Memory card management
After transferring data from a memory card to the PC, is it better to delete files from the card via the PC/memory card reader or to do it via the camera? Does the memory card need to be formatted with each use? Thanks, Pat in SF
Re: FS: 77mm lens
This one time, at band camp, "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA77f1.8.html This is some sort of taunting or psychological abuse posting this link. The lense is one of several I desire. Others include Pentax 80-200mm f2.8. I currently have a Tamaron 70-200 2.8 I purchased off a fellow list member and it is quite good, but I would like to get the Pentax version as I understand the shots are sharper at the long end, eg: 200mm and something lng for some surging shots Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: The instigation of enablement
Enabled should be defined in the FAQ for new folks to this list. It's almost as bad as a four-letter word. =) When I joined the list, I had a K1000 w/ a 50mm f/2 lens. Since that time about 4 years ago, I've acquired 3 bodies, eight Pentax lenses, a couple of 3rd party ones, and multiple camera bags. Can one ever have too many lenses? Pat in SF --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced > ) you to become enabled?
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
MX with M 50 mm. 1.4, bought new in 1980 or 81. I still have both of them, it was my first "serious" camera. Carlos
RE: The instigation of enablement
Scott Loveless wrote: > Since joining the list in February, I've experienced > enablement in the worst way. I don't know, enablement can be very useful! > I have acquired no less than > one body, three primes, one zoom, a camera bag, everything > necessary to process black and white film, a film scanner, at > least one photo magazine subscription, a handful of random > assorted other goodies, and one digicam. I had a couple of MXs and a few lenses for 20 years until I discovered this list 5 or so years ago. I then had a wild time buying various cameras and equipment. I have a very much smaller collection of camera equipment now, but what I have I know will get used very often. Not one of the other purchases I have made do I regret, as it gave me the opportunity to use them and worked out far cheaper buying, using and selling on than any form of rental would have been. Plus of course I know for sure how it worked out in my ownership, it was fun and easy to sell. > I hold Bill Robb ( > and most of the rest of you ) personally responsible. But > not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the only one > immune to this nonsense. Bill is different in that he enables Pentax in Canada and North America; not the other way round :-) > To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced > ) you to become enabled? As above really. I'm confident in what I buy I will actually use and need now - with the exception of missing extras for the LX, which I really don't need but are fun to collect. I would still like a K2 DMD, but that's about me done. Malcolm PS - Only on line sporadically at present as the need for a 'phone is more pressing and I have a dial up connection. Glad to see others on the list are OK and Jostein made it safely home.
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Hi! The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. ZX-L (a.k.a. MZ-6)... My first genuiwine lens was FA 50/1.7. For the record, ZX-L is loaded with Agfa 400 b/w film and is being used to shoot portraits of my daughter with Tamron 90/2.5. FA 50/1.7 is used extensively as well... Boris
Re: The instigation of enablement
Scott Loveless wrote: To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced ) you to become enabled? Wendy praised the indestructability of the MX, which led to my buying one. Ken Archer came by my house one day and showed me some of his Pentax toys; I took a shine to a 100/2.8 M and bought myself one shortly thereafter. I have no idea how much the *istD-buying epidemic on the list contributed to my getting one; or it could have been because I found all sorts of practical reasons on my own to buy a digital SLR and the *istD at the time was my only option for that. I think that's it, for me. Definitely the MX and the M 100/2.8 but that's all I'm sure about. OH yeah; I bought the Optio 550 partly because I wanted my next (at the time) digital to be PUG-legal. ERNR
Re: Sunset
Excellent shot Jens. I think that the contrast between the "blown out" sun and the kid in full silhouette really works well. My only suggestion would be to bump up the contrast a tiny bit. Very Nice. Dave On 7/9/05, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ > > Regards > Jens > > >
RE: Sunset
Thanks a lot, Jack. I didn't rally do anything, except brighten, sharpening and cropping it. This shot was "overexposed" by +2.00 EV, in order to prevent it from getting totally black, except for the sun. Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 9. juli 2005 01:55 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Sunset Nicely composed and exposed. I find it pleasing in every way. The glare of the sun and its reflection ad to the intensity. Filter? Optical/PS? Jack --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more > complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under > expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ > > Regards > Jens > > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Proof that I suck.
- Original Message - From: "Amita Guha" Subject: RE: Proof that I suck. Now I see why Herb wants me to get the black one. :) It is lovely, but the silver one is perfectly functional. Actually, it's way beyond lovely. It is stunningly beautiful. They seem to work about the same though. William Robb
Re: The instigation of enablement
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: The instigation of enablement To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced ) you to become enabled? I've picked up a few things along the way. William Robb
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
On Jul 9, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Sid Barras wrote: The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. For me the answer is the same as last time. A K2, which came with a 55mm f/1.8 lens. If I'd been able to afford a brand new camera I'd have bought a Canon... sometimes not having enough money can be a good thing :) Technically my real first Pentax was an Espio 738 but I'm assuming you meant SLR. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
The instigation of enablement
Since joining the list in February, I've experienced enablement in the worst way. I have acquired no less than one body, three primes, one zoom, a camera bag, everything necessary to process black and white film, a film scanner, at least one photo magazine subscription, a handful of random assorted other goodies, and one digicam. I hold Bill Robb ( and most of the rest of you ) personally responsible. But not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the only one immune to this nonsense. To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced ) you to become enabled? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Proof that I suck.
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: Re: Proof that I suck. Damn you and your enablement. My work here never seems done... ww
Re: Proof that I suck.
Yes, Bill, as a matter of fact you do suck.Now I've got, err, lens envy. I believe it was your acquisition of a black MX that prompted me to get one (not black) of my own. Now I feel a new lens coming on. My wife's gonna kill me. Damn you and your enablement. On 7/9/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/77LTD/images/IMGP8244.jpg > > HAR! > ww > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
- Original Message - From: "keithw" Subject: Re: A new poll: Your first pentax? William Robb wrote: LX with A50/1.2. William Robb Now, THAT's the equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, isn't it! Good for you! Never knew less... Aced out on both accounts, body and lens! Super! I had been using a Nikon F3 hp and a Nikkor 50 f/1.2 as my work camera for several years. The F3 was competent, but I didn't find it to be an overly friendly camera to use. The 1.2 was pretty expensive, but I valued the brighter screen for shooting at wedding banquets. At the time, I was shooting upwards of 30 weddings a year, so the cost was easy to justify. * * * I had been using a lot of OM-series Olympuses, and when I could no longer get batteries for my OM-1, I changed platforms. What was most like an OM-1? A cute little Pentax MG. Great little camera. Lenses were cheap. Perfect! I followed that up with an MV and an MX. Then a backup MG and a backup MX! ;-) I went about as convoluted as that as well. I started with a Fujica rangefinder that was made in the mid 1950s. I think it was an ML35. It had an EV coupler on the aperture dial so you could adjust one dial and change both shutter and aperture at the same time, keeping the exposure constant. Hasselblad lenses do the same thing. Then I took over my dad's Spotmatic II, then I bought an OM-1. The first photographer I mentored with used Olympus cameras. He was a wedding shooter, and liked the lenses. He also used Leica and Zeiss SLRs from time to time. One thing I noticed, he went through a lot of OM-1 camera bodies. I don't think he ever bothered to fix them, he seemed of the opinion that if they broke, they were done. I suspect a lot of them just plain and simple wore out. He shot reams of film. My dad coveted the Olympus, and for some strange reason, I decided a Nikon F2 was the way to go, then the F3, which I didn't like too much, it turned out. I still have and use the original 99% MG, presently attached to a VS1 135mm f/2.3. I still have that old Fufica somewhere. Haven't used it in over 30 years, I am sad to say. William Robb
RE: Proof that I suck.
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/77LTD/images/IMGP8244.jpg > > HAR! Now I see why Herb wants me to get the black one. :) Amita
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
A Spotmatic F (beginning of 1975), which I resold very quickly to buy KX + 1.8/55mm.
Proof that I suck.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/77LTD/images/IMGP8244.jpg HAR! ww
Re: Green focus light on ist D
Charles Wilson a écrit : Dear All, On one of my lenses Tokina ATX 100-300 f4 Manual the green focus light does not come on when I focus on the ist D. Has anyone any clues why this might be so? Isn't the mount black paint ? Michel
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
My first Pentax was an H3 purchased in 1962. It had a f/2 55mm semi-automatic lens meaning that you cocked it to open the diaphragm to focus and it would automatically stop down for the shot - and stay down. The meter was separate and mounted on top of the pentaprism but attached to the slot on the view finder. Some years ago, the shutter ripped itself apart. I discarded the camera. A few months ago I spotted one in pristine condition at a camera expo with a f/1.4 50mm "automatic" lens and the same meter. I purchased it for $50. I've been playing with it all day today. It's not my favorite, but a lot of poignant memories are attached. I still wish I'd kept and repaired the old one. Regards, Bob... - "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV From: "Sid Barras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax.
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
First Pentax was a point & shoot of some sort. May have been the PC 133? Worked well until my brother dropped in on a basketball court. =( Then several years ago, got my hands on a K1000. Loved that shutter sound and that it was all manual(and all metal). Eventually I wanted auto focus & aperture priority. Moved to the Zx-5n. LOVE it all around. Recently, a *istDS somehow made it's way into the household... dunno how that happened. ;o) Pat in SF
RE: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Mine was the original Spotmatic with a Super Tak 50/1.4 lens. I'd been reading photo mags for a while, looking at ads and reading reviews of different cameras, and decided that it was the one I wanted, but it was spendy for a poor out of work yet-to-be hippie. I moved to San Francisco, made a few dollars selling drugs to kids at the school yard, and was walking by a pawn shop down on Market Street where a really gorgeous Spotmatic and lens was in the window. I walked in, turned over $145.00, and it was mine. I bought some film at Brooks Camera, which was nearby (a few rolls each of PX and TX), loaded the camera, and walked up Market Street snapping away. I used that camera so much during the first year or so that I had it, that the chrome was worn away in a couple of areas and it was becoming nicely brassed. I really LOVED that Spottie. Shel
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Hi! My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. Is this a 1:2 macro? It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1 macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working distance from the subject - less intrusive! Boris
Arcsoft Panorama Maker
i got around to installing the copy (Panorama Maker 2000) that came bundled with my Nikon Coolpix 5000 and tried stitching a few images together with it and then comparing with the program i use most of the time, iSeemedia Photovista Panorama 3.0. my conclusion is that Photovista is still the better program, but not by much. the areas where Panorama Maker are weaker are in tuning for the lens barrel/pincushion distortion and focal length. in terms of blending, it does about as well as Photovista, which means it is one of the best. in terms of automatic alignment, i don't think is is quite as good as Photovista, but it is very close. it is able to cope reasonably well with foliage-only matches and slight tilting caused by hand holding the series of images. Photovista does better. Panorama Maker has an easier to use interface and supports direct output of QTVR files. with Photovista, you have to use a 3rd party program to create QTVR files, and the user interface is strange, to say the least. i have played with probably about a dozen programs for stitching panoramas including VRToolbox Panoworx, Ulead Cool360, PanaVue ImageAssembler, Realviz Stitcher Express, and more that i can't remember. the two i use are Photovista and Stitcher Express. i beleive that Panorama Tools is the best tool out there, and it's free too, but without a 3rd party GUI that you pay for, it's not easy to use. given that, i would rather work with a for pay tool that comes in one piece. both Stitcher Express and Photovista require somewhere between 20 to 50% overlap between successive images. i aim for the full 50%. Panorama Tools allows nearly 0% overlap with a successful stitch, but i don't use it. Photovista is best for scenes where there are no definite patterns and straight lines that need to be kept straight as it's long and tedious to tune the lens to get everything right. close enough works well with Photovista and produces results that look correct even under close inspection. Stitcher Express is needed when there are strong patterns or lines that have to be matched and geometrically aligned correctly. if there aren't any, Stitcher Express usually fails to align the images and that means you can't create the panorama since manual alignment seldom works. Panorama Maker seems to be in-between with respect to ability to handle or require patterns and lines. if you haven't got anything, it's a good choice. if you have specific needs, you probably want to look at Photovista, Stitcher Express, and Panorama Tools and decide which one, or several might be needed to improve your stitched panoramas. Herb
Re: PESO: Lighthouse
Lovely. Nice tonal range indeed. Joe
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:48:02 -0700 Paul Stenquist wrote: My first Pentax was an H3v. My second was a Spotmatic F. Paul My first two Pentaxes were the very same as Paul's. I bought the H3v in college, to replace a Rollei (which I sold for $50, sob!). Since then I've bought an LX, an SF-1, a PZ-1, and now an *ist-D. Actually, since getting the D I've started collecting Pentax 35mm bodies and now have 24 of them, with the oldest an H3v! Regards, Jim
Public Service Announcement
My lab just got a DA 50-200 f4-5.6. In the cause of better photography I brought it home to test. Physically it is delightfully light, but appears to be all plastic. This is the first all-plastic DA lens I have seen. (I have not handled the DA 18-55.) Still it seems sturdy enough. It has one big design flaw: the zoom ring is so large that it is quite difficult to remove the lens from the camera. You grab the lens to twist it off, and all you do is zoom the lens out to 200 mm. There's hardly any part lens to grab onto except the narrow neck adjacent to the body. The box contains no soft case. My purpose was to test it optically. I followed my usual test procedure: images were of an adobe (mud brick) wall at a distance of about 40x the focal length. All images were shot on a tripod, at ISO 200 in RAW, with white balance set to shade. Images were important into Photoshop through ACR with no sharpening or color noise reduction. Inside Photoshop each image got Auto Contrast but no sharpening. Comparisons were done at Actual Pixels. The usual caveats apply: The test interpretation is only as good as my eyesight. Also, I do these tests only for sharpness, and for my own edification. If anyone else finds the results useful, that's great. If not, please ignore this post. DA 50-200 at 50 mm. vs. DA 16-45 mm at 45 mm: F4: The lenses are close in the center, but the 16-45 is far sharper at the edges and corners. F5.6: The 50-200 is sharper in the center, but the 16-45 is better at the edges and corners. F8: The lenses are close in the center. I cannot call one or the other sharper. The 16-45 is again better at the edges and corners. DA 50-200 vs. SMC F 70-210 f4-5.6: 70 mm: F4.5 (DA) vs. f4.0 (F) (i.e., both wide open): The DA lens is sharper in the center, edges, and corners. F5.6: The F is sharper in the center. The DA is sharper at the edges and corners. F8: The F is better in the center, but only slightly. It is also slightly better at the edges and corners. F11: Both lenses are matched in the center. The F is slightly better at the edges and corners. 135 mm: F4.5: The F is slightly better in the center. The DA is sharper in the edges and corners. F5.6: The F is much sharper in the center. The DA wins at the edges and corners. F8: The F is sharper in the center and at the edges and corners. F11: The F is slightly better in the center, more noticeably better at the edges and corners. 200/210 mm: F5.6: The centers are very close. The DA may be slightly sharper at the edges, and is noticeably sharper in the corners. F8: The centers are very close again, but the F is slightly sharper. The F is noticeably better at the edges and the corners. F11: The F is sharper at the center, edges, and corners. Overall the DA 50-200 performs pretty well, especially considering its price. The design strategy to get to its price point was clearly to skimp on edge/corner sharpness. Here it is consistently a bit weak. This makes sense for such a lens. Most people will probably use it to photography their kids, ducks in a pond, birds in a tree, and the like. The edges of such images will be out of focus anyway, so the softness won't matter. I occasionally photograph landscape elements and architectural elements with telephoto lenses, so for me the edge softness won't do. The F 70-210 wins the majority of the head-to-head comparisons, but the results are sometimes close. Keep in mind that my evaluation is at Actual Pixels. At smaller magnifications one would see less difference between these lenses. Overall I would have to say that the DA 50-200 is nearly in the class of the SMC F 70-210. It may be Pentax's best variable-aperture telezoom since 1987. Based on these tests I won't buy the DA 50-200, or at least not right away. My F 70-210 does just fine (as long as it doesn't start giving me more images with purple bloom). If one needs a variable-aperture telezoom, though, the DA 50-200 looks pretty good. If would buy it if I didn't already have the F 70-210. Joe
Re: PESO: Lighthouse
Love it! Reminds me of the North Carolina coast. I want to go back there and take more pictures of lighthouses. :) --- Gasha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://gasha.pie-dabas.net/peso/apx1-015-baaka.jpg > > Pentax 645, 55mm, APX-400 > Estonia, Saaremaa island > > This one was my second roll in Pentax 645, and first > BW 120 film. > I just love this film... > > > P.S. Just developed my first BW 120 film at home. > Succeeded! Another APX-400. > It's already 5am, and i have to go sleep for now :( > > Gasha > > > __ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
from keithw >Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:31:44 -0700 > >William Robb wrote: > >>LX with A50/1.2. >> >>William Robb > >Now, THAT's the equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, isn't it! Good for you! Never knew less... >Aced out on both accounts, body and lens! Super! > Yup. Some with a silver spoon. The rest of us had to settle for a gravy ladle. Collin
Re: PESO: Lighthouse
Nice shot. Good tonal range. Paul On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:06 PM, Gasha wrote: http://gasha.pie-dabas.net/peso/apx1-015-baaka.jpg Pentax 645, 55mm, APX-400 Estonia, Saaremaa island This one was my second roll in Pentax 645, and first BW 120 film. I just love this film... P.S. Just developed my first BW 120 film at home. Succeeded! Another APX-400. It's already 5am, and i have to go sleep for now :( Gasha
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
H1a - bought new in 1964. It was a real move up from the Argus C-3. I was _forced_ to buy it 'cause the electronic flash my parents bought me for Christmas wouldn't sync with the C-3. ;) Still have it, but it sits on the shelf with a stuck shutter. -P
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
H-3, 1961, Bought new. Also my first "serious camera" and "SLR". graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Sid Barras wrote: The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
PESO: Lighthouse
http://gasha.pie-dabas.net/peso/apx1-015-baaka.jpg Pentax 645, 55mm, APX-400 Estonia, Saaremaa island This one was my second roll in Pentax 645, and first BW 120 film. I just love this film... P.S. Just developed my first BW 120 film at home. Succeeded! Another APX-400. It's already 5am, and i have to go sleep for now :( Gasha
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
ME-Super 1980. Friend had a Nikon FM2 with the legendary 50 1.4 that he let me borrow for a weekend, but I could not afford the combo. The ME-Super with a 50 1.4 was lighter, filled with more features, and less expensive. Sid Barras wrote: The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Mine was a K-1000 I bought in a pawn shop outside of Helena, Montana. I was on a motorcycle trip and the shutter jammed on the one I was carrying (right at Yellowstone Falls). We were headed for Glacier NP and I needed a camera bad. The pawnshop had a K-1000 with a bag, a 50mm A 2.0 lens, a generic 135mm and a generic zoom. I bought the instant kit and finished my vacation with it. I got some awesome pictures out of that old warhorse. The 50mm lens is way underrated as a landscape lens IMO. Tom Reese
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Mine was a MZ-M. Still got it. Ciao, Peter in Sydney Sid Barras wrote: The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
Re: Sunset
Jens Bladt wrote: Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than photographing a sunset. I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a digital sunset before. But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. I kinda like this one. What do you think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ I like it a lot Jens. Metering a sunset is pretty simple. Point the camera toward the sky so the sun is just out of the frame (left or right - the sun will throw your meter reading off if you include it in the frame) and spot meter. Set your exposure accordingly. If you want the sky a medium tone then expose it for medium tone. If you want it slightly lighter then expose a half stop above medium etc. I think you got this one exactly right. I really like the composition. Tom Reese
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
I've told this story before so the short version here: Father-in-law left his A3000 kit for us to sell in the yard sale. I kept it and have since spent many times the take from the yard sale on pentax gear. CW cut this grass for the last time today. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/2005
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:32:12PM -0500, Sid Barras wrote: > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to > thinking about my first pentax. Spotmatic II + 50mm/f1.4 (bought with my first paycheck)
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
My fist Pentax was an "Asahi Pentax Spotmatic." In 1966, I was serving in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam. I was interested in getting a better camera, and a friend showed me a new Minolta 101 SLR he had purchased in the main PX in Da Nang. When I got a chance, I went to the same PX and asked for the Minolta. They were sold out. The guy working in the PX said that the had a similar camera, made by Asahi, that was sold in the US under the "Honeywell" brand. Since I was more familiar with Honeywell than either Minolta or Asahi, this impressed me. The clerk closed the sale by advising me that Asahi made the best glass of any of the Japanese camera. I don't know how he knew that back then, but he was certainly right. Dan M -- Original Message -- From: Sid Barras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:32:12 -0500 >The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to >thinking about my first pentax. > >Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. >The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off >ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), >50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a >"user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, >I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. >I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur >can afford. > >Sid B in cajunland. Sent via the KillerWebMail system at stanleypmlaw.com
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Pentax *ist D with FA-J 18-35mm (-: Well, okay I kinda tell a lie. My dad was a pentax user - originally with a spotty, 50/1.4, 28/3.5 and some tele-zoom. Then when that got stolen (containing baby photos of me!) he got a K1000 and A 50/2 which I used once or twice, never seriously though. Cheers, David
Re: Fanatics
if we find out? like in "we have no idea who they are"? mishka > Idealistically, and ultimately, if we find out who are those people who > benefit most from the terrorist attacks, and bring them to *real* > justice then without firewood the terror fire will eventually expire.
Re: FS: 77mm lens
And on digital it becomes a 118 mm f1.8 lens! Just ask the seller. Do you have a black one lined up, Wheatfield? Joe
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
I wrote earlier that my first Pentax was a Honeywell Pentax H3. It was a college graduation present. My first TTL Pentax was a Spotmatic. Still have the H3. The defective Spotmatic was stolen from my VW van back in 1967. Insurance got me a newer and better model Spotmatic. Jim A. > From: Sid Barras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 19:32:12 -0500 > To: Pentax discussion list Pentax discussion > Subject: A new poll: Your first pentax? > Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 20:32:34 -0400 > > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to > thinking about my first pentax. > > Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. > The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off > ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), > 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a > "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, > I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. > I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur > can afford. > > Sid B in cajunland. >
Re: Sunset
Gasha wrote: Lucky, great shot :O Gasha Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than photographing a sunset. I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a digital sunset before. But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. I kinda like this one. What do you think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ That's a beauty, Gasha! No question about it. Worthy of hanging on the wall, framed and displayed prominently! keith whaley
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Honeywell Pentax H2 with a 55 mm f1.8 Takumar. I got it used in 1966 when I was 16. Joe
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
William Robb wrote: LX with A50/1.2. William Robb Now, THAT's the equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, isn't it! Good for you! Never knew less... Aced out on both accounts, body and lens! Super! * * * I had been using a lot of OM-series Olympuses, and when I could no longer get batteries for my OM-1, I changed platforms. What was most like an OM-1? A cute little Pentax MG. Great little camera. Lenses were cheap. Perfect! I followed that up with an MV and an MX. Then a backup MG and a backup MX! ;-) I still have and use the original 99% MG, presently attached to a VS1 135mm f/2.3. The MX sports an SMC Pentax FA* 24mm f/2.0. Lovely thing! Don't need the automatic feature on an MX, but if I ever do, voila! Still use them both. keith whaley
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
ZX-7 with cheap Sigma 24-70/5.6 lens. I think 3 years ago, and that was my first serious camera. Liked to work with it in winter conditions (gloves) and got a good price used. It all decided my life so far. Gasha
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
S1a with Takumar 55mm 1.8. It was stolen from my car with a 200mm lens attached. Insurance was enough for a replacement S1a body but, as I was a starving student at the time, it was a few years before I got another 200. My brother used it for many years after I bought an SP1000. The S1a is now back home in the camera museum suffering from a sticky shutter which I should try to repair some day. The 55mm 1.8 has continued in use to the present. Powell
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
K1000 with a 50 of some sort (f1.7, I think) which I bought in 1982 with money awarded as a prize in a photo contest. The prize-winning photo had been taken with my previous "serious" camera, a German rangefinder ... No, not *that* German rangefinder; this one is a Voigtlander Vito CLR with a built-in selenium totally dead meter. ERNR
Re: Sunset
Lucky, great shot :O Gasha > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/
Re: A new poll: Your first Pentax?
ES II Black body. I was young but could somehow afford it with all sorts of accessories. Did not bother with P&S and do not remember why. Perhaps because my father was a Nikon buff and I must have thought that SLRs were the only REAL cameras :-). I remember I was impressed by an eye piece shutter of the ESII. Hard to find it on today's cameras. It took a lot of photos, probably most family photos were taken during this time with ESII. Then ME came out and this was the start of my obsession with small, compact and light weight cameras. I thought ME was so sexy, although somewhat less specified than ESII. It was of course with M50/1.4. It was late 70's, I believe. Soon after it, I took a sabbatical from the photography for along time, concentrating on my other hobby. Then, in 1998 or so, I was given an AF camera as a gift which stirred up my interest in the photography again. Look, now I have to shed some excess! :-). Cheers, Ken
RE: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Used ME in '80. New P30t in about '92. Don > -Original Message- > From: Sid Barras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:32 PM > To: Pentax discussion list Pentax discussion > Subject: A new poll: Your first pentax? > > > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to > thinking about my first pentax. > > Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. > The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off > ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), > 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a > "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, > I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. > I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur > can afford. > > Sid B in cajunland. >
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
LX with A50/1.2. William Robb
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
My first Pentax was an H3v. My second was a Spotmatic F. Paul On Jul 8, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Sid Barras wrote: The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
RE: A new poll: Your first pentax?
A K1000 as a birthday present from my dad way back in 82. 23 years later it's still going strong. -Original Message- From: Sid Barras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:32 PM To: Pentax discussion list Pentax discussion Subject: A new poll: Your first pentax? The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
K1000 with an A50/2, given to me by my mother. --- Sid Barras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good > stuff. Got me to > thinking about my first pentax. > > Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't > know if it counts. > The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a > real "user" off > ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of > lenses-- the 28(3.5), > 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. > The fifty was a > "user" too, but the others were near mint, with > cases. Since then, > I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of > pentax equipment. > I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as > a poor amateur > can afford. > > Sid B in cajunland. > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Sunset
Nice shot Jens. Love the all over color and the silhouetted boy. By the way, the best way to determine a sunset exposure is with a spot meter reading in the part of the sky you want to have the approximate brightness of 18% gray. Paul On Jul 8, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than photographing a sunset. I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a digital sunset before. But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. I kinda like this one. What do you think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ Regards Jens
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
On 8 Jul 2005 at 19:32, Sid Barras wrote: > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to > thinking about my first pentax. > > Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. > The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off > ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), > 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a > "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, > I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. > I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur > can afford. SuperA + A50/1.4 followed by A35-105/3.5 and then A24-50/4. Handed down my last SuperA a few weeks back but still have the A50/1.4 Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
K-1000 with M50/2. Back in college, in 1980, iirc. It replaced my Canon G-III QL17, which served me well for a year before. But I wanted the idea of interchangeable lenses after seeing a friend's early Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. But that was many rolls ago. Collin
A new poll: Your first pentax?
The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
Re: Sunset
On 9 Jul 2005 at 1:02, Jens Bladt wrote: > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ Nice sunset composition, the exposure I think works as it is, the colour however intrigues me. 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: FS: 77mm lens
Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi: I have for sale, the following lens: Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Question: Is this manual or auto focus? Question: Is this SMC? Question: Will SWMBO free up the purse strings as recent lighting acquisitions have been high. Kind regards Kevin FA-lenses are all autofocus and SMC. /Henri
Re: Sunset
Nice composition. I think it's a bit over exposed, but that's just an opinion. Jens Bladt wrote: Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than photographing a sunset. I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a digital sunset before. But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. I kinda like this one. What do you think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ Regards Jens -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: FS: 77mm lens
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA77f1.8.html Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi: I have for sale, the following lens: Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Question: Is this manual or auto focus? Question: Is this SMC? Kind regards Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Sunset
Essentially, there's no right or wrong way to expose for a sunset. Sunsets can be interpreted many different ways. Best advice is to bracket and choose the one(s) you like best. That said, I'd agree with Bruce that this one's a bit over exposed. Still, it's a nice, tranquil photo, but more detail in the water would have helped this particular shot, imo. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Jens Bladt > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ > > Regards > Jens >
FS: my car died
Almost as bad as unemployment. But not quite. My 1991 Camry with 291,299 miles. Gave up the ghost. I bought it with about 98K miles on it. So it's been a cheap car to run. But now it needs replaced. So the Tokina AT-X 80-400 4.5/5.6 has to go. Email if you're interested. Collin
Green focus light on ist D
Dear All, On one of my lenses Tokina ATX 100-300 f4 Manual the green focus light does not come on when I focus on the ist D. Has anyone any clues why this might be so? Regards Charles Wilson Sydney Australia
Re: Sunset
Nicely composed and exposed. I find it pleasing in every way. The glare of the sun and its reflection ad to the intensity. Filter? Optical/PS? Jack --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more > complicated - than > photographing a sunset. > I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under > expose. I never done a > digital sunset before. > But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ > > Regards > Jens > > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: Fanatics
There are soccer fans, we have football, hockey, basketball and baseball fans. Fan, as I'm sure you're aware, is simply short for fanatic. My oldest son is fanatic about a game called "Star Wars Galaxies". I'm a fanatic when it comes to hunting and firearms safety and also about caring for veterans and their families. My friends are fanatic about their Harleys. A fanatic is simply a person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause. There is no judgment of the cause, as to whether it is good or bad. NEWS: Words have what we call connotations! Connotations are nuances in meaning or association that are: 1. Not in the dictionary. 2. Culturally assigned (usually). 3. Not universally accepted. Have you considered that the connotation(s) you assign to the word may, not be implied by others using it? Do you think that because you infer some meaning about what I said that I implied it? Inference does NOT prove implication, and assuming so has generated many arguments among men. Many of us, me included (but apparently not you), have an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, for things Pentax. Think about it the next time you see references to other brands such as N and C, etc. Nothing bad, evil or unusual is implied. Regards, Bob... - "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV From: "Graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> My only problem with your post is your misunderstanding of the word "fanatic". Used referring to enthusiasts like us on this list it is pure hyperbole. Fanaticism can be short term (mobs), or long term. It probably was a survival mechanism in hunter/gatherer societies. In industrial societies it is a source of unreasoned violence extraordinaire. All terrorists are fanatics, all fanatics are potential terrorists. The psychological mechanism is simple: "I believe in something" => "Death to unbelievers". It unfortunately seems to be an inate psychological mechanism in the human species. It does seem to apply to groups more than individuals. I wonder if there has been any research done on the minimum size of group needed to trigger it? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bob Blakely wrote: No one really knows for sure, but current thought is that sociopaths are born that way. Fanatics don't bother me. We're a list of fanatics after all. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/2005
Re: Sunset
Hello Jens, Very pretty. I would say that it is over-exposed, but survives it. There is a large burned out area from the sun. Seems the whole image could handle a bit less exposure without impacting it badly. Less burnout would render more detail in the water and horizon. Certainly this is very subjective and some people will like it bright and some may like it darker. -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, July 8, 2005, 4:02:32 PM, you wrote: JB> Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than JB> photographing a sunset. JB> I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a JB> digital sunset before. JB> But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. JB> I kinda like this one. What do you think: JB> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ JB> Regards JB> Jens
Re: Sunset
This one time, at band camp, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I kinda like this one. What do you think: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ Nice, really nice. nice composition also Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: FS: 77mm lens
This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi: > I have for sale, the following lens: > > Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Question: Is this manual or auto focus? Question: Is this SMC? Question: Will SWMBO free up the purse strings as recent lighting acquisitions have been high. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: FS: 77mm lens
This one time, at band camp, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi: > I have for sale, the following lens: > > Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Question: Is this manual or auto focus? Question: Is this SMC? Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Sunset
Nothing is more obviously easy and nothing is more complicated - than photographing a sunset. I don't even know if I'm supposed to over- or under expose. I never done a digital sunset before. But sometimes I'm just plain lucky. I kinda like this one. What do you think: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/24559000/ Regards Jens
Re: OT: How do you get your image on a greetings card?
these days, you would do something like what Photographer's Edge offers. your costs are high unless you deal in quantities of hundreds, but they cater to do it yourself card publishing. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:07 AM Subject: Re: OT: How do you get your image on a greetings card? A few years ago, a friend of mine decided she wanted to do Christmas cards for fun and profit. I believe she set up her own publishing company (not hard, just register a name) and she found a small press company who could do the short runs that she was after. Her interest was to get her work into small independant shops, rather than large chains. I suspect that the large companies (Hallmark, et al) probably have their own in house everything, and aren't too interested in talking to independants.
Re: How do you get your image on a greetings card?
artwork is basically copyright and the best you can do is sue for copyright infringement if they take your idea. it's very hard to deal with on such a limited scope. if you had done a whole series of cards, then you might have something. also, even if they like your idea and don't steal it, they are unlikely to be interested much unless you can prove that you are capable of churning out lots of these regularly. it's like stock photography. some places won't consider you unless you show them a couple of hundred really superb images and expect you to contribute dozens of equally good, creative images each month. not all places are this fussy, but it happens. Herb - Original Message - From: "Igor Roshchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:21 PM Subject: OT: How do you get your image on a greetings card? So, to make it a more universal question: I know that in a similar situation, in case of inventions, it is possible to apply for a patent; have an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) signed by the company; one can register a trademark design, but what can be done with the artwork?
Re: Water level solution
On 8/7/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: >Don't you know anything? Odd is the old Norse god of quantity surveying. Har!! And I thought Valhalla was some guy in drag. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Water level solution
> > On 8/7/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >That´s odd > > Where's the pun on spirit levels there?? > > Flaming Norwegians! Don't you know anything? Odd is the old Norse god of quantity surveying. Prost! Bob
Re: Water level solution
On 8/7/05, DagT, discombobulated, unleashed: >That´s odd Where's the pun on spirit levels there?? Flaming Norwegians! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Water level solution
På 8. jul. 2005 kl. 23.08 skrev Cotty: On 8/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: That's his Pimms Number 7 level. The port level stays full till winter time. So it's easy to level with him during the winter. He's the most level-headed man that I know. But on a different plane altogether. That's the spirit! Well, now we're even. That´s odd
Re: Pentax *ist DS / D
I got a reply from Keoptics: Hi Joaquim, Thank you very much for your inquiry. I do not have Katz Eye(tm) focusing screens available for the Pentax *ist DS at this time. It is certainly be a model I'd be willing to develop a screen for, however. Since each model requires individual calibration and development, I will need someone to lend me a *ist DS to work with for several weeks so I can fit, calibrate, and check the screen. If and when a volunteer becomes available, I will definitely make a screen for that model. Thanks again for your interest and if I can be of any further service, please let me know. Best regards, Rachael Katz Katz Eye Optics (916) 361 - 2143 Office www.keoptics.com Joaquim Carvalho wrote: Sorry for the confusion I caused a while ago with the BCCing to the list that made your filters fail. Anyway, here is the reply from precision optics. I'm now contacting Keoptics and will keep you informed. Dear Joaquim, I am currently involved in a cooperative venture to produce manual focusing screens for a wide variety of DSLRs. Rachael Katz of keoptics.com is making a line of large diameter microprism/split image rf focus screens for digital cameras. My part of this is to enhance the performance of these screens with my HI-LUX process which makes them brighter which then helps compensate for the darker viewfinders and slower lenses common to these cameras. Contact her through her website and she can give you single and quantity prices. Bill Maxwell
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare to the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class for sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant - I'm assuming these are all based on the same optical formula.) Also, how much of a point is AF for macro work? I mean, does the autofocus work very well on macro range? My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. Is this a 1:2 macro? Yes. You add the Tamron 1:1 tube to get to life size. You add it "before" the Tamron K-mount. This Tamron k-mount goes to the tube. You can also put the Tamron lens with its K mount over a combination of tubes reaching 45mm to get to life size. By the way, the 100mm f4 is excellent. With it, you need to add 50mm of tube to get to 1:1, so either with the 50mm pentax tube or with a combination of some of the tubes in the pentax set of three (or from a set from another brand) Andre
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Boris Liberman wrote: My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. It is manual focus, but I don't find it an obstacle. Actually for macro work manual focus lenses are probably better because of the better damping of there focus rings - hence better focus precision. I have the 90/2.8SP AD2. It is MF, but the design is AF and the manual focusing feel is looser. I think it also turns less end-to-end than the older 2.5 version; this I like. Also, I think the 2.5 is a 1:2 (1:1 with a dedicated extender), while the 2.8 is 1:1 on its own. http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~kavousan/Tulip2.jpg I don't feel I need AF for Macro. The main reason is perhaps that most of my cameras don't feature selectable AF points; in most cases I don't like my subject centred. Even if they did, I am not convinced. I had a SMC Pentax-A Macro 100:4; it is a very sharp lens, but I could not justify both lenses so I let it go. Kostas
Re: Water level solution
On 8/7/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: > That's his Pimms Number 7 level. The port level stays full till > winter time. So it's easy to level with him during the winter. >>> >>>He's the most level-headed man that I know. >> >>But on a different plane altogether. > >That's the spirit! Well, now we're even. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESOs: Downtown Dillsboro
On 8/7/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >Hmm. I was waiting for some other stuff to get done, so I wrote a >little page for you. Now I can see all of them easily, and clicking >on the individual images brings them up fast in another window. Takes >a moment to load: > >http://homepage.mac.com/godders/jon-m-index.htm Now yer cookin My that's a big train set. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax *ist DS / D
On 8/7/05, Joaquim Carvalho, discombobulated, unleashed: >Sorry for the confusion I caused a while ago with the BCCing to the list >that made your filters fail. Are you bill? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare to the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class for sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant - I'm assuming these are all based on the same optical formula.) Also, how much of a point is AF for macro work? I mean, does the autofocus work very well on macro range? My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. Is this a 1:2 macro? It is manual focus, but I don't find it an obstacle. Actually for macro work manual focus lenses are probably better because of the better damping of there focus rings - hence better focus precision. OK. I see. Boris
Re: PESOs: Downtown Dillsboro
Thanks! I might decide to incorporate that in my site for future photo galleries. --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 8, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Jon M wrote: > >>> Then for your convenience, here it is. :) > >>> http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/ > >> > >> Ha! Links. I like thumbnails ;-P > > But that's so much trouble to set up manually. :) > > Hmm. I was waiting for some other stuff to get done, > so I wrote a > little page for you. Now I can see all of them > easily, and clicking > on the individual images brings them up fast in > another window. Takes > a moment to load: > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/jon-m-index.htm > > Just grab the source and use it as a template if you > want. It was > easy to do by using a little search and replace text > processing and a > spreadsheet. > > Normally, for this kind of casual page display, I'd > use a template > and iView Media Pro to generate it for me. > > Some fun photos. I love trains. ;-) > > Godfrey > > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: FS: 77mm lens
On 8/7/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >I have for sale, the following lens: > >Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. You must have a new one lined up.. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Back from the silence
On 8/7/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis, discombobulated, unleashed: >http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~kavousan/ember.jpg Just need some olives and that pizza is ready! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Back from the silence
On 8/7/05, Gianfranco Irlanda, discombobulated, unleashed: >Unfortunately not. It was 5 a.m. when it all happened, and I >missed the chance to escape at the very first moment. After a >few minutes the smoke cluttered the stairwell and I was more >worried about trying to keep my mother and all the cats in a >safe place while we were waiting for the firemen to arrive. I >could have taken just uninteresting (but scaring) pics of the >smoke entering from the balconies... If you want, I can show you >how the situation was immediately after the fire was >estinguished. Take a look here: >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3523295 Wow. Those some hot pants hanging up there? ;-) glad you and your family were okay. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: FS: 77mm lens
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Hi: >I have for sale, the following lens: > >Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Damn! No money available at the moment... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: grip for the *istDS
Ditto to that. (especially the portrait shutter release). dk On 7/8/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Bertil Holmberg wrote: > > > Why do you want to make it much larger? > > I don't have one, but I can tell you why I miss a grip on the Z-1p: > > - Because when mounting a long and/or heavy lens, I cannot get a good > grip of the camera > > - Because a shutter button for portraits would be ace > > - Because the alternative/additional battery can only be a good thing > > I tried the grip that goes with the (similar to the *ist-D size) MZ-50 > and -5n and I never took it off. > > > Why not simply buy a hideous Nikon instead? > > Aesthetically, grips nowadays are not the artificial add-on the 70s > and 80s winders were. Plus, you can actually take off a grip, what do > you do to reduce the size of a "hideous Nikon"? > > Kostas > >
Re: FS: 77mm lens
> I have for sale, the following lens: > Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. Hmmm... How come, William? Fred
FS: 77mm lens
Hi: I have for sale, the following lens: Pentax FA77mm f1.8 Limited. This is one of the original silver ones, and has a fairly low S.N.. It has been used, but not abused, and is in very good condition. I should be able to provide all original packaging and manuals for it. I will include the matching silver UV filter. I would like CAN$650.00 for it, but will entertain reasonable offers. Lens will be shipped upon reciept of payment. Payment will be refunded (minus shipping one way) if the lens is not satisfactory upon arrival. Shipping will be by insured mail unless otherwise specified by the purchaser. I will provide pictures of the lens to interested parties. Thanks William Robb
Re: FS Friday/MZ3 & lenses
Hello folks, I inadvertently made a slight misrepresentation of a product. When describing the MZ3 Black Limited body, I copied most part of the original post except the fact that the 43mm Limited lens which "CAME" with it was broken up and sold separately. I thought I made it clear of this fact, but the following para became confusing because I said it "comes" with the 43mm Ltd Black. I should have said it "CAME' with but should not have referred to the 43mm Black Limited at all in the first place. Absolutely no intention to cheat or bait anybody, and please accept my sincere apologies. It does come with a body cap and a special leather strap with logo. But doesn't it look sexy even with a lowly 28-108? :-). Cheers, Ken > It is a Japan only model, and comes with the special edition MZ-3 Limited > black, 43mm Ltd black and a brown leather strap. Like new. Perhaps 5 > rolls went through and otherwise, babied. Absolute mint with no scratch, > nothing. Maintained with occasional dry shutter. > It comes with a body cap, an original Pentax leather strap with logo and a > lower leather case. > > U.S.$270 > > USD 370 with FA28-105 as shown
Re: grip for the *istDS
Hey All How do I actually buy one of those ? /Jorn - Original Message - From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: Re: grip for the *istDS http://www.dicain.com/2002/zb/view.php?id=notice&no=51 http://www.dicain.com/2002/zb/view.php?id=notice&no=49 Dario - Original Message - From: "Derby Chang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:10 AM Subject: grip for the *istDS Hello, Back online again. Lots of interesting (and sad) threads to read. Quick question. Does anyone have the link to that Korean site with the vertical grip for the *ist DS? I tried searching the archives, but couldnt find it. D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 06-07-2005 -- Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere. Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at få 1262 spam-mails. Betalende brugere får ikke denne besked i deres e-mails. Hent gratis SPAMfighter her: www.spamfighter.dk
RE: Fanatics
> The world's three largest religions (Islam, Bhuddism, > and Christianity) are, unsurprisingly, the only three with > histories of practicing 'conversion by the sword'. 1. Buddhism is not one of the 3 largest religions 2. There are far more than 3 religions with a history of conversion by the sword 3. Give us some examples of Buddhists using violence to convert people 4. Why 'unsurprisingly'? -- Cheers, Bob
