Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Peter J. Alling mused: Canon's RD is no better than anyone elses. Pentax quiet likely has just as many or more imaging patents. Canon can bring more products to market weather there is a need for them or not. Some are truely superior products, but I've felt they were inferior since the days of the AE1, they were the first quality camera manufacture to jump on the plastic junk bandwagon. It's been downhill ever since. More features less quality Yipee. Odd, then, that they were the leaders to market USM IS lenses, and seem to be leading the way with sensor technology, too. From where I sit Canon definitely do seem to have more results from their RD department. They, more than anybody else, are pushing forwards the cutting edge of DSLR development. Do they fund this by selling cheap junk to the masses? Sure. And why not? If this means they can make top-of-the-line stuff like the L-series lenses and the 1Ds II, and sell them cheaper, then I'm all for it. I liked the EOS-10D when I rented one, and I'm sure the -20D is even better. By the time you've got an 80-200/2.8 (or even just a 28-70) mounted on the front of it, and a flash on the top, the difference in size and weight between that and the *ist-D just isn't all that significant.
OT - Strange eBay listing.
Not Pentaxiana, not even photographic, but my apologies if anyone's bidding and wanted it kept quiet ;-) http://tinyurl.com/3wapk regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Focus Magic
The motion blur is quite unusable in reality because most motion blur is not in a straight line. The focus function is not bad, but not stellar. Mostly the setting was too small or too big. It needs sub-pixel settings. Also, it accentuates grain and noise like crazy. Used for sharpening of DSLR photos, it performed worse than USM. Good light! fra
Re: Focus Magic
My conclusion of it was that sometimes it might help, but it definitely is no magic. Good light! fra
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, Caveman, discombobulated, unleashed: Mh on second thought I just noticed some great fakezine material ;-) Oh Lord. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed: When you shoot completely blind, you might consider raising yor shutter speed to ? second or so... g Or how about lowering it to 15 minutes and the resulting pic could be entitled 'A Walk Around The City'... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT Another field bulk storage device for *ist D users
the plan for any of these devices is to be using my solid state CF cards. i recently bought a set of SanDisk Extreme cards in anticipation of the higher current drain from Microdrive cards. Herb - Original Message - From: Ryan K. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:38 AM Subject: Re: OT Another field bulk storage device for *ist D users Seems to be a warning regarding microdrives in these. FYI- I modified my x-drive to use an outboard battery pack of AA's and added a switch to the chassis. Turned out the voltage fluctuation was too great with both the microdrive and internal disk being accessed- made for some not too pretty sounds and also neat sags on the o-scope. Therefore, I wouldn't recommend one uses microdrives in one of these. YMMV,
Re: OT Another field bulk storage device for *ist D users
i have tabs attached to all of mine. i eject with card slot facing upwards and pull out using the tab. my card reader leave plenty of room on the side to hold the edges of the cards. Herb - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:22 AM Subject: Re: OT Another field bulk storage device for *ist D users It scares the hell out of me every time I have to change them in the field in dubious light or physical conditions, then when I pop it out of my card reader I'm always thinking whoa did I grab that too hard. I'm trading to solid state as soon as possible.
Re: Is this fungus?
On 11/11/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed: If you paid using Papal, talk to them first. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 12/11/04, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: and was the Jostein you were messing with in that one pic? or just a jostein lookalike? Thanks Ann. Yes, well spotted. But he will attest that it is a pure candid. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: lost in translation _ another one for FRANK?
On 12/11/04, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: http://users.rcn.com/annsan/depotdepain.jpg couldn't resist annsan Great shot Ann. Very good. That's one of those shots that can be read into in a variety of ways. Each gets out of it what they will. Well done. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: RE:Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
Thanks for the tips! Harri, since you are local, what are your favorite photo labs in Tampere? I buy my slide film at Aammattikuva (8.60 Euro for Provia/Velvia, 8.00 Euro for Sensia with prepaid developing), have it developed at Eiri Kuva (Foto Hertell) for 3.36 Euro. I also buy print film there (NPH, HP5+). Strange thing, developing negatives (w/o pictures) costs about 5 Euros, that is more than E6 processing. For printing I only tried Super Kuva and Eiri Kuva and the results were quite unconvincing. In Super Kuva they do not even bother looking at the prints or adjusting color balance and contrast, etc. We have a slide scanner at school (Tampere Uni of Technology), as well as great darkroom (with Rodenstock lens on enlarger, and the chemicals are free). So I will be shooting a lot of BW this year. Michal --- Forwarded message --- Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded date: 2004-11-12 07:51:19 Hi list, I have saved a little money and am thinking of buying some neat wideangle lens. Since Pentax does not seem to be very popular in Finland (at least not in Tampere), I will have to mail-order. Does anybody from Europe have an experience with buying used lens from KEH? How about the typical shipping costs or customs? Alternatively, can anyone from Scandinavia or Germany point me to a reputable online dealer of used lens? Thanks, Michal Well it seems that whole market for used photo equipment is rather dead in Tampere, not only for Pentax. Only decent source for used equipment in town is Rajala at Hallituskatu (good store for new stuff, bougth my *ist D there). But for Pentax stuff whole Finland is rather difficult these days, it used to be little better before, most of my Pentax stuff is purchased used. Two good used stores in Finland are Mr Kamera at helsinki (http://www.digipartner.com/mr3/ ) and Kuva-Lenita at Raahe ( http://www.kuvalenita.fi/ -Kamerakauppa-kytetyt or poistolaitteet , bougth my A300/2.8 there two years ago). Also, have you tried www.ebay.de, there are sometimes good offerings. I personally have not tested yet, other untried addresess in germany are Team-Foto (http://www.team-foto.de/index2.html) and AC -foto (http://www.ac-foto.com/ , see Marc's fotobrse). Hope this helps a bit, Harri Haavisto Tampere, Finland http://www.saunalahti.fi/harhaa/ Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: OT: Bespoke (was RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison)
On 12/11/04, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: Yes. It means made to measure. We also use it when we're talking about software that's developed especially for the customer, as opposed to so-called COTS - commercial off-the-shelf - software. Oi! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Is that anything like DANGER!! 2 MILLION OHMS! keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: [...] Take for example a little rechargable product I purchased the other day, it read in big bold print 7.2v Of Power, as you know this makes no sense however it seems nowadays that power pack voltage equates directly to product quality/power, go figure. Rob Studdert
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, Chris Brogden, discombobulated, unleashed: Brilliant! You've just figured out how to turn an $8000 camera into a Lomo. vbg LOL Seriously, I like these a lot. They're refreshing in their alternative perspective and sheer vibrancy. IOW, they're a bit o' all right. Thanks. It's weird, shooting with the camera up to the eye, I don't feel guilty, but Lomo style, it's kinda like 'theft'. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 12/11/04, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty, it is rather excellent no matter which hip exactly it was shot from. But then again Hip (unlike hip) may mean something totally different and I wouldn't know what that would be. Seriously, I wish I could do the same, which perhaps I might try. I thought about ankle-cam but the ramifications of being discovered near short skirts was too much to contemplate Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty, you're full o' crap! I could have told you that. You only ~think~ you're shooting blind, just because you're not looking through the viewfinder. True. I suppose I'd have to wear opaque glasses and carry a white stick in the other hand to do it properly (The Force Luke, the Force...) It's obvious from these that you still know exactly when to snap, even without the cam up to your face! Great stuff! Brilliant! Love the phone booths, BTW. g And, of course, the blur and tilt! g Of course. Thanks mate. heartening. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Is this fungus?
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Mishka wrote: whatever it is, get a refund. complain to ebay. if you paid with paypal, complain to them. this is a clear misrepresentation. it's going to take time, but there's a good chance you'll get your money back (i've been in a very similar situation). My opinion is you should escalate only if necessary. First things first: talk to the seller politely and tell him what you want. I propose a full refund, including postage even if his policy says otherwise. This is an outrageously broken lens. If he does not play ball, then escalate. Take a deep breath and write a small, polite email. Good luck. Kostas
MagnumPhotos on Darfur,Sudan
Hi, friend forwarded to me an excellent piece of photojournalism from Magnum photog Paolo Pellegrin, who was photographing in Darfur, Sudan. As some might know, in Darfur is now for some time going on a genocide against one ethnicum, which might in scope and brutality resemble very much the Rwanda/Ugundi genocide ten years before. As usual, international community is doing almost nothing to stop it... The photographs are excellent, some of them very nicely blurry, completely different from which might you see in any news agency pictures. http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocThumbV=CDocTo=UY5Total=45Pic=45DT=ALBPass=E=2TYRYDAMUI3N Good light! fra
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed: Very cool! It does give you a very different feel and perspective. I hope that you'll keep working on this project and continue to share it with us. I very much enjoyed the look see. Thanks Bruce ( bows the Master! ) Yeah, it's kinda fun and we all like a thrill when we get older, eh. The adrenalin really pumps doing that. Remember your first few snipes on eBay? Silly overtaking on country roads? The kick is to not be discovered. Of course it would be so easy to use a hidden camera but that's cheating ! All above board and keen-eyed passers-by do notice. Sheesh, I'm turning into a stalker. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Bespoke (was RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bespoke was what my usual online dictionary said (made-to-order, tailored, tailor-made). Seems to derive from 'as discussed' ie (be)(spoke). -Original Message- From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 November 2004 00:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Bespoke (was RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison) On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:08:52 -, Rob Brigham wrote: [...] felt like it was bespoke built for me [...] Ok, this is probably one of those American English versus H.M. English things. I've seen the term bespoke used in this way before, usually in reference to clothes. It has always sounded like it means something along the lines of custom tailored. But I've never found an (American English, I guess) dictionary that gave a definition that sounded like custom tailored. So, _is_ that what it means? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Hi, Friday, November 12, 2004, 3:43:06 AM, J. wrote: I think in that case likelike would be a much better term because IMHO it is impossible for any 2D image no matter how good to convey the sense of real space 3D photography gives you, even mediocre 3D photography JCO 'lifelike' isn't precise enough for what people are referring to - it could mean other characteristics. While it's certainly true that the 3Dness people describe doesn't approach genuine* 3D, the term certainly conveys quite well what (I think) people mean. Artists have for years been able to convey a sense of 3D to flat pictures, using a variety of tricks or techniques, including all the usual suspects such as aerial perspective, converging lines and so on. The way painters treat colour, light, shade and texture can help to give a 3D effect too. I'm thinking especially of oils by Rembrandt, some of which have an extraordinary depth and tactile quality. There was a similar feeling to some Russian landscapes that I saw recently in an exhibition - I think the artist was called Shishkin. He produced enormous canvasses which make you feel as though you are in the Russian forest. Different colours have different effects on the way you seen things. There is a continuum from red to blue of forwardness and recension. Photograph a red flower against a blue backdrop, such as the sky, and the flower will really pop out at you, whatever the lens. I imagine some lenses are optimised in some way I don't understand to bring these qualities out. In any case, it is certainly possible for a 2D image to convey a very strong sense of 3-dimensionality. -- Cheers, Bob *it's not genuine, of course. It's an optical illusion, just as the 3D effects created by perspective etc. are optical illusions.
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:40:35 -0500, Chris Brogden said The D2H is still only a 1.5x. Most Canons are 1.6x, though. To be fair, the D2H wasn't designed to produce extremely high quality images; that's what the D100 and D1X were for. The D2H gave you 8fps with an internal buffer that could hold 40 JPGs, with the option of wireless transmission. This was aimed more at PJs/reporters, I'd say. Chris It was advertized as a PJ/Sports Photographers camera IIRC. The 8fps is a god send when doing certain equine and western horse shows.:-) BTW I have sent off a sample pic (d2h)to Bruce. I hope he does not skewer it to badvbg Dave
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
HGP At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's HGP not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that HGP talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to HGP Canon. Is there any particular reason that there's not as much HGP discussion about going to Nikon? Pentax seems to put such emphasis on HGP design and ergonomics, and my personal opinion is that in these areas, HGP Nikon stands out compared to Canon. simple reason. read this piece by Mike Johnson (he used to attend PDML as well) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-07-05.shtml It's pretty accurate ;-) Good light! fra
Re: RE:Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
Thanks for the tips! Harri, since you are local, what are your favorite photo labs in Tampere? I buy my slide film at Aammattikuva (8.60 Euro for Provia/Velvia, 8.00 Euro for Sensia with prepaid developing), have it developed at Eiri Kuva (Foto Hertell) for 3.36 Euro. I also buy print film there (NPH, HP5 ). Strange thing, developing negatives (w/o pictures) costs about 5 Euros, that is more than E6 processing. Well, I dont have favorite lab, ealier I used Hertell/Eiri a lot (Hertell is/was good place to buy film cheaply in quandities, also only good source for BW material in town) especially for prints, but after I begun to scan films I was very disapointed to the quality of Eiri (lost of small black dots) and there was also biger chemical spots occasinally. After that I tried Ammattikuvat and others and finally settled for Rajala/Color Kolmio. Not perfect for quality, but it has best for quality/price ratio nearby (this side of rapid), especially for process prepaid Fuji. But after buing *ist D, I have shot only slides (~1 roll/month)... For printing I only tried Super Kuva and Eiri Kuva and the results were quite unconvincing. In Super Kuva they do not even bother looking at the prints or adjusting color balance and contrast, etc. That was main point why I bougth film scanner,was to have more control for end result (you can get better result if you scan film yourself and send result for digital online printing, than sending film to mass lab). We have a slide scanner at school (Tampere Uni of Technology), as well as great darkroom (with Rodenstock lens on enlarger, and the chemicals are free). So I will be shooting a lot of BW this year. Michal Have good photos, though season in Finland is now very poor for photography (dark day round and no snow). Harri
Re: MagnumPhotos on Darfur,Sudan
Those are some excellent, as well as disturbing photos. :-/ M. --- Forwarded message --- Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded date: 2004-11-12 13:37:59 Hi, friend forwarded to me an excellent piece of photojournalism from Magnum photog Paolo Pellegrin, who was photographing in Darfur, Sudan. As some might know, in Darfur is now for some time going on a genocide against one ethnicum, which might in scope and brutality resemble very much the Rwanda/Ugundi genocide ten years before. As usual, international community is doing almost nothing to stop it... The photographs are excellent, some of them very nicely blurry, completely different from which might you see in any news agency pictures. http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.a px?Stat=DocZoom_DocThumbV=CDocTo=UY5Total=45 Pic=45DT=ALBPass=E=2TYRYDAMUI3N Good light! fra Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
Harri Haavisto wrote: Have good photos, though season in Finland is now very poor for photography (dark day round and no snow). Harri You shouldn't complain down there in Tampere, I'm living on the Swedish side of the border of Tornio, in Lappland! ;-) Here the sun goes down right about now, at 14:00 /Henri
Re: *ist D Under $1000
So Doug, you going to go get one or what? That race car habit you picked-up putting a hamper on your photo purchases? CW was fondling his (camera) yesterday and playing with the menus and didn't even take any photos... - Original Message - From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: *ist D Under $1000 Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper included a sales flyer from Wolf Camera. It includes an advertisement for the *ist D with Pentax 18-55 zoom for $999.99 (or $999.95). That's the best price I've seen so far from a reasonably reputable dealer. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/10/2004
Re: Goin' to Chicago
Mark, Try the vistas from the museum campus, about 1200 south on the lake shore. Depending on where you are staying, you can run the lake shore from Navy Pier, about 800 north all the way down to the football stadium. I've taken pictures on the peninsula out to Adler Planetarium that Paul talked about. There are plenty of folks running this route before dawn and it might give you a good look around. In addition, I wouldn't miss the new Millennium Park at the north end of Grant Park. There are some new, and very unusual public spaces there. The whole park is a big open space between downtown Chicago and the lake. Don't miss the Art Institute with the famous Lions out front or Pizzaria Uno or Due. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:58:54 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can get a great shot of the skyline from the peninsula where the Adler Planetarium stands. It's very dramatic at night. The new Soldier's Field has some compelling angles that I would have liked to have shot last time I was in town, but Ididn't have time. (It looks like a flying saucer landed in a Greek temple. The NY Times archiitecture critic gave it rave revues. Most Chicagoans hate it. What could be better?) Michigan Avenue near the House of Blues is a great locale. Hyde Park and the University of Chicago campus is very interesting. Wrigleyville two flats, houses, and commercial areas can be quite interesting as well. The list goes on and on. Chicago is a great photography city. On Nov 11, 2004, at 7:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I'm off to Chicago for the weekend! My S.O. has a conference there and I'm coming along for the ride. One of the medical companies that's trying to woo all the docs into giving them their business is putting on a party at the House of Blues on Saturday night, so we're going to have some fun! Anyone have any suggestions for photo ops in Chicago in general? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
Re: Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
You shouldn't complain down there in Tampere, I'm living on the Swedish side of the border of Tornio, in Lappland! ;-) Here the sun goes down right about now, at 14:00 /Henri Well its now 15:14 here and tecnically there's about 1 one hour for sunset. But practically its almost dark (no street ligths yet though) because very heavy rain clouds above. And I am at work now, when I'am finished for this week, its nigth (One posivitive aspect living in north at winter: Working from sunrise to sunset is very easy). Terveisin, Harri
FS: Tokina ATX-PRO 80-200 2.8
Tokina ATX-PRO 80-200 2.8 Autofocus version with case and hood. Beautiful condition US$400 + shipping at cost http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/forsale PayPal accepted, money order preferred I also have the same lens in EOS mount for sale but without case hood. Also excellent condition. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: *ist D Under $1000
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:11:59 -0500, cbwaters wrote: you going to go get one or what? That race car habit you picked-up putting a hamper on your photo purchases? Entirely possible. :-) I was planning on going downtown to the Botanical Garden Saturday, anyway, which will take me right past Wolf's main store on 14th street. They have an exhibition of art glass sculptures at the Botanical Garden through the end of the year, and I've been told it's excellent. The racing habit _does_ interfere with the photography, sometimes, and not only from the cash perspective. One of the most annoying things about working corners at races is having a great place on the track to shoot, but not being able to. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Re: RE:Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
Have good photos, though season in Finland is now very poor for photography (dark day round and no snow). I noticed. = ] Only good for depressive-mood photography. M. Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: Goin' to Chicago
Of course you must see ... #1 -- Wrigley Field. A ways up north. #2 -- There was at one time a famous bar in Chicago. The Pacific Beer Garden. And it had a rather (in)famous bartender. Mickey Finn. (We all know what was famous for.) This environment destroyed a lot of lives. But it was later redeemed. A rescue mission moved in. And changed the name. And has a weekly radio broadcast about changed (redeemed) lives. Pacific Garden Mission. Unshackled. Longest running dramatic radio show of all time. On Saturdays you can often sit in the audience while they tape the show. They do have tours. It's worth it to see what God is doing in real lives every day. No televangelists. Just a lot of hard, prayerful, faithful work. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: 3D quality in a lens?
What you describe is a selective focus effect but the out of focus background is still viewed on same plane as forground, it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, the forground would not only be in selective focus, it would be popped out in front of the background. For those who have never seen 3D photography or havent in seen it a long time, The thing to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are closer than infintity look popped out off the infinity background. No 2D process does this with any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a 3D quality or effect. Realistic Selective Focus might me a better term for the effect they are trying to describe. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
RE: Re: RE:Buying used lenses in Scandinavia
Depressive, yes, but also a great season for astrophotography, including aurora. Also great for available light photography during the snowy winter time with amazing natural light, occasionally. Today has especially provided us with a lovely weather, in the form of Panu storm (wind speed has been continuously around 20-21 m/s over the nearby sea areas). I don't have to wash my cars ;-). Antti-Pekka --- Antti-Pekka Virjonen Computec Oy, Turku Finland Gsm: +358-500-789 753 www.computec.fi * www.estera.fi -Original Message- From: michal mesko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: RE:Buying used lenses in Scandinavia Have good photos, though season in Finland is now very poor for photography (dark day round and no snow). I noticed. = ] Only good for depressive-mood photography. M. Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: *ist D Under $1000
Amen, brother. Tried it once, during practice. One winds up doing neither job very well. Stephen (already suffering from racing withdrawal) Doug Franklin wrote: The racing habit _does_ interfere with the photography, sometimes, and not only from the cash perspective. One of the most annoying things about working corners at races is having a great place on the track to shoot, but not being able to.
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
On 11/11/04, Chris Brogden, discombobulated, unleashed: Brilliant! You've just figured out how to turn an $8000 camera into a Lomo. vbg Hey, I was going to say exactly that! :-) Nice stuff there, Cotty. I do like the peaceful look of Jostein; is that Alma in the shop? I love the telephone shot and the one with the seated kid. Go on this way! Ciao, Gianco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
The bidding jumped from $55 to $2,000 with your announcement here. I wonder who bid? Anthony Farr wrote: Not Pentaxiana, not even photographic, but my apologies if anyone's bidding and wanted it kept quiet ;-) http://tinyurl.com/3wapk regards, Anthony Farr
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the attributes that have led to the 3D descriptor being applied to lenses that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not technically accurate, but much of our language is not. Artists generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of the world. Paul On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: What you describe is a selective focus effect but the out of focus background is still viewed on same plane as forground, it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, the forground would not only be in selective focus, it would be popped out in front of the background. For those who have never seen 3D photography or havent in seen it a long time, The thing to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are closer than infintity look popped out off the infinity background. No 2D process does this with any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a 3D quality or effect. Realistic Selective Focus might me a better term for the effect they are trying to describe. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
Re: MagnumPhotos on Darfur,Sudan
Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, friend forwarded to me an excellent piece of photojournalism from Magnum photog Paolo Pellegrin, who was photographing in Darfur, Sudan. The photographs are excellent, some of them very nicely blurry, completely different from which might you see in any news agency pictures. http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocZoom_DocThumbV=CDocTo=UY5Total=45Pic=45DT=ALBPass=E=2TYRYDAMUI3N Hi Frantisek, Thanks for the link. Paolo Pellegrin will held a workshop I'm going to attend to in December, in the FNAC store in Naples. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
FS: Olympus C-5050Z 5MP DigiCam with xtras
This is a great full featured camera that has served me well. Since the *ist D I just don't use it any more. Comes with factory box and all software and accessories. Includes Olympus 1.45x and Opteka 3x auxillary lenses. Also includes Olympus flash bracket and a new hip pack bag. It has been used 99% for product photos at home since it was purchased. All items in excellent to new condition. $375.00 I purchased this factory refurbished in April 2003 at $605.00 for the camera only. The other items were all purchased new at a later date. It is one of the best reviewed digicams of all time and is holding its value very well. Here is the basic manual from Oly's web site: http://www.olympusamerica.com/files/C-5050Z_Basic_Manual.pdf 4 other manuals are available there also. If interested contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] PayPal to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the fastest way to pay. Don
FS (with prices!): LX body, K50/1.2, M24-35/3.5, Viv. 55/2.8 macro, Zen. 16/2.8 fish, Kenko ext. tubes
Ok, the post you've all been waiting for... with prices. :) All items show signs of use but not abuse. Nothing's in mint condition, but nothing's ugly, either. Expect to see light to moderate signs of wear and tear, possibly some dust in some lenses but nothing really noticeable. I'll mention some of the more obvious points below. Prices do not include shipping. LX body: $350 US Good: includes FA-1 metered prism finder, dedicated Pentax LX strap, and box; no sticky mirror (had a complete overhaul about three years ago), works perfectly Bad: Leatherette starting to peel in one corner, automatic button permanently depressed so does not lock in auto mode (I find this a plus, personally, as it's quicker to use and you can still see your setting in the viewfinder) K50mm f1.2: $175 US M24-35mm f3.5: $225 US (has name and number engraved on bottom ring at back of lens) Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fisheye (K-mount): $100 US (comes with all filters, caps, manual, case, as purchased from a list member) Vivitar 55mm f2.8 1:1 macro (K-mount): $125 US Pentax does not make a manual focus 50ish f2.8 macro lens in K-mount that can do 1:1, which is why I went with the Vivitar Kenko Automatic Extension Tube Set (3 tubes: 12, 20, 36mm): $100 US Full aperture coupling and electronic contacts. With original box, only used a few times. Please write me off-list if you have any questions or wish to purchase an item. I don't have any pictures of the equipment yet, and by the time I can make time to take some, I'll probably be ready to list any remaining stuff on eBay. I'll accept PayPal, Western Union, and money orders drawn from a bank or post office that are negotiable in Canada. All items will be shipped fully insured, and I guarantee that they'll be packed well enough to arrive safe and sound, as anyone who has bought stuff from me before can confirm. :) Thanks for reading! Chris
RE: 3D quality in a lens?
But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the attributes that have led to the 3D descriptor being applied to lenses that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not technically accurate, but much of our language is not. Artists generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of the world. Paul On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: What you describe is a selective focus effect but the out of focus background is still viewed on same plane as forground, it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, the forground would not only be in selective focus, it would be popped out in front of the background. For those who have never seen 3D photography or havent in seen it a long time, The thing to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are closer than infintity look popped out off the infinity background. No 2D process does this with any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a 3D quality or effect. Realistic Selective Focus might me a better term for the effect they are trying to describe. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
Re: MagnumPhotos on Darfur,Sudan
GI Thanks for the link. GI Paolo Pellegrin will held a workshop I'm going to attend to in GI December, in the FNAC store in Naples. Gianfranco, wow :) You have some VERY interesting workshops there in Italy ;-) Another one to check periodically for great inspiration is of course this one: www.viiphoto.com Nachtway, Kratochvil,... Good light! fra
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
I love European public spaces and the old areas of European cities, and these shots capture their mood wonderfully. --- Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been messing with some street stuff - this time shooting completely blind. Intro and 12 pics here http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/photoessays/essays/hip.html Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Re: Is this fungus?
If you paid using Papal, talk to them first. C email [EMAIL PROTECTED] C ;-) The correct form should be vatican.va ;-) Good light! fra
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 3D quality in a lens? it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, John, we are not talking about 3D photography. Why are you trying to hijack a simple question? William Robb
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? It means that you can't describe it as being particularly good in any traditional metrics (sharpness/distortion/contrast/etc). Not true. Val, where do you come up with this stuff? If my 77 is a good indicator, it is an effect of good bokeh (hard to define, I realize) combined with high contrast and sharpness. William Robb
Re: Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Congratulations, you've just joined the resistance... DagT fra: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that anything like DANGER!! 2 MILLION OHMS! keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: [...] Take for example a little rechargable product I purchased the other day, it read in big bold print 7.2v Of Power, as you know this makes no sense however it seems nowadays that power pack voltage equates directly to product quality/power, go figure. Rob Studdert
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
What's your fascination with telling people what they can't or shouldn't do? The term in question is an appropriate metaphor for describing a certain visual effect. As with all metaphors, the effect described is not exactly the same as the effect to which the comparison refers, but that's the whole point of a metaphor. Photos that evince an obvious or exaggerated separation of the subject from the background are artistically representing 3D space as closely as possible on a 2D plane. 3D effect is not technically accurate, but it works metaphorically to convey a certain look or effect. Chris On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:31:45 -0500, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the attributes that have led to the 3D descriptor being applied to lenses that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not technically accurate, but much of our language is not. Artists generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of the world. Paul On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: What you describe is a selective focus effect but the out of focus background is still viewed on same plane as forground, it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, the forground would not only be in selective focus, it would be popped out in front of the background. For those who have never seen 3D photography or havent in seen it a long time, The thing to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are closer than infintity look popped out off the infinity background. No 2D process does this with any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a 3D quality or effect. Realistic Selective Focus might me a better term for the effect they are trying to describe. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Do they fund this by selling cheap junk to the masses? Sure. And why not? If this means they can make top-of-the-line stuff like the L-series lenses and the 1Ds II, and sell them cheaper, then I'm all for it. You mean they are SUBSIDIZING a product line with something else? For shame. Cave boy will be singing another tune pretty quick now. He doesn't believe in subsidies. William Robb
Re: Viewfinder registration (WAS: Re: SMCP A 35/2.8 any good?)
- Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Viewfinder registration (WAS: Re: SMCP A 35/2.8 any good?) On 11 Nov 2004 at 21:42, Tim Sherburne wrote: Okay, Anthony, I confess! I've been on this list for a good bit, but I've never heard of anyone mentioning viewfinder registration before. Perhaps my memory is failing me. Please enlighten me! Focus screen/mirror position adjustment. If the focus screen or mirror or both are set at the wrong lateral position or aren't parallel to the film plane then what appears to be in focus through the finder won't be in focus on the film. To add to this, if the focusing screen is not aligned properly with the film plane, in addition to focus errors, you can also get compositional surprises, where things you thought would be in the picture are not, and things you thought you had cropped out are. I had a couple of K1000s that were so bad for this that I couldn't use them for copy work. William Robb
Re: Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Rob Studdert wrote: [...] Take for example a little rechargable product I purchased the other day, it read in big bold print 7.2v Of Power, as you know this makes no sense however it seems nowadays that power pack voltage equates directly to product quality/power, go figure. My 14.4 volt drill has way more power than my 7.2 volt drill. A friends 18 volt drill has even more power than my 14.4 volt unit. When I talk about power, I am talking about torque combined with RPM. The ability to get the job done in an efficient manner. Maybe there is something to this after all. William Robb
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
I always thought of it as the result of two characteristics -- Pleasant bokeh and very sharp, distinct focused area. The first makes the image realistic. The second makes the subject standout. While a lens may perform better wrt resolution at certain apertures (commonly from f8 to f16) its optimum image result may be better at others. From personal experience/perceptions ... The A100/2.8 seems to do this well @ f8. The A50/1.4 seems to do this well from f5.6-f11. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: 3D quality in a lens?
Selective Focus 2D, no matter how nice and pleasing to the eye is radically different from 3D photos. To call a beautifully rendered and eye pleasing selective focus shot 3 dimensional quality is incorrect terminology. Call it what it is, not what it isnt. JCO -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? What's your fascination with telling people what they can't or shouldn't do? The term in question is an appropriate metaphor for describing a certain visual effect. As with all metaphors, the effect described is not exactly the same as the effect to which the comparison refers, but that's the whole point of a metaphor. Photos that evince an obvious or exaggerated separation of the subject from the background are artistically representing 3D space as closely as possible on a 2D plane. 3D effect is not technically accurate, but it works metaphorically to convey a certain look or effect. Chris On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:31:45 -0500, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the attributes that have led to the 3D descriptor being applied to lenses that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not technically accurate, but much of our language is not. Artists generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of the world. Paul On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: What you describe is a selective focus effect but the out of focus background is still viewed on same plane as forground, it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, the forground would not only be in selective focus, it would be popped out in front of the background. For those who have never seen 3D photography or havent in seen it a long time, The thing to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are closer than infintity look popped out off the infinity background. No 2D process does this with any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a 3D quality or effect. Realistic Selective Focus might me a better term for the effect they are trying to describe. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent 3D effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: If you have ever done or seen any decent 3D photography you would know it's a really dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt read too much into it, or put too much trust in the writers of just descriptions... JCO -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM To: PDML Subject: 3D quality in a lens? What is meant when a lens is described as having a great 3 dimensional quality? Or it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel? I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? TIA Don
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
Around Oxford in 15 minutes? The right title would be 'A Fast And Furious Drive Around The City -- Or How To Put Your Life At Stake With Cotty' I'd be staning by the Eagle and Child and make a panning shot as you pass. Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:30 AM Subject: Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip On 11/11/04, Keith Whaley, discombobulated, unleashed: When you shoot completely blind, you might consider raising yor shutter speed to ? second or so... g Or how about lowering it to 15 minutes and the resulting pic could be entitled 'A Walk Around The City'... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Re: 3D quality in a lens?
This is a joke right? I am not quite sure though ??? JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 10:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: 3D quality in a lens? Rob Studdert wrote: [...] Take for example a little rechargable product I purchased the other day, it read in big bold print 7.2v Of Power, as you know this makes no sense however it seems nowadays that power pack voltage equates directly to product quality/power, go figure. My 14.4 volt drill has way more power than my 7.2 volt drill. A friends 18 volt drill has even more power than my 14.4 volt unit. When I talk about power, I am talking about torque combined with RPM. The ability to get the job done in an efficient manner. Maybe there is something to this after all. William Robb
Re: Re: Northern Lights
- Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you ever find that the LX overexposes by trying to lighten up all that dark sky? That's my experience. I have used a dialled-in -1,5 stop compensation. Jostein
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Photographers and others have been using the term for decades as shorthand for a certain look that many think attractive and effective. Many understand and use the term. If, however, it offends your artistic sensibilities, I guess we will all have to amend our erroneous ways. J. C. O'Connell wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO
Re: PESO: lost in translation _ another one for FRANK?
Very good photograph Ann! Style I like :) Good light! fra
alas, poor Pentax
I popped into the local branch of National Camera Exchange, probably Minnesota's largest photo dealer, to pick up an M42 adapter for a Soligor 135/1.8 T-mount lens I just acquired. While I was there, I noticed that there were no Pentax cameras to be seen. When I asked, I was told that while they still carried Pentax digital they had stopped carrying Pentax SLRs because they hadn't been selling well for a while. Given that this is where we got my girlfriend's *istD, I don't know how they currently define this camera, but I'll bet they don't carry it any more. I suspect that the behaviour and attitudes of their sales staff had something to do with the fact that they didn't sell Pentaxes (and now appear to be the only shop in the universe with more Nikon than Canon), but it doesn't bode well for Pentax. Of course local camera stores are struggling with competition from electronics stores and the internet, so they aren't going to handle anything marginal. On a related note, the Soligor 135/1.8 makes me really appreciate the Pentax 135/1.8 A*. The Soligor is amazingly awful at wide stops, kinda like what I'd expect out of an M 85/2 if you could open it up to f/1.0. It's very low in contrast, not at all sharp, and highlights have a little halo around them, plus there's a sort of fog everywhere--generally like shooting through thin fog or a window you have breathed on. The big front element (82mm filter!), lack of coating (1970 design), and cheesy glass (nikon's 135/2 isn't great, and isn't ED) are probably to blame for a lot of it, and it might behave well at f/5.6 or so with a decent lens hood. The Pentax 135/1.8 A* wasn't stunningly sharp at 1.8 and was noticeably longer, but it handled better, was better balanced, and was a lot better performer. Of course it was about 15 years more modern. OTOH, the Soligor might be a really nifty portrait lens if I can get my studio flashes dialed down far enough to allow f/1.8 at ISO 200. DJE
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
That seller is going to Hell. And he says Over The Next Several Weeks I Will Be Listing Some REALLY Unusual Items, So Please Check My Listings Daily Who could say Mary on Grilled Cheese isn't unusual? CW now has to think of something else for lunch... - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 3:18 AM Subject: OT - Strange eBay listing. Not Pentaxiana, not even photographic, but my apologies if anyone's bidding and wanted it kept quiet ;-) http://tinyurl.com/3wapk regards, Anthony Farr --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/10/2004
Re: SMCP A 35/2.8 any good?
Hi, I've had access to the M version, which I think is optically the same. I think you'd find it fine for quick snaps. It's not bad wide open but does improve with stopping down. It's not in the same league as the K35/3.5 but I think it would be pretty hard to see the difference in 4X6 prints. Many of the M 35/2.8's were afflicted with slow aperture syndrome, don't know if that was corrected with the A series but you may want to ask a few questions of the seller or check it out ahead of time.. HTH, William in Utah. - Original Message - From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:12 PM Subject: SMCP A 35/2.8 any good? I've been looking for a decent A type 35mm to use as a normal lens on the D. I understand the A35/2.8 is pretty soft wide open but does anyone know how it is otherwise? I have a nice K 35/3.5 but want something to use in P or Av mode for every- day quick snaps. TIA Don
Re: Re: MagnumPhotos on Darfur,Sudan
www.viiphoto.com I love the Lost in Tokyo series on that site. Excellent stuff! M. Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
RE: 3D quality in a lens?
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO I completely disagree. Try an experiment: close one eye and look at a nearby object with a far-away background. For me, the nearby object has a 3D quality that is imparted by the combination of the sharply-focused object and a blurry background. No, it's not the same effect as that given with both eyes, but it's still a 3D effect. By the way, I can think of three distinctly different 3D effects: The relative positions of objects that you see with two eyes, selective focus, and the relative motion of foreground vs background objects in dynamic scenes. Stereo viewers and holograms excite the first effect, selective-focus excites the second, and rotating or moving a hologram relative to one's eyes excites the third. --Mark
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
Hi, Friday, November 12, 2004, 2:31:45 PM, J. wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO the same thing applies to stereography, which you yourself have described as 3D (if I read you correctly). It is not 3D, artistically or technically - it is a pair of 2D images which can appear to have 3 dimensions through an optical trick. -- Cheers, Bob
macro teleconverters
Did Pentax ever make a macro teleconverter? I've been looking around on the web and the only one I've found is the Vivitar 2x. Is that one good? Why is there so few of these? It seems like they would be very handy. thanks for your comments about the 200mm 2.5. Francis
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Bruce, OK, we hate you... Stop posting that good stuff. You're making me/us look bad. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:43:12 -0800, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm Comments welcome. Bruce
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
William Robb wrote: If my 77 is a good indicator, it is an effect of good bokeh (hard to define, I realize) Now we really started it. M maybe Alan could give us again the links to his bright ring bokeh photo collection.
RE: Tokina 1:2.8~4.3 28-70mm (PKA mount)
Tis lens arrived today. Very nice, almost MINT. It's seemingly a good performer. The machro mode is a great feature and I miss having this on my more expensive lenses. . The lens was payed promtly at the end of the auction. Three days later I had it in my hand. Three days from NY to Denmark! And just 29 USD + shipping. Not bad, eh?. Great seller by the way, Harry Mayer, who also happens to be offering a Mint Pentax F 4-5.6/70-210mm... I'll be testing the lens shortly, against the AT-X 270AF Pro II and my Pentax F 35-80mm. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Peter J. Alling wrote: The Pentax cameras feel like quality devices, weather they are or not may be another story. Alan Chan knows. ;-)
Hey, Cotty ...
Franken-whatever this baby. http://www.photo.net/equipment/lensbaby/ Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
FS: 300mm Screwmount
I haven't used this lens in years. Bought new in 1969. Used only on weekends. Low mileage, rust free. Hey this is Detroit ok. Anybody interested? Make Offer. 300mm f6.3 Tele takumar KEN LN, with original case, caps box - pristine. Kenneth Waller
Re: PESO - Pinnacles 2
Nice capture Bruce. I wouldn't change a thing. Looks like you're on a roll. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:06 PM Subject: PESO - Pinnacles 2 Ok, here is another of the Pinnacles. Pentax *istD, DA 16-45/4, circular polarizer, handheld: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0032.htm Comments welcomed Bruce
RE: *istD Reliability : WAS: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
As for durability: I have almost exclusively used Pentax cameras since 1981. For amateur and professional purposes. All the repairs (and there has been very few at that) except one, was caused by my own bad handling - I dropped the thing, or got tape stuck in the shutter, due to home rolled canisters in my PZ-1. IMHO, Pentax cameras are very well made and very durable. I believe I could never wear out a Petnax camera. Maybe the *ist D will be an exception, because with this camera I shoot in average 100 frames a day. That's 36500 in just one year. I may have to have it serviced after three years (100.000 frames), though! :-) The most conspicuous difference between the MZ-S and *ist D is the crop factor. I must get new wide angels/wide angle zooms. But my M*4/300mm is now a 450mm - with the 1.7 AF Adapter it is now a AF 765mm. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. november 2004 01:25 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: *istD Reliability : WAS: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD) In my opinion, the *istD is too new (what is it about a 1.5 yr old?) to make judgements regarding its long term reliabiliy. ( sorry for stating the obvious, duh). While some have probably already been worked real hard in terms of number of exposures, there is always the issue of aging of components and it will take a more time to know for sure how good or bad the long term reliability will be because its no different than any other camera in that regard, and only time will tell. JCO
PESO - Pinnacles 2
Ok, here is another of the Pinnacles. Pentax *istD, DA 16-45/4, circular polarizer, handheld: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0032.htm Comments welcomed Bruce
Re: macro teleconverters
I don't believe Pentax ever did. I own 2 of the Vivitars, 1 M and 1 A version. I'm quite pleased with both, before I owned true macro lenses one of the Vivitars and an A 50/1.4 made a very nice 100mm F2.8 macro. Don -Original message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:59:47 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: macro teleconverters Did Pentax ever make a macro teleconverter? I've been looking around on the web and the only one I've found is the Vivitar 2x. Is that one good? Why is there so few of these? It seems like they would be very handy. thanks for your comments about the 200mm 2.5. Francis
Re: Hey, Cotty ...
From the description: Focal Length: right around 50 mm What a hoot! Don -Original message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:41:52 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hey, Cotty ... Franken-whatever this baby. http://www.photo.net/equipment/lensbaby/ Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: 3D quality in a lens?
Mark, those are great examples and explain the use of the word nicely. I can easily visualize all of the effects you mention and think 3D effect describes them nicely. ** Even though they are 2D images, the eye and brain intuitively understand that they are of a 3D subject. ** Thanks, Don -Original message- From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:44:56 -0600 To: Pentax-Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3D quality in a lens? J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO I completely disagree. Try an experiment: close one eye and look at a nearby object with a far-away background. For me, the nearby object has a 3D quality that is imparted by the combination of the sharply-focused object and a blurry background. No, it's not the same effect as that given with both eyes, but it's still a 3D effect. By the way, I can think of three distinctly different 3D effects: The relative positions of objects that you see with two eyes, selective focus, and the relative motion of foreground vs background objects in dynamic scenes. Stereo viewers and holograms excite the first effect, selective-focus excites the second, and rotating or moving a hologram relative to one's eyes excites the third. --Mark
Re: *istD Reliability : WAS: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Regarding Pentax durability - I've been a Pentax user since 1969. I've used a Spotmatic, MX, ES II, SF1, PZ1, PZ1P, MZ-S *ist D. I consistently shot hundreds of rolls a year, both for my own pleasure and for business. I've always treated these cameras as the precision instruments they are. I've never had any preventative maintained done and have only had two let downs (on the Spotmatic SF1), that was not my fault. The other two let downs were due to my fault in loading film. This is one of the reasons I remain a Pentaxan. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:45 PM Subject: RE: *istD Reliability : WAS: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD) As for durability: I have almost exclusively used Pentax cameras since 1981. For amateur and professional purposes. All the repairs (and there has been very few at that) except one, was caused by my own bad handling - I dropped the thing, or got tape stuck in the shutter, due to home rolled canisters in my PZ-1. IMHO, Pentax cameras are very well made and very durable. I believe I could never wear out a Petnax camera. Maybe the *ist D will be an exception, because with this camera I shoot in average 100 frames a day. That's 36500 in just one year. I may have to have it serviced after three years (100.000 frames), though! :-) -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. november 2004 01:25 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: *istD Reliability : WAS: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD) In my opinion, the *istD is too new (what is it about a 1.5 yr old?) to make judgements regarding its long term reliabiliy. ( sorry for stating the obvious, duh). While some have probably already been worked real hard in terms of number of exposures, there is always the issue of aging of components and it will take a more time to know for sure how good or bad the long term reliability will be because its no different than any other camera in that regard, and only time will tell. JCO
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
I don't know how to say this any more politely, but someone who owns a 80-200 f2.8 auto focus lens is hardly a typical SLR user let alone a typical photographer, (in the broadest sense of the word). Sure Canon's best equipment is world beating but most people can only aspire to such lofty heights. I think I might have spent a few thousand USD on my current equipment, I could never have afforded the equivalent if I'd gotten Canons top of the line products and my photographs probably wouldn't be much better. But that wasn't even why I even posted this and it makes no sense if you cut out the original post. (Yes I know, whine, whine, whine). John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling mused: Canon's RD is no better than anyone elses. Pentax quiet likely has just as many or more imaging patents. Canon can bring more products to market weather there is a need for them or not. Some are truely superior products, but I've felt they were inferior since the days of the AE1, they were the first quality camera manufacture to jump on the plastic junk bandwagon. It's been downhill ever since. More features less quality Yipee. Odd, then, that they were the leaders to market USM IS lenses, and seem to be leading the way with sensor technology, too. From where I sit Canon definitely do seem to have more results from their RD department. They, more than anybody else, are pushing forwards the cutting edge of DSLR development. Do they fund this by selling cheap junk to the masses? Sure. And why not? If this means they can make top-of-the-line stuff like the L-series lenses and the 1Ds II, and sell them cheaper, then I'm all for it. I liked the EOS-10D when I rented one, and I'm sure the -20D is even better. By the time you've got an 80-200/2.8 (or even just a 28-70) mounted on the front of it, and a flash on the top, the difference in size and weight between that and the *ist-D just isn't all that significant. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Is this fungus?
The Vatican isn't properly a part of Italy. They probably have their own domain. Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed: If you paid using Papal, talk to them first. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: OT - Shooting Blind From The Hip
You, worried about ramifications??? Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty, it is rather excellent no matter which hip exactly it was shot from. But then again Hip (unlike hip) may mean something totally different and I wouldn't know what that would be. Seriously, I wish I could do the same, which perhaps I might try. I thought about ankle-cam but the ramifications of being discovered near short skirts was too much to contemplate Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Bill Clinton would probably shoot the Moose more than 100 yards from a road... Cotty wrote: On 12/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: From where I come we don't cheat on our wifes to become a real man we rather take out our frustration on shooting a moose. The meat has got a far better taste than Bill's cigar (havent tasted his cigar though ). Hmmm. Maybe a should shoot the Moose with a camera... Is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I one of Bill Clinton's cigars?? Okay, let me put it this way. is this man in the full process of enabling himself or am I Bill Clinton's moose? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: macro teleconverters
Did Pentax ever make a macro teleconverter? Nope. I've been looking around on the web and the only one I've found is the Vivitar 2x. Is that one good? Yes, indeed. I'd say, from my experience, that (in its non-macro mode) it's the optical equal of the A 2X-S and the K T6-2X (at least on the lenses I've used it on)... thanks for your comments about the 200mm 2.5. ...including the K 200/2.5. Why is there so few of these? It seems like they would be very handy. I think that they're actually fairly common. Vivitar had been selling them for years, both in an earlier pre-Ka K-mount version and later in a Ka-mount version. (I'm not sure if Vivitar ever made a screwmount version of this particular TC, but someone else will know.) It seems as if they're a frequent auction item on eBay. Fred
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
Oh, my Gaud... Anthony Farr wrote: Not Pentaxiana, not even photographic, but my apologies if anyone's bidding and wanted it kept quiet ;-) http://tinyurl.com/3wapk regards, Anthony Farr -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
William Robb mused: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: 3D quality in a lens? it would look totally different with 3D photograhy, John, we are not talking about 3D photography. Why are you trying to hijack a simple question? William Robb Hey, it wouldn't be the PDML without JCO deliberately misconstruing what people are saying, or without Caveman on the sidelines throwing brickbats. It would probably be a much better place, but it wouldn't be the PDML.
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Caveman wrote: Peter J. Alling wrote: The Pentax cameras feel like quality devices, weather they are or not may be another story. Alan Chan knows. ;-) Alan is the unluckiest man in the world... -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: 3D quality in a lens?
We don't have the capacity to resist... Peter J. Alling wrote: No, no, NO NOT AGAIN... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Congratulations, you've just joined the resistance... DagT fra: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is that anything like DANGER!! 2 MILLION OHMS! keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: [...] Take for example a little rechargable product I purchased the other day, it read in big bold print 7.2v Of Power, as you know this makes no sense however it seems nowadays that power pack voltage equates directly to product quality/power, go figure. Rob Studdert
Re: macro teleconverters
Teleplus made a very good 7 element one in K, KA they're actually quite well sort after. John -- Original Message --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:57:10 -0500 Subject: macro teleconverters Did Pentax ever make a macro teleconverter? I've been looking around on the web and the only one I've found is the Vivitar 2x. Is that one good? Why is there so few of these? It seems like they would be very handy. thanks for your comments about the 200mm 2.5. Francis --- End of Original Message ---
Re: macro teleconverters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did Pentax ever make a macro teleconverter? I've been looking around on the web and the only one I've found is the Vivitar 2x. Is that one good? Why is there so few of these? It seems like they would be very handy. thanks for your comments about the 200mm 2.5. Francis There were a few 2x macro teleconverters sold, I think that they were all made by the same manufacturer and re-badged. I have the vivitar, (K mount version), it's very good. They make a KA version and if I knew that when I'd bought mine I'd have held out for it. Other than the mount they appear to be identical. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: how does the ZX-50 do with ttl flash?
Hi Kostas Thanks for the comment, I've just bought one and really like the zoom head, should work well with the 28-105 FAp and the MZ-3. I've yet to test the AF assist infrared thingie :) John -- Original Message --- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:25:30 + (GMT) Subject: Re: how does the ZX-50 do with ttl flash? On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, John Whittingham wrote: That all sounds very reassuring, I think I might just look into getting the AF400FTZ It is a very nice flash and can be bought for a song. There is also an optional W/A adapter (24mm coverage on 35mm) for it, for which I have no opinion. Kostas --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
I guess it all comes down to whether you believe the manufacturers define the marketplace, or whether they design what they can sell. There's more than a little truth on both sides, of course. I don't recall there ever being a shortage of products aimed at a lower price point than those from the leading manufacturers. (In fact one could argue that Pentax themselves filled such a role in the 60s and 70s). The products ranged all the way from the good-but-clunky typified by the Praktica my brother bought as a cheaper alternative to my Spotmatic, to the badge-engineered products (Hanimex, QuantaRay) available from many chains - some good, some truly terrible. Third-party lens manufacturers (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, ...) also did quite well servicing this demand, and there were even a few attempts at creating bodies, too (Ricoh being probably best know to Pentax folks). I see Canon's move into low-end products as an attempt to expand into this section of the market, too - by that time they pretty much owned the high-end marketplace. They recognise that the market is largely price driven (people buy what they can afford). Is the $100 lens on a Rebel as good as the L-series equivalent? Of course not. But it's probably as good as almost any $100 lens ever sold in the last three decades, and that's without trying to convert into constant-value dollar equivalents. Peter J. Alling mused: I don't know how to say this any more politely, but someone who owns a 80-200 f2.8 auto focus lens is hardly a typical SLR user let alone a typical photographer, (in the broadest sense of the word). Sure Canon's best equipment is world beating but most people can only aspire to such lofty heights. I think I might have spent a few thousand USD on my current equipment, I could never have afforded the equivalent if I'd gotten Canons top of the line products and my photographs probably wouldn't be much better. But that wasn't even why I even posted this and it makes no sense if you cut out the original post. (Yes I know, whine, whine, whine). John Francis wrote: Peter J. Alling mused: Canon's RD is no better than anyone elses. Pentax quiet likely has just as many or more imaging patents. Canon can bring more products to market weather there is a need for them or not. Some are truely superior products, but I've felt they were inferior since the days of the AE1, they were the first quality camera manufacture to jump on the plastic junk bandwagon. It's been downhill ever since. More features less quality Yipee. Odd, then, that they were the leaders to market USM IS lenses, and seem to be leading the way with sensor technology, too. From where I sit Canon definitely do seem to have more results from their RD department. They, more than anybody else, are pushing forwards the cutting edge of DSLR development. Do they fund this by selling cheap junk to the masses? Sure. And why not? If this means they can make top-of-the-line stuff like the L-series lenses and the 1Ds II, and sell them cheaper, then I'm all for it. I liked the EOS-10D when I rented one, and I'm sure the -20D is even better. By the time you've got an 80-200/2.8 (or even just a 28-70) mounted on the front of it, and a flash on the top, the difference in size and weight between that and the *ist-D just isn't all that significant. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Fast 135's [was: alas, poor Pentax]
Of course, it is not as sharp at f/1.8 as it is at f/8, of course. And, of course, I should not be so redundant. Of course... Fred
Re: Is this fungus?
That's right! I forgot about that. They're a separate country, like Monaco except with different morals). They issue passports to their citizens, have ambassadors, the whole shebang. Regards, Bob... From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Vatican isn't properly a part of Italy. They probably have their own domain. Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Bob Blakely, discombobulated, unleashed: If you paid using Papal, talk to them first. email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
Re: Helios 85mm? Was: 77 vs 85 (was: www?)
Fred, I'm wondering, where did you manage to get the Zenitar 85/1.4? I understand that that's an extremely rare lens. Hi, Mike - sorry for not answering sooner. I read someplace that Zenitar made only one small batch of 'em, and that they sold them only in South Africa. I picked up the one that I played with for a while from a guy who lived in Zimbabwe (as I remember it), so that would more-or-less fit what I had read. The MC Zenitar K 85/1.4 is probably the most unusual 85 that I'd ever used. Fred
Scary Ist D moment!
I put an old 135/2.8 KA/R lens on the D just now and 1/2 way it got stuck! Had a devil of a time getting it off. Had to take a thin piece of plastic and slide it in between to release the stupid Ricoh contact from where it was firmly stuck in the little hole for the autofocus drive pin! That little Ricoh pin no longer exists, thanks to my trusty Dremel tool! Just a word of caution to those of you who haven't tried this Stupid Don Trick,,, yet. :-( Don
