Re: Dr. Strangelove...

[Tim Sherburne]

For snapshots, I use Fuji Superia "X-TRA" 400 36 exp. from B&H at less than
US$2 a roll. It'll be slightly more at a store, but you can find it
anywhere. I prefer its color palette to that of Kodak, and it's slightly
less expensive. Grain is minimal.

I don't use a 200 speed film, period. I'd rather get an extra stop. I
occasionally use Fuji Superia Reala (ISO 100) if I have enough light or I'm
working with a tripod.

Kodak's Portra 160 NC and 400 NC are great if you're after a more subtle
color palette.

AFAIK, Portra 400 B&W one finds in a camera shop and their consumer C-41 B&W
you get at Walmart are the same film, just different packaging. I also use
this from time to time, primarily because good silver B&W processing is
getting more difficult to find every day. I don't do my own anymore. :(

Tim


On 12/23/04 22:43, Jason Randolph wrote:

> (Or, how I learned to stop worrying and ask about film)
> 
> Hello to all! Here we are at another holiday here and I have to open a
> can of worms
> 
> Which "over the counter" (a.k.a., easily attainable) brand/type of film
> is best for all around color and possible enlargement to 8x10 quality? I
> personally have always leaned towards Fuji (because I am not rich enough
> to seriously "play" or "experiment" with rolls. Plus, my Zenit was a hit
> or miss anyhow for exposure so I couldn't get reliable quality to
> compare), but if you had to rely on one roll, what would it be?
> 
> I also like the Kodak B&W C-41 process film since it's easy to shoot
> with, have developed. Does anyone have personal experience with the
> POLAROID High Definition 35mm print film found at Wal-Mart? What makes
> it high definition and is it a natural choice for lack of grain and easy
> enlarging? Do you like that high definition film and can you really tell
> a difference?
> 
> I know, what a can of worms to open. Thanks for the replies!
> 
> Hope all have a Merry Christmas (all who celebrate it that is)...
> 
> Jay
> 
> 
> 

Dr. Strangelove...

[Jason Randolph]

(Or, how I learned to stop worrying and ask about film)
Hello to all! Here we are at another holiday here and I have to open a 
can of worms

Which "over the counter" (a.k.a., easily attainable) brand/type of film 
is best for all around color and possible enlargement to 8x10 quality? I 
personally have always leaned towards Fuji (because I am not rich enough 
to seriously "play" or "experiment" with rolls. Plus, my Zenit was a hit 
or miss anyhow for exposure so I couldn't get reliable quality to 
compare), but if you had to rely on one roll, what would it be?

I also like the Kodak B&W C-41 process film since it's easy to shoot 
with, have developed. Does anyone have personal experience with the 
POLAROID High Definition 35mm print film found at Wal-Mart? What makes 
it high definition and is it a natural choice for lack of grain and easy 
enlarging? Do you like that high definition film and can you really tell 
a difference?

I know, what a can of worms to open. Thanks for the replies!
Hope all have a Merry Christmas (all who celebrate it that is)...
Jay

RE: PESO: Let it Snow, Let it Snow

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Paul
I was  already wondering, some of you (USA?) must have gotten massive
amounts of snow in the last days.
We will have no snow here in Zurich today and tomorrow, it's to warm  (6
degrees) and rainy in the city.
Last days snow melted.

"Skating away, skating away, on the thin ice of a new day" (Jethro Tull)


I like the mood your picture, and the snow caps on the lights are lovely.
greetings
Markus




>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 3:30 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: PESO: Let it Snow, Let it Snow
>>
>>
>>We got about ten inches of new snow today in Michigan. A couple
>>of hours ago I snapped a pic in the garden:
>>http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2981348&size=lg
>>
>>

It Really is XMAS!Pentax 16-45 DA + EF500 DG Super

[Ron Archer]

Well..it really is xmas!
Pentax 16-45 DA
Sigma EF-500 DG Super PA-PTTL
I finally received my new lens and flash, just in time for chrissy.
If all goes well, I'll be able to give them a good test run while I am =
off work.
Anyone that has any tips for use of the flash or lens, please don't =
hesitate to reply.
I know its always best to learn from your own practice,
but any little tips or hints would be great.
This is a great forum to belong to, love reading all the input, Q's and =
A's everyone submits.
Have a wonderful Christmas all!
Best wishes
Doc

RE: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Markus Maurer]

Hi
I would indeed wear such a helmet for portraits or in the streets , you
never have to say "cheese" or "appelsine" or whatever to make people smile
and everybody relaxes when they see you.  I do mad things sometimes ;-)
greetings
Markus


>>-Original Message-
>>From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:43 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories
>>
>>
>>> helmet with flash and umbrella
>>
>>> Frits Wüthrich
>>
>>
>>http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2
>>
>>supposedly from the 1920's, but would you really walk around with that on
>>your head...
>>
>>Feroze
>>
>>

RE: Last minute advice

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Rob
Strange number 2 is here ;-) I really enjoy this lens, this was the best
lens buy I made this year.
But I guess you use it as a 75mm macro  on a digital body.
greetings
Markus



>>
>>I guess I'm just strange, I use 50mm lenses all the time and more
>>so since
>>acquiring an excellent A50/2.8 macro lens.
>>
>>Rob Studdert

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" 
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


You... You... Canadian
Is that the best you got, Forest Service Pretender Boy?
William Robb

RE: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Andy Chang]

Thanks guys!!!
I think I'm going to give it a shot on EBay...
Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 6:41 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

I haved a mint version of the K. I've only used it a few times, but its
sharpness and contrast amazed me. It's a very good lens, but it's also a
very large lens by today's standards. I'll have to pull it out again one
of these days and see how it fares on the *istD.
Paul


> The version one - K - is better in some respects, but IMO the M is
better 
> overall. I have fond memories of it and would like to buy one.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:12 AM
> Subject: Re: M80-200/4.5 lens
> 
> 
> > It is a lighter lens, with lots of plastic inside instead of the 
> > full-metal mechanism of version one.   Mechanically, two examples I
played 
> > with were flimsy.  One was like new and its internal SMC were badly 
> > applied on one element.
> >
> > The lens was "moved" outside Japan to be made without SMC.  The
examples 
> > of the non-SMC lenses I have seen were mechanically horrible,
although 
> > quite used.
> >
> > Raimo and Bernd noted it is better than M200.  The same has been
said of 
> > version one lens.  I wonder if the version 2 zoom is better than
version 
> > one...
> >
> > Andre
> >
> >>Guys,
> >>I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
> >>Boz's site.
> >>According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing
distance is
> >>different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
> >>aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
> >>But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
> >>Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing
was
> >>mentioned about the version used...
> >>Anybody has one here?
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>Andy
> > 
> 

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[David Mann]

On Dec 23, 2004, at 8:56 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That got me to wondering how
many people here have never used a fully manual camera - no autofocus, 
no
modes, no built-in meter.  Anyone?
The only fully manual SLR I've used is an RB67.  My Pentax 6x7 has an 
electronic shutter but no meter (unless I attach the metered prism 
finder) so that might count as well.

There is also my first camera, a fixed-focus 110 point-n-shoot I got 
for Xmas when I was about 10 (20 years ago, gulp).  I still have it 
somewhere.  Also the occasional single-use camera.

Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[wendy beard]

At 06:14 PM 23/12/2004, you wrote:
But Wendy, I only ever shoot in that mode - yet I have had my latest
digital incarnation since October and shot  only 1629 images. AI Servo
and continuous drive mode are similar to a film camera for me. I tried
shooting in single shot mode once only, and instantly hated it. The
camera makes you *wait* until a shot's in focus? No way.
Ah, but you have to remember what I'm shooting. Dog agility. My technique 
is just the same as if I was using an MX :-)
I know the course, so I know the dog's path. I pre-focus on an obstacle and 
wait. Dog takes the obstacle and, bam, I pick him off.  (using Fred's 
sniper analogy ;-) ). I have a very high rate of keepers using this method.
I'm afraid my disdain for the machine-gun method comes from seeing others 
in the same field switching to continuous and blindly shooting away in the 
hope that they capture something worth selling.
True story: I was competing with Tanja in the AAC National Championships in 
Montreal this August. The photographer who had the contract to cover the 
event had an assistant who just didn't have a clue about dog agility. There 
were 22 shots made of my dog. Out of those only one was in focus and moving 
towards the camera. More than half were butt-shots (the dog's not mine - 
thank goodness!)

Anyway, my latest venture is flyball. It was while taking snaps at a 
practice session I learned that the technique I have used for yonks just 
won't work in flyball. Well, almost. Box-turn shots are easy to get, but 
the running shots are something else!
I suppose what I'm saying is that I dismissed a very useful technique 
because of what I'd seen produced by others without trying it for myself. 
Too set in my ways ;-)

Wendy
Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com 

RE: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Paul Ewins]

First camera: Kodak 126
First 35mm used: My Mother's Agfa Silette (non meter version)

Then came the K1000, MX, Z70, MZ5n, more MXen and an LX and finally the
*istD

And then the Speed Graphic and a Moskva 5 and the 6x7 (with standard prism).

Fully mechanical doesn't bother me with 120 and larger as I am generally
working slowly, but for fast use I like the *istD.

Ironically at a recent party I took along the *istD and the Speed Graphic.
The RTF flash on the *istD was it's usual uncooperative self and a lot of
the photos were a couple of stops underexposed. The negs from the graphic
using bulb flash were just fine.

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia

-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

The question was: "... how many people here have never used a fully manual
camera - no autofocus, no modes, no built-in meter

Re: Last minute advice

[Tom C]

You... You... Canadian
.
Your's too, Idaho Potato Head.
William Robb

Re: The official PDMLer Christmas shopping list

[Mark Roberts]

frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:52:34 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> >> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/0656.htm
>> 
>> Do you remember who took that photo? It was with my camera but I don't
>> *think* it was me but I'm not certain...
>> 
>Does it look like I'd remember anything from that particular moment in
>time?  
>
>Actually, I thought it was you, but I could be wrong.  There were many
>cameras and flashes going off that evening!

I'm already looking forward to GFM 2005 :)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Juan Buhler]

So, I suppose the answer to Shel's question is "none", with the thread
gone into a reminiscing conversation--as it should be.

I like having a meter in the camera, although I've shot Tri-x on the
shadow side of the street for so long that I don't look at it too much
(1/250, f4.5 to f8 depending on how bright it is). I also dislike AF,
and my ist D is in manual all the time.

I was starting to pack my equipment for London last night, and I
picked up the M6. I do miss that thing, and I think I'll try to finish
the few rolls of Tri-X I still have while in London. Scanning film is
a hassle though...

As for cameras, the M6 and the MX have been my main ones for years.
Also own a ZX5n, which was on a diet of TMZ but that kind of doesn't
make sense now with the istD. I have lots of odd little soviet
cameras, like Feds and Zorkis, Lubitels (2 and 166), some Lomos. Also
a pristine K1000 that doesn't see much use either (but I can't make
myself part with it), and a few 60's Japanese fixed lens rangefinders
(there's a like new Minolta 7s, everything working, that's begging to
have some film run through it). Oh, and a few Kodak Brownies (the
Hawkeye is a beautiful piece of American deco--a nice p&s too)

So, it was kind of a vice a few years back. I'm off of it now, no more
cameras that I won't use...

j


On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:56:45 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation got around to
> modern cameras as he's thinking about getting a digi for his daughter.
> There wasn't much i could help him with since I know so little about modern
> cameras, and apart from shooting a few frames with John's istD and a lesser
> number of frames with Juan's istD, and one frame with a Minolta a couple of
> years ago, I've never used or even handled a modern autofocus camera.
> That's probably quite unusual for this list.  That got me to wondering how
> many people here have never used a fully manual camera - no autofocus, no
> modes, no built-in meter.  Anyone?
> 
> Shel
> 
> 


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

PESO: Let it Snow, Let it Snow

[pnstenquist]

We got about ten inches of new snow today in Michigan. A couple of hours ago I 
snapped a pic in the garden:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2981348&size=lg

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Herb Chong]

i'm on a tripod most of the time and i seldom choose to use manual anything.
have to compose first, focus next, and then set exposure last. lots of
movable AF points and exposure compensation do everything i need almost all
of the time. i have to go manual mode when i am shooting multiple shots in a
panorama, but i will meter using evaluative metering from some
"representative" direction and quickly pan after setting exposure to see the
dynamic range i have to deal with. most of the time i am shooting f11 or
smaller, so with the compositions i usually use, exact focus wide open isn't
critical. macros are when i use DOF preview a lot. when i am shooting birds
and such, i will switch to spot metering mode and dial in a bit of exposure
compensation to compensate for a spot that isn't small enough. i'll still be
in AF mode with center AF.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Desjardins" 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


> I do find that I mostly use manual focus and manual exposure.  I find
> that I like to get ready for a picture in this order:
> 1. Meter
> 2. Compose
> 3. Focus
>
> Manual modes really work best here.  What is being metered may not be
> directly the subject or within AF points.  Then I find that getting
> the composition right before focusing is important because I don't
> want the focus to affect it - too often AF pushes you toward centering
> the subject on the AF point.  Lastly, after getting the composition
> where I want it, then focus in and out a bit observing the effect on
> the image.  This helps me to determine exactly where I want the focus
> to be.

Re: Last minute advice

[Jerry in Houston]

<>

I bought my first "quality" 35mm camera while
stationed in Italy in 1966-67.  A company in Japan was
offering kits to US servicemen, with a choice of
Pentax and Minolta (maybe Canon, but I don't
remember).  I bought a Minolta SRT-101 kit which
included The Rokkor 35mm, 55mm f=1.4, and 135mm
lenses.  I did not buy the Pentax because a friend of
mine lost a lens on his Pentax (M42) while trying to
change lenses on a carnival ride.  I opted for the
Minolta bayonet mount.  A very nice camera as I
remember.

My first 35mm camera, a gift for my 8th grade
graduation was a Kodak Pony 135 with a Kodak Anaston
f/3.5 lens and a manually cocked shutter in a leather
never ready case. I still have some slides I took with
it.  It resurfaced a couple of years ago when clearing
out my mothers apartment after her death.  She had
kept it all these years... thanks Mom.

Jerry in Houston

Re: PAW: Some people like big cats...

[Albano Garcia]

Yes, it's artificial, but at first glance you get
scared, believe me!
Regards

Albano


--- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I see the security shutters, and on closer
> examination, that Bengal 
> looks like a plaster-cast statue!
> Hmmm, hard to say.
> 
> keith
> 
> Albano Garcia wrote:
> 
> > 
> > http://www.flaneur.com.ar/04.htm
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > Albano Garcia
> > Photography & Graphic Design
> > http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
> > http://www.flaneur.com.ar
> 
> 


=
Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.com.ar
 
 

 






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 

Re: Last minute advice

[Joseph Tainter]

Tom wrote:
"The old rule of thumb was twice the long side of the negative which 
would be 72mm."

Thanks, Tom. I hadn't heard this one. So on the *ist D, my FA 50 f1.7 
should be an appropriate portrait lens. Or else the long end of the DA 
16-45.

Joe

Re: PAW: Some people like big cats...

[Albano Garcia]

LOL!
This one is plastic or something, but believe me the
first time you look at it, you get surprised.
This appartment is weird, the window's curtain has
been broken for months, so nobody never gets out to
the balcony.
This kitty is lonely!!!
Regards

Albano



--- Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I knew someone who had one of them cats once, before
> the went on the endangered 
> species list and he had to give it to a zoo. He had
> a sign on his fence that 
> said "Beware of Cat". People would laugh at the sign
> until they saw his cat.
> 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Albano Garcia wrote:
> > 
> > http://www.flaneur.com.ar/04.htm
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > Albano Garcia
> > Photography & Graphic Design
> > http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
> > http://www.flaneur.com.ar
> >  
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __ 
> > Do you Yahoo!? 
> > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
> > http://my.yahoo.com 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release
> Date: 12/22/2004
> 
> 


=
Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.com.ar
 
 

 






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 

Re: A Chosen Photograph

[Albano Garcia]

Congratulations Shel.
The link doesn't allow me to see the photo.
Do you have it in your website?
Regards

Albano

--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I just received the following message this afternoon
> and wanted to share it
> with you.  For those who don't know, KQED is the
> local Public Broadcasting
> station in San Francisco and environs, and is one of
> the most widely
> listened to and viewed public radio and TV station
> in the US.
> 
> Shel
> 
> =
> 
> [Original Message] 
> From: Local Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> Date: 12/16/2004 1:58:58 PM 
> Subject: KQED.org Photo of the Day 
> 
> Hi Shel-
> Thanks for submitting "Montclair Mailbox" to the
> KQED "Photo of the Day"
> Gallery.  Your photo will be featured on KQED.org's
> homepage on January 5.
> http://www.kqed.org 
> 
> Your photo will then reside in the "Photo of the
> Day" January 2005 Gallery.
> 
> http://www.kqed.org/topics/local/january05/ 
> 
> Be sure to spread the word about our new "Photo of
> the Day" feature and
> gallery.  
> We are always looking for excellent photos like
> yours to share with the
> KQED.org 
> community.
> 
> Thanks, Wendy 
> KQED.org "Photo of the Day" Editor 
> 
> 
> 
> 


=
Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.com.ar
 
 

 






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good. 
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com

Re: PAW: Some people like big cats...

[Albano Garcia]

Cool shot. Obviously India, right?
Mine is Buenos Aires
Regards

Albano


--- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thursday, December 23, 2004, 2:40:41 PM, Albano
> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.flaneur.com.ar/04.htm
> 
> me too!
> 
> http://www.web-options.com/Tigerman.jpg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob
> 
> "An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes
> that can be made in a very narrow field."
> - Niels Bohr
> 
> 


=
Albano Garcia
Photography & Graphic Design
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar
http://www.flaneur.com.ar
 
 

 






__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Joseph Tainter]

Thanks for the chance to reminisce, Shel. Hope I'm not boring everyone 
else. (Okay, I probably am, but I don't do this often.)

Shel:
I spent a lot of 1967 dollars at Gasser's on Geary Blvd, and that's 
where I had my first show.  Actually, it was the second hanging of my 
first show, which first appeared at the Parks and Rec building.  They're 
still "in business," although the last time I was there things seemed a 
little shoddier than I remember them to have been.  Back in 1967 - 1970 
it was a great place to learn.  The place was always busy, and lots of 
ideas were flying around as well as some experimenting with different 
techniques and the sharing of equipment.

-
I wonder if we crossed paths? I used it through at least 1970. Then it 
was a darkroom at UC Santa Barbara, where I was an undergraduate.
-

Gasser's in those days was a real haven for photographers, at least it
seemed that way to me.
-
Me too. I went by it about 4 years ago and was grossly disappointed.
-
Where was your dad's pharmacy?
-
Tainter's Drug Store, southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Irving. He 
sold it in 1968.

Joe

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" 
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


That's what you think, other's opinions may differ. :)
Your's too, Idaho Potato Head.
William Robb

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" 
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


You're definitely wrong.
Up your's, Smelly Pants.
William Robb

Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I haved a mint version of the K. I've only used it a few times, but its 
> sharpness and contrast amazed me. It's a very good lens, but it's also a very 
> large lens by today's standards. I'll have to pull it out again one of these 
> days and see how it fares on the *istD.

I have the early M (same as the K optically) and sold it for the SMC-F
because I am not strong enough to focus and hold.

YMMV,

Kostas (actually, YMSV :-)

Re: Last minute advice

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:

> Hell I even use those most outmoded of lenses, the dreaded 135mm :-p

Oh, I am a happy man, I took out the K135/2.5 today and shot a little
bit of film.

Even looking through the viefinder this thing is amazing... I have
a few lenses, but this must be my best one. It certainly feels so.

Kostas

Re: PESO: Tomato

[frank theriault]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:45:21 +, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gah - why is it so hard to forget those bloody URIs? ;-)
> 
> http://www.elvum.net/gallery/paw/kw_gmac3
> 
> S
> 
> Steve Jolly wrote:
> > Playing around with a reversing ring in a greenhouse - this was one of
> > the better shots.  Reversed M50/1.4 onto Delta 3200.  All comments and
> > criticisms welcomed. :-)
> >

Cool!  As it loaded top to bottom, it almost looked like a stick
insect or something, until the fruit emerged.

Black and white isn't the obvious choice for bright red things, but I
think it works well here.  For one thing, it isn't the obvious choice
for bright red things, and I like portrayals that are a bit off the
beaten path.  The other thing is that I find I'm drawn into the
details, like the hair on the vines, the pointy leaves, and the
seemingly perfect roundness of the tomatoe.  Without colour to get in
the way, there's only pure form to consider.

That's one interesting photo!  Thanks for posting it.

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: bag rash

[johnf]

William Robb mused:
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "cbwaters"
> Subject: Re: bag rash
> 
> 
> >I think Keith is right.
> > But if I had bag rashI'd go to the doctor and see if there's a 
> > shot for it ;)
> 
> I think it is treated with a steroid cream.

No - that's just flaxseed oil.

Re: PESO - A Walk in the Woods

[frank theriault]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:42:23 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22/12/04, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >I look at those photos, and the "Friendly Giant" theme keeps going
> >through my head.
> >
> >Canadians will know what I mean.  I'll explain later (if I think of it).
> >
> >Great stuff, Cotty.
> 
> Thanks Frank. Is that a 'Big' Friendly Giant?

Yes.

It was a kid's show that started in the late 50's, and I think it
ended mid-70's or something like that.  They still show it on re-runs
daily.  He lived in a castle with some little animal friends (Rusty
the rooster and Jerome the giraffe and a Siamese Cat band that
sometimes played classical and sometimes jazz.  It was all pretty
funky stuff.  The intro and extro music was him playing an old English
folk song, I think "Early One Morning", on the recorder.

Your pastoral scenes reminded me of Friendly taking us on a walk
through the area around his castle.

It was meant as a compliment.  

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: PESO -- Front Door

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:44:48 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I'd do something seasonal, so here it is.
> 
> http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_Front_Door.html
> 
> As usual comments are welcome but may be completely ignored.

Merry Christmas, Peter.

Nice photo of a door, too.

cheers,
frank 


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: The official PDMLer Christmas shopping list

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:52:34 -0500, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/pages/0656.htm
> 
> Do you remember who took that photo? It was with my camera but I don't
> *think* it was me but I'm not certain...
> 
> --

Does it look like I'd remember anything from that particular moment in
time?  

Actually, I thought it was you, but I could be wrong.  There were many
cameras and flashes going off that evening!

cheers,
frank


-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Breaking in the Hallway

[frank theriault]

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:17:11 +0200, Raimo K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, he chose the angle that shows the least of the action.
> All the best!

Sometimes,. angles just choose themselves.  We're just there with a camera...



cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

RE: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[pnstenquist]

I'm sure it would work quite nicely for macro up to . My sof' shoulder is 
excellent for most macro work up to 1:1 or so. And it's virtually the same as 
this rig. 
Paul


> Looks like it would get some great pics of people
> with wierd expressions! (Mostly laughing)
> Wonder how it would be for macro work? ;-)
> 
> Don
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:43 PM
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Subject: Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories
> >
> >
> > > helmet with flash and umbrella
> >
> > > Frits Wüthrich
> >
> >
> > http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2
> >
> > supposedly from the 1920's, but would you really walk around with that on
> > your head...
> >
> > Feroze
> >
> 

Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[pnstenquist]

Fritz asked, "Would you really walk around with that on your head?" Hell, yes. 
In fact, it's quite similar to my sof' shoulder. Note the excellent results of 
this young lady's shoot. There's nothing like a big reflector to make flash a 
viable option.
Paul


> > helmet with flash and umbrella
> 
> > Frits Wüthrich
> 
> 
> http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2
> 
> supposedly from the 1920's, but would you really walk around with that on 
> your head...
> 
> Feroze 
> 

Manual Camera Usage - WasRe: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Kenneth Waller]

An interesting variation on this question is how many users have never shot
in the manual exposure mode (assuming your auto camera has that capability.

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

> many people here have never used a fully manual camera - no autofocus, no
> modes, no built-in meter.  Anyone?
>
> Shel
>
>

RE: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Don Sanderson]

Looks like it would get some great pics of people
with wierd expressions! (Mostly laughing)
Wonder how it would be for macro work? ;-)

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:43 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories
>
>
> > helmet with flash and umbrella
>
> > Frits Wüthrich
>
>
> http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2
>
> supposedly from the 1920's, but would you really walk around with that on
> your head...
>
> Feroze
>

Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Feroze]

helmet with flash and umbrella

Frits Wüthrich

http://www.juergenspecht.com/truestories/?number=1&storypage=2
supposedly from the 1920's, but would you really walk around with that on 
your head...

Feroze 

Re: A Chosen Photograph

[Keith Whaley]

Congratulations, Shel!
I'll check it out at the appropriate time.
keith
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I just received the following message this afternoon and wanted to share it
with you.  For those who don't know, KQED is the local Public Broadcasting
station in San Francisco and environs, and is one of the most widely
listened to and viewed public radio and TV station in the US.
Shel
=
[Original Message] 
From: Local Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Date: 12/16/2004 1:58:58 PM 
Subject: KQED.org Photo of the Day 

Hi Shel-
Thanks for submitting "Montclair Mailbox" to the KQED "Photo of the Day"
Gallery.  Your photo will be featured on KQED.org's homepage on January 5.
http://www.kqed.org 

Your photo will then reside in the "Photo of the Day" January 2005 Gallery.
http://www.kqed.org/topics/local/january05/ 

Be sure to spread the word about our new "Photo of the Day" feature and
gallery.  
We are always looking for excellent photos like yours to share with the
KQED.org 
community.

Thanks, Wendy 
KQED.org "Photo of the Day" Editor 

Re: bag rash

[Feroze]

Thanks Cory, but isn't a shot for thatdon't ask
Feroze
- Original Message - 
From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: bag rash


I think Keith is right.
But if I had bag rashI'd go to the doctor and see if there's a shot 
for it ;)

Cory
has seen plenty of road rash but always rode with shorts or pants on :)
- Original Message - 
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: bag rash



Feroze wrote:
from a description on ebay. What is it, or is that another name for 
fungus??

Thanks
Feroze
I'll take a wild guess...
I'd say the camera bag within which it was always carried was not all 
soft and protective, but might have been like a heavy canvas, and 
constant rubbing has "brassed" the corners and edges. Abraded the finish 
off of some of them.

If you've ever fallen off a bike, and got "road rash" then you know what 
"bag rash" is!  

Just a guess,
keith whaley


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: A Chosen Photograph

[Cotty]

On 23/12/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I just received the following message this afternoon and wanted to share it
>with you.  For those who don't know, KQED is the local Public Broadcasting
>station in San Francisco and environs, and is one of the most widely
>listened to and viewed public radio and TV station in the US.

Congrats Shel.

KQED !  I remember it well.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: A Chosen Photograph

[Don Sanderson]

Now THAT'S cool!
Congrats Shel.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:25 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: A Chosen Photograph
>
>
> I just received the following message this afternoon and wanted
> to share it
> with you.  For those who don't know, KQED is the local Public Broadcasting
> station in San Francisco and environs, and is one of the most widely
> listened to and viewed public radio and TV station in the US.
>
> Shel
>
> =
>
> [Original Message]
> From: Local Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 12/16/2004 1:58:58 PM
> Subject: KQED.org Photo of the Day
>
> Hi Shel-
> Thanks for submitting "Montclair Mailbox" to the KQED "Photo of the Day"
> Gallery.  Your photo will be featured on KQED.org's homepage on January 5.
> http://www.kqed.org
>
> Your photo will then reside in the "Photo of the Day" January
> 2005 Gallery.
>
> http://www.kqed.org/topics/local/january05/
>
> Be sure to spread the word about our new "Photo of the Day" feature and
> gallery.
> We are always looking for excellent photos like yours to share with the
> KQED.org
> community.
>
> Thanks, Wendy
> KQED.org "Photo of the Day" Editor
>
>
>

A Chosen Photograph

[Shel Belinkoff]

I just received the following message this afternoon and wanted to share it
with you.  For those who don't know, KQED is the local Public Broadcasting
station in San Francisco and environs, and is one of the most widely
listened to and viewed public radio and TV station in the US.

Shel

=

[Original Message] 
From: Local Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Date: 12/16/2004 1:58:58 PM 
Subject: KQED.org Photo of the Day 

Hi Shel-
Thanks for submitting "Montclair Mailbox" to the KQED "Photo of the Day"
Gallery.  Your photo will be featured on KQED.org's homepage on January 5.
http://www.kqed.org 

Your photo will then reside in the "Photo of the Day" January 2005 Gallery.

http://www.kqed.org/topics/local/january05/ 

Be sure to spread the word about our new "Photo of the Day" feature and
gallery.  
We are always looking for excellent photos like yours to share with the
KQED.org 
community.

Thanks, Wendy 
KQED.org "Photo of the Day" Editor 

Re: PESO: Stealing flash

[Juan Buhler]

Thanks Peter and Markus for your comments.

j


On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:53:42 -0500, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still the second is amazingly good for such a huge exposure mistake.
> 
> Juan Buhler wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:24:27 -0500, frank theriault
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2085193/
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >>What a cool shot!!
> >>
> >>So, what do you do, open for a fairly long exposure, hoping to get
> >>illumination from another camera?
> >>
> >>Tell me how you do that!
> >>
> >>I really like the photo, too.Great pose (especially him), and I like
> >>the framing, with the rail and design of the wall in the background.
> >>The more I look at this, the more I find to like.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Thanks Frank!
> >
> >Yes, basically, I wait until someone is about to take a picture. In
> >this case I set the camera at ISO 400, 0.5s f/8, (kind of guessed
> >based on the distance between the subjects and the other
> >photographer), and just pressed the shutter a beat before him. It is
> >easy if the other camera has a red eye reducing preflash, otherwise
> >just hope for the best, or ask them to count to three if you know them
> >:-)
> >
> >Funny that you comment on this image now, I just came back from
> >shooting, and I was hanging out near the big christmas tree in Union
> >Square here in San Francisco, trying to steal other people's flashes.
> >
> >Here is the only somewhat successful frame, out of about 15:
> >
> >http://www.jbuhler.com/blog/archives/0152.html
> >
> >A not as successful one, because I forgot to go back to ISO200 from ISO3200:
> >
> >http://img142.exs.cx/img142/4360/imgp13752pt.jpg
> >[hosted as imageshack, as it is a throwaway pretty much]
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >j
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: PESO: Stealing flash

[Juan Buhler]

Thanks very much Frantisek!

Have a good holiday break,

j


On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:18:45 +0100, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Very interesting, Juan!
> 
> I like the whole idea. I have usually had the other problem - when
> shooting in a press area with a phlock of photogs we tended to have
> some completely overexposed picture time to time due to all the
> flashes - it doesn't help these guys were using cameras with about 2x
> the FPS than mine... and machinegunning the poor subject.
> 
> Time to time it would be a nice effect OTOH.
> 
> I must try this with the rangefinder - it would be nice to see if I
> missed or not exactly in the viewfinder, and how did it look like (the
> afterglow of seeing a flash trough the finder is such that it's almost
> like a digital review ).
> 
> If you don't mind that I got inspired :-)
> 
> Good light!
>fra
> 
> 


-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Happy Holidays PDML!

[Don Sanderson]

Caught this on the way home this afternoon.
Pretty harsh light to shoot in but I think it reflects
me (and Iowa) better than a house covered in
colored lights.
Enjoy PDML'ers and Happy Holidays to all,
wherever you are!

http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/MerryChristmasPDML.htm

Don (Ho, Ho, Ho!)

Re: Last minute advice

[ernreed2]

Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Graywolf"
> Subject: Re: Last minute advice
> 
> 
> > Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly 
> > anyone uses them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of 
> > view.
> 
> Funny thing, it's one of my favourite focal lengths on 35mm.


And mine. No "one of" about it.

ERNR

Re: Last minute advice

[Graywolf]

Yes in the 70's 28-50-135 was the standard lens set for the snapshooter. In the 
60's it was 35-50-135. And by the 80's zooms had taken over. 28's and 135's were 
cheap to make. Most 24mm lenses cost close to twice what a 28 did and for a long 
long time it was the widest lens generally available until Zeiss and Leica came 
out with a 21mm. More discerning and experienced photographers usually went for 
a 24-35-50-85-135-200 combination. In the late 60's early 70's is when extreme 
WA started to be affordable.

BTW the 135mm tele was popular for so long because it was the longest lens a 
Leica Rangefinder would focus.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

Peter Smekal wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Thanks for your input.
Peter, Sweden

Some folks do not even consider a 28mm to be truely wide angle. I have always
considered it to be a comprimise between a 24 and 35. Can't aford two lenses?
Buy the 28. I feel the same way, though not as intensely, about the 100/105mm
and the 85mm and 135mm.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

Peter Smekal wrote:
Today my daughter came up with a last minute Christmas wish. She has a MZ5n
and M50/1.4 lens and has taken some pretty nice pictures with that. Now she
"kind of would like to have a wide angle lens". So, what's daddy going to
do .. shops are closing for the holidays in two hours or so .. well, I
might give her one of my beloved short primes, either the K24/2.8, which is
a little obsolete since I bought Joe's FA24/2, or the M28/2.8. Which one
would you consider more "educational", i.e. good for learning wide angle
photography. I almost would say the M28, because it's not so extreme, but
maybe I only think so because I like that K24 so much ,-)
Thanks and have nice holidays all of you!
Peter, Sweden



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Frits Wüthrich]

On Thursday 23 December 2004 19:39, Markus Maurer wrote:
FJW> Since I lately saw some solutions for homemade flash soft boxes I begin to
FJW> wonder:
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> 1) Did you ever make any accessories for your Pentax equipment yourself (
FJW> for ex. a handmade softbox)
FJW> 2) Did you improve and/or modify original Pentax parts or other brands
FJW> somehow?

Years ago I made out of alumina a kind of breast mount to better hold a camera, 
hardly ever used it.

I used insulation tubes to protect the legs of my Manfrotto tripod, I still use 
that.

I have a tie rap around the eyecup of my *ist D to prevent losing it.

FJW> 
FJW> 3) regarding 1 and 2) Do you still use that self-made "thing" and could you
FJW> show us a photo or plan and tell us about
FJW>   the parts you used, the cost and what else may be interesting?
FJW> 
FJW> 4) What was the reason you made this accessory yourself:
FJW>- there was no part like this buyable
FJW>- I needed special adjustments
FJW>- just for fun
FJW>- cost
FJW>- else
FJW> 
FJW> 5) What was the profit of your work?
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> 6) What buyable accessories do you miss for your Pentax equipment
FJW>or
FJW>what accessories would you like to make yourself in the future or if you
FJW> where able to (two left hands ;-)
FJW> 

helmet with flash and umbrella

FJW> 
FJW> 7) anything else?
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> thanks
FJW> Markus
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> 
FJW> 

-- 
Frits Wüthrich

Re: Last minute advice

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Dec 2004 at 17:27, Graywolf wrote:

> Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly anyone uses
> them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of view. People are so
> lemming like.

I ain't no lemming :-) My take on 50mm lenses is that it generally produces a 
very natural perceived AOV in print, hence the label normal, it's not a 
prescription for ordinary or normal images :-)

I guess I'm just strange, I use 50mm lenses all the time and more so since 
acquiring an excellent A50/2.8 macro lens.

Hell I even use those most outmoded of lenses, the dreaded 135mm :-p

Cheers,


Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Anyone have Tamron's new 28-300 XR Di Lens?

[Tom C]

Nope, but I have the Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 LD Aspherical (IF) Macro.  
It's about 5 years old at this point... man seems like I just bought it 
yesterday.  I got it for my wife as her one all purpose lens for the ZX-10.  
She wants it back.

I'm not a nit-picker/hair-splitter when it comes to lens tests.  I've always 
been happy with the results from this lens when used with film and digital.  
I'll always prefer a prime, but when I need to travel light or be ready in 
an instant, this is the lens I put on.

Tom C.

From: Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Pentax Discussion Board 
Subject: Anyone have Tamron's new 28-300 XR Di Lens?
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:26:34 -0800 (PST)
This is the lens that has my interest.  My local
camera store says it is an excellent lens.  That it
even out-performed a Canon 28-135 IS lens (or
smething similiar).  Does anyone have this lens and
might be willing to share some sample photos?
TIA & Merry Christmas to everyone!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: A simple firmware update

[Juan Buhler]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:06:12 -0500, Larry Cook
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There was a discussion about this recently in the Pentax SLR forum on
> dpreview. The consensus, I believe, is that it is very unlikely there
> will be another firmware update for the *istD unless there is a true
> problem that needs to be addressed. There is no reason for Pentax to
> update this camera with new function if they are on the verge of
> announcing a new camera in the next few months, which is what the
> prevailing thought is at this time.

Someone needs to hack it then! It would be awesome if they opened the
firmware... At least once they take the camera off the market.


> I agree that it would be nice to have some tweaks to the *istD but I
> don't think it will happen. Fortunately it is a great camera without the
> tweaks, in my opinion...

It is very good. Pentax though has a fame for great interfaces, and
the little joystick is not consistent with that.

j

-- 
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
blog at http://www.jbuhler.com/blog

Re: Last minute advice

[Graywolf]

"...and then, that graywolf charter jumps on me if I qualify myself, can't win 
for losing..."

HAR!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice

Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional.

I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone 
tablet comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old "I can think of 
an exception, therefore  your assertion is wrong" argument.

William Robb



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: Last minute advice

[Tom C]

That's what you think, other's opinions may differ. :)
Tom C.

From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: 
Subject: Re: Last minute advice
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 16:40:49 -0600
- Original Message - From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice

Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional.
I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone tablet 
comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old "I can think of an 
exception, therefore  your assertion is wrong" argument.

William Robb

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Raimo K]

OK, good, you know what it is. I´m sure it can be repaired.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


Very early, same as the Alpa Reflex of 1944, produced through 1946.  The 
lens is very soft wide open, hell it's soft stopped down.  Very pleasing 
old time look to the results and makes nice flattering portraits.
http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/history/reflex.html

I haven't put any film through it in years.  Damn, now I'm afraid to put 
film into my Retina.

Raimo K wrote:
Bolsey - Jacques Bolsey was the designer of these & many other cameras. 
There must be someone somewhere who repairs Alpas, though - and yours is 
a very early Alpa.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


Well, I've used a Bosley Reflex  with non-geometric shutter speeds and a 
Angenieux Alpar 5.0cm f2.9.
I needed a 50mm lens when I was taking a photojournalism course and my 
Spotty's 55mm 1.8 was being repaired so I really had no choice...
I think I paid $15 for it in 1975.  The price was right anyway.

Sadly I just took it out of it's display case to fire the shutter a 
couple of times and it's now jammed, probably
hopelessly, I can't for the life of me think of anyone who could fix the 
damned thing.



--
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: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Raimo K]

The version one - K - is better in some respects, but IMO the M is better 
overall. I have fond memories of it and would like to buy one.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - 
From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: M80-200/4.5 lens


It is a lighter lens, with lots of plastic inside instead of the 
full-metal mechanism of version one.   Mechanically, two examples I played 
with were flimsy.  One was like new and its internal SMC were badly 
applied on one element.

The lens was "moved" outside Japan to be made without SMC.  The examples 
of the non-SMC lenses I have seen were mechanically horrible, although 
quite used.

Raimo and Bernd noted it is better than M200.  The same has been said of 
version one lens.  I wonder if the version 2 zoom is better than version 
one...

Andre
Guys,
I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
Boz's site.
According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing distance is
different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing was
mentioned about the version used...
Anybody has one here?
Cheers
Andy

Re: Last minute advice

[Cotty]

On 23/12/04, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone 
>tablet comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old "I can think 
>of an exception, therefore  your assertion is wrong" argument.

You're definitely wrong.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Raimo K]

Yep, that´s the same - although I recall the minimum focusing distance to be 
1.5 meters - but it was a long time ago so I might not remember this so 
well. Weight was 555g IIRC.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - 
From: "Bernd Scheffler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: M80-200/4.5 lens


I have the version with min. focus distance = 1,6m. IMO it's the same as
Raimo said: better than the SMC-M 200/4.0.
Anybody who can tell, how the results on *istD / *istDS are?
Best, Bernd
-original message---
Andy Chang
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:43:47 -0800
Guys,
I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
Boz's site.
According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing distance is
different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing was
mentioned about the version used...
Anybody has one here?
Cheers
Andy

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional.
I have found over time that if I put an opinion out there as a stone 
tablet comment, it tends to get jumped on with the old "I can think 
of an exception, therefore  your assertion is wrong" argument.

William Robb

Re: Last minute advice

[Mark Roberts]

Peter Smekal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
>Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
>amateur?

Absolutely. Some still consider that to be the case.

In fact, one of the reasons I like going out to shoot with my Pentax 645
is that I only have three lenses for it: 45mm, 75mm and 200mm - roughly
equivalent to 28, 50 and 135 lenses on 35mm format.

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

[pnstenquist]

I haved a mint version of the K. I've only used it a few times, but its 
sharpness and contrast amazed me. It's a very good lens, but it's also a very 
large lens by today's standards. I'll have to pull it out again one of these 
days and see how it fares on the *istD.
Paul


> The version one - K - is better in some respects, but IMO the M is better 
> overall. I have fond memories of it and would like to buy one.
> All the best!
> Raimo K
> Personal photography homepage at:
> http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Andre Langevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:12 AM
> Subject: Re: M80-200/4.5 lens
> 
> 
> > It is a lighter lens, with lots of plastic inside instead of the 
> > full-metal mechanism of version one.   Mechanically, two examples I played 
> > with were flimsy.  One was like new and its internal SMC were badly 
> > applied on one element.
> >
> > The lens was "moved" outside Japan to be made without SMC.  The examples 
> > of the non-SMC lenses I have seen were mechanically horrible, although 
> > quite used.
> >
> > Raimo and Bernd noted it is better than M200.  The same has been said of 
> > version one lens.  I wonder if the version 2 zoom is better than version 
> > one...
> >
> > Andre
> >
> >>Guys,
> >>I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
> >>Boz's site.
> >>According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing distance is
> >>different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
> >>aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
> >>But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
> >>Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing was
> >>mentioned about the version used...
> >>Anybody has one here?
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>Andy
> > 
> 

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Graywolf observed:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Reading comprehension here on the list seems to be pretty bad. I thought
>>> you 
>>> asked how many HAD NOT used fully manual cameras without even a built in
>>> meter. 
>>> And you get all these I HAVE used such a camera answers. Oh well!
>> You and me both*, Graywolf. I sat here quietly not replying to that thread 
>> because I HAD used such cameras.
>> Any excuse, I guess ...
> You and I look to be the only ones.

Oh no, I caught the negation as well, which is why I snuck
my mention of using such a camera into a parenthetical aside
to a tangential comment instead of just answering directly.
That seemed an important disticntion at the time.  

> Nowadays they think a camera with auto-exposure is a manual camera.

Urk.  Feh.  Ptui.

-- Glenn

Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Cotty]

On 23/12/04, Markus Maurer, discombobulated, unleashed:

>1) Did you ever make any accessories for your Pentax equipment yourself (
>for ex. a handmade softbox)

Plenty. I adapted a strap for my LX so that it was removable. It still
does good service on a 1D


>2) Did you improve and/or modify original Pentax parts or other brands
>somehow?

I adapted an AF280T flash so it could do fill-in with the LX - and also
cut up a plastic bleach bottle to use as a small reflector on the flash.

I have adapted some Pentax lenses to fit EOS.

>
>3) regarding 1 and 2) Do you still use that self-made "thing" and could you
>show us a photo or plan and tell us about
>  the parts you used, the cost and what else may be interesting?

Flash, no. And I've sold it on a couple of years ago.

Strap, yes:



Lenses yes:





>
>4) What was the reason you made this accessory yourself:
>   - there was no part like this buyable
>   - I needed special adjustments
>   - just for fun
>   - cost
>   - else

Flash   - there was no part like this buyable (well not the 280T)
Strap - similar are available but I like mine better.
Lenses - there was no part like this

>
>5) What was the profit of your work?

Enhanced functionality

>
>
>6) What buyable accessories do you miss for your Pentax equipment
>   or
>   what accessories would you like to make yourself in the future or if you
>where able to (two left hands ;-)

Magnetic field device that bends light (like a lens with no glass) in
front of the camera.

>
>
>7) anything else?

Not really. Have a good Christmas?




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly 
anyone uses them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of 
view.
Funny thing, it's one of my favourite focal lengths on 35mm.
William Robb 

Re: Last minute advice

[pnstenquist]

I use a 50 quite frequently. Most of them are wonderful optics, and they're a 
perfect focal lenth for a lot of shots. My most frequent application is studio 
table top, but they're also great in social situations or even street 
walkarounds. A good 50 is the best bargain in photography.
Paul


> Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly anyone 
> uses 
> them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of view. People are so 
> lemming like. Herb wrote that in Modern Photography in 1961 and billions will 
> repeat it until the sun burns out.
> 
> (Sad headshake)
> 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Studdert wrote:
> > On 23 Dec 2004 at 15:52, William Robb wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>I had always thought that 28mm was about the widest angle lens that 
> >>could be made with simple and inexpensive optical designs.
> > 
> > 
> > Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed photographic 
> > "functions", to me a lens designation and focal length tells me no more 
> > that 
> > its effective AOV and whether I can expect it to be capable of nearing 1:1 
> > mag 
> > ratios. The more we speak about certain focal lengths being ideal for a 
> certain 
> > situation the more likely images of that subject begin to look homogeneous.
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004
> 

Re: Last minute advice

[Graywolf]

Tends to be? I would say that if it is not, it is not traditional. BTW 85-105 
would have been way too long for a portrait lens before the 35mm SLR became the 
homogeneous factor. The old rule of thumb was twice the long side of the 
negative which would be 72mm. In fact I have always thought that there should be 
a 70mm in the 35mm lens set so there would be a square root of two progression.

graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Traditional tends to be homogenous.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[Cotty]

On 23/12/04, wendy beard, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I did something I swore I'd never do myself and had
>scorned others as talentless and without skill for
>doing so. I put the camera into continuous drive and
>AF servo mode and went machine gunning. I almost feel
>embarrassed to own up to it :-S

But Wendy, I only ever shoot in that mode - yet I have had my latest
digital incarnation since October and shot  only 1629 images. AI Servo
and continuous drive mode are similar to a film camera for me. I tried
shooting in single shot mode once only, and instantly hated it. The
camera makes you *wait* until a shot's in focus? No way.

I have AF set up thus: a half press on the shutter button starts AE
(usually aperture priority), and if I want AF, then I use my thumb on a
button on the back. Usually I focus manually.

Just because it's this newfangled digital, doesn't mean I have to change
my shooting habits! To me it's just a big bulky MX.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Last minute advice

[Graywolf]

Sort of like 50mm being described as ordinatary even though hardly anyone uses 
them anymore, so they give a fairly uncommon angle of view. People are so 
lemming like. Herb wrote that in Modern Photography in 1961 and billions will 
repeat it until the sun burns out.

(Sad headshake)
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---

Rob Studdert wrote:
On 23 Dec 2004 at 15:52, William Robb wrote:

I had always thought that 28mm was about the widest angle lens that 
could be made with simple and inexpensive optical designs.

Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed photographic 
"functions", to me a lens designation and focal length tells me no more that 
its effective AOV and whether I can expect it to be capable of nearing 1:1 mag 
ratios. The more we speak about certain focal lengths being ideal for a certain 
situation the more likely images of that subject begin to look homogeneous.

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


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[Mark Roberts]

Margus Männik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>how many of those 1000 could be published or, at least, printed in 
>8"x10" and hanged to your room wall?
>For example I shoot every month at least one new digital camera product 
>pictures for our local  magazine. Quite often it takes more than 50 
>images to get 4-6 pictures that I like enough to be published. The same 
>happens in nature - where I would adjust everything carefully to get 
>couple of frames in HQ slide, I shoot tens of images with digital 
>instead. The yield remains approximately the same...  

This is true, but the value of "that I like enough to be published"
changes over time as you get better and your standards go up. I have the
same approximate "yield" that I did 10 years ago, but a lot of the stuff
that I throw away now (because it just doesn't make the grade) would
have been kept (enthusiastically!) back then. It's all relative :)

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed 
photographic
"functions", to me a lens designation and focal length tells me no 
more that
its effective AOV and whether I can expect it to be capable of 
nearing 1:1 mag
ratios. The more we speak about certain focal lengths being ideal 
for a certain
situation the more likely images of that subject begin to look 
homogeneous.
To a certain extent, I agree with you.
As an example, we talk about lenses in the 85-105mm range as being 
"portrait lenses" for 35mm.
This is sort of like describing turkey as being the main course for 
Christmas.
Its a traditional usage, and if that's what you want, then that's 
fine.
Traditional tends to be homogenous.

William Robb 

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[Margus Männik]

Hi,
how many of those 1000 could be published or, at least, printed in 
8"x10" and hanged to your room wall?
For example I shoot every month at least one new digital camera product 
pictures for our local  magazine. Quite often it takes more than 50 
images to get 4-6 pictures that I like enough to be published. The same 
happens in nature - where I would adjust everything carefully to get 
couple of frames in HQ slide, I shoot tens of images with digital 
instead. The yield remains approximately the same...  

BR, Margus
Fred Widall wrote:
My *ist-DS arrived 3 weeks ago today and I'm amazed to see that
I've shot 1000 images in that period.
The vast majority have been test shots and discarded, but that's
an awful lot of shots by my standards - though I realise that for some of
you that's not a very large total.
With my old 35mm (and even more so with my medium format) gear I
tended to be quite miserly with my shots, taking my time to try and
ensure good exposure and composition in one attempt. I'd average
about one roll a week, unless on vacation or for some special occasion.
Now I'm finding that I fire off a lot of shots in the hope, and
expectation, that I'll get a 'good' image which I can tweak
in Photoshop if need be.
I've changed from a sniper to a machine gunner..
I think I need to slow down and concentrate on the photography,
rather than the technology.
Anyone else finding the same thing ???
--
Fred Widall,
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall
--

 

Re: 7MP chip in the 750Z

[Mark Roberts]

"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I am hoping they do something in the 8-10mp range for the next 
>generation, but it really depends on what is out there, since Pentax 
>is buying off the shelf chipsets.

Sony is building two new plants for the production of CMOS sensors.
Expect the bigger/cheaper trend to continue in the next few years.

http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/FL23Dh03.html

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Andre Langevin]

It is a lighter lens, with lots of plastic inside instead of the 
full-metal mechanism of version one.   Mechanically, two examples I 
played with were flimsy.  One was like new and its internal SMC were 
badly applied on one element.

The lens was "moved" outside Japan to be made without SMC.  The 
examples of the non-SMC lenses I have seen were mechanically 
horrible, although quite used.

Raimo and Bernd noted it is better than M200.  The same has been said 
of version one lens.  I wonder if the version 2 zoom is better than 
version one...

Andre
Guys,
I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
Boz's site.
According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing distance is
different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing was
mentioned about the version used...
Anybody has one here?
Cheers
Andy

Re: Last minute advice

[pnstenquist]

Perception may have ahd something to do with what was considered wide fifty 
years ago. But perhaps even more important is the fact that Leica rangefinders 
of the early fifties required a different viewfinder for anything other than a 
normal lens. The commen turret viewfinder would accomodate nothing wider than a 
35. 


> Hi,
> 
> Thursday, December 23, 2004, 9:00:55 PM, Peter wrote:
> 
> > Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
> > Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
> > amateur?
> > Thanks for your input.
> > Peter, Sweden
> 
> 
> over the years we have become accustomed to ever wider angles of view
> as photographers, particularly journalists, have tried to impart a
> greater sense of being there. I have a book somewhere from the 1950s
> in which the photojournalists describe 28mm as 'extreme wide angle'.
> In those days people weren't used to it, and it would have seemed
> excessively artistic and unrealistic for journalism.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob
> 

Re: Last minute advice

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Dec 2004 at 15:52, William Robb wrote:

> I had always thought that 28mm was about the widest angle lens that 
> could be made with simple and inexpensive optical designs.

Maybe so. I just get annoyed when lenses are prescribed photographic 
"functions", to me a lens designation and focal length tells me no more that 
its effective AOV and whether I can expect it to be capable of nearing 1:1 mag 
ratios. The more we speak about certain focal lengths being ideal for a certain 
situation the more likely images of that subject begin to look homogeneous.


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: Last minute advice

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Last minute advice


On 23 Dec 2004 at 22:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 
28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least 
advanced
amateur?
I had always thought that 28mm was about the widest angle lens that 
could be made with simple and inexpensive optical designs.

William Robb 

RE: Fast 70-210 Lenses, where'd they all go?

[Don Sanderson]

Thanks Joe.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:59 AM
> To: pdml
> Subject: RE: Fast 70-210 Lenses, where'd they all go?
> 
> 
> Re: Sigma EX AF 70-200 f2.8
> 
> "That's funny, I'd heard that the Sigma had bad edge sharpness and
> light fall off issues. Apparently not true?"
> 
> Don, all I have noticed from mine is excellent, sharp images, 
> consistently so.
> 
> If you are using it on the D you will not be using the edges anyway.
> 
> Joe
> 

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Bernd Scheffler]

So you asked for the negation - if nobody likes to answer you gather no
information ...
BTW: I have used an EXA 1a for the first years: no autofocus, no modes, no
built-in meter, shortest time 1/175 s, cheap 50/2.9 lens, but a bayonett. I
don't miss it.
Best,
Bernd
---original message---

Shel Belinkoff
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:57:27 -0800

I was talking with a friend earlier and the conversation got around to
modern cameras as he's thinking about getting a digi for his daughter.
There wasn't much i could help him with since I know so little about modern
cameras, and apart from shooting a few frames with John's istD and a lesser
number of frames with Juan's istD, and one frame with a Minolta a couple of
years ago, I've never used or even handled a modern autofocus camera.
That's probably quite unusual for this list.  That got me to wondering how
many people here have never used a fully manual camera - no autofocus, no
modes, no built-in meter.  Anyone?

Shel

Re: Last minute advice

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Dec 2004 at 22:00, Peter Smekal wrote:

> Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
> Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
> amateur? 

I sold my 28mm because I have 24mm lenses and a 31mm and I thought I wouldn't 
need it, but on occasion I need a 28mm AOV. So it's "function" for me is when 
the image I am trying to create demands the AOV afforded by a 28mm lens.


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: A simple firmware update

[Rob Studdert]

On 23 Dec 2004 at 13:06, Larry Cook wrote:

> I agree that it would be nice to have some tweaks to the *istD but I 
> don't think it will happen. Fortunately it is a great camera without the 
> tweaks, in my opinion...

I think it's a good camera, I expect the one that replaces it to be great, and 
I'll whine like hell if it's not :-)


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: 7MP chip in the 750Z

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jerry in Houston"
Subject: 7MP chip in the 750Z


Has there been any discussion on the next *istD having
the 7MP chip from the 750Z, or will they jump to 8MP
or more?
The 750Z chip is a 1/1.125 inch (or shoething like that) chip. This 
is pretty small, sort of fingernail sized.
I am hoping they do something in the 8-10mp range for the next 
generation, but it really depends on what is out there, since Pentax 
is buying off the shelf chipsets.

William Robb 

Re: bag rash

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "cbwaters"
Subject: Re: bag rash


I think Keith is right.
But if I had bag rashI'd go to the doctor and see if there's a 
shot for it ;)
I think it is treated with a steroid cream.
William Robb 

Re: M80-200/4.5 lens

[Bernd Scheffler]

I have the version with min. focus distance = 1,6m. IMO it's the same as
Raimo said: better than the SMC-M 200/4.0.

Anybody who can tell, how the results on *istD / *istDS are?

Best, Bernd

-original message---
Andy Chang
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:43:47 -0800

Guys,
I've noticed that there are two different versions of this lens from
Boz's site.
According to Boz, the optical formula is different, focusing distance is
different, weight is different and the newer version has a linear
aperture-coupled lever which the old one doesn't have.
But how about the optical qualities? Are they different too?
Stan's site does have a little comment about the lens, but nothing was
mentioned about the version used...
Anybody has one here?

Cheers
Andy

Re: Last minute advice

[Bob W]

Hi,

Thursday, December 23, 2004, 9:00:55 PM, Peter wrote:

> Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
> Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
> amateur?
> Thanks for your input.
> Peter, Sweden


over the years we have become accustomed to ever wider angles of view
as photographers, particularly journalists, have tried to impart a
greater sense of being there. I have a book somewhere from the 1950s
in which the photojournalists describe 28mm as 'extreme wide angle'.
In those days people weren't used to it, and it would have seemed
excessively artistic and unrealistic for journalism.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" 
Subject: Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!


You slay me...
Good thing we don't do death row up here...
William Robb

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Fred Widall]

I own, and use occasionally, the following

1927 Zeiss Cocarette (6x9)
1938 Rolleicord II Type 3  (6x6)
1955 Zeiss Ikonta A (6x4.5)
1959 Ricomatoc 225 (6x6)
1964 Pentax S1A (35mm)

Dates are approximate.

--
 Fred Widall,
 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall
--

7MP chip in the 750Z

[Jerry in Houston]

Has there been any discussion on the next *istD having
the 7MP chip from the 750Z, or will they jump to 8MP
or more?

Jerry in Houston

Re: Last minute advice

[Daniel J. Matyola]

That's what I bought for my first spotmatic in 1966.
Peter Smekal wrote:
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Jim Apilado]

Argus C-3
Pentax H-3
Leicas M2, M3, M4
Yashica YF (Leica M copy).

Jim A.


> 
> From: "Jon M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
 That got me to wondering how
>> many people here have never used a fully manual camera
>> - no autofocus, no
>> modes, no built-in meter.  Anyone?
>> 
>> No built in meter? So this rules out the K1000. That's
>> the simplest camera I've used, aside from a two dollar
>> 110 that wasn't really useable. (pics came out
>> horribly blurry)
> 
> 

Re: Last minute advice

[Peter Smekal]

Understandable .. but what was the "function" then for all the 28's around?
Wasn't there a time when 28-50-135 was a normal combo for at least advanced
amateur?
Thanks for your input.
Peter, Sweden


>Some folks do not even consider a 28mm to be truely wide angle. I have always
>considered it to be a comprimise between a 24 and 35. Can't aford two lenses?
>Buy the 28. I feel the same way, though not as intensely, about the 100/105mm
>and the 85mm and 135mm.
>
>graywolf
>http://www.graywolfphoto.com
>"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
>---
>
>
>
>
>Peter Smekal wrote:
>> Today my daughter came up with a last minute Christmas wish. She has a MZ5n
>> and M50/1.4 lens and has taken some pretty nice pictures with that. Now she
>> "kind of would like to have a wide angle lens". So, what's daddy going to
>> do .. shops are closing for the holidays in two hours or so .. well, I
>> might give her one of my beloved short primes, either the K24/2.8, which is
>> a little obsolete since I bought Joe's FA24/2, or the M28/2.8. Which one
>> would you consider more "educational", i.e. good for learning wide angle
>> photography. I almost would say the M28, because it's not so extreme, but
>> maybe I only think so because I like that K24 so much ,-)
>> Thanks and have nice holidays all of you!
>> Peter, Sweden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.4 - Release Date: 12/22/2004

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Daniel J. Matyola]

I agree about the Pentax 6x7, which I still use.  I also use my 
father-in-law's old speed graphic and manual Leica rangefinder at least 
once a year, and occasionally an old kodak folder and argus TLR.

Bob Blakely wrote:
I think the Pentax 67 without meter prism should count. True, it has 
an electronic shutter, but everything must be selected manually.

Re: Anyone have Tamron's new 28-300 XR Di Lens?

[wendy beard]

 --- Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is the lens that has my interest.  My local
> camera store says it is an excellent lens.  That it
> even out-performed a Canon 28-135 IS lens (or
> something similiar).  Does anyone have this lens and
> might be willing to share some sample photos?
> 
> 
> TIA & Merry Christmas to everyone!
> 
>
I bought the 28-200 XR Di when I first bought my 10D
as I didn't own any Canon lenses at all and it had
some good reviews.
Soon got rid of it and bought the Canon 28-135 IS lens
to replace it. I found it to be rather soft. However,
I'm willing to believe it might have been partly due
to me being new to digital and not processing the
files as well as they could have been.
I have been tempted to give the 28-300 another go as a
"walking about" lens for the istD. I can't believe it
could be any worse than the apalling Sigma 70-300 Apo
Macro Super I have at the moment.

Wendy

Anyone have Tamron's new 28-300 XR Di Lens?

[Steve Pearson]

This is the lens that has my interest.  My local
camera store says it is an excellent lens.  That it
even out-performed a Canon 28-135 IS lens (or
something similiar).  Does anyone have this lens and
might be willing to share some sample photos?


TIA & Merry Christmas to everyone!

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi,

I spent a lot of 1967 dollars at Gasser's on Geary Blvd, and that's where I
had my first show.  Actually, it was the second hanging of my first show,
which first appeared at the Parks and Rec building.  They're still "in
business," although the last time I was there things seemed a little
shoddier than I remember them to have been.  Back in 1967 - 1970 it was a
great place to learn.  The place was always busy, and lots of ideas were
flying around as well as some experimenting with different techniques and
the sharing of equipment.  Until getting my own studio (actually a little
co-op a group of us put together) out on Chenery at the end of the J-Church
line, I practically lived at Parks and Rec. Fond memories.

Gasser's in those days was a real haven for photographers, at least it
seemed that way to me.  The staff was knowledgeable and helpful. and quite
friendly.  Many of the people there became friends, or at least good
photography buddies.  There was one fellow there named Gene (can't recall
his last name) who'd sometimes have little photo parties at his apartment
in the Tenderloin.  A bunch of us would gather there, look at one another's
prints, maybe have a slide show, and Gene might talk about some upcoming
deals that Gasser was going to offer ... and then we'd have milk and
cookies 

Where was your dad's pharmacy?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Got my first SLR at age 16 (1966) from Gasser's on Geary Street, San 
> Francisco. Saved up from my job at my father's pharmacy.  In those days 
> Gasser's was a real photography shop. It was a used Honeywell Pentax S2 
> with a 55mm f1.8 Takumar and some third party 200 mm. Telephoto was why 
> I wanted to get an SLR.
>
> Built-in meter? Har! I didn't have one of those until I bought a used 
> K1000 in 1996.
>
> Subsequent cameras included an Exakta and a Rolleicord. I still have 
> both, but sold the Pentax years ago. Stupid of me, huh?
>
> While doing a year at San Francisco City College I used a 4 x 5 view 
> camera. I don't want one today, but it was an experience to learn what 
> it could do. Also did B&W darkroom work in those days. San Francisco 
> Parks & Recreation department operated a public darkroom, with 
> enlargers, that one could use for a small subscription. I wonder if it's 
> still in operation?
>
> I remember Kodachrome II, Kodachrome 64, early Ektachrome, Agfachrome 50 
> (my favorite in those days), Panatomic-X, Plus X, and early Tri-X. I 
> played for a while with Anscochrome 400. Ansco sold a chemical kit that 
> allowed one to develop positives without the need to hold the film strip 
> to a light source. But subsequently I learned to do that too.
>
> Despite all this, I love my *ist D, Photoshop, Nikon LS 2000 scanner, 
> and Epson 870 printer. I have some nostalgia for the old days, but I 
> keep it under control.
>
> Joe

Re: 1000 images in 3 weeks !!

[wendy beard]

 --- Fred Widall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> I've changed from a sniper to a machine gunner..
> 
> I think I need to slow down and concentrate on the
> photography,
> rather than the technology.
> 
> Anyone else finding the same thing ???
> 

I did something I swore I'd never do myself and had
scorned others as talentless and without skill for
doing so. I put the camera into continuous drive and
AF servo mode and went machine gunning. I almost feel
embarrassed to own up to it :-S
But I'm happy to say I got some decent shots out of
it, some of which I would have been practicing for the
next hundred years to get using the one-shot, prefocus
method I normally use.

Wendy

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Peter J. Alling]

Very early, same as the Alpa Reflex of 1944, produced through 1946.  The 
lens is very soft wide open, hell it's soft stopped down.  Very pleasing 
old time look to the results and makes nice flattering portraits. 

http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/history/reflex.html
I haven't put any film through it in years.  Damn, now I'm afraid to put 
film into my Retina.

Raimo K wrote:
Bolsey - Jacques Bolsey was the designer of these & many other 
cameras. There must be someone somewhere who repairs Alpas, though - 
and yours is a very early Alpa.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - From: "Peter J. Alling" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


Well, I've used a Bosley Reflex  with non-geometric shutter speeds 
and a Angenieux Alpar 5.0cm f2.9.
I needed a 50mm lens when I was taking a photojournalism course and 
my Spotty's 55mm 1.8 was being repaired so I really had no choice...
I think I paid $15 for it in 1975.  The price was right anyway.

Sadly I just took it out of it's display case to fire the shutter a 
couple of times and it's now jammed, probably
hopelessly, I can't for the life of me think of anyone who could fix 
the damned thing.



--
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: Older Sigma AF lens info

[Jerry in Houston]

<>

I believe the UC was the upgraded version I referred
to, with the APO glass.  Mine does NOT say UC on the
body.  Well, I go by how the pictures look and not
necessarily how it performs on the bench, and my
pocket book too.  I bought this one cuz it was the
best price at the time.  I am probably not as AR as
some here but I like the lens, use it alot and it has
served me well.  I cannot speak for your needs, but
just my own expience.

YMMV

Jerry in Houston

Re: Another survey- homemade Pentax accessories

[Collin R Brendemuehl]

At 14:11 2004.12.23 -0500, you wrote:
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:39:47 +0100
From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED] Net" 
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since I lately saw some solutions for homemade flash soft boxes I begin to
wonder:
1)  Did you ever make any accessories for your Pentax equipment yourself (
for ex. a handmade softbox)
No.
But I've improvised a lot with brackets and clamps from Home Depot.
I've made a few LF accessories.
2)  Did you improve and/or modify original Pentax parts or other brands
somehow?
Always.
3)  regarding 1 and 2) Do you still use that self-made "thing" and 
could you
show us a photo or plan and tell us about
  the parts you used, the cost and what else may be interesting?
Yes, but if I told you, I'd have to kill you.
4)  What was the reason you made this accessory yourself:
- there was no part like this buyable
- I needed special adjustments
- just for fun
- cost
- else
Cost & time to acquire.
5)  What was the profit of your work?
Nothing.
6)  What buyable accessories do you miss for your Pentax equipment
or
what accessories would you like to make yourself in the future or 
if you
where able to (two left hands ;-)
Automatic composition.
Fluid lens cells for stationary focal length changes.
A planar design of the former, composed of millions of fluid cells, that 
does so within 1/32" of the sensor or film.

7)  anything else?
That'll do.
thanks
Markus
Sure.
Now take my ideas and go make a mint.
Then adopt me, feed & house me, and let me inherit half of what i made you.
Fair enough?
Collin
"You impress at a distance, but you impact a life up close. The closer the 
relationship the greater the impact."
Howard Hendricks

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Raimo K]

Bolsey - Jacques Bolsey was the designer of these & many other cameras. 
There must be someone somewhere who repairs Alpas, though - and yours is a 
very early Alpa.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - 
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


Well, I've used a Bosley Reflex  with non-geometric shutter speeds and a 
Angenieux Alpar 5.0cm f2.9.
I needed a 50mm lens when I was taking a photojournalism course and my 
Spotty's 55mm 1.8 was being repaired so I really had no choice...
I think I paid $15 for it in 1975.  The price was right anyway.

Sadly I just took it out of it's display case to fire the shutter a couple 
of times and it's now jammed, probably
hopelessly, I can't for the life of me think of anyone who could fix the 
damned thing.

Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage

[Raimo K]

I started with a Yashica A TLR - no meter, no nothing - so I´m a dinosaur, 
too. But I do not have it anymore, I have the Rolleiflex - so I´m not a 
dinosaur anymore.
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Quick Survey: Mechanical Camera Usage


In a message dated 12/23/2004 7:22:43 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"... how many people here have never used a fully manual
camera - no autofocus, no modes, no built-in meter."
==
Hand raised. I started with the K-1000, but, of course, it had a built-in
meter.
I am not a dinosaur.
Marnie aka Doe :-)