RE: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Hi John of course you are right when it comes to the S-HMC and multicoated type of filters. They are rarely found second hand and the prices you quoted seem to be about the same here. I have never seen a S-HMC filter second hand and the yellow Pentax filter was not SMC too. I see UV or skylight HMC Hoya (Hama) filters very often second hand here. And as far as I have read B+W filters are considered to be of quite good quality, they do not mention the type of coating on the filters (51, 81B, Close-Up)) I have. -- The 58mm polarizer form Hoya I got here seems to be uncoated which would explain the low price a bit. (Nothing is written on the filter, as JCO wrote maybe it's single coated) I really like the effect of polarizers, so I use them quite often, also in the last PESO: Artbar to take out the reflections of the shop window. Whether it is useful at all to put filters on the lens (for protection etc) has been discussed before here .. ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before) I paid ca. $30 for my new 58mm Hoya circular polarizer at MediaMarkt. Uncoated? HMC? S-HMC? That makes a big difference to the price.
Books/Sites on 67II
Don't worry Pat, I thought it was really funny Thanks Cory :) While setting about selling some 35mm shots to picture libraries and waiting for some extra cash from the (I hope) sales, I would like to learn as much as possible about the 67II. Can anyone recommend useful books or sites on this camera - I know the 'brotherhood' exists as a subset of PDML and if any of you guys have work done with this camera on the web, can I have your site addresses? TIA, Pat
Re: Books/Sites on 67II
- Original Message - From: Pat Curran Subject: Books/Sites on 67II Don't worry Pat, I thought it was really funny Thanks Cory :) While setting about selling some 35mm shots to picture libraries and waiting for some extra cash from the (I hope) sales, I would like to learn as much as possible about the 67II. Can anyone recommend useful books or sites on this camera - I know the 'brotherhood' exists as a subset of PDML and if any of you guys have work done with this camera on the web, can I have your site addresses? Problem with that is the web destroys any quality difference between formats. I tried doing a comparison one day between 6x7 and 35mm, and the results on the web just didn't do justice to the huge difference in quality. I use the 6x7 extensively in the studio, but I don't find it to be as useful a landscape camera as I wish it to be. I've never used the 6x7II, though I have handled it. Nice camera. William Robb
Re: A3 prints from *istD
John Francis wrote: On Aug 28, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:09:45 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: [...] to get real picture quality, you ought to have enough information to print at 1200dpi [...] Most paper can't hold more than 200-300 dpi. Just to be pedantic... DPI (dots per inch) applies mainly to halftone processes such as inkjet printers. It refers to the minimum offset distance between two dots. Each of the two dots can be any component colour (usually C, M, Y, K). So the higher the dpi figure, the closer the dots can be printed together, and the smoother the image will look from close up. PPI (pixels per inch) describes the amount of actual information present in the image. Continuous-tone processes are an exception as the component colours are placed on top of each other, so in this case dpi and ppi can be used interchangeably as the numbers are equal anyway. Scanners and digital minilabs work this way. I think dye-sub printers are like this, too. Yep. I must admit we usually talk about DPI (not PPI) where I work... (See http://www.procaptura.com.) Marketing people love to create confusion between these concepts... which is why people tend to refer to dpi all the time as this gives the bigger numbers. As has already been pointed out, printing with wet inks (the technology basis for home inkjet printers) is limited by the paper; ink spreads and merges before it dries. Even the 200-300 dpi figure above is generous when it comes to positioning acuracy (wet paper stretches significantly). A high clay content glossy photo paper is as resistant to ink spread as most things, although plastic film will do a little better. But you also run into the problem of adjacent droplets merging together before they have had time to dry, which constrains the final figure. Mightn't that reduce the pixelation effect, i.e. produce an effect somewhat similar to pixel interpolation? The bottom line is that even the 600ppi (base figure for the HP line of 1200x4800 dpi photo printers) or the comparable 720ppi from Epson is overkill for printing multi-coloured images on everyday media. But how about real photo paper, i.e. the variant(s) used by labs and/or traditional enlargers rather than the inkjet version? (Or was that what you were referring to above?) Also, would laser printers give better results because the process (as I understand it) is a lot drier? Not to mention that 600ppi for a 13x19 image takes 1/4 GB of data. My point exactly.
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
Antonio wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that cannot support film? Where exactly where you thinking of? Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's? Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said earlier. I'm sure there are sill many places where most people can't afford any kind of camera, but that's not the same thing as not being able to support film from a technoloigal viewpiont. My point was that there might be markets that can support film, but not digital. A. William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital.
RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Hi Shel thanks, I like late replies too... :-) I enjoyed your thoughts about film processing and b/w film. greetings Markus Hi Markus, A bit late, but thought I'd jump in anyway. Until recently I used an analog Pentax Spotmeter V as well as a Zone VI
Re: Sometimes I like grain!
Herb Chong wrote: there are dozens, ranging from free to expensive. the expensive ones typically do noise reduction too as part of their set of capabilities. OK. I haven't really been paying attention. But I was referring to a specific film that was discontinued a few years ago. I had this mate who used it a lot, and mourned its loss... I've forgotten its name, though, although I seem to remember it was made by Kodak. Herb - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: Re: Sometimes I like grain! Wasn't there a film that would make your pictures look somewhat like this a few years ago? I mean, that was meant to give you a kind of painting effect?
Re: I enjoy film
Nope, on football/soccer. Alex Sarbu - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:09 AM Subject: Re: I enjoy film Hi, I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania as well. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a poor country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to support decent labs. They spend all their money on gymnasts. -- Cheers, Bob --- http://www.videomax.ro/ - Cautam cinefili pentru premiere! --- http://www.videomax.ro/ - Cautam cinefili pentru premiere!
Re: Prodigal returns
No sense of adventure, Malcolm. 8-) Malcolm Smith wrote: mike wilson wrote: As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Camping in the UK?? On the two occasions I have *endured* this, I abandoned the tent in the awful weather and slept in the car. If I ever get conned into such a thing again, I won't bother to pack the tent Malcolm
Re: Sometimes I like grain!
Grain Surgery can simulate just about any real film you want. it's one of the most expensive ones. there's more to simulating a film than just putting in the right grain, but it's one of the most important steps. Herb... - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:22 AM Subject: Re: Sometimes I like grain! OK. I haven't really been paying attention. But I was referring to a specific film that was discontinued a few years ago. I had this mate who used it a lot, and mourned its loss... I've forgotten its name, though, although I seem to remember it was made by Kodak.
Re: Books/Sites on 67II
At one time, I was determined to jump into this system, then I picked one up! :) Along the way, I picked up some links on the 67, some of which cover the 67II: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/pentax67.html t On 8/29/04 7:01, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Pat Curran Subject: Books/Sites on 67II Don't worry Pat, I thought it was really funny Thanks Cory :) While setting about selling some 35mm shots to picture libraries and waiting for some extra cash from the (I hope) sales, I would like to learn as much as possible about the 67II. Can anyone recommend useful books or sites on this camera - I know the 'brotherhood' exists as a subset of PDML and if any of you guys have work done with this camera on the web, can I have your site addresses? Problem with that is the web destroys any quality difference between formats. I tried doing a comparison one day between 6x7 and 35mm, and the results on the web just didn't do justice to the huge difference in quality. I use the 6x7 extensively in the studio, but I don't find it to be as useful a landscape camera as I wish it to be. I've never used the 6x7II, though I have handled it. Nice camera. William Robb
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
Toralf Lund wrote: Antonio wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that cannot support film? Where exactly where you thinking of? Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's? Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said earlier. I'm sure there are sill many places where most people can't afford any kind of camera, but that's not the same thing as not being able to support film from a technoloigal viewpiont. ARGHH. Where did my spelling go? Or, I guess it's the typing, really ;-( My point was that there might be markets that can support film, but not digital. A. William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital.
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
A couple of things: 1. I'm not in any great rush to move up to an 8 or 10 MP camera. 6 Mp is working fine for me, although I'll probably buy a better DSLR at some point because it seems I get the bug to buy a new camera every 5 or 6 years. And, since the *istD doesn't take a proprietary battery, it should be alright for a while. 2. Leveling effects do occur, even in electronics. Very few folks I know dump their PC's for memory of disk space reasons. The biggest reasons are software related, especially the accumulation of all that stuff on the hard drive that slows the system down. DSLRs can still get faster with better res., but after 6-8 MP I don' think extra res will be enough incentive. The industry will have to rely on the technophilia of the enthusiasts and the PS digicams actually stopping working. I do not see my daughter saying Gee I need more resolution. 4 MP is working fine for her. She could use better AF, but they'd have to convince her of that. BTW, for the record, I agree with Bill. I think that most of the countries that are currently industrializing will skip film and go straight to digital with little kiosks like they have at WallyWorld. Just like cell phones. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/27/2004 10:25:59 PM Yes, the planned obsolescence of many products is unfortunate. I had a good cell phone that I needed to get a replacement battery for. When I took it back to the store where I got it from I was told the battery was no longer available. So I had to get a new phone. My Optio 230 is very obsolete now, what with it only having 2 megapixels of resolution. However, it does the job and I have no eagerness to get a more advance model because of the cost. Jim A. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:02:33 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:08:48 -0400 - Original Message - From: Toralf Lund Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...) But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely there are still many places where digital equipment just isn't practical. In fact, this might be true for most of the world, and will be for years to come. Shouldn't that mean that there can still be a huge market for film? Or won't anyone have a camera at all, or money to buy film, in such places? We've had this discussion before. My opinion, not shared by most of the list, it seems, is that by the time a developing maket can afford to support film to the extent needed to keep it a viable commodity, it will probably be able to support digital. Since the industry as an entity wants the marketplace to switch to digital, that is where developing markets will be led. The success of digital photography has nothing to do with it's ease of use, or any quality factors. It's about an manufacturing sector that wants you to stop using film because there is no money in it for them. OTOH, there is lots of money in selling you a new digital camera every couple of years by creating obsolesence in the product you buy, and then marketing the replacement for it by telling you that last years camera is as useful as yesterdays newspaper. William Robb
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
Hi, Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that cannot support film? Where exactly where you thinking of? Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's? Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said earlier. I'm sure there are sill many places where most people can't afford any kind of camera, but that's not the same thing as not being able to support film from a technoloigal viewpiont. My point was that there might be markets that can support film, but not digital. almost half the population of the planet is either Indian or Chinese. I don't know about China, but I do know that there are a lot of film cameras (admittedly rather crappy ones) in India, and a lot of film being used there. I think it's going to take an awful lot to get all of those people to get rid of working film cameras and part with their hard-earned money to buy digital cameras and the other paraphernalia that goes with them. Wet photography is quite popular in India: http://www.web-options.com/PhotoPuri.jpg -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Prodigal returns
mike wilson wrote: No sense of adventure, Malcolm. 8-) Well, obviously my concern is for the camera equipment in such conditions (ahem, cough splutter). My eldest son was invited on a school camping trip last term; when I asked him if he wanted to go, he gave me a look of horror normally reserved for the prospect of going shopping with my wife for clothes for her and my daughter. Malcolm
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Uncoated glass surface reflects 4% of the light falling on it, single coated surface reflects 1.5% and multicoated - theoretically - 0.2%. Theoretical minimum is hard to get in practice. The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik). All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:21 PM Subject: Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before) JCOC The difference between single coated and multicoated filters JCOC is extremely slight as with only two air-glass interfaces, the JCOC single coated filters have only approx 2% loss/reflection which JCOC is going to be invisible most of the time. I would avoid the uncoated JCOC ones but I am telling you they are very rare. I beg to differ. The difference between singlecoated and multicoated filters is tremendous. Especially with light sources in the frame. Remember, it's not the reflection of the filter but the bouncing from the front element of lens into the filter and back. That's why Pentax invented the Ghostless filter back in 60s. They really work. The planar surface of the filter focuses light sources like bright bulbs perfectly back onto the film plane. I have seen many photographs where the difference between uncoated, singlecoated and MC filter shows very well, in that order of flare resistance. The uncoated are unusable, because you have a bright, in-focus secondary image of the lightbulb. Singlecoated diminish the reflection but it is still visible if there is strong contrast. MC filters or Ghostless (non-planar) filters diminish the reflection to the point of almost nothing. That's my experience, and I shoot mostly available light where contrasts are high. Good light! fra
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
Ah. The Leica experts. They first reduced film format to match it to 4x6 prints then spent a fortune to develop expensive lenses that could give you some larger prints from that format. Raimo K wrote: The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik).
Seen on dpreview
Pentax advertises -- at 2 AM. I don't know where this fellow is located. Joe -- I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: 1. How does Pentax get off ignoring Nikon as a major camera company? 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? I am a Canon person myself, but I thought these claims were both unfair (for Nikon) and unfounded. I couldn't find the commercial on their website to link to, but was anyone else seen it, and what do all of you think about that??
Subject: Changing photo market (was It's over, Ilford in trouble, digi snappers)
Earlier William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] while discussing the death of digital, mentioned the brief period in the late 80's when the popularity of compact video cameras caused a temporary dip in film processing. I think the transition to digital is causing some very interesting changes in the way people use their photos and videos. I'm not saying that the grand majority of folks will not want a stack of prints. I'm saying that the photo industry is just starting to figure out that there is a lot of money to be made if they can take advantage of these new markets. This article http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/08-15/processing_camera_sales_reports.html summarizes the results of the recent PMA statistics on the photo finishing business. The bottom line? Film processing is down about 10 percent, discount stores have picked up a larger share of the market, and the overall volume of prints made from digital still camera images increased by 71 percent.The PMA says While there is no cure for the loss... independent labs should think about developing business accounts and offering custom services. Not bad advice, but I think it misses even better opportunites. Another article in the same issue of PIR http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/08-15/digital_minilabs.html talks about finding a way to turn the mini-lab into a boutique to increase profits, similar to the way that Starbucks figured out how to charge $4.00 for a 50 cent cup of coffee. OK, maybe getting a little closer. If you go to Barnes Noble or Borders (or any relatively large bookstore) you'll find we're just starting to see a new category of books describing things to do with your photos. This is a very good thing for photography. Last Saturday I noticed there were three different titles on the subject of scrap booking with your digital images. This recognizes the fact that women take the lion's share of family photographs and make up 99.99% of the new scrap booking hobby. Even Nikon has gotten into the act with www.nikonscrapbooking.com a scrap booking site and sponsorship of a scrap booking program on the DIY television network. Microsoft Press has published an excellent book called Sharing Digital Photos - The Future of Memories by Dane M. Howard. I think it's probably the best book aimed at the consumer I have seen so far. There is an associated web site at www.futureofmemories.com Howard has an great illustration he calls The Share Map. It's in the book and on the web site http://www.futureofmemories.com/share_map.htm This map does a pretty good job a showing the relationship of all the ways a typical consumer can capture and then share digital images. It's worth a look by you grizzled old vets just to put the consumer view into perspective. Doing these things isn't as simple as it looks, and people need help. Consumers aren't going to get this kind of help at the local k-wal or big box electronics store.Helping the consumer figure out how to do things was always the niche filled by the local store. Now that it's easy and cheap to do the old familiar stuff, the local guy needs to figure out how to help consumers with the new, not so familiar stuff. My point is that having images in digital form has opened a world of ways to share photos that were never available to the typical family photographer in the past, and if the typical photo shop is going to survive, they had better figure out how to help the consumer take advantage of all of these different ways to share, and figure out how to make a profit on each. See you later, gs -- George Sinos e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://georgesoptions.net Photos: http://georgesphotos.net --
RE: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II?
I think what it really boils down to is whether or not you like the waist level finder of the Rollei and whether or not you like the square format. If you prefer the prism finder of the Pentax then this is the better choice because the Rollei with the prism makes a even heavier and larger combination (and you inevitably need the grip then). If however you fall in love with the square format... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 28. August 2004 18:50 An: Pentax Disc Betreff: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II? I'm going to post this same question on the rollei list, responses should be interesting. I'm in pretty deep with Pentax 35mm equipment. First, I do have a question about the 645N vs 645 NII. Does the N have the program shift like the NII? And does the NII program shift work like the MZ-S program shift favoring speed vs aperture? I can't really tell from the manual I downloaded I've always wanted a Rollei MF camera. Saw a 6003 w/ 80mm f2.8 on ebay and at a decent price, so I bought it. (it's got metering and almost all features of 6008 but without the full film magazine and w/o dark slide, but I can live with that). I knew going into it, new lenses are not cheap, but had seen reasonable prices on a few used. But did not realize the availablity of reasonably priced used ones are slim to none. (I would even settle for either using old lenses w/ stop down metering OR even renting them occasionally). I'm getting antsy waiting for lenses to come around at a fair price. My SECOND question is to anyone that has used BOTH Pentax 645N II system and Rollei 600x series. Should I dump the Rollei and get on w/ life and easy to find lenses at reasonable prices? Or should I wait it out to get the lenses I want (sees like it could be a long time)? I'm sure Pentax 645 lenses are good, but are Zeiss and Schneider lenses that much better to justify waiting? ( I can only image what the response to this will be on the Rollei list) Lastly, I greatful I can ponder such questions in my life, I know others are not so fortunate. John
Re: Books/Sites on 67II
To see examples of pictures shot with the P67, check out magazines like American Photo. This month's issue has a picture of Janet Jackson (one of the 4 covers, the one where she's reclining on a white sofa, it's also inside the magazine) shot with a 67. The camera is very popular with fashion shooters, along with the Mamiya RZ67. Bruce Weber uses 20 (!) P67s, 5 every day on a shoot. There was an article in the English magazine Practical Photography about his shoot for the Pirelli calendar last year. 6 days, 12,000 pictures, crew of 49. Pat White
Re: Seen on dpreview
Joseph Tainter quoted someone else: I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: [...] 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? [...] I'd been planning to comment on this as well, but I wanted to hear the commercial again in case I'd misheard something the first time (IIRC I heard it during prime time, but I can't remember if it was on television or radio). I'm all for seeing my brand promoted, but this bit did give me pause as well. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? (Okay, I guess Pentax could propose an RFC and get it accepted, but ...) -- Glenn
Re: Seen on dpreview
I'd give that title to Kodak for their docking cameras. They make uploading your pics oh so easy. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet?
Re: Polarizer
Shel, As for POL filters, I like the Multi-Coated B+W filters best Hoya multi coated would be an acceptable second choice. is something wrong with genuine Pentax polarizers? Peter
Re: Seen on dpreview
What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. Paul Stenquist
Re: Huge price differences for photo equipment (Was polarizer before)
The standard snapshot N size print for many decades was 3-1/2x4-1/2 inchs printed on 3-1/2 inch rolls. Then when 35mm became the standard (late 60's early 70's?) they increased that to 3-1/2x5 to match the 35mm negative. Then the new minilabs started using 6 rolls and offering 4x6. Now that has become standard. -- Caveman wrote: Ah. The Leica experts. They first reduced film format to match it to 4x6 prints then spent a fortune to develop expensive lenses that could give you some larger prints from that format. Raimo K wrote: The above according to Leica expert Günther Osterloh (in the book Angewandte Leica-Technik). -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Seen on dpreview
No it was first come first served. For once Pentax had a promotional idea before the other companies did. I think it was the first promotional idea they ever had. BTW, since it is offical now you can get kicked off the internet for posting photos taken with any other brand camera. Us PDML'ers don't have to worry about that, but those guys on the other camera mailing lists better watch out! GRIN -- Caveman wrote: I'd give that title to Kodak for their docking cameras. They make uploading your pics oh so easy. What entity could grant such a status on behalf of the Internet? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE Books/Sites on 67II
Hi William, You wrote: Problem with that is the web destroys any quality difference between formats. I tried doing a comparison one day between 6x7 and 35mm, and the results on the web just didn't do justice to the huge difference in quality. OK, I accept the extra quality will not show on the web.- Just curious about the type of photography 6x7 format people are into, especially landscape work and the ability of the format to sell pictures when compared with other medium formats. On page 36 of his book Professional Landscape and Environmental Photography, Mark Lucock refers to the 6x7 format as the 'golden format' because picture editors need to do almost no cropping. This one sentence has sold me on the 6x7 format, but I would like to get some more opinions on this, especially from 6x7 users. The question I am getting at is: Given any one photographer's ability to use various medium formats to the best of her/his ability, will the 6x7 format sell more pictures? Being a Pentax fan, I am drawn to the 67II model but do not know a whole lot about it. This why I would like to get hold of some books and have a look at any recommended sites on: A) 6x7 photography in general and B) Pentax 6x7 model reviews/comments etc. Thanks Guys, Pat
Re: Books/Sites on 67II
Pix Wrote: At one time, I was determined to jump into this system, then I picked one up! :) Along the way, I picked up some links on the 67, some of which cover the 67II: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/pentax67.html Thank you Pix - those are the type of links I need. Pat
Re: Prodigal returns
Malcolm Smith wrote: Well, obviously my concern is for the camera equipment in such conditions (ahem, cough splutter). My eldest son was invited on a school camping trip last term; when I asked him if he wanted to go, he gave me a look of horror normally reserved for the prospect of going shopping with my wife for clothes for her and my daughter. Depends on the location, I suppose. Waking up in the Outer Hebrides and, from the comfort of my sleeping bag, watching Gannets diving for fish was one of my best memories ever. That had been a dark and stormy night, too. mike
Re: Prodigal returns
ROFLMAO ! Nicely put ;-) In my life I met only one woman that was fun to go shopping with. Malcolm Smith wrote: he gave me a look of horror normally reserved for the prospect of going shopping with my wife for clothes
Re: Prodigal returns
mike wilson wrote: Malcolm Smith wrote: Well, obviously my concern is for the camera equipment in such conditions (ahem, cough splutter). My eldest son was invited on a school camping trip last term; when I asked him if he wanted to go, he gave me a look of horror normally reserved for the prospect of going shopping with my wife for clothes for her and my daughter. Depends on the location, I suppose. Waking up in the Outer Hebrides and, from the comfort of my sleeping bag, watching Gannets diving for fish was one of my best memories ever. Especially if you remember going to bed in London! Or Toronto! Or even Cleveland!! keith That had been a dark and stormy night, too. mike
Re: K15/3.5 final samples
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Alan Chan wrote: for this super wide? And I think I have had enough tests... Yes, but are you happy? You have paid a bit of money, and the point is to be happy. Kostas
Re: Polarizer
I've never been able to find them, so I've stuck with B+W. Can't comment on something I've not used. Does Pentax even make a pol filter? Shel [Original Message] From: Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] is something wrong with genuine Pentax polarizers?
Re: Seen on dpreview
They are the Official Camera of the Internet because they trade marked that phrase. Joseph Tainter wrote: Pentax advertises -- at 2 AM. I don't know where this fellow is located. Joe -- I was sitting up about 2a.m. watching TV and an interesting commercial came on. There are 4 major camera companies, it starts out. Canon, Olympus, Fuji, and Pentax, it continues, Only one is the official camera of the internet, Pentax. Well, I thought this to be very odd for a few reasons: 1. How does Pentax get off ignoring Nikon as a major camera company? 2. What reasoning do they have behind calling themselves, The official camera of the internet? I am a Canon person myself, but I thought these claims were both unfair (for Nikon) and unfounded. I couldn't find the commercial on their website to link to, but was anyone else seen it, and what do all of you think about that?? -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Norwegian Impressions
Hey, Boris! You certainly made good use of the view from the cottage...:-) Well done indeed! Jostein (just back from a week-end trip, to 500+ msg...) - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: PAW: Norwegian Impressions Hi! Just technical details: Voigtlander Perkeo I, Color Skopar 80/3.5, Agfa APX 100, Epson 2450... I will make proper web page on my site, but later. Meanwhile, please use this link: http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/46727 Thanks. -- Boris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
Antonio wrote: JCO you seem to be obsessed with image quality, but I have yet to see a quality image from you. Why is that? Probably because you didn't bother to look in the first place. PUG is always a good place to start: http://pug.komkon.org/02mar/peir2.html http://pug.komkon.org/02may/hbinlets.html http://pug.komkon.org/03jan/sun2pug.html http://pug.komkon.org/03mar/pug0203.html http://pug.komkon.org/99aug/PEL_2SM.htm http://pug.komkon.org/archive/oconnell.html By the way, I can't recall to have seen any of your online images, and Google didn't help me either. Do you have a link to share? Jostein
Ebay item 3835349708
So what would you guys say this auction was actually for looking at the pictures and the description? A.
Re: Polarizer
In my 1976 Honeywell price list of lenses etc...I have several Pentax filters listed that were SMC. 52, 58 67mm. keith whaley Pat Curran wrote: John Francis wrote: Well, BH seem to think so - they list them as in stock. According to one reply to my original query, though, the Pentax filters are uncoated. (Which seems odd, given that one strength of the Pentax lenses is the coating.) I used a genuine Pentax 52mm polorizer for the shot at: http://www.iol.ie/~pkcurran/TestScans/ScanTest.htm I have just had a look at the filter and it does not say 'SMC' on the ring. My 'Asahi Pentax Special Filters' brochure has a table on the back page listing SMC and non-SMC filters now available. Not sure what date this was printed but it would be pre 1985. The only Polarizers listed are all non-SMC (Sizes 49mm, 52mm and 58mm) Regards, Pat
Re: Polarizer
You can download the pdf brochure from Pentax japan web site and the only uncoated filter is polarizer. All other Pentax filters are SMC now. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I used a genuine Pentax 52mm polorizer for the shot at: http://www.iol.ie/~pkcurran/TestScans/ScanTest.htm I have just had a look at the filter and it does not say 'SMC' on the ring. My 'Asahi Pentax Special Filters' brochure has a table on the back page listing SMC and non-SMC filters now available. Not sure what date this was printed but it would be pre 1985. The only Polarizers listed are all non-SMC (Sizes 49mm, 52mm and 58mm) Regards, Pat _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Polarizer
Pat Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Francis wrote: Well, BH seem to think so - they list them as in stock. According to one reply to my original query, though, the Pentax filters are uncoated. (Which seems odd, given that one strength of the Pentax lenses is the coating.) I used a genuine Pentax 52mm polorizer for the shot at: http://www.iol.ie/~pkcurran/TestScans/ScanTest.htm I have just had a look at the filter and it does not say 'SMC' on the ring. My 'Asahi Pentax Special Filters' brochure has a table on the back page listing SMC and non-SMC filters now available. Not sure what date this was printed but it would be pre 1985. The only Polarizers listed are all non-SMC (Sizes 49mm, 52mm and 58mm) I seem to recall reading somewhere that coating isn't much of an issue with polarizers, due to the nature of the way they work with regards to reflections. Don't know if this is true or not but it would explain why coated polarizers are so rare. I use uncoated polarizers (standard and the Moose Peterson warming polarizer) and haven't had any problems with lens flare, but then I don't find polarizers very useful in situations where the sun's likely to reach the front element of the lens. I use SMC Pentax UV filters on the two lenses on which I keep a filter in place constantly for protection. These are my two working zooms, the 28-70 and the 80-200. They both have large (77mm thread), very exposed front elements and would be quite expensive to get repaired. They're also the two lenses most likely to get used in situations in which I have to work very fast and equipment is subject to rougher-than-usual handling. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: LF Quality posted! , WAS: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
I know I just said it is impossible to display a LF image on a PC screen but here is a sample 4X5 negative reduced to 12 Mpixels and jpegged down to about 2.5 Mbytes. http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/barge12mp.jpg Unfortunately it also shows one of the drawbacks of LF; there's a whole lot more negative area to keep clean. Not only are there a lot of dust specks (particularly visible in the sky, but you can find them in most parts of the image), there are some very odd looking areas of sky near the mast and along the top edge.
Re: LF Quality posted! , WAS: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
Errr... it shows the drawbacks of scanning film instead of printing it using an enlarger. John Francis wrote: Unfortunately it also shows one of the drawbacks of LF; there's a whole lot more negative area to keep clean. Not only are there a lot of dust specks (particularly visible in the sky, but you can find them in most parts of the image), there are some very odd looking areas of sky near the mast and along the top edge.
RE: Ebay item 3835349708
If I could decode it I still would not submit a bid. -Original Message- From: Antonio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Ebay item 3835349708 So what would you guys say this auction was actually for looking at the pictures and the description? A.
Re: Polarizer
Mark Roberts said, in part: . . . but then I don't find polarizers very useful in situations where the sun's likely to reach the front element of the lens. Oddly enough that's when I expect to get the most benefit from one. I often photograph subjects with highly-polished curved and glossy surfaces, under bright California sunshine. An extended highlight (most often seen when shooting with the sun in front of me) can be enough to cause problems, especially with the *ist-D. While the lens hood on the 80-200 is usually enough to keep the sun off the front element of that lens, the 28-105 isn't as well equipped, and a 58mm filter would also get used on a few other lenses. For that size, at least, I think I'll stay with a coated filter.
RE: Interesting 15mm 3.5 Takumar
The one at auction was an M42 with K mount adapter. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:28 AM To: pentax list Subject: Interesting 15mm 3.5 Takumar I was watching this one and thought it would go for between 4 and 600 bucks. I didn't bid because I might be buying a K15 - - very interesting lens though. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=383516 From Boz's site: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/ultra-wide/K15f3.5-i.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Seen on dpreview
Hi, Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. -- Cheers, Bob If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it Goebbels
Re: Polarizer
Hi, Sunday, August 29, 2004, 9:57:07 PM, Alan wrote: I have been using a 67mm B+W CPL for years, but have found no optical difference from my HOYA CPL. So I just save the money to buy multicoated HOYA since. there are significant differences in the build quality, in my experience. For instance, I had a 67mm Hoya CPL and one day the glass just fell right out. Fortunately it was into my bag, not onto the pavement. Nothing like that ever happened to me with B+W filters. Or Contax filters, come to that, and they are supposed to be Hoya glass. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Interesting 15mm 3.5 Takumar
I believe that Cotty's point was that the Takumar was the same as the early K mount with the Aspheric element. Mark Stringer wrote: The one at auction was an M42 with K mount adapter. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 2:28 AM To: pentax list Subject: Interesting 15mm 3.5 Takumar I was watching this one and thought it would go for between 4 and 600 bucks. I didn't bid because I might be buying a K15 - - very interesting lens though. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=383516 From Boz's site: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/ultra-wide/K15f3.5-i.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Prodigal returns
It's usually referred to simply as the '87 hurricane. It did so much damage that it even put the BBC off the air. John On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:51:08 -0400, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was in London during a hurricane that hit with considerable force. The weather bureau failed to post any kind of warning. I guess the storm gained strength right before it came out of the Atlantic. I think it was 1987. I was in a room on about the 20th floor of a hotel. i believe it was at the southwest corner of Hyde Park. I awoke in the middle of the night to see the big picture window blowing in and out with lightning flashing all around. The window must have been moving an inch or two in each direction. I told myself it was nothing but a storm and went back to sleep. The next morning I awoke and looked out the window. The huge and ancient Plane trees of Hyde Park had been ripped from the ground and tossed about. Some buildings had lost their roofs. A few cars were overturned. My coworkers told me that they had spent the night in the bathtub of their rooms. I guess they felt somewhat sheltered there. For the next week I had to walk to some business meetings in Soho. The cabs couldn't navigate the streets. Lots of excitement, but I've always felt bad about those huge trees that were lost to the park.Very sad. On Aug 27, 2004, at 5:22 PM, mike wilson wrote: Cotty wrote: On 27/8/04, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: 8-) Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Sounds like typical English weather. . . In its changeability, yes. In its extremity, no. At one point there was just over 1 of rain in 2 hours. Not severe by the standards of some parts of the world but pretty fierce for the UK. As my tent was new, I spent most nights listening to the unfamiliar noises it was making in the gales, rather than sleeping. The next day's sailing of the catamaran was cancelled. Apparently it was the remnants of a hurricane that had bounced across the Atlantic. There have been several. I think we've had the remnants of Alex and Bonnie if I'm not mistaken? And Danielle, or am I dreaming? It feels like I've camped through them all. I think I've gone rusty. Had a similar experience in 1986 with the remnants of hurricane Charlie. mike -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Polarizer
Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sunday, August 29, 2004, 9:57:07 PM, Alan wrote: I have been using a 67mm B+W CPL for years, but have found no optical difference from my HOYA CPL. So I just save the money to buy multicoated HOYA since. there are significant differences in the build quality, in my experience. For instance, I had a 67mm Hoya CPL and one day the glass just fell right out. Fortunately it was into my bag, not onto the pavement. Nothing like that ever happened to me with B+W filters. Funny, the only time I've ever had the glass fall out of a filter was with a B+W UV filter. Never had a problem with any other filters of any make, though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Polarizer
At the time I was buying filters, I had to get the Pentax filters from Canada. Couldn't find 'em at BH, or anywhere else for that matter. Nice to know they're now available here. It's only the pol filters that are uncoated. Shel From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, BH seem to think so - they list them as in stock. According to one reply to my original query, though, the Pentax filters are uncoated. (Which seems odd, given that one strength of the Pentax lenses is the coating.) But based on various opinions voiced on this thread I think I'll get myself some B+W filters.
Re: Seen on dpreview
Bob W wrote: People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Ah, but most modern advertising isn't about fooling people on a conscious level; it's mostly about name recognition these days. So they don't have to _believe_ Pentax has any official status -- they can even laugh at the idea like I do -- as long as there's that tickle of association in the far back of their brain when they see the name Pentax on a camera in a store. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. Most, yah. (Sort of a necessary evil on our society, but I'd be happy to have a bit less of it.) -- Glenn
Re: Polarizer
I read that in a brochure from Schneider, the producer of B+W filters. Shel From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] I seem to recall reading somewhere that coating isn't much of an issue with polarizers, due to the nature of the way they work with regards to reflections.
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Aug 29, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, Who cares? It's smart advertising. They're apparently getting away with it. The networks haven't refused the ads, nor has the fcc made them pull it. People who want point and shoot digitals so they can send images to their friends will probably remember that Pentax is the official camera of the internet. This seems to imply that people who use ps digitals are not smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. Sounds like pompous crap to me. Most consumers may well be smart enough to spot advertising bullshit. But most consumers don't spend much time thinking about it. If you can create an impression with advertising mssage, it may well work for a lot of consumers. It's almost subconscious. They may not spend any time thinking about the message, but it sticks. It doesn't mean they're stupid, it must means they absorb little bits of information on the fly. That's how advertising works. It's not about presenting logical arguments. That job falls to the press. Too bad they don't have enough money to run the ad frequently in prime time. Advertising is the art of knowing what you can get away with it. It has nothing to do with truth. I happen to think that's a good thing. It's all part of a free market economy. One man's advertising is another man's propaganda. Personally I think most advertising is pollution and should be treated as such. Fine. But advertising works for many consumers. Advertising is part of what makes a free market economy function. It's part of how I earn my living. I don't care if you don't like it. Nor do the majority of free people in the world. Tightly regulated socialist and communist societies prohibit advertising of goods and services. The freedoms that are allowed by any society are a matter of choice, and it's a choice we all have to make. Cheers, Paul -- Cheers, Bob If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it Goebbels
Re: Seen on dpreview
On Aug 29, 2004, at 7:29 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: So they don't have to _believe_ Pentax has any official status -- they can even laugh at the idea like I do -- as long as there's that tickle of association in the far back of their brain when they see the name Pentax on a camera in a store. Exactly. And kudos to Pentax for being there first. It's about time they made some smart marketing moves. Paul
optics question
OK, I did the obvious thing and put that 500/4.5 takumar on my M42-NikonF optical converter and mounted it on my D1H and went out shooting youth football. I have a few observations, and a question. 1) Sharpness is really quite good, even at the edges. Within my limited experience with both lenses I'd suggest that the 500/4.5 is giving a better optical performance than my 300/4 takumar. Both lenses appear to be equal to the K versions, but without SMC. 2) Contrast isn't great, as would be expected without SMC. Color fringing is visible under adverse conditions, as would be expected without APO glass. Color rendition on a Nikon digital is a little odd, which may be the glass and coating. Digital is not going to handle old glass and coatings well, I suspect. Also, Nikon coatings may be inferior to SMC, but they have a very good reputation for delivering consistent color rendition across the range of Nikon lenses, which may mean that the D1H is essentially expecting a Nikon color rendition. 3) The lens CAN be used for action, although the location of the helicoid behind the tripod mount and the lack of internal focusing make it a lot harder to manage than a modern design. Lack of auto diaphragm sure encourages shooting at or near open aperture! Of course we're talking about a 40-year old design here, and one that I paid less than 20% of the going price of a used 500/4 EDIF for. That, and it's impossible to fit a 500/4P Nikkor to my Spotmatics. The question is, why does it work so well on the optical M42-F adapter? Both it and the 200/3.5 takumar (which appears to have an almost identical 4/4 telephoto optical formulation) are quite sharp, even at the edges, on the adapter. By contrast, my 28/3.5 takumar shows noticeable degradation of sharpness on the adapter, especially at the edges, on film. Without the adapter, it's competitive with almost any 28mm ever made, at least on film. My 20/4.5 takumar is unusably soft and otherwise nasty-looking even at the center on the D1H and adapter. Of course the 28 is a more complicated optical design (7/7) and is a retrofocus design. The 20 is yet more complicated optically (11/10) and is essentially a double retrofocus design, plus it isn't the best lens Pentax has ever made even without the adapter--some noticeable distortion and loss of sharpness towards the edges. Is it the inherant complexity of the wides that makes them suffer so much on the adapter, or the inherant simplicity of the teles that keeps them from suffering? Perhaps the optical tricks retrofocus wide-angles have to play are to blame instead, or the distortion and other aberations of early wide-angles? I note that most pros only use 1.4x teleconverters on long telephotos, which presumably have the same virtue of not having to bend the light as oddly as zooms and wides. I'm really curious how the converter and D1H fare with some of the classic Pentax 5-element mid-teles, such as the 105/2.8 and 150/4. Perhaps if Pentax can stay in the race long enough they'll put out a DSLR that will win me over. If not, I'll probably have to suck it up and buy a Canon, because the optical adapter thing with Nikons is a pain. DJE
Digicam user interfaces
A must see: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5200/page3.asp No, I was not suggesting to laugh about the Party mode, actually I think that's one of the frequent uses of the minicams and it's nice to see a straight unambigous dedicated camera mode for it. What shocked me was this: Pressing the menu button in standard (auto) record mode brings up a five page menu system Oh my gosh. A 5 (five !) page menu. Bwahahaha ;-) The other cool thing was the Portrait couple option. That mode was probably included having in mind all those pics in which the camera focused between the two folks on the wall behind them ;-) LOL. Maybe Nikon should take a look at Canon's approach with the AiAf ? It really works in such situations, without having to manually select how many people and where are they in the frame.
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
I'm a little late on this one, Markus. I use a Gossen Lunasix 3 with my Rolleicord and for critical occasions when I have tricky lighting situations - not digital! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 8:15 AM Subject: RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter Thanks to anybody answering my question, namely: Dag, David, Sid, Jim, Frantisek,Alan, Paul, Bob,Mat, Bruce, Handmaid, Otis, Brooks, William, David, CRB, John, Keith and all the lurkers out there too. As far I see, some use digital light metering mostly with medium format cameras but nobody uses an old separate analog light meter like the Gossen Sixtar2 SBC and nobody knows the brand I got. Digital seems to take over everywhere :-) thanks for answering Markus Subject: Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter På 26. aug. 2004 kl. 23.29 skrev Markus Maurer: Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when?
Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
On 27 Aug 2004 at 9:02, Bruce Dayton wrote: Me too. I really like the meter. Mostly use it for studio flash work, but some ambient readings outdoors, too. - Best regards, Bruce Friday, August 27, 2004, 6:35:54 AM, you wrote: DM I was about to say yes until I paid attention to the word 'analog'. So, DM NO. I use a Gossen Luna Pro Digital F. I like this meter because it DM will tell me the flash and incident light readings simultaneously, DM making it really easy to balance fill flash. Dave Have to add another me too here, great little meter, now my sole external meter (apart from an old MR4 for my Leica), I sold my trusty Spotmeter F a couple of months back. 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: Polarizer
The depends on which model you mean. The traditional HOYA filters have a piece of metal wire to hold the glass in place. I have never had any problem with this design, and much preferred it because they are thinner. Some of the multicoated CPLs have retaining ring which is the same as traditional B+W. The truth is, both got loosen themselves. In fact, my B+W loosen itself in no time as soon as I opened the box. I had to tighten it and applied a little threadlock. As to the brass mount, I have found it heavy and too heavy to rotate (I prefer lighter damping grease). Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan there are significant differences in the build quality, in my experience. For instance, I had a 67mm Hoya CPL and one day the glass just fell right out. Fortunately it was into my bag, not onto the pavement. Nothing like that ever happened to me with B+W filters. Or Contax filters, come to that, and they are supposed to be Hoya glass. _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: LF Quality posted! , WAS: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
I can touch it up easily if I want to in photoshop, you cant make a lower resolution shot higher in photoshop though, big difference. If I want to print I have no problem at all making up to 11x17 prints with NO visible dust! Actually dust is something you have to deal with on all film formats (not good) but the larger the format the less of a problem it becomes because it doesn't get magnified nearly as much in a print as it does with 35mm for example. JCO -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 6:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LF Quality posted! , WAS: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. I know I just said it is impossible to display a LF image on a PC screen but here is a sample 4X5 negative reduced to 12 Mpixels and jpegged down to about 2.5 Mbytes. http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/barge12mp.jpg Unfortunately it also shows one of the drawbacks of LF; there's a whole lot more negative area to keep clean. Not only are there a lot of dust specks (particularly visible in the sky, but you can find them in most parts of the image), there are some very odd looking areas of sky near the mast and along the top edge.
need screwmount info
Isn't there a website with a lot of good info on Pentax screwmount lenses? I checked Boz's page and it looked like it was all K-mount stuff. I was eating lunch in Manhattan today and I saw a guy with an old camera; just from looking at the focusing ring from the side I correctly guessed that it was a Spottie. :) It was in super mint condition and the guy said it had been his dad's, and he was just getting into photography. I told him I'd email him som sources for more info, but it turns out I don't have any bookmarked. Thanks, Amita
Best lens for my new ES II?
Hi everyone, I have a few questions for all of you screw mount experts. I have always had K mount, and know very little about the screw mount bodies. I have an ES II on it's way. My questions for you are: If you could pick the best quality standard lens for this, would it be the 50mm 1.4, or a Zeiss, or other??? What would you expect to pay for this lens on the used market today? Finally, if anyone can refer me to a website that can explain the metereing of this body, along with the many M42 lenses that are available, that would be fantastic. If such a thing exists. TIA for any help... ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: almost half the population of the planet is either Indian or Chinese. I don't know about China, but I do know that there are a lot of film cameras (admittedly rather crappy ones) in India, and a lot of film being used there. I think it's going to take an awful lot to get all of those people to get rid of working film cameras and part with their hard-earned money to buy digital cameras and the other paraphernalia that goes with them. What may end up happening though, is local film industry may support this type of market, and it might be hard to get hold of film outside these markets. That would be kind of weird, diehard American, Canadian, British and etc. film lovers buying film from India and China from some as yet unnamed companies. rg
Re: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder.
- Original Message - From: Don Sanderson Subject: RE: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. Really, has anyone ever seen an AA pic? If you mean Ansel Adams, the yes, I have seen an original, sogned by the muse himself print of Moonrise over Hernandez. Nice picture. William Robb
Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
Bob, after a recent visit to China (and Hong Kong) my impression is that digital is definitely flavour of the month. Almost everyone I saw was using PS style digitals: in our tour group, there were only two film cameras at all - the other 11 were digital. The Chinese themselves in both countries love having the latest toys, and I suspect that film processing will become rarer in China more quickly than anywhere else - not impossible to find, mind you, but not everywhere. If they take up digital cameras as rapidly and as universally as mobile phones, I want to buy shares in the company that gets in and exploits the market! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] almost half the population of the planet is either Indian or Chinese. I don't know about China, but I do know that there are a lot of film cameras (admittedly rather crappy ones) in India, and a lot of film being used there. I think it's going to take an awful lot to get all of those people to get rid of working film cameras and part with their hard-earned money to buy digital cameras and the other paraphernalia that goes with them. Wet photography is quite popular in India: http://www.web-options.com/PhotoPuri.jpg -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter
Hi Markus Another late one here, but I still use the Minolta Flashmeter IV I bought a few months ago. It's indispensable with strobes and my new (1962) 6x6 TLR, and wonderful at quickly determining flash/ambient readings for both 35mm MF outside. Cheers, Simon -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 30 August 2004 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter I'm a little late on this one, Markus. I use a Gossen Lunasix 3 with my Rolleicord and for critical occasions when I have tricky lighting situations - not digital! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 8:15 AM Subject: RE: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter Thanks to anybody answering my question, namely: Dag, David, Sid, Jim, Frantisek,Alan, Paul, Bob,Mat, Bruce, Handmaid, Otis, Brooks, William, David, CRB, John, Keith and all the lurkers out there too. As far I see, some use digital light metering mostly with medium format cameras but nobody uses an old separate analog light meter like the Gossen Sixtar2 SBC and nobody knows the brand I got. Digital seems to take over everywhere :-) thanks for answering Markus Subject: Re: Anybody still using an external (analog) lightmeter På 26. aug. 2004 kl. 23.29 skrev Markus Maurer: Is anybody here still using hand metering and if yes, when?
Re: need screwmount info
http://www.aohc.it/indexe.htm You can find some info here. Amita Guha wrote: Isn't there a website with a lot of good info on Pentax screwmount lenses? I checked Boz's page and it looked like it was all K-mount stuff. I was eating lunch in Manhattan today and I saw a guy with an old camera; just from looking at the focusing ring from the side I correctly guessed that it was a Spottie. :) It was in super mint condition and the guy said it had been his dad's, and he was just getting into photography. I told him I'd email him som sources for more info, but it turns out I don't have any bookmarked. Thanks, Amita -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Best lens for my new ES II?
http://www.aohc.it/indexe.htm Steve Pearson wrote: Hi everyone, I have a few questions for all of you screw mount experts. I have always had K mount, and know very little about the screw mount bodies. I have an ES II on it's way. My questions for you are: If you could pick the best quality standard lens for this, would it be the 50mm 1.4, or a Zeiss, or other??? What would you expect to pay for this lens on the used market today? Finally, if anyone can refer me to a website that can explain the metereing of this body, along with the many M42 lenses that are available, that would be fantastic. If such a thing exists. TIA for any help... ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
