Re: OT: pipe music (was OT: peace)
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: I've heard long bagpipe performances from other traditions than Scottish but even apart from the different-country aspect, it hasn't matched the description of Pibroch. Much of it has been uptempo throughout, often danceable, and some seems to be largely improvised or medleys of shorter tunes. I'm going to have to check my CDs to see what slow bagpipe tunes I've got, and what centuries they're from, but when I buy early-music recordings (which is what most of the bagpipe music I've got is), I mostly buy dance music and songs. So there's quite a lot of bagpipe music from various countries and centuries that I haven't gotten around to yet. Early music recordings would all be of the Northumbrian/Irish type pipes, with a bellows under one arm. Scottish war pipes are a relatively modern invention, produced solely to scare the sassenachs (at which they are remarkably successful) and were never intended to be played indoors. mike
Re: OT: peace
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Collin R Brendemuehl Subject: Re: OT: peace Bagpipes are, as I understand, actually of French origin. Ah. Freedom Pipes. They sound better already. William Robb Doesn't happen often but that made me laugh out loud at the monitor. m
Re: PESO - Deadmans Big Day
It is indeed a lovely shot. The muted colours do it no harm, in my opinion. As an aside, I wonder how much the jetski guy pays for insurance. Assuming he can get it at all. John On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:52:16 -0500, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 01:16:15 +1100, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When the storm swells make most of Sydney's beaches too rough to surf, the brave boys go to Deadmans, around the corner from Fairy Bower at Manly. I think this is Kelly Slater launching down the face after towing-in behind a jetski (anyway his board and wetsuit match those in my picture) http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3220107 Forgive the quality, it's so embarrassing to post something from a crap old digicam amidst all the great *istD/Ds work. Sigh one day It was p*ssing down with rain, too. regards, Anthony Farr IMHO, you captured the surfer at the prime moment, especially with the jetski at the top of the swell. Yeah, not the sharpest shot, but getting it at the right moment goes a great distance in making up for any technical deficiencies. Wonderful shot. cheers, frank -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005
Re: Self-made LIMITED hood :-)
Looks very fine. Are you taking commissions? John On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:53:49 -0800 (PST), Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Too short? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41141222.jpg Too small? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41141223.jpg Too much plastic? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41141224.jpg Black no good? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41141225.jpg How about a custom made LIMITED hood? :-) http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41164324.jpg Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 21/03/2005
Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
On 24/3/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: My vehicle also has cooling in the glove box (designed to cool a bottle of wine) whether heating or A/C is on or not. Yuppie!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: pipe music (was OT: peace)
I think it's unlikely you would have heard Pibroch on a fiddle because of the different scale, and because Pibroch is solely written for the pipes. It's an acquired taste, and few acquire it, though that is partly (probably a small part!) to do with a lack of opportunity. It has a wonderfully ancient and savage sound, to my ears. Others might just use the word savage on its own. Incidentally, there's nothing French about the bagpipe, as Bob W points out. The Greeks had them, and they probably existed long before that. However, the Scots did most to develop the music, and pibroch's greatest days were around 1600. The British army keeps the tradition alive through its pipe-majors, who are often composers themselves. John On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:47:42 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:38:06 -0500 (EST), D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The irony there is that although bagpipes are today associated primarily with the Scots in most people's minds, darn near every culture seems to have come up with the idea -- a bladder or bellows supplying air to one or more single- or double-reed pipes -- independently at some point in history. I've got more recordings of Flemish bagpipes than Scottish ones in my CD collection. Do I take it you're a Pibroch lover? Or not? Um ... honestly, I haven't heard enough of the form to have an answer. Most of the Scottish music I know -- pipe tunes or otherwise -- is dance tunes (strathspeys, reels, jigs, marches), and most of the rest is airs and songs. I've heard Pibroch (though off the top of my head I don't remember whether it was on pipes or fiddle), but only once or twice and not recently. I've heard long bagpipe performances from other traditions than Scottish but even apart from the different-country aspect, it hasn't matched the description of Pibroch. Much of it has been uptempo throughout, often danceable, and some seems to be largely improvised or medleys of shorter tunes. I'm going to have to check my CDs to see what slow bagpipe tunes I've got, and what centuries they're from, but when I buy early-music recordings (which is what most of the bagpipe music I've got is), I mostly buy dance music and songs. So there's quite a lot of bagpipe music from various countries and centuries that I haven't gotten around to yet. When I hear pipes live, they're usually eith German or Scottish, and the Scottish is usually competition pieces -- heavy on the dance repertoire -- at festivals. (The band I play in, The Homespun Celidh Band, is a fiddle band, not a pipe band, but we've had pipers join us on occasion. Oh, and our second CD is out, sort of -- we had a handful of pre-release copies burned while we're waiting for the big pressed-and-shrink-wrapped order to be done.) -- Glenn -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
Re: DianeArbus on The Connection
On 23/3/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: Actually, I think it was me, posting under a nom de plume. I think the name I used was Brett Bobo, Brad Bodo, something like that. No, wait, it was Dobo, that's right. Perhaps some of you remember him (me). shudder Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack
On 23/3/05, Doug Franklin, discombobulated, unleashed: Doesn't an amphibious DUKW only hold about six people including the helmsman? The tour company claim thirty! http://www.londonducktours.co.uk/gallery.htm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: One for the Gipper
On 23/3/05, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed: So today she picked up her brand new *istDS. I was very pleased that someone would get past the hype and really pick something that would work best for what they wanted to do. This is pretty much the same that happened to a friend of mine - he wanted to use his old manual focus lenses, so the VF was an issue, got the Ds. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
These Australians are getting quite sophisticated. :-) John On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:30:35 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/3/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: My vehicle also has cooling in the glove box (designed to cool a bottle of wine) whether heating or A/C is on or not. Yuppie!! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
On 23/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html Taken on Church Street in San Francisco, not far from my old studio and darkroom. Broke a few rules with this one, and used the infamous Bow-Wow Takumar. Feels good to be playing around in BW again ;-)) Good shot! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack
It's going to be a friendly ride. John On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:36:41 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/3/05, Doug Franklin, discombobulated, unleashed: Doesn't an amphibious DUKW only hold about six people including the helmsman? The tour company claim thirty! http://www.londonducktours.co.uk/gallery.htm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack
On 24/3/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: It's going to be a friendly ride. Not to mention half a ton of photo gear.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
I like this one, too. Has a very spontaneous look to it. John On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:17:23 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html Taken on Church Street in San Francisco, not far from my old studio and darkroom. Broke a few rules with this one, and used the infamous Bow-Wow Takumar. Feels good to be playing around in BW again ;-)) Shel -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
RE: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
-Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] These Australians are getting quite sophisticated. :-) We always were, in our own way :-) -- Peter Williams
Re: Self-made LIMITED hood :-)
--- John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks very fine. Are you taking commissions? I don't mind to make a few more if I managed to find more of them in good shape. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: OT: peace
On Mar 24, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Jostein wrote: You mean, you come out of a den 40 pounds lighter, terribly hungry and in a fierce mood? Sounds like me every morning (except the 40 pounds lighter). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: D645 musings
Dag, There is an excellent AF 35mm/3.5 for the 645. With the crop factor of 1.3, maybe a 28mm would do the trick. :-) Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 8:45 AM Subject: Re: D645 musings På 24. mar. 2005 kl. 09.18 skrev Rob Studdert: On 24 Mar 2005 at 8:06, DagT wrote: Hey, they have just shown that they don´t even know how the camera will look. They can easily design a new wide angle before the camera gets to the market. Yep, all they need is time, cash and personnel. Let´s hope they can get some help from Kodak. A successful 645D would help them sell more sensors. All Pentax needs to do is to make a 35mm 2.8 to fill the missing gap in the lens line. DagT
Re: OT: peace
On Mar 24, 2005, at 12:38 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: But hey, if the list hasn't been argumentative enough for folks: vi rocks, emacs sucks, and nothing else is even worthy of being called an editor except maybe EDT! Hmm, I'll bite. When all is said and done I think my favourite editor at the moment is actually Dreamweaver in code-mode. It had better be, considering the amount of PHP I've been doing this year. At work we use Visual Slick Edit but that has a few idiosyncrasies that really annoy me (that might just be a case of changing some options though). In a terminal window I'll use Nano by preference, or Pico otherwise. I'll use vi if it's all that is available on a rescue disk... and I'll wash my hands afterwards. For simple to-do lists and the like, I'll use Notepad or Wordpad (on Windows) or TextEdit (Mac). As for starting arguments, how about these (trying to keep vagely on-topic): Epson vs Canon CRT vs LCD Slides vs negs sRGB vs Adobe RGB 8x10 vs 4x5 vs 6x7 vs 6x4.5 vs 35mm vs digital Mac vs PC Extreme Ironing vs Extreme Accounting (don't laugh until you've seen the websites!) - Dave
Re: D645 musings
the only one of the big 5 to revise their profit forecast upwards is Canon. there are speculations by financial analysts that as soon as the replacement for the Nikon D70 is announced, there's going to be the start of the same price war as we a saw in digital PS cameras. the entry level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus are basically the same. what's the differentiator when that happens? megapixel and price wars. Herb... - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:18 AM Subject: Re: D645 musings Yep, all they need is time, cash and personnel.
Re: Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/03/24 Thu AM 08:30:35 GMT To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?] On 24/3/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed: My vehicle also has cooling in the glove box (designed to cool a bottle of wine) whether heating or A/C is on or not. Yuppie!! Or maybe Suppie 8-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: FS: Pentax FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 Lens
John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having recently bought a lens from Chad, I can vouch for the quality of his gear, and his patience in dealing with my rather complicated payment arrangements. I just received the FA 24-90 Chad was selling and I'll concur :) (Though I had no complicated payment arrangements - just straight Pay Pal.) First impressions: This is one dandy little lens! I'm surprised how small it is. Really useful range, even on the ist-D. After all the dire warnings about substandard construction, it's not nearly as flimsy as I had imagined. Not built like the 80-200/2.8 but not bad. I'm having a lot of fun with it already. Hope to really test it out next week. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
The angle and perspective are a little unusual. One is always told not to shoot down on a subject. Shel [Original Message] From: Marco Alpert Nice! And what were the broken rules? http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html Taken on Church Street in San Francisco, not far from my old studio and darkroom. Broke a few rules with this one, and used the infamous Bow-Wow Takumar. Feels good to be playing around in BW again ;-)) Shel
RE: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
It's the 20mm screw mount Tak that was used. Some people have called the lens a dog hence the name Bow-Wow. The perspective is a result of using the 20mm focal length. Shel [Original Message] From: Markus Maurer Hi Shel what is that infamous Bow-Wow Takumar somebody (like me) has to ask ;-) what did you do with their legs? http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html
Re: OT: peace
David Mann wrote: Extreme Ironing vs Extreme Accounting (don't laugh until you've seen the websites!) http://www.elvum.net/gallery/ironing My Extreme Ironing photos :-) S
How do you use a zoom lens
OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Shel
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
On 24/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. No. This is best illustrated with examples: scroll down to the cats: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/2500/BASIC-OPERATIONS/ zoom-lens.html and: scroll down to the cat ;-) http://www.drebtips.com/digital-rebel-300D/sigma-12-24mm-lens-review/ The way I use a zoom lens is perhaps ass-backwards to most : I think of it as a telephoto lens that has the ability to 'back off' if I need to include more of the subject in the frame. I don't own any wide zoom lenses and can't foresee a time when I will. I have 14mm, 15mm and 20mm wides and each is used for different things. If I want to alter the framing with one of these, I move my butt, not a zoom ring ;-) HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
That's good! I don't mind neither the perspective nor the white lines in the background - they both add to the good photo ;-) You have captured a nice expression of them. The interesting moment of growing up between boyhood and later. Frantisek
Re: How do you use a zoom lens?
I don't. William Robb
Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
- Original Message - From: John Forbes Subject: Re: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?] These Australians are getting quite sophisticated. :-) They are still chilling their wine. William Robb
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. No. Zooming gives the same effect as blowing up on the enlarger - only the image size changes, not the perspective. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Yes, although it varies a lot, and the distortion is generally virtually unnoticeable in high-quality modern zooms. S
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
SB OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to SB thinking about how such a lens is used. I am lazy to compose by zooming - with a zoom (except a long zoom like 80-200) I just use either the shortest or longest setting and walk around... Thus for me they could make a 16-35/2.0 lens which would have just the 16mm and 35mm and nothing inbetween! (might make for a pretty sharp zoom too). SB It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the SB frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the SB perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and SB moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills SB the frame to the same degree. Of course not. Perspective changes with camera to subject distance, and is independent of focal length. In your example, getting closer with a shorter focal length would include more of the background, and also would change depth of field and possibly have the background more out of focus (because you will be focused at a shorter distance) (or again, not?). SB Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the SB wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar SB focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Yes. Good light! fra
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Thanks, Cotty ... then, it seems (at least for me and for much of what I do) a zoom is not a replacement for primes. This far the only zoom I've been happy with is the M24~35/3.5, but it's range is so small using it is more like adjusting framing than actually zooming. I hear what you're saying about using the zoom as a tele or long focus lens. The cat pic graphically answered my question. Perfect. This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a film and digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the same view as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been similar, there seemed to be a different perspective. Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. No. This is best illustrated with examples: scroll down to the cats: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/2500/BASIC-OPERATIONS/ zoom-lens.html and: scroll down to the cat ;-) http://www.drebtips.com/digital-rebel-300D/sigma-12-24mm-lens-review/ The way I use a zoom lens is perhaps ass-backwards to most : I think of it as a telephoto lens that has the ability to 'back off' if I need to include more of the subject in the frame. I don't own any wide zoom lenses and can't foresee a time when I will. I have 14mm, 15mm and 20mm wides and each is used for different things. If I want to alter the framing with one of these, I move my butt, not a zoom ring ;-) HTH
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
A lot of qualifiers in that statement LOL Thanks ... so nothing has changed but perhaps the degrees of distortion, which may or may not be significant. Shel [Original Message] From: Steve Jolly Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Yes, although it varies a lot, and the distortion is generally virtually unnoticeable in high-quality modern zooms. S
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Tks! Shel [Original Message] From: Frantisek I am lazy to compose by zooming - with a zoom (except a long zoom like 80-200) I just use either the shortest or longest setting and walk around... Thus for me they could make a 16-35/2.0 lens which would have just the 16mm and 35mm and nothing inbetween! (might make for a pretty sharp zoom too). Of course not. Perspective changes with camera to subject distance, and is independent of focal length.
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
Fun pic. Love the wide angle exaggeration. Good stuff.. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html Taken on Church Street in San Francisco, not far from my old studio and darkroom. Broke a few rules with this one, and used the infamous Bow-Wow Takumar. Feels good to be playing around in BW again ;-)) Shel
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
On 24/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a film and digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the same view as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been similar, there seemed to be a different perspective. Yes, I have noticed something similar when I was using a 1.6 crop digi. The effect is less pronounced with a 1.3 crop, but at price. I guess in 5 years or so when there are a few more (affordable) full frame digis around, it will be less of an issue Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: D645 musings
Herb Chong wrote on 24.03.05 12:34: the only one of the big 5 to revise their profit forecast upwards is Canon. there are speculations by financial analysts that as soon as the replacement for the Nikon D70 is announced, there's going to be the start of the same price war as we a saw in digital PS cameras. the entry level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus are basically the same. what's the differentiator when that happens? megapixel and price wars. Replacement for D70 (it will be called D70s and will appear soon) will not be a reason for a new price war. Both - Nikon and Olympus plan to release something even chepaer very soon. AFAIK Nikon will call it D50 and it will be much cheaper than D70... It should appear around April or May. If the rumours come true - that would mean price range around 500-600 EURO(!) At last DSLRs would become available to almost everyone. Let's hope Pentax will catch up. -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
My experience with the DA 16-45 suggests that the distortion of a good zoom is comparable to that of a prime. I had very little previous experience with zooms in thirty years of photography, but I'm beginning to appreciate them for certain situations. To me, the question of whether to zoom or move in or out depends on the perspective I want to achieve. If I'm doing a walkaround and hoping for an undistorted people pic, I'll usually go right to 45mm and position myself for the framing I want. If I'm sitting in a restauratnt and merely want to capture more of a room, I'll go wider as necessary. Shooting up at a skyscraper, I might want to achieve wide angle perspective, so I'd position myself accordingly. In other words, zooms should be used, the same way primes are used. Decide what you want to shoot, pick the right focal length for the job, and choose your camera position. The order of those choices may vary for different subjects and circumstances. Paul On Mar 24, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Shel
RE: How do you use a zoom lens
As has been pointed out, perspective changes with distance, not FL. Use an extreme example: Two people 100 ft apart, with a 25mm lens focused 2ft from the nearest person, the distant person appears 50 times farther away, because they are. With a 500mm lens focused 40ft from the nearest person the distan person appears only 2.5 times farther away, because they are. Image size on film of the nearest person is the about the same. A zoom behaves no differently. Zooms tend to be lower in overall image quality because of the huge number of compromises that have to made to 'optimise' them for so many different FLs. With a prime all effort can be put into optimising for just the one FL. I use a zoom when the 'camera has to be ready for the subject' such as sports, large gatherings, kids at play, pets on the move or a 'walk around' where I don't want to lug around 12 lenses. When I can make the 'subject ready for the the camera' such as a portrait, scenic or macro/closeup, I alway use a prime. Two notable exceptions to this are the DA 16-45/4 and A 35-105/3.5, I've found these to be so close in image quality to a prime that I don't hesitate to use them in place of a prime, when their speed allows. Don -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:14 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: How do you use a zoom lens OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Shel
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:34:52 +0100, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am lazy to compose by zooming - with a zoom (except a long zoom like 80-200) I just use either the shortest or longest setting and walk around... Thus for me they could make a 16-35/2.0 lens which would have just the 16mm and 35mm and nothing inbetween! (might make for a pretty sharp zoom too). This is also how I use mine (all the way in or all the way out). The only time I really *adjust* the focal length is when there is an object that prevents me from getting to where I need to be, such as at a party or wedding or other social funtion where there are lots of people milling around. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Glad to get some more corroboration on this. When I mentioned my observation to Bruce he agreed as well. This means, IMO, that an 18mm (or whatever focal length) is not effectively a 28mm (or whatever other effectively similar focal length) when used in an istD or digi with a similar sized sensor. This, then, begs the question of how one might get a similar perspective and AOV when using a digi as when using a full frame body. Am I missing something? Shel [Original Message] From: Cotty This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a film and digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the same view as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been similar, there seemed to be a different perspective. Yes, I have noticed something similar when I was using a 1.6 crop digi. The effect is less pronounced with a 1.3 crop, but at price. I guess in 5 years or so when there are a few more (affordable) full frame digis around, it will be less of an issue Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
Glad you enjoyed it, Paul. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Fun pic. Love the wide angle exaggeration. Good stuff.. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
As I have understood this, perspective is a function of distance from the subject. If you take a shot with a 50 and a 200 and crop the result from the 50 to match the 200, you get the same shot. So zooming has the effect of cropping, not changing perspective. Of course, distortion is a different matter. As I have seen, zooms do have more distortion than primes. How bad this is depends on your standards and how good your zoom is. Gee whiz, Shel, 7:19 am and you're thinking about zooms? At that time for me sipping hot coffee is still an adventure. ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/24/05 7:13 AM OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Shel
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
I've been up since 4:15 and am about ready to hit the road (after my morning nap LOL). It's 5:40 here and I'm burnin' daylight. Shel [Original Message] From: Steve Desjardins Gee whiz, Shel, 7:19 am and you're thinking about zooms? At that time for me sipping hot coffee is still an adventure. ;-)
Re: Re: How do you use a zoom lens
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/03/24 Thu PM 12:54:14 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: How do you use a zoom lens Thanks, Cotty ... then, it seems (at least for me and for much of what I do) a zoom is not a replacement for primes. This far the only zoom I've been happy with is the M24~35/3.5, but it's range is so small using it is more like adjusting framing than actually zooming. Exactly how I use it. I can't imagine any other way, especially as it does not focus very close. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: MAY PDML LONDON - quack
I've been to London twice, and found it quite pleasant. Dan M mike wilson wrote: London is dirty, smelly, noisy and uncomfortable. DUKWs fit in perfectly. The locals would have it no other way... In London, the places you cannot access by car usually require a full body suit against hazardous materials. Sometimes the places you can access by car require them, too.
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Shel Belinkoff wrote: This, then, begs the question of how one might get a similar perspective and AOV when using a digi as when using a full frame body. Am I missing something? Perspective depends on where the camera is relative to your subject(s). AOV depends on the focal length of your lens. So to get the same perspective and AOV on an APS-C frame compared to a full 35mm frame, simply stand in the same place and use a lens with a shorter focal length. S
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Hi Shel, On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:13:34 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. I use zooms only occasionally. When I do, it's typically because my distance to the subject can change a lot, whether it's due to me moving or the subject. At the track, for example, I'm often very limited in the envelope within which I can move around the subject, and I've usually got subjects in view on several spots on the track at different distances, plus all of the surroundings, crowd, etc., as potential subjects. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. No the perspective is the same as using a shorter focal length and cropping down to the same FOV as the longer focal length. The movement of your body (or the subject) is what makes the perspective change. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? I believe it is. A zoom has to make more compromises than a prime. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
FA stands for Family
http://members.cox.net/mark.lindamood/FiveFAs.jpg (the zoom's a first cousin)
Re: FA stands for Family
Lindamood, Mark wrote on 24.03.05 15:10: http://members.cox.net/mark.lindamood/FiveFAs.jpg Well, why FA 135/2.8 has won 1st place? ;-) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: FA stands for Family
Oh, my! It's nice to see them all together like that ... any for sale, or are these your keepers? ;-) Joe http://members.cox.net/mark.lindamood/FiveFAs.jpg (the zoom's a first cousin)
Re: Re: OT: peace
John Francis enscribed Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:38:00 -0800 D. Glenn Arthur Jr. mused: ... Now to sit back and see whether there's a single TECO user on the PDML to rise to the bait.) You rang? (DECSystem-10 DECSystem-20 Algol 60 support development, 75-78) Hey, guys -- CP/M rules. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
I use a zoom when the 'camera has to be ready for the subject' such as sports, large gatherings, kids at play, pets on the move or a 'walk around' where I don't want to lug around 12 lenses. When I can make the 'subject ready for the the camera' such as a portrait, scenic or macro/closeup, I alway use a prime. I think that this is a reasonable strategy (at least it's what I generally aim for). Fred
RE: Car Glove Box [Was Re: Pentax MV - Good or bad?]
On 24 Mar 2005 at 20:10, Peter Williams wrote: -Original Message- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] These Australians are getting quite sophisticated. :-) We always were, in our own way :-) Peter, don't let them in on too many of our secrets ;-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
RE: OT: peace
Ok, I'll bite. :) vi is useful for quick editing if you've got a ssh/telnet connection to something, but for real work, you _need_ emacs. C-x C-c -Original Message- From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Re: OT: peace vi rocks, emacs sucks, and nothing else is even worthy of being called an editor except maybe EDT! (Well, that usually works to start a holy war on the _other_ high volume mailing list full of opinionated people that I read, anyhow ... Now to sit back and see whether there's a single TECO user on the PDML to rise to the bait.) -- Glenn
Re: D645 musings
Dag wrote: Let´s hope they can get some help from Kodak. A successful 645D would help them sell more sensors. Based on a press release a couple of years ago (I think it was), I believe this isn't a case of Pentax buying an off-shelf sensor from Kodak. It was said that Pentax and Kodak had signed an agreement of developing a digital solution for Pentax MF. I think it is resonable to assume that Pentax have had serious input in the sensor design, something that makes this DSLR different from almost all other digital solution for MF that are, as far as I know, based on off-the-shelf commodities. Pål
Re: D645 musings
Herb wrote: there are speculations by financial analysts that as soon as the replacement for the Nikon D70 is announced, there's going to be the start of the same price war as we a saw in digital PS cameras. the entry level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Olympus are basically the same. what's the differentiator when that happens? megapixel and price wars. Yep, and thats why a 645D may make sense (dependent on price): there are not that many competitors and no one in the foreseeable future that can provide such a raft of affordable (for medium format) lenses, both new and used. And again they are even affordable by high-end 35mm standards. Even if you could afford a digital Hasselblad, bying a comprehensive line of Carl Zeiss optics is prohibitive expensive if you don't own them already. In addition no other MF system offers such a range of modern lenses, and with this I think mostly zooms, as Pentax does. Both price on lenses and their character make a Pentax 645 Digital a real alternative to high-end 35mm based DSLR for most usages. The 645D id the first MF Pentax DSLR. My guess is that it won't be the last. We will se lower prices and more Mpix with time. Pål
645D Design remarks
Some thoughts of the design of the mock-ups: Design A: Too angular, somewhat retro early 80's look; a bit like the Canon T70. The placement of the thumb wheel seem awkward compared to the other designs. Prism a bit too square; it would have looked better with the prism design of the 645N(II). The face of the prism too tall and the round shapes around the lens mount at odds with the overall angular design. Design B: Ergonomically the most interesting design obviously inspired by the MZ-S. Unfortunately the grooves by the sides of the prism look awful and the face of the prism and the name tag look silly. Design C: Very close to A except prism design. The rounded profile along the sides of the prism again look at odds with the angular design. The face of the prism rather boring and lack character. Overhang unnecessary. SOLUTION: The prism design of C would look better on A minus the overhang. However, a real solution would be a modification of design B: Keep the slanted top panel (excellent for viewing when using the camera on a tripod). Lower the height of the grip somewhat. Instead of a groove that goes from to the grip through the prism, make it straight and slanted like on the MZ-S. Also, design the prism modelled after the MZ-S but minus that cameras overhang - unnecessary because the 645 has no built in flash and the larger size will give the right propotions anyway. This solution could possibly interfer with the three buttons on the left shoulder of the camera, but these might be put on the back of the camera where there should be lots of room or, alternatively, they could make a shelf for then by the side of the prism. Such a camera outlined above would have lots of character and also be very ergonomic. All of course in my opinion... BTW The design of the camera can be found here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BVWU Pål
Re: PESO - Deadmans part 2
Keith Whaley wrote on 3/24/2005, 12:37 AM: Ouch, indeed! I was a medic in Guantanamo Bay, and treated a number of sea urchin piercings. Know what? Their spines are so brittle, you cannot grasp them with a tweezers. They act like a sliver of sugar candy. They crush before you can generate enough force to grasp them and pull them out. Sure makes a believer for wearing scuba booties! g They may be brittle, but I've seen them go straight through 1/4 neoprene! Sometimes the best protection is to avoid contact altogether! (not easy when you are going through the washing-machine of a crashing wave...) -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
white lines are street car, or trolly, tracks. Glad that you liked the pic. They were fun kids to work with. Shel [Original Message] From: Frantisek That's good! I don't mind neither the perspective nor the white lines in the background - they both add to the good photo ;-) You have captured a nice expression of them. The interesting moment of growing up between boyhood and later. Frantisek
Re: PAW PESO - Kids Along the J-Church Line
That ol' Tri-X can generate some good tonal qualities, Bruce. Thanks! Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton Very unusual angle on this one. Kind of grabs you because the perspective is so different. I like the tonality that you got. Yeah, I like this one. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, March 23, 2005, 8:17:23 PM, you wrote: SB http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/bk09.html
Re: PESO - Deadmans Big Day
John Forbes wrote on 3/24/2005, 3:03 AM: As an aside, I wonder how much the jetski guy pays for insurance. Assuming he can get it at all. Watch Step Into Liquid and see a jetski get pounded on the rocks at Maui's Jaws. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PK/A-R lens modification?
I've got a question regarding an older Vivitar 28-105 manual lens. It doesn't physically fit on my *ist-DS due to an enlarged half-ring ridge around the aperture lever. It mounted to and worked fine in my P30-T forever, but the *ist-DS isn't quite as deep in the mirror housing area. I was told that this is due to a Ricoh-specific modification to the K-mount standard, and Vivitar made a single model, general purpose lens at the time. Here's a picture of the bad lens, and a good one for comparison: http://juneau.me.vt.edu/badlens.jpg http://juneau.me.vt.edu/goodlens.jpg It looks like I could remove some of that ring and it would fit. Is there anything else that should be known about such an operation? Anyone written a howto? Thanks, -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Lens Cleaning
My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: 645D Design remarks
I've always thought the tubular viewfinder shape an uncomplimentary design feature. Can't say why. Maybe it's the peek-a-boo squint inducing suggestion of it. It does allow more display and control area which, I imagine, is the idea. I'd like to see design D. Jack --- Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some thoughts of the design of the mock-ups: Design A: Too angular, somewhat retro early 80's look; a bit like the Canon T70. The placement of the thumb wheel seem awkward compared to the other designs. Prism a bit too square; it would have looked better with the prism design of the 645N(II). The face of the prism too tall and the round shapes around the lens mount at odds with the overall angular design. Design B: Ergonomically the most interesting design obviously inspired by the MZ-S. Unfortunately the grooves by the sides of the prism look awful and the face of the prism and the name tag look silly. Design C: Very close to A except prism design. The rounded profile along the sides of the prism again look at odds with the angular design. The face of the prism rather boring and lack character. Overhang unnecessary. SOLUTION: The prism design of C would look better on A minus the overhang. However, a real solution would be a modification of design B: Keep the slanted top panel (excellent for viewing when using the camera on a tripod). Lower the height of the grip somewhat. Instead of a groove that goes from to the grip through the prism, make it straight and slanted like on the MZ-S. Also, design the prism modelled after the MZ-S but minus that cameras overhang - unnecessary because the 645 has no built in flash and the larger size will give the right propotions anyway. This solution could possibly interfer with the three buttons on the left shoulder of the camera, but these might be put on the back of the camera where there should be lots of room or, alternatively, they could make a shelf for then by the side of the prism. Such a camera outlined above would have lots of character and also be very ergonomic. All of course in my opinion... BTW The design of the camera can be found here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BVWU Pål __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: OT: peace
Here is one I got the other day. The Brothel Two Irishmen were sitting at a pub having beer and watching the brothel across the street. They saw a Baptist minister walk into the brothel, and one of them said, Aye, 'tis a shame to see a man of the cloth goin' bad. Then they saw a rabbi enter the brothel, and the other Irishman said, Aye, 'tis a shame to see that the Jews are fallin' victim to temptation as well. Then they see a catholic priest enter the brothel, and one of the Irishmen said, What a terrible pity...one of the girls must be dying. Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: We've gone months now with no threads on religion/faith, politics, war. or even the semantic use of N* C*. For that matter, N* C* haven't really been used @ all for a while now. At least not in any quantity. We are at peace. That's a good thing. But how did it come about. Is the Pentax world too quiet, have we all self-medicated, or did WW join the Mennonites in Canada? :) Collin
RE: Lens Cleaning
The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is probably the only reason to take the lens apart for cleaning. One thing I've learned from taking a couple of lenses apart (those that allow the front element group to be removed easily) is that those specks of dust and dirt are often a LOT smaller than they look when viewed through the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
ebay prices
Just missed it :) It lived only 45 minutes. :) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7503381250
Re: Lens Cleaning
Village Idiot wrote: My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. let me clear something up - did you say it is big enough to show up on your pictures? If not, why bother? Bedo.
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: D645 musings
I was actully looking at ebay and it occured to me that maybe Pentax is too late coming out with a digital 645. For instance: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3353item=7503024825rd=1 Could Pentax have retained more customers by coming out with the D645 earlier? Village Idiot - Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: D645 musings at what price? Rob asked and you weren't one of the ones that answered. if it streets for $6K as Paal hopes, there could be lots. at $12K, there's going to be a lot fewer. if those 645 lenses are just sitting around right now not being used, that's not a great justification for spending $10K to get some use out of them. if you have the spare cash to do this just because you feel like it, you're welcome to do it. i'm sure there are going to be lots of people willing to grant you bragging rights. I'm not interested in 645. Hence, no answer. I found it pretty easy to justify almost 3 grand for an istD when it hit the Canadian market, as I had a bunch of K mount lenses to use with it. For me, it was far easier to justify an expensive body than a slightly less expensive body (Canon digital Rebel) and a complete lens line replacement. Maybe for you, bragging rights mean something, for me, it's about using the equipment I already own, including my lenses. William Robb
Re: PK/A-R lens modification?
Cory, Myself, and others have performed flange-ectimy's on our lenses with the excessive flanges. It is relatively simple . . . I masked off the glass using electricians tape, and then used a file to file down the offending portion of the flange. Just be sure that none of the metal filings get onto the glass surfaces, and that none fall into any holes in the lens and you'll be alright. IL Bill On Mar 24, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: I've got a question regarding an older Vivitar 28-105 manual lens. It doesn't physically fit on my *ist-DS due to an enlarged half-ring ridge around the aperture lever. It mounted to and worked fine in my P30-T forever, but the *ist-DS isn't quite as deep in the mirror housing area. I was told that this is due to a Ricoh-specific modification to the K-mount standard, and Vivitar made a single model, general purpose lens at the time. Here's a picture of the bad lens, and a good one for comparison: http://juneau.me.vt.edu/badlens.jpg http://juneau.me.vt.edu/goodlens.jpg It looks like I could remove some of that ring and it would fit. Is there anything else that should be known about such an operation? Anyone written a howto? Thanks, -Cory *** ** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *** **
Re: ebay prices
Is it really the DS that is driving the Pentax 35mm lenses to crazy prices on Ebay? Village Idiot Just missed it :) It lived only 45 minutes. :) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7503381250
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
You will get your lens. Go back to the webpage and click on the box for e-mail notification, just to make sure your listed. BH is scrupulously honest and fair. However, they are also very cautious. If you're a first-time customer or even a returning customer with a new credit card, they validate before filling your order. I've been doing business with them for years and wouldn't go anywhere else. I recently began using Paypal to avoid any possible plastic problems. With Paypal they confirm my orders within minutes. Paul I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
I'm sorry to see you're waiting. However, the upside is that maybe BH will start stocking more Pentax lenses in the future (well, we can hope anyways). Village Idiot I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
it's all a matter of dealing with a short supply of a high demand item. have faith, BH does their best. I went for the 31 instead of the 35. Not that I regret it, but I didn't end up keeping the 31 as I found it too large and heavy for my taste. I'll get a 35/2 on the next round. ;-) Godfrey On Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 08:49AM, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
I just checked the BH page. The FA 35/2 is at accepting orders status. That means they will definitely be getting new stock. If you've placed an order, you're golden. Paul I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: Lens Cleaning
I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the lense, and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look really close when the lens is dismounted. OTOH, just knowing it is there kind of bothers me. Village Idiot Village Idiot wrote: My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. let me clear something up - did you say it is big enough to show up on your pictures? If not, why bother? Bedo.
Re: ebay prices
Yes. Is it really the DS that is driving the Pentax 35mm lenses to crazy prices on Ebay? Village Idiot Just missed it :) It lived only 45 minutes. :) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7503381250
Re: PK/A-R lens modification?
Myself, and others have performed flange-ectimy's on our lenses with the excessive flanges. It is relatively simple . . . I masked off the glass using electricians tape, and then used a file to file down the offending portion of the flange. Just be sure that none of the metal filings get onto the glass surfaces, and that none fall into any holes in the lens and you'll be alright. That's basically it (as above). (I've discussed it a bit previously, with similar advice and a couple of photos, as below.) Fred == I've removed the flange from several ol' VS1 cult classics before. It's not that big of a procedure. Here are some image links illustrating the removal of this flange: First, here are two VS1 35-85/2.8's, the left one of which shows the extra baffle, while the right one has been modified - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/1ofeach.jpg . Lacking access to a bench grinder, I resort to simply cutting of the excess baffle material with a hacksaw (but leaving the protective hump near the coupling lever, as in jen-you-wine Pentax K-mounts). (Another PDML-er reported using a thin file for this procedure.) I don't try to remove the baffle entirely, but I leave about a mm or two of it still sticking out (since trying to remove all of it would tend to scar up the face of the K-mount flange, and removing it entirely is not really necessary, anyway). I then smooth off the remaining edge of the baffle with a fine-toothed file and finally I touch up the exposed (shiny) metal edge of the remaining baffle area with a black magic marker (for a little flare prevention). It is important, of course, to mask off completely the rest of the lens when the extra baffle is being removed from the lens (since you don't want any little aluminum filings adding to the lens' innards - g) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/lensmod.jpg . It is also possible to ~carefully~ remove the K-mount flange from the lens and then remove the extra baffle after masking off only the flange - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/v358528/flangmod.jpg . Fred
Re: FS: Pentax FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 Lens
On Thursday, March 24, 2005, at 03:55AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just received the FA 24-90... First impressions: This is one dandy little lens! I'm surprised how small it is. Really useful range, even on the ist-D. After all the dire warnings about substandard construction, it's not nearly as flimsy as I had imagined. Not built like the 80-200/2.8 but not bad. I heard the same thing about the 100-300 and the 35-70. They're not built like the Limiteds, but they're certainly not bad. Good luck with it! That's one of the lenses on my likely to be stupid and buy yet more lenses because we just can't help ourselves list. ;-) Godfrey
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. No. Perspective is a function of distance alone. Moving your position with a prime lens changes the perspective. Zooming from a fixed position leaves the perspective the same and just changes the field of view. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it's always significant. Godfrey
RE: Lens Cleaning
Thanks for your response. I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it is the cheapest lens to replace. As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that are on the mount end of the lens? Village Idiot The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is probably the only reason to take the lens apart for cleaning. One thing I've learned from taking a couple of lenses apart (those that allow the front element group to be removed easily) is that those specks of dust and dirt are often a LOT smaller than they look when viewed through the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: D645 musings
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Village Idiot wrote: I was actully looking at ebay and it occured to me that maybe Pentax is too late coming out with a digital 645. For instance: I understand where you are cominmg from, but please don't post ongoing auctions. Thanks, Kostas
Re: PESO - Deadmans part 2
Quoting Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (regarding sea urchin spines) Sometimes the best protection is to avoid contact altogether! Sometimes???
RE: How do you use a zoom lens
Don said: I use a zoom when the 'camera has to be ready for the subject' such as sports, large gatherings, kids at play, pets on the move or a 'walk around' where I don't want to lug around 12 lenses. When I can make the 'subject ready for the the camera' such as a portrait, scenic or macro/closeup, I alway use a prime. Prior to getting into sports type photography, my 3 primes on the SP500 served me well from 1971 to 1997. Because it can take a number of shots from different jumps to make a sale,a zoom is the best way for me.Either that or have 2-3 bodies with primes over my shoulder,which is not good.LOL Zooms for me are also good if i see something interesting on the sidelines i can quickly get those shots to. Most often when doing my drive around landscape stuff i have more time, so i can use primes more often. Just a side not with zooms/primes on Dlsr's. I have had little problem with duston my Nikons using zooms, but more on my istD using primes. Its a strange planet we live on,and oh, don't forget your towel.:-) Dave
eekbay - speaking of crazy prices...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7500658176 It's a good lens... but $1200 good? -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is a large Kodak sensor any good? (was: 645D Design remarks)
My main concern about the 645D is: have you ever seen a large Kodak sensor working well? I mean more or less as well as a competitor sensor at all ISO settings (noise, and so on)? I've just seen a few pictures taken in studio with a 38x38mm back for the 500-series (aka V-series) Hasselblads, and they look awful! Dario
OT: Names for storage devices,for Shel
https://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/Product.asp?pid=wallet Thsi one store near London Ontario, calls them digital wallets.g Dave
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
Cotty mused: On 24/3/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a film and digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the same view as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been similar, there seemed to be a different perspective. Yes, I have noticed something similar when I was using a 1.6 crop digi. The effect is less pronounced with a 1.3 crop, but at price. I guess in 5 years or so when there are a few more (affordable) full frame digis around, it will be less of an issue It's not an issue now. Really! Imagine you are standing at a fixed spot, photographing a given subject. An 18mm on the *ist-D, a 28mm on a 35mm, or a 50mm on a 6x7 will produce images that are, as far as composition and framing are concerned, identical (except for the different aspect ratio of the 6x7, of course). If I showed you a small-ish print or image from each one (say a 3x5 print, or a 600x400 image) you would have no way of telling which came from which camera.
Re: eekbay - speaking of crazy prices...
It sounds like about the price BH would charge new, if they carried it. Village Idiot http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7500658176 It's a good lens... but $1200 good? -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: D645 musings
Sorry, especially since I could have easily posted a closed one to demonstrate the same point. I didn't know or think of that. Village Idiot. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Village Idiot wrote: I was actully looking at ebay and it occured to me that maybe Pentax is too late coming out with a digital 645. For instance: I understand where you are cominmg from, but please don't post ongoing auctions. Thanks, Kostas
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
This is pretty much how I use zooms. I think of them as primes that I can switch quickly. So the two best uses for me are when I am unable to move around (theatre, concert, some portions of weddings) or when I don't have time to switch lenses (some sports, some wedding stuff). They are also handy when trying to take a small kit and cover the ranges you need. That being said, I am picky about my zooms - they have to have excellent optical quality. I originally picked up the DA 16-45 because my FA*24/2 wasn't good enough on the D for shooting family portraits. I haven't seen a prime 24 that is any better than the 16-45 at that focal length available in Pentax mount. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, March 24, 2005, 5:08:17 AM, you wrote: PS My experience with the DA 16-45 suggests that the distortion of a good PS zoom is comparable to that of a prime. I had very little previous PS experience with zooms in thirty years of photography, but I'm beginning PS to appreciate them for certain situations. To me, the question of PS whether to zoom or move in or out depends on the perspective I want to PS achieve. If I'm doing a walkaround and hoping for an undistorted people PS pic, I'll usually go right to 45mm and position myself for the framing PS I want. If I'm sitting in a restauratnt and merely want to capture more PS of a room, I'll go wider as necessary. Shooting up at a skyscraper, I PS might want to achieve wide angle perspective, so I'd position myself PS accordingly. In other words, zooms should be used, the same way primes PS are used. Decide what you want to shoot, pick the right focal length PS for the job, and choose your camera position. The order of those PS choices may vary for different subjects and circumstances. PS Paul PS On Mar 24, 2005, at 7:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, with all the discussion about zooms here these past months, I got to thinking about how such a lens is used. It seems that if you are standing at a certain spot and want to fill the frame with the subject, you'd use the zoom feature to do so. But, is the perspective the same as if you used a shorter focal length prime lens and moved closer to the subject, assuming that in both cases the subject fills the frame to the same degree. Zooms (from my limited experience) seem to have more distortion at the wider and longer ends of their focal range compared to primes of a similar focal length. Is that a generally fair statement? Shel
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
it's all a matter of dealing with a short supply of a high demand item. have faith, BH does their best. I went for the 31 instead of the 35. Not that I regret it, but I didn't end up keeping the 31 as I found it too large and heavy for my taste. I'll get a 35/2 on the next round. ;-) Godfrey And the 31, at 31.8mm, should be called a 32... Andre
Re: How do you use a zoom lens
I'm just going to have to see this for myself. I've not yet made the side-by-side comparison, just observed various scenes through the finders and thru pics from different cameras. Of course, we don't always use smallish prints or only web oriented images. Implied (to me, at least) in your comment is that differences will be more noticeable in larger sized prints or images. Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis This also answers a question about comparative focal lengths on a film and digi SLR. Using the 18mm on Bruce's istD didn't seem to give the same view as when using a 28mm on a film body. While the AOV may have been similar, there seemed to be a different perspective. Yes, I have noticed something similar when I was using a 1.6 crop digi. The effect is less pronounced with a 1.3 crop, but at price. I guess in 5 years or so when there are a few more (affordable) full frame digis around, it will be less of an issue It's not an issue now. Really! Imagine you are standing at a fixed spot, photographing a given subject. An 18mm on the *ist-D, a 28mm on a 35mm, or a 50mm on a 6x7 will produce images that are, as far as composition and framing are concerned, identical (except for the different aspect ratio of the 6x7, of course). If I showed you a small-ish print or image from each one (say a 3x5 print, or a 600x400 image) you would have no way of telling which came from which camera.
Re: Lens Cleaning
Village Idiot wrote: Thanks for your response. I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it is the cheapest lens to replace. As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that are on the mount end of the lens? You're starting at the wrong end. If you can work out how to get into the other end without causing any damage, you will probably make a decent job of it. If you can't work it out, I recommend that you put the tools back in the box 8-) mike Village Idiot The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is probably the only reason to take the lens apart for cleaning. One thing I've learned from taking a couple of lenses apart (those that allow the front element group to be removed easily) is that those specks of dust and dirt are often a LOT smaller than they look when viewed through the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: PK/A-R lens modification?
The only thing that the shroud does is hit the PZ connection. So all you need to do is make it shorter. I've only done it once. But it was simple. Step 1: remove the mount Step 2: take a pliers and snap the shroud off. Step 3: replace the mount. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl Caveat: This information should be viewed critically. It may merit as much technical excellence as a CBS news report. Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: eekbay - speaking of crazy prices...
Village Idiot wrote on 3/24/2005, 12:46 PM: It sounds like about the price BH would charge new, if they carried it. Village Idiot A few years ago, when I was in the market for a 300mm f4-ish lens I saw them at KEH in EX condition for ~$600. I guess I should have bought a couple. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
