clearly, one might say even more dead pixels are acceptable and ask for further modelling with changed defectivity assumptions, but remember that this number doesn't only relate to dead pixels - the electronics of the sensor has to work, too: if there's a fault that takes out a whole row or column, then the sensor is probably useless. This is actually a pretty rosy view of the cost of an FF sensor - if I'd only reduced the defectivity by 1.5, then the cost is $2745 (yield falls to 6.1%). And the whole notion of repair (which is assumed in this model) is a bit bogus - you can't fix a dead pixel like you can a dead RAM cell by swapping in n e! w lines... Of course, a sensor manufacturer may end up with very different numbers - there's packaging and test which might be very different from my assumptions for example, and someone has to weld the anti-alias filter on. (packaging and test raise the cost of the smaller die quite a bit...) This is cost, too - if you want to do research and development, that's more money. I guess I'm not holding my breath for a Full Frame camera to be affordable. Even a 1.3x crop factor looks quite expensive! Hope this is helpful. And again, I repeat the caveat - this is only a model: all the numbers are wrong, really! --Sophie
FS
My apologies for being pre-Friday. #1 SMC Pentax-M 75-150 A good performer. There are better, but not likely many at this price. VGC, in a hard case. $60 #2 quartz photoflood with barn doors. GC, Pics on request. $40 #3 SMC Pentax 30/2.8 Excellent condition. $210 Why? Because the A35/2 is just as sharp, similar in coverage, lighter weight, & 49mm filter size. The K30/2.8 just doesn't have the "A" setting. + shpg. PayPal preferred. Collin ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
FWIW
Seen on the Pentax group on dpreview. Joe - I thought I'd do the maths. Well, I borrowed the company cost model for estimating silicon chip cost, and got it to do the math. Some things to understand - this isn't REAL: the cost model is not up to date with all the latest information and anyway it relates to a particular silicon fabrication plant which certainly isn't suitable for making CCD imagers (though it might at a push make CMOS ones). Also, I had to lie to the model - tell it that the chip had repairable structures - since it has no way of accepting chips that aren't perfect: in a conventional IC, if one thing is broken, that's it: in an image sensor, if one or even five pixels are broken, then provided they're not badly broken - sell it! I hope that saying things are repairable gets it over the hump (anyway, without this the larger imagers do not yield at all...) but it may be wrong in magnitude. And I couldn't derive values for process improvements. If you make the same silicon chip over a number of years, then you get better at doing it - the defectivity number falls. For the big chips, I couldn't do this since I needed the best defectivity at the beginning - this represents the state of the art after 2-3 years of production. Anyway, the overall shape of the numbers is convincing and some of the modelling is just pure maths like the number of possible die per wafer. I used 12" wafers, since again the largest sensors simply didn't yield well enough - thus, this modelling already assumes that larger sensors will move to more modern fab lines. (On 8" or smaller wafers, then all costs will rise...) 1/2.7" - 5.27x3.96mm - 2910 raw die per wafer, 2277 working die per wafer (78.3% yield) - cost: $8.19 1/1.8" - 7.18x5.32mm - 1593 raw die per wafer, 1036 working die per wafer (65.1% yield) - cost: $13.23 2/3" - 8.8x6.6mm - 1045 raw die per wafer, 551 working die per wafer (52.8% yield) - cost $21.32 APS C - 23.7x15.6mm - 61 raw die per wafer, 9 working die per wafer (15.6% yield) - cost $309 1.3x crop - 27x18mm - 42 raw die per wafer, 3 working die per wafer (8.1% yield) - cost $920 FF - 36x24mm - 23 raw die per wafer, 2 working die per wafer (11.6% yield) - cost $1373 If that doesn't look bad enough, I had to reduce the defectivity by a factor of 2 for the Full Frame sensor: otherwise, the model only gave a yield of 1.8% (i.e. no working die per wafer on average). I was sort of happy to do this on the assumption that it translates into many more pixels that don't work on an FF sensor than on the others. Clearly, one might say even more dead pixels are acceptable and ask for further modelling with changed defectivity assumptions, but remember that this number doesn't only relate to dead pixels - the electronics of the sensor has to work, too: if there's a fault that takes out a whole row or column, then the sensor is probably useless. This is actually a pretty rosy view of the cost of an FF sensor - if I'd only reduced the defectivity by 1.5, then the cost is $2745 (yield falls to 6.1%). And the whole notion of repair (which is assumed in this model) is a bit bogus - you can't fix a dead pixel like you can a dead RAM cell by swapping in ne! w lines... Of course, a sensor manufacturer may end up with very different numbers - there's packaging and test which might be very different from my assumptions for example, and someone has to weld the anti-alias filter on. (packaging and test raise the cost of the smaller die quite a bit...) This is cost, too - if you want to do research and development, that's more money. I guess I'm not holding my breath for a Full Frame camera to be affordable. Even a 1.3x crop factor looks quite expensive! Hope this is helpful. And again, I repeat the caveat - this is only a model: all the numbers are wrong, really! --Sophie
Re: Cropping exercise
Troublemaker. In this case, however, I happen to agree. I like it as is. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Super Program counter
> > On 10 Aug 2004 at 0:20, John Francis wrote: > > > Real easy - just put film in the camera. > > > > (Seriously - that's all you need to do. The frame > > counter only advances when there's film in the camera). > > This is not the case John, I've experienced the same problem on at least two > SuperA/Super Program bodies, I even cited it as one of their common failings a > few months back. The local Pentax distributors will not repair cameras > exhibiting this problem any longer. I stand corrected. I could have sworn that the frame counter was driven by a passive film roller, but apparently that's not the case; that only drives the funny little red/black wobble window display.
Derby's Tulips
Thanks for the lovely post card, Derby Chang. For those who allr3eady forgot: Sometime ago someone on this list - perhaps Derby - said: I don't know what to photograph - any ideas, please? I suggested that he could buy some flowers, photograph them and then give the flowers to someone close to him. Later he could send "postcards" of the flowers to someone further away. Denby answered, that he thought that was a great idea. Today I received a very lovely post card - a very nice photograph of a tulip from Australia. Thanks a lot. It's very lovely, and very artisticly done. BTW: Derby has some very nice tulip shots on his website as well: http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc http://derby.agreatserver.com/ (galleries) http://derby.150m.com/ (blog) All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. august 2004 17:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Toronto bound annsan Great, Frank - will be there in a couple of weeks Await your off list details - See ya soon - and hope to get to meet some more of you Toranoh guys too annsan frank theriault wrote: > > --- Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, Ann, > > Yeah, stay a night or three if you want. No problems > - in fact I'd love to have ya. > > I'll send ya my phone # off list, so you can either > call or e-mail when your plans are firm. > > If you can't stay here, we'll still have to get > together so's I can show you what we Torontonians do > for fun.A TOPDML thang would be great, too! > > cheers, > frank > > = > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Perseids this Week
Tom C wrote: Just a reminder that the Perseid Meteor shower peaks this week on the 11th/12th. There will be little moon interference...so if you've got clear skies... At the moment, it is persisting down as if water was going out of fashion. Looks like it will be doing so for at least another 24hours. It did this the last time there was a serious Aurora outbreak, too. mike
RE: 50 or 100 mm
the magnification spec is so you can compare the closeup capabilities of lenses of different makes and models and focal lengths directly. The magnification scale on the lenses also allows you to calculate the exact exposure compensation needed with manual exposure settings. those are both "real good reasons" to know the magnification/reproduction ratios. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension tube. Just my two cents Vic
Re: 50 or 100 mm
I never could understand this 1:1, 3:1, 4:1 talk. Unless you are doing scientific work or have a real good reason to know your magnification, who cares. It's all about the image you're seeing through the viewfinder. If you're close enough to get the image you want, it's all you need I think some of us worry too much about the specifications of a lens rather than ask the questions: does it do what I need it to do to get the images I want. I have a 100mm macro that gives me 1:1. Do I use 1:1 very often? No. I have another 100mm macro that gives me 1:2. It's half the size, half the weight and performs beautifully 99 per cent of the time. If I need to get closer I'll stick on an extension tube. Just my two cents Vic
Re: SMC-D-FA 100/2.8
TTL exposure measuring with open aperture On Monday 09 August 2004 23:55, Doug Franklin wrote: FJW> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:16:52 +0200, Martin Trautmann wrote: FJW> FJW> > TTL Offenblendenmessung FJW> FJW> Bedeutet das "Matrix Metering"? FJW> FJW> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: 50 or 100 mm
If you are going to use a bellows, the 50 is more useable. If you want a straight macro to use without bellows, the 100 mm gives you more distance which is very valuable for all sorts of reasons, including room to use reflectors, flashes etc. With a 50mm you're in so close that the shadow from either you looking into the camera or the camera itself can cause problems... Vic
Re: Super Program counter
Prop a match book between the door and fridge - that should keep the light on. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Super Program counter I had a similar problem, I just found out when I close my refrigerator door, the light goes out. Any way to fix this? Norm Richard Chu wrote: >Hi, I just got a used Super Program. With the back >closed and no film, I took a few shots and wind the >camera. The film counter did not advance. As a >result, the shutter stays at 1/1000 second. I know >the shutter stays at 1/1000 second until the counter >reaches 1. Is it easy to fix the film counter >problem? Please advise. Thanks. > > PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PESO Two non-HCB style pics
Very nice... thanks, keith Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Aug 2004 at 3:32, Keith Whaley wrote: What's the bike, Rob? What year? Ducati 996 (featured in The Matrix Reloaded) 2001 I think? http://www.bikez.com/bike/index.php?bike=4174 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: 50 or 100 mm
William Robb: Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a bellows. For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more magnification than the 100 at any given extension. You mean if I both use the built-in macro capabilities *and* a bellows too? Mostly, 1:1 is what I want, actually, or else many things I shoot won't fit in the frame anymore, but it's good to have the option to magnify more. With my current setup I can go to slightly less than 3:1. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: Super Program counter
I'd check but I think your's will exhibit the same behavior. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: Super Program counter I had a similar problem, I just found out when I close my refrigerator door, the light goes out. Any way to fix this? We just bought a new fridge. William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
J. C. O'Connell: I think the question was 50 or 100mm. Go go the 100 if you can afford it the working distance for the same results makes all the difference in the world... Vic It will not give the same results as the 50mm, it is a 100mm after all now isnt it? Once you get near 1:1 the 100mm has same AOV of a 200mm at infinity which is very narrow to say the least compared to a "normal" lens. Bottom line is they are very different lenses so the 100mm is not better than a 50mm, just different. Ok, the reason I asked was to learn more before I eventually buy one of the two new Pentax lenses. I still really haven't fathomed what the practical difference would be between the two. If you look at some macro shots I've done with a regular 50 mm lens and a bellows, could you say in which way these pictures would be different if I had used either of the two new lenses instead? http://anders.hultman.nu/album/al/makro This is flowers, berries, insects and ticks at approx 1:1 magnification, and a distance from front lens to subject of about 75 mm. The first six pictures are taken last year with an ME, the last eight are taken with the *istD. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: 50 or 100 mm
Hi Rob, since I am a macro fan, I have indeed a lot of macros. I plan for long a test of them but don't find the time. The oldest one I own is the SMC-M 4/100mm macro. Is this old enough? Best regards, Hans. --- "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:54, John C. O'Connell wrote: > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? We've engaged in this debate a few times here but I've never seen any proof of the claims. Lens design has come a long way in 30 years, surely they have made some headway in performance? Unfortunately I don't have any old lenses and I suspect you don't have any new ones, so does anyone have both and are willing to execute some rudimentary tests? 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 _ 23a mail
Re: Super Program counter
That is a feature, Norm. Especially if you have some chicken in the fridge. Everybody knows how chickens get all excited in the light and quiet right down in the dark. By turning off the light when you close the door it keeps any chicken in there from disturbing the other leftovers. -- Norm Baugher wrote: I had a similar problem, I just found out when I close my refrigerator door, the light goes out. Any way to fix this? Norm -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: PESO: Old Man Tree
Very nice, Bruce. I rotated it 1.5 degrees CCW, looks like 1.25 would have been about right. You going to put this in your office along with your many other excellent images? I particularly like your shots of GFM that I saw here. http://www.solutns.com/jpeg/bkd_0280_stdb.jpg Thanks for posting. John Power Racehorse in the desert -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: Old Man Tree After dropping my daughter off at a music camp up in the mountains last week, I took a stroll around a river and meadow. This caught my eye. www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0280.htm *IstD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld ISO 200, manual focus Your reaction and thoughts are welcomed. Thanks, Bruce
Re: Counterfeiting in China
Yeah, Chinon actually made the later, series-3 'Made in China' K1000s with the plastic body, until they were discontinued in '97. That's actually pretty interesting. Too bad I can't find any kind of manufacturer website for them to look at all their models and see which exact model is made on the old K1000 tooling. The CM-5 and the "DSL" both seem pretty close. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:51:07 +1000, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you'll find that the Chinon (who by the way, are a reputable company > who made some fine cameras at least as far back as the 1960's) version of > the K1000 was licensed production from Pentax. Happened when Pentax wanted > to tool up for the later 1970's cameras, but could not let go of the demand > for the K1000, which was, and sometimes still is, highly recommended for > students of photography who are just starting. > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrew Bingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 1:24 PM > Subject: Re: Counterfeiting in China > > > Well, I've seen at least on Chinese brand (Chinon?) that makes what > > looks a heck of a lot like a K1000, almost exactly in fact. > > > > On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 23:17:00 -0400, Peter J. Alling > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The mainstream media is at least 2 years, and closer to 5 behind the > times. > > > > > > > > > > > > Norm Baugher wrote: > > > > > > > 60 Minutes thinks that's news? > > > > Norm > > > > > > > > Joseph Tainter wrote: > > > > > > > >> The American program "60 Minutes" this evening ran a piece on the > > > >> widespread product counterfeiting in China. Apparently, if a Chinese > > > >> manufacturing concern can get copies of your product, or better yet a > > > >> mold, knock-offs will appear in a short while. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
RE: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:56, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We are talking optical not mechanical design here arent we? > What does the mount have to do with it. You certainly don't > think that the mount has anything to do with my comments do > you? John I was yanking yer chain. Lighten up. 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: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 9:54, John C. O'Connell wrote: > I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, > it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older > designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going > to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the > extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus > range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, > saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better > at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. > Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower > prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better > if you use the prime for what it was designed for? We've engaged in this debate a few times here but I've never seen any proof of the claims. Lens design has come a long way in 30 years, surely they have made some headway in performance? Unfortunately I don't have any old lenses and I suspect you don't have any new ones, so does anyone have both and are willing to execute some rudimentary tests? 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 Two non-HCB style pics
On 10 Aug 2004 at 0:00, Kenneth Waller wrote: > Robb, > of the two, the bike holds more interest for me, looks like an advertisement for > a way of life. The garden shot would benefit from a less harsh light and maybe > some cropping (there's too much foreground for me). Hi Ken, Thanks for the comments. Neither of the images were staged as such but I'm with you on the bike shot, that's just how it appeared to me too. I did take a few different shots of the garden pond, the main reason I liked the one I posted was the strength of the reflections, the light I could do too much about and the shot as shown is not manipulated before or after the capture (at least not yet). Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
We are talking optical not mechanical design here arent we? What does the mount have to do with it. You certainly don't think that the mount has anything to do with my comments do you? -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the > day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for > superior lens performance throughout the focal range. > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > lens design. You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: 50 or 100 mm
I never said there was anything "wrong" with the design, it's just that AT THE SPECIFIC magnification the older designs were designed for, the pseudo-zooms are going to hard time matching the classic fixed designs, the extra elements needed for faster speed and wider focus range become a burden rather than help in terms of contrast, saturation, and flare reduction just like a prime is better at one focal length than a zoom at the same focal length. Except in this case you are comparing a FAST ZOOM to a Slower prime. Guess which one is almost always going to be better if you use the prime for what it was designed for? JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length varies > and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- zoom macros. I > believe the switch occurred when they went from F4 designs to F2.8 > designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens that "does" Macro is a > "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the > "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs > optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the designs > of modern high end enlarging lenses. > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens performance throughout the focal range. As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lens design. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:43, William Robb wrote: > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design > are incredibly good lenses. > I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the > A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens > performance throughout the focal range. > As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to > infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the > lens design. You are kidding? It's not screw mount. LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Super Program counter
On 10 Aug 2004 at 7:12, Don Sanderson wrote: > 2 more quick things: > I have one of these I need to take apart this weekend to glue the > "illuminator window" back in, perhaps I can take some pics of the spring. > Alan Chan (I think it's Alan) may have some other thoughts, sounds like he's > worked on more Pentax's than I have. I'd be interested to see some pics and a little procedural detail :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Super Program counter
On 10 Aug 2004 at 0:20, John Francis wrote: > Real easy - just put film in the camera. > > (Seriously - that's all you need to do. The frame > counter only advances when there's film in the camera). This is not the case John, I've experienced the same problem on at least two SuperA/Super Program bodies, I even cited it as one of their common failings a few months back. The local Pentax distributors will not repair cameras exhibiting this problem any longer. 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: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length > varies and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- > zoom macros. I believe the switch occurred when they went from > F4 designs to F2.8 designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens > that "does" Macro is a "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the > "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs > optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the > designs of modern high end enlarging lenses. > Not withstanding, the macro lenses with the fixed rear element design are incredibly good lenses. I recall reading in the literature of the day when I bought the A100mm f/2.8 macro that the design allowed for superior lens performance throughout the focal range. As the lens is excruciatingly sharp from 1:1 right through to infinity (no small feat), there is absolutely nothing wrong with the lens design. William Robb
Re: Super Program counter
- Original Message - From: "Norm Baugher" Subject: Re: Super Program counter > I had a similar problem, I just found out when I close my refrigerator > door, the light goes out. Any way to fix this? > We just bought a new fridge. William Robb
Re: 50 or 100 mm
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > Why? 50mm and 100mm do vastly different things. > > If you need the AOV of a 50mm, > the 100mm is absolutely useless. > > If you need the working distance > of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. > > Neither one is better than the other for everything > anymore than a regular non-macro 100mm lens is better > for everything than a regular non-macro 50mm lens. Through the magic of thread drift, we have lost track of one of the original poster's parameters, which was maximum magnification on a bellows. For this, the 50 will be the better choice, since it will give more magnification than the 100 at any given extension. William Robb
RE: 50 or 100 mm
FREE is psuedo-zoom. It is pretty obvious if the focal length varies and it does. Pentax has made both dedicated and pseudo- zoom macros. I believe the switch occurred when they went from F4 designs to F2.8 designs in the early 80's. Of course any lens that "does" Macro is a "real" Macro lens but when I was referring to the "classic" macro lens designs I meant the fixed focal length designs optimized for a specific closeup magnification, similar to the designs of modern high end enlarging lenses. JCO -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 50 or 100 mm > -Original Message- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > > At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 > all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance > which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the > FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the > focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at > 1:1, > > the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 > is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due > to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated > classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really > general purpose lenses. Is FREE pseudo-zoom? Are you saying that the prime Pentax macro lenses are not really macro? I rearranged Arnold's post so you can read it again. Kostas
Re: PESO Two non-HCB style pics
On 10 Aug 2004 at 3:32, Keith Whaley wrote: > What's the bike, Rob? What year? Ducati 996 (featured in The Matrix Reloaded) 2001 I think? http://www.bikez.com/bike/index.php?bike=4174 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: 50 or 100 mm
Why? 50mm and 100mm do vastly different things. If you need the AOV of a 50mm, the 100mm is absolutely useless. If you need the working distance of the 100mm, the 50mm is absolutely useless. Neither one is better than the other for everything anymore than a regular non-macro 100mm lens is better for everything than a regular non-macro 50mm lens. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm Give me a 100 any day. Just my opinion Vic
RE: 50 or 100 mm
> -Original Message- > From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm > > At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 > all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance > which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the > FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the > focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, > > the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is > near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to > the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated > classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really > general > purpose lenses. Is FREE pseudo-zoom? Are you saying that the prime Pentax macro lenses are not really macro? I rearranged Arnold's post so you can read it again. Kostas
RE: 50 or 100 mm
We've covered this before but for closeup work I prefer the dedicated classic macro designs over the pseudo-zoom types which are really general purpose lenses. I use normal (infintity optimized) lenses for landscape and dedicated macros for closeup not a single pseudo-zoom type lens that does both. Regarding "working distance", how is that defined? I always thought of it as distance from front of lens barrel to subject which Is NOT 4X focal length at 1:1. Front of lens barrel to subject is less than 2X focal length at 1:1. Film plane to subject is 4X focal length at 1:1. JCO -Original Message- From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 50 or 100 mm At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: >If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but >nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with >a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too >close. JCO > >
Re: 50 or 100 mm
At 1:1 magnification, the F/FA100/f2.8 as well as the new DFA100/f2.8 all are near 75mm lenses. You can see that from the working distance which, at 1:1, is roughly four times the focal length. For the FA/F100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 310 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 310mm/4=77,5mm. For the DFA100/f2.8, at 1:1, the working distance is 300 millimters, thus the focal length at 1:1 is near 300mm/4=75mm. The focal length of all these lenses varies due to the FREE (fixed rear element extension) design. Arnold J. C. O'Connell schrieb: If I had to go with only one macro lens it would be about a 75mm but nobody makes one! I do use 75mm/80mm macro lenses on a bellows but with a bellows the maximum focus distance is very limited and often too close. JCO
Re: Super Program counter
I had a similar problem, I just found out when I close my refrigerator door, the light goes out. Any way to fix this? Norm Richard Chu wrote: Hi, I just got a used Super Program. With the back closed and no film, I took a few shots and wind the camera. The film counter did not advance. As a result, the shutter stays at 1/1000 second. I know the shutter stays at 1/1000 second until the counter reaches 1. Is it easy to fix the film counter problem? Please advise. Thanks.
