Re: OT Stop bath

[ernreed2]

Quoting mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> You can use your nose.  Once it stops smelling like vinegar it 
> will be knackered.  Or your nose will be 8-)))


With fixer in the area, the nose might indeed be done for.

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Shel Belinkoff]

It's not just you.  I got the same impression ... ;-)) 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: David Savage 
>
> Really nice John.
>
> My first impression is to crop out half the water below the bridge.
>
> But that's just me :-)

RE: OT Stop bath

[Peter Williams]

> -Original Message-
> From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> Indeedy.  I was referring to vinegar, the diluted form.
>

Oh I knew that :-)

The pure (glacial) stuff is interesting, it freezes at cold room
temperatures, even in Australia with a relatively mild Winter.

-- 
Peter Williams 
 

Re: RE: OT Stop bath

[m.9.wilson]

> 
> From: "Peter Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/03/22 Tue AM 09:31:34 GMT
> To: 
> Subject: RE: OT Stop bath
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > Indeedy.  I was referring to vinegar, the diluted form.
> >
> 
> Oh I knew that :-)
> 
> The pure (glacial) stuff is interesting, it freezes at cold room
> temperatures, even in Australia with a relatively mild Winter.

Theoretically, it's 16 degrees C.  Often, I've gone to get the stock bottle 
from the outside store, checked that it's liquid, walked into the lab and found 
that the bottle has frozen as I walked. Amusing phenomenon.

mike

-
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information

Re: Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[Jostein]

Scott Loveless wrote:
Neither was Cassius Clay, but we don't bitch about him.  This is
rather politcally charged, don't you think?
To which Frank replied:
His reason for not going:  "No Viet Cong never called me a nigger"
still resonates (with me anyway).
LOL.
Not exactly politically discharging, though.
Jostein

RE: RE: OT Stop bath

[Peter Williams]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Theoretically, it's 16 degrees C.

That sound about right.
I was very suprised the first time I saw it.

-- 
Peter Williams 

Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?

[John Whittingham]

> I have that lens, but I only shoot film, not digital. I think it is 
> quite useful, sharp, doesn't show too much distortion, in fact I 
> would say distortion is almost negligible. It focuses quite close 
> (40 cm at all focal lengths, if I remember well). Its only weak 
> point is that it is soft wide open (5.6) at 135 mm.

Sounds very good I could live with a little softness at 125mm wide open.

> Its filter size 
> is 72 mm. and although it isn't particularly big or heavy, the 
> Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5 looks really small when compared to this 
> Tamron. If small size and SMC are important for you, and you don't 
> need the extra focal length range, I would say that the Pentax is a 
> better choice.

The filter size is the only negative side for me I'd prefer 67mm or even 
77mm, size and weight probably no bigger or heavier than some of my older 
Pentax lenses, I used a Pentax-A 35-105 f/3.5 for years until recently when I 
use the Pentax-FA 28-105 Power zoom. I'd love the focal length range for a 
walkabout lens.

John 

Did my FS make it to the list?

[Thibouille]

I can see it in the archive but I didn't not receive it myself ..??

-- 

Thibouille

Re: Did my FS make it to the list?

[Steve Jolly]

Thibouille wrote:
I can see it in the archive but I didn't not receive it myself ..??
If it made it to the archive, then by definition it made it to the list.
S

Re: Did my FS make it to the list?

[David Savage]

Yep, I got it.

Dave S


On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:25:40 +0100, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see it in the archive but I didn't not receive it myself ..??
> 
> --
> 
> Thibouille
> 
>

Re: Did my FS make it to the list?

[Thibouille]

Thanks for the check !


On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:36:28 +0800, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I got it.
> 
> Dave S
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:25:40 +0100, Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can see it in the archive but I didn't not receive it myself ..??
> >
> > --
> > 
> > Thibouille
> >
> >
> 
> 


-- 

Thibouille

RE: My "Cotty" worked!

[Markus Maurer]

Hi Paul
they only wanted "your best" :-(
And did they tell you that it was in the name of love?
I think most of us know the dark side of education too...

greetings
Markus

>>
>>In secondary school, I was beaten with a perforated wooden paddle 
>>three times. Once for talking in class, once for smoking, and 
>>once for forging an admit slip when I was late. It was quite 
>>severe, and I won't ever forget it. That was catholic school 
>>education in Chicago. It served me well. 
>>
>>
>>> I was beaten at school for being "generally obstreperous".
>>> 
>>> Such were the joys of a traditional British education.
>>> 
>>> John

Re: Pentax News

[Pål Jensen]

Cotty wrote:

"I would guess because with the advent of a 645D, it seems pretty unlikely
we'll see a 24X36 full frame 35mm-style DSLR anytime if at all"


REPLY:

On the contrary; this release show that Pentax are "into" high-quality digital 
with large sensors. Nikon, not to mention Olympus, have shown no interest so 
far. 
My guess is that Pentax will release a full frame 35mm DSLR when they think the 
prices of such a camera is low enough for them to sell it. My guess is that the 
645D will be much cheaper than most think...


Pål

Re: Pentax News

[Pål Jensen]

Jostein wrote:

"OTOH, I don't think this camera will be on the usual assembly line. According 
to
my local Pentax person (I was not allowed to say so until the press release),
this will be a camera to be produced on demand rather than in batches based on
expected sales. He also said that there will be options for personal
customization of each camera, but he had no details on potential parameters."


REPLY:

Well, I don't think any of the upper end Pentax bodies (67II, 645NII, MZ_S) are 
mass produced anyway. The MZ-S is for example hand painted (not with a brush!); 
not two bodies are identical in  finish. I did in fact suggest a couple of 
years ago that Pentax should offer customization of their cameras. My guess is 
that if the 645D is painted magnesium bodied like the MZ-S, they could offer 
various colors and perhaps upholstery.


Jostein:
IMO, this camera sounds like a beast to battle the Hasselblad/Imacon H1 and will
probably be priced thereafter too.


REPLY:

It suspect it will be surprisingly cheap. 


Pål

RE: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Annti_Pekka wrote:

I don't yet own any Pentax 645 equipment but I see the 645D as the
long awaited "professional DSLR from Pentax" and am very interested 
in getting one (if comparable in price with the Canon and Kodak 
FF 35mm offerings). It seems that Pentax is not going to release
a FF 35mm any time soon so I would need to go to an entirely new
camera system in any case if I wish to get a larger than APS size sensor


REPLY:

I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than 
high-end Canon lenses. 

Pål

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Cotty wrote:

A high
spec camera is not just about the technology packed inside, is it? Surely
it's also about how that package is put together, how well it stands up
to heavy use, how well the service and backup capability exists. I have
no argument with much of the above WRT Pentax, 


REPLY:

As far as I can tell Pentax is using the current 645's mirror box, shutter 
assembly and mirror mechanism, generally regarded as the the most durable and 
reliable in the business. They will almost certainly put it in an magnesium 
body. 


Pål

Re: D645 musings

[Pål Jensen]

Mark wrote:

My guess is between USD 15,000 and 20,000.
They're going to try to undercut the Mamiya, but probably won't be able
to do so by very much.



REPLY:

I'm far more optimistic. I think it will cost $6000. 

Pål

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Mishka wrote:

"why not? i would imagine, people who bought p645 were budget-conscious
(or they would have bought contax instead),"

REPLY:

Certainly not! The Contax 645 was a total flop. It hasn't sold. An overpriced 
piece of flimsy plastic with a outrageously power consumption that made it 
unusable away from a power outlet. The batteries lasted from 5-7 rolls of film!
It is in addition big and heavy. 
The Pentax 645 was (is) the no. 1 choice for outdoor MF SLR shooting.

Pål  

RE: 645D (WAS: 645D Photos (under glass) here)

[Pål Jensen]

Mark wrote:

Maybe, but maybe not.  The mirror box, lens mount, electronics, and
viewfinder guts might be the same for all three and they're "test-driving"
different external camera shapes.  Assuming they're evolving the user
interface and image processing stuff from their other DSLRs, this camera
might see the light of day in the fall.

Anyone know how long it takes to tool up a production line for a new camera
body?


Reply:

The MZ-S/MD-S took 1,5 years from start to production. 
The 645D is certainly almost finished developed. It was scheduled for release 
this spring. It has obviously been delayed but thats most likely due to price 
issues. 
Based on the mock-up photos the 645D uses the current film 645's chassis, 
mirror box, mirror mechanism, finder system and almost certainly shutter. This 
is because theres no point making the 645D that deep if they don't use the 
current camera as building block. Based on the interface of the prototypes they 
have most likely used the *istD camera electronics. In essence, the camera have 
been cheap to develop and will probably sell for a very reasonably price. The 
drawback is that the camera could have been made smaller, not as deep, but then 
they would have to design a pro camera body from scratch which would have made 
the price much higher. The main engineering problem is that the 645 mirror is 
hinged behind the mirror box in the film magazine part of the body. This 
dictate that a DSLR using the older mechanism must be about the same size as 
the film 645's. I'm sure that in due course Pentax will make 645D that is 
indeed new and not based on a film camera. At the introduction!
  of the digital 645 system such a camera would probably have been too 
expensive.

Pål  

RE: Potential buyrs of a D645

[Pål Jensen]

Rob wrote:

As will be the 22MP Mamiya ZD which will likely be in users hands well before 
the Pentax offering and which has a well established user base as it utilizes 
the excellent Mamiya 645AF lenses.


REPLY:

Huh? How many Mamiya AF cameras and lenses has been sold? As far as I know 
precious few and also as far as I know there are significant lens compatibility 
issues within the system. I'll be surprised if Mamiya is still around in, say, 
two years from now...

Pål

Re: D645 musings

[Pål Jensen]

Rob wrote:

If they make it out at that price then all the other comparable cameras will 
also have come down in price, Pentax don't have some kind of magic price wand.


REPLY:

Of course Pentax have a magical wand. They have or years sold MF cameras of top 
quality at half the price of the competition. The reason is that the 
competition need to pay the electricity bill, the cleaning woman, the rent, the 
wages, the engineers from selling a few thousand expensive camera bodies a 
year. Pentax can pay all these costs by selling litterally tens of million of 
cameras a year. 
In addition, Pentax can afford to have a loss leader as well in this segment 
something thats much harder for those companies who make MF cameras for a 
living.

Pål

Re: 1st day of spring in East Gwillimbury

[brooksdj]

It was actually warmer outside than inside the barn area.
The concrete and dirt footing seems to hold in the cold and dampness.  It was a 
pretty
day,none the 
less.

Dave   

> That looks amazingly cold for spring...
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > 
> > http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/springday.jpg 
> >
> >View from the horse show Sunday. Welcome to spring in the Great White 
> >North.:-)
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: MX OUtlook Express Question

[Markus Maurer]

Hi John
the site is under construction but if you click on the link "Download
MAF-Recovery 1.75", the download of "maf_setup.exe" starts. YXou can install
it with the default settings.

Sorry, I did not remember that the program is in german only, that is quite
unusual!

First, set the path for the backup File under "Programmeinstellungen" -->
"Einstellungen festlegen" --> "Sicherung erfolgt im Archiv" - just leave the
name for the backup file or give another --> "Pfadangabe
Sicherung/Wiederherstellung" type the path
to the folder, where you want your backup to be stored, this folder should
not contain other files.

This basic settings are enough, then you can decide if you want to start the
program automatically and if you want to keep
different versions of the backup files and more.

Some quick translations:

German  English

Einstellungen   Settings
Sichern safe
Wiederherstellenrestore
Programmeinstellungen   program settings
festlegen   to set (permanent) settings
Daten   data
automatisch automatic
Tag(e)  day(s)
Abbruch cancel
auflisten   list
anzeigenshow
zurücksetzenreset
Archiv  archive
nur only
ent/verschlüsseln   decrypt/encrypt
temporärtemporary

Maildaten   messages
Adressbuch  adress book
Favoriten   favorites
Registratur Windows registry

this are the four items that will be safed if you do not specify otherwise.
I hope that helps and please backup your email (*.DBX) and WAB **first**
before experimenting with live data.


If you still have questions, you can contact me offlist...
greetings
Markus











>>-Original Message-
>>From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:05 AM
>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: MX OUtlook Express Question
>>
>>
>>Markus, I'd like to test your recommendation, but I don't read German -
>>would it be possible to get a translation of the menu item captions (in
>>English, of course!)
>>TIA
>>
>>John Coyle
>>Brisbane, Australia
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: 
>>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:49 PM
>>Subject: RE: MX OUtlook Express Question
>>
>>
>>> Hi Hern
>>> that programm exists already, it's called MAF "Outlook Express Backup"
>>> 1.75
>>> and is freeware. It packs Email, Adress book and favorites in a archive
>>> automated or manually, not for Outlook but the Express versions.
>>>
>>> Here is the link: http://jubaco.light.hl-users.com/
>>>
>>> greetings
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>the email program has its faults. other programs are better in
>>many ways,
>but they take a little more effort to install and make work.
>Microsoft has
>made a lot of money by appearing as the path of least resistance.
>i think an
>export program that can read and make backups of OE mail folders
>without OE
>running would solve a lot of problems.
>
>Herb...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or 
larger) than high-end Canon lenses.
Excuse me, Pål, but you statement will not be more correct by 
repetition. It's still plain wrong. Your persistence in defending the 
645 system is admireable, but please stick to the truth.

Take a versatile lens like eg. 200mm for 35mm format, which has an AOV 
of about 12 dergrees. The corresponding lens in the 645 realm would be 
a 300mm.

The Canon alternative is not only smaller, but also half the size and 
LESS than half the price of the Pentax 645 equivalent. If you compare 
equal focal lengths instead, the difference is less but still in 
Canon's favor for everything except weight.

Prices from B&H:
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM  (USD 659.95)
Filter Size: 72mm
f/Stop Range: 2.8-32
Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m
Magnification: 1:6.3
Angle of View: 12 Degrees
Groups/Elements: 7/9
Length: 137 mm
Maximum Diameter: 83.2 mm
Weight: 765g
Pentax FA645 300mm f/4 ED (IF)  (USD 3,399.95)
Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 200mm
Angle of View @ Infinity13.5 degrees
Filter Size: 77mm
Elements/Groups: 8/8
f/Stop Range: f/4 - 32
Minimum Focus Distance: 3m (9.8ft)
Dimensions: 207.5 mm x 83 mm LxW
Weight: 1490g
Pentax FA645 200mm f/4 (IF)   (USD 849.95)
Equivalent 35mm Focal Length: 120mm
Angle of View @ Infinity: 20 degrees
Filter Size: 58mm
Elements/Groups: 6/5
f/Stop Rangef/4 - 32
Minimum Focus Distance: 1.5m (4.9 ft)
Dimensions: 119 x 74.5mm (4.69 x 2.93") L x W
Weight: 670g (23.6 oz)
Jostein 

Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di

[John Whittingham]

In stock, NOW!!!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 


John 
-- Original Message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:36:00 +
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di

> Get your name on the B&H waiting list. When they have enough demand, 
> they'll get some lenses in stock. The price is $299, brand new. Paul
> 
> > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > 
> > No, I'm in the same position.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From: Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:18 +1000
> > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > 
> > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:56:38 -0500, Doug Brewer 
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Here is a small gallery of shots taken with the FA35/2. It's a very 
> > > > nice lens and makes a great walkarounder on the istD.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:19 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > All opinions much appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I currently have an unhealthy interest in enabling myself with an 
FA 
> > > > > 35mm
> > > > > f/2, however I have a Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 which appears to 
> > > > > perform very
> > > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think I should be content with the Tamron or pursue the FA 
35mm?
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone have both that could offer some insight?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've read plenty of tests on the Tamron but only one on the FA that 
> > > > > was just
> > > > > opinion without any MTF score or other information.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://shutterbug.com/test_reports/1100sb_pentax
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone have a link they could point me to for the FA 35mm f/2 
> > > > > test?
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > --- End of Original Message ---
> >
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

 "Jostein" 

> Excuse me, Pål, but you statement will not be more correct by 
> repetition. It's still plain wrong. Your persistence in defending the 
> 645 system is admireable, but please stick to the truth.

Well, I took it for granted that most are aware that for long telephotos MF 
looses out just like full frame 35mm looses out compared for APS sized sensors.
For lenses in the normal shooting range, that is apart from specialized optics, 
it does hold truth. Pentax 645 lenses are no larger than Canon high-end glass. 
In fact, usually smaller. And for the most part no more expensive; often less. 
Indeed, Herbert Keppler once compared the Pentax 67 system to high-end Nikon 
and concluded that Pentax MF was cheaper. Of course this doesn't hold if you 
compare 800mm lenses but that is really beside the point for 99% of us.

Pål

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, I took it for granted that most are aware that for
long telephotos  MF looses out just like full frame 35mm
looses out compared for APS sized sensors. For lenses
in the normal shooting range, that is apart from specialized
optics, it does hold truth. Pentax 645 lenses are no larger
than Canon high-end glass. In fact, usually smaller. And for
the most part no more expensive; often less.
Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to 
look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to 
the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and 
comparable focal lengths.

Indeed, Herbert Keppler once compared the Pentax 67
system to high-end Nikon and concluded that Pentax MF
was cheaper. Of course this doesn't hold if you compare
800mm lenses but that is really beside the point for 99% of us.
Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system 
to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference 
to the comparison by Keppler, btw?

In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the 
range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than 
for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, 
which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, 
the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more 
expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an 
oversimplification at best.

I'd love to be proven wrong, though. Please give your examples if you 
have them.

Jostein 

BOA's Gallery off Boz gone awry?

[Lindamood, Mark]

Has anyone besides me noticed that the link to BOA's Gallery off of Boz's site 
now links to an AT&T site?

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Jostein wrote:

> Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother to 
> look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one to 
> the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and 
> comparable focal lengths.

It is no more elusive than it has to be. See below...


> Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 system 
> to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any reference 
> to the comparison by Keppler, btw?


The relevance is that Pentax MF isn't expensive compared to high-end 35mm gear.

> 
> In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the 
> range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system than 
> for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm, 
> which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow, 
> the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more 
> expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an 
> oversimplification at best.


I don't understand your argument at all. Of course I'm not comparing a 35mm MF 
lens to a 35mm lens for a Canon. I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with 
professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same 
job in the new format context. I'm comparing choices a users of the system 
typically would had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of 
view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of 
professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few holes as 
possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and 
cost less too last time I checked. I never did say that these lenses 
necessarily do exactly the same thing; I'm perfectly aware that one system may 
do certain things than the other. I'm also aware that you can get 35mm Caon 
lenses much cheaper if you go for the consumer stuff. What I was saiying was 
that Pentax MF (645) compares favourably both in size and prices compared to !
 high-end Canon gear; nothing more nothing less and it is nothing lerss than 
the perfect truth. The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system 
but I can afford a Pentax 645 system. 

Pål

Re: Protection foil advice

[Tom Lesser]

Hi all:
Sorry,  I haven't been following this thread, and perhaps this has 
already been suggested, but I've been cutting down the clear protective 
overlays made to cover the screen on a PDA to fit screens on my *istD, 
E-10 and GPS.  If you're careful not to trap any air bubbles, it works 
OK.  It's a little less clear than using nothing, but you can see well 
enough to check image content and the histogram.

Tom Lesser
Frederick MD
On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:32 PM, David Savage wrote:
G'day Peter,
I think as long as it's not dripping wet when you apply it, you should 
be fine.

I bought some cheap LCD protectors from my local camera store. They
came with wipes soaked in Isopropyl alcohol in sealed packets. Wipe
the screen to remove any grease, let it dry, apply the protector.
There held fast  by some type electro static charge. it's been on for
5 months and hasn't even thought about coming off.
And no I wasn't worried about frying the circuitry.
There terrible to look through, but good enough for checking exposure.
Dave S
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:45:09 +0100, Peter Smekal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
a local store sells Crocfol's LCD-monitor protection foil for the 
*istD.
However, in order to adjust it on the display you have to dip the 
foil into
water. Would you recommend to do that? Couldn't some of the water on 
the
foil penetrate into the camera at the edge of the monitor?
Is this kind of display protection useful at all?
Peter

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Jack Davis]

John,
Too much non-reflective water. Even though it's a
"rule", I'd still like the buildings to be other than
centered.
Had the reflections been there, (and with a tiny bit
off the top) this would be scary close to a career
shot.
Might be fun to play with PS for your own
intertainment.

Jack 
--- John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken a few days ago on my evening constitutional;
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3216994
> 
> Comments welcomed!
> 
> John Coyle
> Brisbane, Australia
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Shel Belinkoff]

What's the "rule" about centering buildings?  Never heard of such a rule.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Jack Davis 

> Too much non-reflective water. Even though it's a
> "rule", I'd still like the buildings to be other than
> centered.

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Pål Jensen wrote:

> I don't understand your argument at all.

Can I interject? Jostein mailed a comparison of 200mm (35mm equiv)
lenses where the Canon was significantly cheaper than P645. You
suggested that to be true for the long end, but not for "normal" AOV.

Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and
"similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L
or Nikon high-end.

Kostas

Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts

[Fred]

> Well that's exactly the weather we got where I am now, Uppsala , Sweden. 
> Since I grew up in the far north, this time of the winter, we call it 
> spring winter, its the best for going out on skis, picknick etc. And yes 
> it has got quite a differerent meaning compared to California. I guess 
> that one really appreaciate winter first when one goes outside, with 
> proper clothing, and do things, today I had a several hour long ski 
> trip, cross country. Still, your description makes me really nostalgic. 
> Boston is a very nice place with lots of room (well maybe a bit crowded 
> but..) for a lot of different people with a fantastic atmosphere.

Back in 1972, singer/songwriter John Denver released an album (that's one
of those big 33-1/3 RPM black vinyl things, for you young whippersnappers
out there - ) called "Rocky Mountain High".  One portion of the album,
entitled "Season Suite" had ~five~ songs - four were named for the seasons,
plus there was one more entitled "Late Winter/Early Spring" (with the
subtitle of "(When Everybody Goes To Mexico)".

Actually, here in New England one sometimes hears the joke that we actually
have only ~two~ seasons - Winter and August - .

Fred

FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di)

[pnstenquist]

Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less than recent 
used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. 
Paul


> In stock, NOW!!!
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
> 
> 
> John 
> -- Original Message ---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:36:00 +
> Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> 
> > Get your name on the B&H waiting list. When they have enough demand, 
> > they'll get some lenses in stock. The price is $299, brand new. Paul
> > 
> > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > 
> > > No, I'm in the same position.
> > > 
> > > John
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- Original Message ---
> > > From: Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:18 +1000
> > > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > > 
> > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:56:38 -0500, Doug Brewer 
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Here is a small gallery of shots taken with the FA35/2. It's a very 
> > > > > nice lens and makes a great walkarounder on the istD.
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:19 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > All opinions much appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I currently have an unhealthy interest in enabling myself with an 
> FA 
> > > > > > 35mm
> > > > > > f/2, however I have a Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 which appears to 
> > > > > > perform very
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think I should be content with the Tamron or pursue the FA 
> 35mm?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone have both that could offer some insight?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've read plenty of tests on the Tamron but only one on the FA that 
> > > > > > was just
> > > > > > opinion without any MTF score or other information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://shutterbug.com/test_reports/1100sb_pentax
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone have a link they could point me to for the FA 35mm f/2 
> > > > > > test?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > --- End of Original Message ---
> > >
> --- End of Original Message ---
> 

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Jostein]

Without examples, your "truths" are only statements, Pål.
I looked up one case, and it spoke against you. As I said, I'd love to 
be proven wrong, but I'm beginning to believe you can't...:-)

Jostein
- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?


Jostein wrote:
Well that's an elusive answer if ever I saw one. Would you bother 
to
look up some examples to back your statements? I just gave you one 
to
the contrary, where I included data for both comparable AOV and
comparable focal lengths.
It is no more elusive than it has to be. See below...

Yeah. And how relevant is a comparison of a 35mm against a 67 
system
to a discussion of the virtues of 645? Not at all, IMHO. Any 
reference
to the comparison by Keppler, btw?

The relevance is that Pentax MF isn't expensive compared to high-end 
35mm gear.

In fact, by the logic of your argument in your first paragraph, the
range of comparable lenses will be even smaller for a 67 system 
than
for a 645. You'd be stuck with lenses in the normal range for 35mm,
which are wide-angles for the 67. If your reference is that narrow,
the scope of your initial statement "The 645 lenses are no more
expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses" is just an
oversimplification at best.

I don't understand your argument at all. Of course I'm not comparing 
a 35mm MF lens to a 35mm lens for a Canon. I'm comparing Pentax MF 
lenses with professional quality Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon 
counterpart) doing the same job in the new format context. I'm 
comparing choices a users of the system typically would had doing 
for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles of view provided 
by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms) by zoom lenses of 
professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and Pentax MF with as few 
holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the Pentax system will 
weight about 1kg less and cost less too last time I checked. I never 
did say that these lenses necessarily do exactly the same thing; I'm 
perfectly aware that one system may do certain things than the 
other. I'm also aware that you can get 35mm Caon lenses much cheaper 
if you go for the consumer stuff. What I was saiying was that Pentax 
MF (645) compares favourably both in size and prices compared to !
high-end Canon gear; nothing more nothing less and it is nothing 
lerss than the perfect truth. The fact is that I couldn't afford a 
high-end Nikon system but I can afford a Pentax 645 system.

Pål

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Jostein]

- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I'm comparing Pentax MF lenses with professional quality
Canon L-lenses (or the Nikon counterpart) doing the same
job in the new format context.
Okay, so we're talking AOV, then.
I'm comparing choices a users of the system typically would
had doing for doing a similar job. You can cover the angles
of view provided by lenses from 20mm-200mm (in 35mm terms)
by zoom lenses of professional quality for both Canon/Nikon and
Pentax MF with as few holes as possible in focal lenghts, but the
Pentax system will weight about 1kg less and cost less too last
time I checked.
Okaaay?
So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of 
high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in 
the 645 system?

The fact is that I couldn't afford a high-end Nikon system but I can
afford a Pentax 645 system.
What's your real comparison here? Nikon or Canon? Not that it matters 
much, but I think your arguments are getting very hard to verify 
because of the new parameters brought in all the time.

My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, 
statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than 
high-end Canon lenses."

I'm sorry to say so, but your claim is still not any more 
substantiated. And now it suddenly applies to Nikon, not Canon?!?

I think I'm outa this thread now...:-(
Jostein 

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Kostas: 


> Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and
> "similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L
> or Nikon high-end.

Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to be 
argumentative. I did the math years ago. The Pentax lenses in question cost 
from ~800$ to ~1400. The Canon L lenses from about$ 1300 - $1600. The Pentax 
lenses weight sigificantly less. 
If you are that interested I suggest you look up prices yourself. A Pentax 
645NII with 33-55, 55-110, 150-300 can be had for less than Nikon and Canon pro 
zoom lenses systems offering the same flexibility. And a Nikon F5 weights more 
than a Pentax 645. And yes, again, I know that they don't do the same things, 
that they are faster, but again somone who considers MF for 35mm is presumably 
after image quality and won't shoot at F:2.8 at 800ISO. 
All I stated that Pentax MF compares favourably with Nikon/Canon high-end gear. 
If someone find that such comparison is irrelevant is fine by me. It certainly 
is relevant for me and is the reason I mostly shoot MF these days.

Pål

Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts

[Fred]

> Nice photo!

Thanks, Jim.

> I can't think of any of those large swamps in my area,
> Winchester/Woburn/Lexington... but there's a lot down in the area where
> you shot this photo.

There's at least one of 'em right on the southern side of Route 2 in that
area (well, it might be west of Lexington, I guess) which typically (and
famously) has a large number of heron nests in the trees.

I drove by the swamp in my photo both on Sunday morning and yesterday
morning (these were not really intentional trips just to go by the swamp -
it just happens to be alongside a highway that I use frequently), and the
snow-on-top-of-ice cover was still complete on Sunday, but was just
starting to thaw at one end on Monday.

> Some are abandoned cranberry bogs.

Yes indeed, and there are a large number of bogs here in southeastern
Massachusetts (both active and abandoned).  But a lot of swamps are caused
by erosion after forest fires, and that was my connection to the PUG theme
that month of "Earth, Air, Fire, and Water" (I think that the theme
actually was just "Elements", but I went for an interpretation of the
ancient view of those four basic elements in my photo).

Fred

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Pål Jensen wrote:

> Kostas:
>
>
> > Can you provide an example or two where the same angle of view and
> > "similar" quality lenses are quoted and P645 is cheaper than Canon L
> > or Nikon high-end.
>
> Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone wants to 
> be argumentative.

I think I will follow Jostein out of this thread.

Kostas

RE: FA 35/2 available

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Paul,

Glad to learn that you got the lens you want.  

I'm curious about this particular optic.  It seems to be quite desirable. 
Apart from the focal length, how might it compare with the 31mm Ltd, which
also seems to make Pentax users sit up and take notice?  It would seem that
these are lenses that might stand comparison.

Does Pentax make a 28mm lens these days?

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From:  Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less than
recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. 
> Paul

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Jostein wrote:


> So basically, you're talking about one _specific_ selection of 
> high-quality zoom lenses from Canon to match the zooms available in 
> the 645 system?

Basically, yes. It is the development of zoom lenses that has made the 645 
system fully competitive to high-end 35mm. The Canon L lenses doen't 
exclusively consist of prime lenses in this focal lenght area. Almost everyone 
buy zoom lenses; usually those 2.8 lenses as their optical quality is 
comparable to primes. Prime lenses for 35mm these days are mostly restricted to 
ultra fast speciality optics not very comparable to anything in medium format. 
Almost everyone I know of outdoor photographers who use high-end Nikon or Canon 
gear use a set of those 2.8 lenses. And they are indeed of the size, weight and 
cost of Pentax MF (645). 


> My initial reaction here was to your broad, but brand-specific, 
> statement "The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than 
> high-end Canon lenses."


But are they? Granted there are about three lenses in the 645 line-up that are 
much larger and more expensive than comparable Canon lenses but thats about it. 
They are all telephotos and I have no arguments with those who thinks that long 
telephoto works better for 35mm; even better for APS sized sensor cameras. 
Have you ever lookedd at Canon lenses in a camera shop? I get amazed everytime. 
I can swear the Elan II is approacvhing the 645 in size and most L-lenses are 
larger than the lenses I'm used to, and I use MF. I friend has an EOS-1n with 
booster and with the 80-200/2.8 lens I can hardly lift the thing. A Pentax 
645NII with the 150-300 look small in comparison.  

Pål

Re: FA 35/2 available

[Scott Loveless]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:30:15 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does Pentax make a 28mm lens these days?
Yepper.  They still have the FA28/2.8 AL and the FA28/2.8 soft on the
factory site.  B&H is out of the AL and accepting orders for the soft.
> 



-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: FA 35/2 available

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Mar 22, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Does Pentax make a 28mm lens these days?
The FA 28mm f/2.8. Supposed to be a very good lens; it's a nice size 
and a reasonable price.

An FA 35/2 AL would be nice, but I'm on a lens purchase moratorium 
until I figure out what out of the lenses I already have I'm going to 
put back on the market. I have too many as it is. The strategy of 
medium speed, modest size zooms and faster yet still compact primes 
seems to be working well.

Godfrey

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Jostein]

I remember your comparison, Pål. You posted it to the list. It was a 
very interesting comparison back then. Three years is a lot of time, 
and the comparison may still be valid. There are, however, a lot of 
new people on the list who haven't read all the archives. :-)

It's a long step from just stating the one sentence "The 645 lenses 
are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses", to 
actually pointing out that this applies to one quite specific setup 
tailored to one person's needs. Now you've done so, and we all know 
the scope of your statement.

The world is always more complicated than one-liners, isn't it? :-)
Cheers,
Jostein
- Original Message - 
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frankly, I'm not that interested spending time just because someone 
wants to be argumentative. I did the math years ago. The Pentax 
lenses in question cost from ~800$ to ~1400. The Canon L lenses from 
about$ 1300 - $1600. The Pentax lenses weight sigificantly less.
If you are that interested I suggest you look up prices yourself. A 
Pentax 645NII with 33-55, 55-110, 150-300 can be had for less than 
Nikon and Canon pro zoom lenses systems offering the same 
flexibility. And a Nikon F5 weights more than a Pentax 645. And yes, 
again, I know that they don't do the same things, that they are 
faster, but again somone who considers MF for 35mm is presumably 
after image quality and won't shoot at F:2.8 at 800ISO.
All I stated that Pentax MF compares favourably with Nikon/Canon 
high-end gear. If someone find that such comparison is irrelevant is 
fine by me. It certainly is relevant for me and is the reason I 
mostly shoot MF these days.

RE: FA 35/2 available

[pnstenquist]

Hi Shel,
I don't own the 31 ltd, so I can't really compare. The FA 35/2 comes with a 
good reputation for sharpness, and its labeled the same as the limited with the 
"AL" suffix. The limited lens is much prettier and probably better built, but 
it sells for nearly three times the price of the 35/2. Perhaps someone who owns 
both will do a comparison. In 28mm, there is an FA  28/2.8. That lens isn't on 
my shopping list. I have the K 28/3.5, which is a very nice lens and almost as 
fast. I also have the M 35/2, but I wanted an autofocus lens with a "normal" 
fov, and if reputations mean anything, the FA seems to be considered optically 
superior to the M. In any case, I'm sure it will be quite adequate.I might keep 
the rather diminutive M35/2 because it looks great on my MX :-).
Paul


> Hi Paul,
> 
> Glad to learn that you got the lens you want.  
> 
> I'm curious about this particular optic.  It seems to be quite desirable. 
> Apart from the focal length, how might it compare with the 31mm Ltd, which
> also seems to make Pentax users sit up and take notice?  It would seem that
> these are lenses that might stand comparison.
> 
> Does Pentax make a 28mm lens these days?
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From:  
> > Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less than
> recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. 
> > Paul
> 
> 

RE: *ist-D underexposing - off for repair

[Jens Bladt]

My *ist D works fine with both Pentax (200-400 ASA) and Metz flashes, using
TTL metering - especially Metz (200-800 ASA).
And who needs a flash at 1600-3200 ASA?
Underexposure can be caused by using a flash that is not powerfull enough or
if the subject is very bright (the bride??), the meter system will cut off
the beam to early.

BTW: I know wedding photographers who use the Fuji S3, which has special
"pixels" (in between the other ones) - especially designed for highlights -
avoiding burned out highlights.

I guess overexposure is the general problem with the *ist D/flash - and with
most digital cameras BYW - due to a shallow dynamic range, compared to film.

This was shot using af dual tube Metz 45 CT-5, using TTL meetering. I thinks
is brilliant:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/6782063/

I hope your camera will be fine after the check-up, Paul!

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


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Ewins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 21. marts 2005 11:25
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: *ist-D underexposing - off for repair


I dropped my *ist-D off for repair today at the local Pentax distributor.
Yesterday I was taking photos at a wedding and all of them, except the first
two, were underexposed by a couple of stops. I'd had this sort of trouble
before when using flash and also a couple of weekends ago shooting race cars
in bright sunlight and wasn't really sure whether it was a camera fault or
not, but yesterday tipped the balance.

The repair guy didn't seem the least surprised when I explained the fault
and was confident that it could be fixed so I'm assuming it is a known
problem. He didn't even bother asking any questions - I just showed him the
histograms on the display and explained that I was shooting on full auto and
that was that.

Unfortunately the camera is well out of warranty so I have no idea how much
it will cost to fix. I'm hoping it is some sort of firmware reset and will
cost nothing, but that is being fairly optimistic.

Fortunately the wedding shots are salvageable, and in fact most of the time
I was shooting B&W using an MX and 77LTD so the day was far from a disaster.
For anyone who wonders whether the image size in the finder is really that
important try swapping from a zoom on the *ist-D to a fast prime on an MX
and back for a couple of hours and see if you change your mind.

FWIW, when I had the problems using TTL flash I found that the AF400FTZ
would screw most shots up while an AF280T using a more primitive TTL was
fine.

Regards,

Paul Ewins
Melbourne, Australia

Re: 1st Day of Spring in Eastern Massachusetts

[Fred]

> lovely, but you could present it a little bigger :-)

Thanks, Markus, but sorry.  I just took a look at the scan archives here,
and way back then I just scanned it to fit within the PUG file size
guidelines.  (Nowadays, I am more likely to scan to a larger size and then
resize as needed.)  I must have the original print around here some place
(but my filing system - or lack thereof - might make it hard to find -
).  If I do run across it, I'll re-scan it more "properly".

> What's your general opinion on that [A 28-135/4] zoom beside the weight?

I do love the lens.  Despite its weight (which doesn't usually bother me
all that much), it serves as a frequent "walkaround lens" for me (unless
I'm walking really far - ).  I can't really find any fault with it for
such purposes.  I've got two of 'em (one of which my wife uses), and am
happy to have 'em.

For me, the lens has a pretty useful range (the 28-135/4, plus an A 20/2.8
and either the A* 300/4 of the F* 300/4.5, make a pretty good all-around
kit for many outings), it's built like the proverbial tank, is optically
quite good (for a zoom, of course - it's very similar to its sibling, the
often-discussed A 35-105/3.5), and it has very nice bokeh.

The number one comment that one seems to hear/read about the lens (here on
the PDML) is "heavy" or "weight", but that's the least important lens
characteristic to me (under most circumstances) when choosing a lens.

I have a few shots taken with the lens on the Pentax Lens Gallery at
http://plg.komkon.org/a28-135_4/a28-135_4.html .

Fred

Re: FA 35/2 available

[Scott Loveless]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:39:12 -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2005, at 7:30 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > Does Pentax make a 28mm lens these days?
> 
> The FA 28mm f/2.8. Supposed to be a very good lens; it's a nice size
> and a reasonable price.
> 
> An FA 35/2 AL would be nice, but I'm on a lens purchase moratorium
> until I figure out what out of the lenses I already have I'm going to
> put back on the market. I have too many as it is. The strategy of
> medium speed, modest size zooms and faster yet still compact primes
> seems to be working well.
If you decide to rid yourself of any short telephoto primes, let me
know.  I'm in the market for one and am almost to the point of buying
a  non-Pentax lens.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

RE: FA 35/2 available

[Shel Belinkoff]

You will, of course, let us know when you've received the lens, preferably
with some sample shots.  I know that's a lot to ask 

Shel 


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

 I wanted an autofocus lens with a "normal" fov, and if reputations mean
anything, the FA seems to be considered optically superior to the M. In any
case, I'm sure it will be quite adequate.I might keep the rather diminutive
M35/2 because it looks great on my MX 

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Pål Jensen]

Jostein wrote:

>  It's a long step from just stating the one sentence "The 645 lenses 
> are no more expensive (or larger) than high-end Canon lenses", to 
> actually pointing out that this applies to one quite specific setup 
> tailored to one person's needs. Now you've done so, and we all know 
> the scope of your statement.
> 
> The world is always more complicated than one-liners, isn't it? :-)


Sure. My main point is that you cannot dismiss MF on size and weight alone, 
something thats often done, when compared to high-end 35mm gear. It seems like 
Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645.
However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly ugly. 
I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable in the 
looks department. 

Pål

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Ugly is in they eyes of the beholder 

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Pål Jensen 

>  It seems like Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645.
However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly
ugly. I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable
in the looks department. 

Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?

[David Oswald]

John Whittingham wrote:
Its filter size 
is 72 mm. and although it isn't particularly big or heavy, the 
Pentax 28-105 3.2-4.5 looks really small when compared to this 
Tamron. If small size and SMC are important for you, and you don't 
need the extra focal length range, I would say that the Pentax is a 
better choice.

The filter size is the only negative side for me I'd prefer 67mm or even 
77mm, size and weight probably no bigger or heavier than some of my older 
Pentax lenses, I used a Pentax-A 35-105 f/3.5 for years until recently when I 
use the Pentax-FA 28-105 Power zoom. I'd love the focal length range for a 
walkabout lens.
Well, you're in luck, because whoever said it has a 72mm filter size is 
wrong.  The size is 58mm.  Check the Pentax website for confirmation. 
That's what it says on the Pentax site, and that's also the 
specification that MY lens has when I look at the number printed on the 
front... and it's the size of the filter I've got on the camera. ;)

People are often confused by the fact that there are three 28-105 lenses 
in the Pentax lineup:
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 PZ- The original Power Zoom model
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 AL[IF]- The "probably made by Tamron" model
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL[IF]-The one we're talking about today.

Double enablement :D

[Niko Koskela]

I thought i would never get excited enough about getting new equipment 
that i´d need to share it with anyone. Well, i was wrong... Today i 
received two new (to me) lenses: K35/2 AND K85/1.8  I have been looking 
for these lenses for quite a while. I´ve followed Eekbay and several 
webstores around the world weekly.

Then it happened, last week i was again looking through those webstores. 
Suddenly it´s there ! K35/2 in stock (A-B condition), i order it 
immediately without asking about their shipping prices ! Then i relax, 
take a deep breath and start looking at their site again: a K85/1.8 is 
there too, in the same condition ! I order that also immediately :) 
Today i received them, and they are in very clean condition, without any 
defects (and K85 has a hood too). GREAT !

If anyone is interested the store was  www.lpfoto.se  in Stockholm, 
Sweden. Total price for both lenses was ~400EUR, i´m a happy guy, and 
can stop watching Ebay now  ;)

Thanks for listening,
Niko.

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[pnstenquist]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Shel. If it's well built, sells for 
the price of a high-end 35mm dslr and offers more resolution and less noise 
than the 35, that's a beautiful thing. I wouldn't be entering it in any fashion 
shows.
Paul


> Ugly is in they eyes of the beholder 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Pål Jensen 
> 
> >  It seems like Pentax will continue the compact trend with digital 645.
> However, the biggest problem with this camera is that it seem incredibly
> ugly. I hope sombody tells them that none of the prototypes are acceptable
> in the looks department. 
> 
> 

RE: Cape Ann

[Tom C]

Hi Jim,
I like a number of these... #1 and then #'s 9 and 10 of the gray 
lighthouses.  Nice work.

Tom C.

From: Jim Hemenway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Cape Ann
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:46:28 -0500
North of Boston
http://www.hemenway.com/CapeAnn/
isDS with various lenses
Jim

Re: any further comments on the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF ?

[Carlos Royo]

David Oswald escribió:


Well, you're in luck, because whoever said it has a 72mm filter size is 
wrong.  The size is 58mm.  Check the Pentax website for confirmation. 
That's what it says on the Pentax site, and that's also the 
specification that MY lens has when I look at the number printed on the 
front... and it's the size of the filter I've got on the camera. ;)

The comment was about the Tamron SP AF 24-135 mm. 3.5-5.6. Its filter 
size is 72 mm.

Carlos

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Bob Blakely]

The 645D will probably come out with a 24x36mm sensor. That would be a rub!
HAR!
Regards,
Bob...

"A picture is worth a thousand  words,
but it uses up three thousand times the  memory."
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Annti_Pekka wrote:
I don't yet own any Pentax 645 equipment but I see the 645D as the
long awaited "professional DSLR from Pentax" and am very interested
in getting one (if comparable in price with the Canon and Kodak
FF 35mm offerings). It seems that Pentax is not going to release
a FF 35mm any time soon so I would need to go to an entirely new
camera system in any case if I wish to get a larger than APS size sensor
REPLY:
I've said it before: The 645 lenses are no more expensive (or larger) than 
high-end Canon lenses.

Well I did it, a PZ-1p

[Don Sanderson]

A broken one of course. ;-)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7501012913

We'll see how good I am at fixing Z series.
The good part is the SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 that comes with it.
These have been eekBaying lately for about what I paid for the whole rig.
Guy seems honest enough judging by the e-mails we've exchanged.
We'll see.

Don

PS: If ayone's interested in the 70-210 drop me a line.
I'll let you know when I recieve it and check it out.
I already have one.

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Shel Belinkoff]

I wasn't even considering that, although those are salient points ...
having seen the samples posted last week or so, one or another looked very
nice, aesthetically pleasing to my eye.  If a camera were to fit my hand
comfortably, and work in a manner that suited my style, then it's OK. 
Anyway, any camera I put up to my face would be nothing but an improvement


Shel 


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


> You took the words right out of my mouth, Shel. If it's well built, sells
for the price of a high-end 35mm dslr and offers more resolution and less
noise than the 35, that's a beautiful thing. I wouldn't be entering it in
any fashion shows.

Re: Did my FS make it to the list?

[Jon M]

I got it both times.

This list is a bit balky at times, it seems. 


--- Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can see it in the archive but I didn't not receive
> it myself ..??
> 
> -- 
> 
> Thibouille
> 
> 

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

Re: Double enablement :D

[pnstenquist]

Congratulations. That's a very good price. You'd never get them that 
inexpensively on ebay.
Paul


> I thought i would never get excited enough about getting new equipment 
> that i´d need to share it with anyone. Well, i was wrong... Today i 
> received two new (to me) lenses: K35/2 AND K85/1.8  I have been looking 
> for these lenses for quite a while. I´ve followed Eekbay and several 
> webstores around the world weekly.
> 
> Then it happened, last week i was again looking through those webstores. 
> Suddenly it´s there ! K35/2 in stock (A-B condition), i order it 
> immediately without asking about their shipping prices ! Then i relax, 
> take a deep breath and start looking at their site again: a K85/1.8 is 
> there too, in the same condition ! I order that also immediately :) 
> Today i received them, and they are in very clean condition, without any 
> defects (and K85 has a hood too). GREAT !
> 
> If anyone is interested the store was  www.lpfoto.se  in Stockholm, 
> Sweden. Total price for both lenses was ~400EUR, i´m a happy guy, and 
> can stop watching Ebay now  ;)
> 
> Thanks for listening,
> Niko.
> 

Re: Double enablement :D

[Henri Toivonen]

Saw those too. Lpfoto sometimes has some nice pentax lenses for nice 
prices. Too bad I usually don't have the money to order anything. :-/

/Henri
I thought i would never get excited enough about getting new equipment 
that i´d need to share it with anyone. Well, i was wrong... Today i 
received two new (to me) lenses: K35/2 AND K85/1.8  I have been looking 
for these lenses for quite a while. I´ve followed Eekbay and several 
webstores around the world weekly.

Then it happened, last week i was again looking through those webstores. 
Suddenly it´s there ! K35/2 in stock (A-B condition), i order it 
immediately without asking about their shipping prices ! Then i relax, 
take a deep breath and start looking at their site again: a K85/1.8 is 
there too, in the same condition ! I order that also immediately :) 
Today i received them, and they are in very clean condition, without any 
defects (and K85 has a hood too). GREAT !

If anyone is interested the store was  www.lpfoto.se  in Stockholm, 
Sweden. Total price for both lenses was ~400EUR, i´m a happy guy, and 
can stop watching Ebay now  ;)

Thanks for listening,
Niko.
   

Re: Posting Photos

[Ann Sanfedele]

frank theriault wrote:
> 


> I'm way behind on the list.  I don't know why, I just am.

I'm behinder... and I do know why -- arrggh...

agree with all your stuff below - and would add, I
don't want to
have to sign in to a site to see a photo (grumble
grumble ;) )

ALSO --
could all of you who are chatting about
Grandfather MT put GFM in
the subject line?  
I really need to read those and have a separate
folder 

thanks!
ann

> 
> I've noticed the last couple of days that lots of photos are being
> posted and commented on where those three tags aren't in the subject
> line.  For those of us who wish to (eventually) look at all the photos
> posted, perhaps those posting photos could put the appropriate
> initialism or acronym or whatever in the SL?
> 
> As well, there are some on this list who don't have time for or don't
> wish to look at posted photos, so for their sake, it might be polite
> to effectively label your photo posts as well.
> 
> Just a couple of thoughts...
> 
> thanks for you time,
> frank
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Double enablement :D

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Niko Koskela wrote:

> I thought i would never get excited enough about getting new equipment
> that i´d need to share it with anyone. Well, i was wrong... Today i
> received two new (to me) lenses: K35/2 AND K85/1.8  I have been looking

I would have got excited myself. Very. Very, very.

Well done.

Kostas

PESO covered bridge

[Scott Loveless]

This is a photo of my daughter, Megan, on a covered bridge near our
home.  It was taken with the *ist and most likely the 28-90 zoom.  I
have no recollection of the film type or exposure - sorry.  This is
most likely a scan of the print.
-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: Potential buyrs of a D645?

[Mark Roberts]

"Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The 645D will probably come out with a 24x36mm sensor. That would be a rub!

34mm x 45mm (1.3 FOV crop for 645)

Pentax has publicly stated that they see no reason why a digital SLR
should be any larger than the equivalent film SLR. But we won't see 24 x
36 in a standard 35mm-size body until the sensors are much more of a
commodity item. Just like what happened with the APS-C sensor in the
ist-D and DS. Not going to happen until low-cost CMOS sensor fabs come
on line (probably in China) and the use of two or more small sensors to
substitute for a single large sensor becomes more common.

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

Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[Peter J. Alling]

I wrote off list to this bozo but I was not particularly threatening.  
If he took it that way, I will wash my hands of him.  If he would like I 
will post my off list message, with one small excision. It was off list 
because I used a four letter word to get his attention.  I will also 
post my follow up to his reply to me.  I am losing patience with most of 
the a**h***s who post political sniping, trying to keep it just enough 
below the radar so it won't cause a real reaction.  Ok, I admit, 
sometimes I'm an a**h*** but only because I get drawn in.  Well, get 
over it.  I'm trying very hard to keep out of this crap, but I'm 
argumentative by nature.

You can't convince anyone on a mailing list of the rightness of your 
cause and you'll only piss off the other side, and annoy any innocent 
bystanders. 

mike wilson wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:18:20 -0500, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

This is *not* the place for political discussion.
Thank you, John.  As usual, someone else states my intention much more
tactfully than I.  My apologies for any incitement.

Did _you_ get a threatening missive off-list?  I've just had a very 
interesting glimpse inot someone's psyche.

m


--
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: Double enablement :D

[Cotty]

On 22/3/05, Niko Koskela, discombobulated, unleashed:

> i´m a happy guy, and 
>can stop watching Ebay now  ;)

What's your secret?




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[Cotty]

On 22/3/05, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I'm 
>argumentative by nature.

No say it's not true!




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di)

[John Whittingham]

Hi Paul

> Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less 
> than recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. Paul
> 
> > In stock, NOW!!!
> > 
> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
> > 
> > 
> > John 


Did you order by phone? is it quicker than the internet orders?

John

-- Original Message ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:46:18 +
Subject: FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm 
XR Di)

> Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less 
> than recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. Paul
> 
> > In stock, NOW!!!
> > 
> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
> > 
> > 
> > John 
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:36:00 +
> > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > 
> > > Get your name on the B&H waiting list. When they have enough demand, 
> > > they'll get some lenses in stock. The price is $299, brand new. Paul
> > > 
> > > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > > 
> > > > No, I'm in the same position.
> > > > 
> > > > John
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- Original Message ---
> > > > From: Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:18 +1000
> > > > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > > > 
> > > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:56:38 -0500, Doug Brewer 
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Here is a small gallery of shots taken with the FA35/2. It's a 
very 
> > > > > > nice lens and makes a great walkarounder on the istD.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:19 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > All opinions much appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I currently have an unhealthy interest in enabling myself with 
an 
> > FA 
> > > > > > > 35mm
> > > > > > > f/2, however I have a Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 which appears to 
> > > > > > > perform very
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you think I should be content with the Tamron or pursue the 
FA 
> > 35mm?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone have both that could offer some insight?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've read plenty of tests on the Tamron but only one on the FA 
that 
> > > > > > > was just
> > > > > > > opinion without any MTF score or other information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://shutterbug.com/test_reports/1100sb_pentax
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone have a link they could point me to for the FA 35mm 
f/2 
> > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > --- End of Original Message ---
> > > >
> > --- End of Original Message ---
> >
--- End of Original Message ---

Re: BOA's Gallery off Boz gone awry?

[Peter J. Alling]

Looks like it was always posted by AT&T.  Seems it's gone off line, or 
changed providers.


Lindamood, Mark wrote:
Has anyone besides me noticed that the link to BOA's Gallery off of Boz's site now 
links to an AT&T site?

 


--
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: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Jack Davis]

Shel,
My perverse way of discounting photo "rules" in
general.
IOW, don't get the idea I'm making a suggestion simply
because It's considered a compositional "rule".
A bit oblique, I suppose.

Jacl
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the "rule" about centering buildings?  Never
> heard of such a rule.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jack Davis 
> 
> > Too much non-reflective water. Even though it's a
> > "rule", I'd still like the buildings to be other
> than
> > centered.
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Kenneth Waller]

>From a compositional standpoint, centered can lead to a "static" image, as 
>opposed to the "rule of thirds" which tends to lead the viewers eye. Does that 
>mean that centered should be avoided? - No. Just like the rule of thirds won't 
>automatically make an image stronger.

PS rules are meant to be broken.

Kenneth Waller

-Original Message-
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 22, 2005 1:15 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

Shel,
My perverse way of discounting photo "rules" in
general.
IOW, don't get the idea I'm making a suggestion simply
because It's considered a compositional "rule".
A bit oblique, I suppose.

Jacl
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's the "rule" about centering buildings?  Never
> heard of such a rule.
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jack Davis 
> 
> > Too much non-reflective water. Even though it's a
> > "rule", I'd still like the buildings to be other
> than
> > centered.
> 
> 
> 

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




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

Re: PESO covered bridge

[Rick Womer]

Scott, the link is to your home page, and I can't find
any pix of a covered bridge.

Rick

--- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a photo of my daughter, Megan, on a covered
> bridge near our
> home.  It was taken with the *ist and most likely
> the 28-90 zoom.  I
> have no recollection of the film type or exposure -
> sorry.  This is
> most likely a scan of the print.
> -- 
> Scott Loveless
> http://www.twosixteen.com
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Pentax Digital ad in USA today

[Kenneth Waller]

FWIW
Last thursday Pentax ran a full page ad in USA today highlighting 5 of their 
digital cameras - from the *istDs to the Optio S5i. The jist of the ad was 
within 3 minutes you could be taking pictures. "Taking the fear out of digital 
photography". All the 10 images shown were portraits of people or animals.

Impressive (for pentax)

Kenneth Waller


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

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Rick Womer]

I think the water below the bridge is fine, but that
it would be good to lighten in so as to show the
shadows and reflections better (or darken the sky,
with the electronic equivalent of a grey grad, and
then lighten the whole pic).

Very nice, moody shot, though.

Rick

--- David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really nice John.
> 
> My first impression is to crop out half the water
> below the bridge.
> 
> But that's just me :-)
> 
> Dave S
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:22:59 +1000, John Coyle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Taken a few days ago on my evening constitutional;
> >
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3216994
> > 
> > Comments welcomed!
> > 
> > John Coyle
> > Brisbane, Australia
> > 
> >
> 
> 

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

Re: Well I did it, a PZ-1p

[Rick Womer]

If you get the camera to work, you'll really like it!

Rick

--- Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A broken one of course. ;-)
> 
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7501012913
> 
> We'll see how good I am at fixing Z series.
> The good part is the SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 that comes
> with it.
> These have been eekBaying lately for about what I
> paid for the whole rig.
> Guy seems honest enough judging by the e-mails we've
> exchanged.
> We'll see.
> 
> Don
> 
> PS: If ayone's interested in the 70-210 drop me a
> line.
> I'll let you know when I recieve it and check it
> out.
> I already have one.
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

MAY PDML LONDON - quack

[Cotty]

Plans continue for the jaunt in London at the beginning of May. I would
quite like to go on a London Ducktour. What that, I hear you cry. It's an
80 minute tour around central London that takes in the usual hotspots
like Parliament Square and Buckingham Palace, and then plunges *into* the
Thames and motors down river a while

Check out these pics:



Cost is £17 per adult (£11/child) but I've always fancied a go as I see
them out and about when I'm in town. Pick up and set down is very near
the London Eye, so I was thinking about 3pm ish. They run every 30
minutes, but need booking at least 24 hours before. If you're coming to
the LONDON PDML and fancy a ride, let me know and I'll book around May
1st. I'll appeal again in a few weeks.

Web page updated:



Tally ho!

PS -  Bonus points if you know what DUKW stands for without looking it up.




Cheers,
  Cotty


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

Re: FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di)

[pnstenquist]

I ordered by internet. It took only minutes to get a response. If you want one, 
you should hurry. The FA 50/1.4 sold out in less than a day.
Paul


> Hi Paul
> 
> > Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less 
> > than recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. Paul
> > 
> > > In stock, NOW!!!
> > > 
> > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > John 
> 
> 
> Did you order by phone? is it quicker than the internet orders?
> 
> John
> 
> -- Original Message ---
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Sent: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:46:18 +
> Subject: FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm 
> XR Di)
> 
> > Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less 
> > than recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. Paul
> > 
> > > In stock, NOW!!!
> > > 
> > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > John 
> > > -- Original Message ---
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:36:00 +
> > > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > > 
> > > > Get your name on the B&H waiting list. When they have enough demand, 
> > > > they'll get some lenses in stock. The price is $299, brand new. Paul
> > > > 
> > > > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, I'm in the same position.
> > > > > 
> > > > > John
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- Original Message ---
> > > > > From: Quasi Modo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> > > > > Sent: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:05:18 +1000
> > > > > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Am I the only one struggling to find one?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:56:38 -0500, Doug Brewer 
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Here is a small gallery of shots taken with the FA35/2. It's a 
> very 
> > > > > > > nice lens and makes a great walkarounder on the istD.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:19 PM, John Whittingham wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > All opinions much appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I currently have an unhealthy interest in enabling myself with 
> an 
> > > FA 
> > > > > > > > 35mm
> > > > > > > > f/2, however I have a Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 which appears to 
> > > > > > > > perform very
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you think I should be content with the Tamron or pursue the 
> FA 
> > > 35mm?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does anyone have both that could offer some insight?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've read plenty of tests on the Tamron but only one on the FA 
> that 
> > > > > > > > was just
> > > > > > > > opinion without any MTF score or other information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://shutterbug.com/test_reports/1100sb_pentax
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does anyone have a link they could point me to for the FA 35mm 
> f/2 
> > > > > > > > test?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > --- End of Original Message ---
> > > > >
> > > --- End of Original Message ---
> > >
> --- End of Original Message ---
> 

Re: PESO covered bridge

[Scott Loveless]

DOH!  Sorry.  Forgot to post the link. 
http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=7  We're not quite finished
with the gallery and haven't linked to it from the main page, yet.  My
fault.

Another DOH!  My wife says she took this photograph!  :S  Not only am
I embarassed to have posted someone else's work, I'm really feeling
stupid for recognizing it as mine.  Yikes!  Anyway, Christie says
she'd like to hear your thoughts.  Please feel free to take ruthless
jabs at me, as well.


On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:30:07 -0800 (PST), Rick Womer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott, the link is to your home page, and I can't find
> any pix of a covered bridge.
> 
> Rick
> 
> --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a photo of my daughter, Megan, on a covered
> > bridge near our
> > home.  It was taken with the *ist and most likely
> > the 28-90 zoom.  I
> > have no recollection of the film type or exposure -
> > sorry.  This is
> > most likely a scan of the print.
> > --
> > Scott Loveless
> > http://www.twosixteen.com
> >
> >
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> 
> 


-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Re: PESO: Nearing sunset

[Jack Davis]

Ken,
I thought that's what I just wrote below..(?)

Jack
--- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From a compositional standpoint, centered can lead
> to a "static" image, as opposed to the "rule of
> thirds" which tends to lead the viewers eye. Does
> that mean that centered should be avoided? - No.
> Just like the rule of thirds won't automatically
> make an image stronger.
> 
> PS rules are meant to be broken.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Mar 22, 2005 1:15 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: PESO: Nearing sunset
> 
> Shel,
> My perverse way of discounting photo "rules" in
> general.
> IOW, don't get the idea I'm making a suggestion
> simply
> because It's considered a compositional "rule".
> A bit oblique, I suppose.
> 
> Jacl
> --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > What's the "rule" about centering buildings? 
> Never
> > heard of such a rule.
> > 
> > Shel 
> > 
> > 
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Jack Davis 
> > 
> > > Too much non-reflective water. Even though it's
> a
> > > "rule", I'd still like the buildings to be other
> > than
> > > centered.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeoplePC Online
> A better way to Internet
> http://www.peoplepc.com
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Re: FA 35/2 available (was Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di)

[David Oswald]

Yes, the unavailable FA 35/2 is available at B&H for about $50 less 
than recent used prices on ebay. Mine ships tonight. Paul


In stock, NOW!!!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/sitem/sku=180121&is=REG&BI=15&kw=PE352ALFA 
Just ordered mine from B&H.  The most recent eBay auction went up to 
$380.  I wasn't willing to pay more than $260 used.  $295 new seems 
reasonable to me, so I proceeded with the order.  I can't wait to snap a 
few shots.

As one who owns both an *ist-DS, and a ZX-5n, I have a hard time 
rationalizing purchasing "DA" lenses, that are incompatible with 35mm 
film SLR's.  35mm film has been in widespread use for what, 50 years? 
The APS-sized CCD sensor has been around for a couple of years.  How 
will I feel if Pentax comes out with a full-frame CCD sensor (which I 
wouldn't be able to resist buying), and I find myself holding a bagfull 
of DA lenses?

So from my perspective, the solution is to acquire a few nice primes 
that fit both needs; 35mm and DSLR.  In that regard, I now have an FA50 
f/1.4, and will be receiving from B&H an FA35 f/2.

Next I'll continue my quest for an FA135 f/2.8.  Eventually if I don't 
find one used, I'll be back to B&H, maybe next month.

That leaves one problem: the wide end.  I own an SMC Pentax F 17-28mm 
f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye, and an SMC Pentax FA 20-35mm f/4 AL.  And though I 
love both of those lenses, they fall short in two regards:  First, 
they're just not quite so cool on an *ist-DS, where the 20-35 suddenly 
becomes equivilant to a 30-52.  And whoever heard of a fisheye lens that 
isn't all that wide-angle anymore?  I've had some success using the 
fisheye and then correcting in PT-Lens, but that's just a bandaid 
solution.  The second problem with these two lenses is that they just 
don't satisfy my desire to carry a small, compact prime wide angle lens; 
for its brightness, improved contrast, compact size, simplicity, and so 
on.  I guess I'm becoming more of a purist.

At the moment, it appears that the FA20mm f/2.8 AL is the best solution. 
 I guess I'll have to start really saving my pennies; it's not an 
inexpensive lens.  I wish it were a little wider too; somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 16mm f/3.5 maybe, but then it would be even more expensive.

Re: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Markus Maurer"
Subject: RE: PESO: The splendour and the misery of Berlin


Hi Frank
and still no answer from your side whether people **know that you are
publishing them later** and if they still **feel okay**?
greetings ;-)
The point is, it doesn't matter how they feel about it.
It becomes an issue of the ethics of the photographer, and how he or she 
feels about publishing a picture of someone without their permission.

William Robb

Re: OT Stop bath

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: OT Stop bath


The whole point of a stop bath is to neutralize the development process
with an acidic environment in order to save the fixer. When I went to all
"one shot" development chemistry for film 22 years ago (more consistency
that way), I dispensed with it for film entirely.
The spirit vinegar works fine for stop bath with prints. I did that for
years until I stopped making darkroom prints.
The point of stopbath is to stop the development process.
Using plain water as a stopbath doesn't allow for an accurate development
time, since the develoment continues until the acidic fixer is dropped into
the tank.
If you are using a non acid rapid fixer, development continues, albeit
slowly, until the film is fully fixed.
William Robb

Re: PESO covered bridge

[pnstenquist]

Very nice. The patterned shadows give it a unique interest. Well composed and 
nicely framed. Good work.
Paul


> DOH!  Sorry.  Forgot to post the link. 
> http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=7  We're not quite finished
> with the gallery and haven't linked to it from the main page, yet.  My
> fault.
> 
> Another DOH!  My wife says she took this photograph!  :S  Not only am
> I embarassed to have posted someone else's work, I'm really feeling
> stupid for recognizing it as mine.  Yikes!  Anyway, Christie says
> she'd like to hear your thoughts.  Please feel free to take ruthless
> jabs at me, as well.
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:30:07 -0800 (PST), Rick Womer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Scott, the link is to your home page, and I can't find
> > any pix of a covered bridge.
> > 
> > Rick
> > 
> > --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is a photo of my daughter, Megan, on a covered
> > > bridge near our
> > > home.  It was taken with the *ist and most likely
> > > the 28-90 zoom.  I
> > > have no recollection of the film type or exposure -
> > > sorry.  This is
> > > most likely a scan of the print.
> > > --
> > > Scott Loveless
> > > http://www.twosixteen.com
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > __
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Scott Loveless
> http://www.twosixteen.com
> 

Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis"
Subject: Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem


On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 09:47:21PM +, mike wilson wrote:
[purely political posturing]
This is *not* the place for political discussion.

Yup, must keep things properly compartmentalized to protect the delicate 
sensibilities.

William Robb 

Re: OT: Newfie History 101-was: Take the Knarf Quiz !!

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Powell Hargrave" 
Subject: Re: OT: Newfie History 101-was: Take the Knarf Quiz !!




I have friends.  

What's it like?
Do you have to pay them?
HAR!!!
WW

Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault"
Subject: Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem


The word "terrorist" hadn't entered the popular lexicon.
They were called freedom fighters back then. They only became terrorists 
when they changed sides.

William Robb 

Re: P67 fisheye specs

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mishka" 
Subject: Re: P67 fisheye specs


monorails don't usually have a focal plane shutter. 
unfortunately.

Two words:
French Flag.
William Robb

Re: OT Stop bath

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: OT Stop bath

Rather wishing I'd known this several years ago, but oh well.
You would lose the indicator that typically comes in stop bath, but I'm 
sure
there's a workaround for that, too. Those nice indicator strips, maybe?
Surely, not being liquid, those aren't "hazardous" :-)

Use is one shot (it's cheap enough), or use your nose.
If it smells like vinegar, it is still acidic enough to use.
This stuff ain't rocket science, no matter how much we would like to think 
it is.

William Robb 

Re: Re: PESO: "Gotcha" - Jerusalem

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


(Before leaving it, a point of correction: GWB isn't a Jr.)


Are we talking family history or mental ability?
William Robb

Re: P67 fisheye specs

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mat Maessen" 
Subject: Re: P67 fisheye specs


You'd have to find something with very thin standards. My B&J Orbit
might _just_ be able to get the standards close enough to have the
correct register distance. Once you get that squared away, there's the
issue of a shutter.
If someone's got an old beater Speed Graphic, it might be worth
sacrificing the bed for an experiment. :-)
I had an orbit, I doubt is it is thin enough.
Shutters are for pansies.
William Robb

Re: OT Stop bath

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Loveless"
Subject: OT Stop bath


Anybody know anything about shipping stop bath.  B&H won't do it just
now.  Adorama doesn't seem to have a problem letting me add it to my
cart.  The Camera Store says it must be shipped as a hazardous
material and will incur additional charges.  Is this something new, or
I have I been out of the loop for too long?
Stobath is acetic acid in a 1%-3% concentration (slightly stronger for film)
Common white vinegar is 5% acetic acid solution.
Dilute white vinegar 1:2 for paper, 1:1 for film, and treat it as a one shot 
chemical.

Or: if you have an industrial chemical supplier in your area, and can get a
few other interested people to go in on it, you can get glacial acetic acid
fairly cheaply, in 20 litre drums.
William Robb

Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack

[Bob W]

Hi,

Tuesday, March 22, 2005, 6:44:30 PM, Cotty wrote:

> Plans continue for the jaunt in London at the beginning of May. I would
> quite like to go on a London Ducktour. What that, I hear you cry. It's an
> 80 minute tour around central London that takes in the usual hotspots
> like Parliament Square and Buckingham Palace, and then plunges *into* the
> Thames and motors down river a while

You might be able to see some of the people Chairman Mo describes so vividly
in the first paragraph of this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=622333

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: PESO covered bridge

[Rick Womer]

Scott Loveless wrote:
Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:47:43 -0800

Your wife shoots well, too!  The mood and lighting are
great, and your daughter is -very- cute.  The only
problem is that her ear is in focus, but not her eye.

Rick

>>DOH!  Sorry.  Forgot to post the link. 
http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=7  We're
not quite finished
with the gallery and haven't linked to it from the
main page, yet.  My
fault.

>>Another DOH!  My wife says she took this photograph!
 :S  Not only am
I embarassed to have posted someone else's work, I'm
really feeling
stupid for recognizing it as mine.  Yikes!  Anyway,
Christie says
she'd like to hear your thoughts.  Please feel free to
take ruthless
jabs at me, as well.



--- Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott, the link is to your home page, and I can't
> find
> any pix of a covered bridge.
> 
> Rick
> 
> --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a photo of my daughter, Megan, on a
> covered
> > bridge near our
> > home.  It was taken with the *ist and most likely
> > the 28-90 zoom.  I
> > have no recollection of the film type or exposure
> -
> > sorry.  This is
> > most likely a scan of the print.
> > -- 
> > Scott Loveless
> > http://www.twosixteen.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>   
> __ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
> 
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack

[Scott Loveless]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:44:30 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plans continue for the jaunt in London at the beginning of May. I would
> quite like to go on a London Ducktour. What that, I hear you cry. It's an
> 80 minute tour around central London that takes in the usual hotspots
> like Parliament Square and Buckingham Palace, and then plunges *into* the
> Thames and motors down river a while
Most recommended.  The DUKW is a very fun ride.  Never been to London,
but quite a few "tourist traps" in the US operate them.
> 

> PS -  Bonus points if you know what DUKW stands for without looking it up.
Don't remember.  But I do know they were made by GM Corporation and
quite a few were pushed into the ocean and sunk at the end of WWII. 
The Navy didn't feel like hauling them home and then having to
maintain them.
> 



-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

Anybody needs an FA 50mm 1.7 ?

[Thibouille]

Saw one at a very stupid price here in Brussels.
Seems in a good state and is under 100 euros AFAIR.

They also have F 35-80 a and two Sigma 70-210 and 75-300 (both usual
DC versions I think). Everything under 100 euros of course :)

Just tell me if you need one of those and I'll fetch'em for ya!
 

Thibouille

Just an idea :)

[Margus Männik]

Hi,
I was browsing a web today, searching some more information about Pentax 
110 system and suddenly... why couldn't Pentax produce 110 Digital ??? 
With the same range of lenses, accessories plus some additional zooms it 
would be very nice digital SLR system. Especially with "full (110-)frame 
sensor" :)))

BR, Margus

Re: Well I did it, a PZ-1p

[Margus Männik]

Hi,
very capable camera! Hopefully it will like you :)
BR, Margus
Z-1p / Z-20 / P30t
Don Sanderson wrote:
A broken one of course. ;-)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7501012913
We'll see how good I am at fixing Z series.
The good part is the SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 that comes with it.
These have been eekBaying lately for about what I paid for the whole rig.
Guy seems honest enough judging by the e-mails we've exchanged.
We'll see.
Don
PS: If ayone's interested in the 70-210 drop me a line.
I'll let you know when I recieve it and check it out.
I already have one.