Re: PESO: Nice Tomatoes
On Dec 31, 2005, at 2:25 AM, frank theriault wrote: Well, I know this is getting OT, but I didn't like tomatoes for the first 20 years of my life, because we lived in the city, had no garden, and I'd only ever tasted those pink cardboard things that they import from 8000 miles away into the supermarkets. I hated those. Then, I tasted a garden-fresh one from my then-wife's father's garden, and I was in heaven!! Now I'm spoiled - only homegrown garden-fresh does it for me. When I was a lad, my grandparents owned an orchard with some large glasshouses full of tomato plants. We'd regularly take home a whole box of freshly picked tomatoes after a visit. We'd usually open the box and eat a couple on the way home... until the day I bit into one that was still a bit green on the inside. Put me off for life. I know it sounds weird but I've never eaten tomato since then, unless it's either finely chopped or pureed, and used as an ingredient in a dish of some sort. - Dave
Re: PAW: Into the Game
On Dec 31, 2005, at 2:41 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Frank, I am surprised that you're not familiar with the work of M.C. Escher You may be pleasantly surprised at what you find, especially if you can find some examples of his work. I have this Escher-based screensaver installed on my system. http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/icons_screensavers/ lotsaescher.html It just constantly zooms in while rotating the picture (it self- repeats). When you deactivate it the effect is quite disorienting as the brain thinks the desktop should still be spinning when it really isn't. It's probably not a surprise that I don't actually use that screensaver :) I currently use one called Fireflies which is a little bit similar to the ancient X11 swarm saver. - Dave
Re: OT: Published!
Congratulation, excellent news. And a safe healthy New Year to you. Dave On 12/31/05, Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sent on the day itself but list appeared to have eaten it up.. Anyway, small joy- a photo I took has been published around 4 x 6 in the Courier Mail (4th highest circulation Aussie paper (2nd highest broadsheet). Page 52 on xmas eve, to promote the Woodford Folk Festival (130,000 crowd last year). Not taken with any Pentax gear, hence the OT. For anyone who's interested, a scan: http://www.divineimagination.com//images/press_woodford05.jpg Have a great New Year everyone! Ryan
Re: Into the Game
On Dec 31, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Cheap seats isn't meant to imply they didn't cost alot, but that they are the cheapest seats offered in a given venue. We also called them nose-bleed seats cause they are so far up in the stratosphere. In ice hockey the nose-bleed seats are front-row. Carisbrook, one of our major stadiums, used to have a Scotsman's grandstand. This was the stretch of road that goes behind the stadium on a neighbouring hill. People used to line up and watch the game for free, but the view was eventually blocked by a redevelopment. - Dave
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
At least you get a specific warning: http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/5-nov-2005/xp3.jpg (it probably relates to the horrendous undertow at this beach) Or even a legible one... http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/5-nov-2005/xp17.jpg - Dave On Dec 31, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Keith McGuinness wrote: A couple of days ago we had Perry's story of The attack of the rogue squirrel (Peso(s) How a nice day went wrong). I offer this PESO as evidence of the dangers I faced in obtaining the photos I posted in my recent GESO (not PESO, as pointed out by Cory)! http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/pesosigns/photos/ photo1.html (FYI The photograph of the seagull was taken from a spot on the beach almost directly behind the left hand sign.) Happy New Year to all! (It's December 31 here, so I can say that.) Keith Enjoying the photos and discussion. http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/peso/index.html
Re: Canon 1Ds MarkII Test Drive
On Dec 30, 2005, at 10:48 PM, Cotty wrote: On 30/12/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: This is out-of-the box, as I use my *istD brightness control. So based on this, when you buy a new TV, and plug it in and find nothing to watch, presumably you decide it is not worth the hassle of finding out how to actually tune the bugger in ??? ;-) My TV came pre-tuned but there's still nothing to watch :( - Dave
Re: Canon 1Ds MarkII Test Drive
On Dec 31, 2005, at 2:28 AM, Ryan Lee wrote: Not sure what it might be like in other states, but I've been in Brisbane for 4 years, and in all that time, every reference to a tinnie referred to tinnie as in this context: http://www.biaq.com/content/standard.asp? name=BrisbaneTinnieandTackleShow In these parts a tinnie can refer to a small quantity of an illicit drug (usually cannabis) wrapped in foil. A place that dispenses tinnies is called a tinnie house (that sounds quite funny to me). They're usually a dodgy old house in a dodgy neighbourhood. IIRC the money and product are exchanged through the mail slot in the door (mail slots are only found in older houses - actual mail is placed in the letterbox at the end of the driveway). A can of beer is the more common meaning though... just make sure you're at the right party when you ask for one :) - Dave
RE: PESO (and Happy New Year)
Very thoughtful of them to provide a menu in the middle for the crocodiles. That's an enormous poodle on the menu. Or very tiny people. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Keith McGuinness [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 December 2005 05:22 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO (and Happy New Year) A couple of days ago we had Perry's story of The attack of the rogue squirrel (Peso(s) How a nice day went wrong). I offer this PESO as evidence of the dangers I faced in obtaining the photos I posted in my recent GESO (not PESO, as pointed out by Cory)! http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/pesosigns/pho tos/photo1.html (FYI The photograph of the seagull was taken from a spot on the beach almost directly behind the left hand sign.) Happy New Year to all! (It's December 31 here, so I can say that.) Keith Enjoying the photos and discussion. http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/peso/index.html
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Fred wrote: I ask because I used to have the 43/1.9, and I used to grumble about a whirring sort of manual focus feel to that lens design, yet I do not feel that annoyance with the 77/1.8 at all. Is the 77/1.8 better in this regard, or is my mind merely playing tricks on me? Alan Chan (where is that soul? Hope you are well mate!) had reported that Pentax had modified the 77's gearing. Perhaps you have one of the newer models. HTH, Kostas
RE: Published!
Congratulations - it's a terrific photo. But no credit? AAHNY21ALL -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 December 2005 04:51 To: PDML Subject: OT: Published! Sent on the day itself but list appeared to have eaten it up.. Anyway, small joy- a photo I took has been published around 4 x 6 in the Courier Mail (4th highest circulation Aussie paper (2nd highest broadsheet). Page 52 on xmas eve, to promote the Woodford Folk Festival (130,000 crowd last year). Not taken with any Pentax gear, hence the OT. For anyone who's interested, a scan: http://www.divineimagination.com//images/press_woodford05.jpg Have a great New Year everyone! Ryan
RE: PESO: Nice Tomatoes
Not nice - perfect! I wonder how many chemicals it took to make such beautiful tomatoes :-) Excellent photograph, though. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. december 2005 16:11 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PESO: Nice Tomatoes FA 35/2 on the *istD, f11, ISO 200, three flash units: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3983927
RE: PESO: Noodles
With this lens, you might want to photograph a lunch of - fish :-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Michael Spivak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. december 2005 18:39 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PESO: Noodles A photo of my friend eating his lunch :) Pentax ME Super + Zenitar 16 + Ilford PAN 400 http://mishka.site.co.il/gallery/albums/Miscelaneous/PAN400_0001.jpg -- Yours Michael
RE: Presents
The D uses CF cards. A little difficult to get out. It takes a little thumb nail scratching, but I got used to it :-) Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. december 2005 19:25 Til: pentax list Emne: Presents Biggest ones: Stefan: Canon printer! Me: Boxed sets of Voyager DVDs :-) Alma: Pentax *ist Ds Har, I been playing with this cute lil thing (the camera, not my wife). 1. Rocker switch affair on the back - it works fine, just need the knack. 2. Nice body build, feels solid enough. (my wife, as well as the camera) 3. Menu hierarchy seems okay, can't figure out how to change ISO but what the hell, will read the manual eventually. 4. Eyepiece rubber is flimsy and pretty useless. 5. Put some AAs in and in no time it was flashing 'battery depleted' at me. Measured 1.47 volts across all. Harumph. Put some fresh one's in and seems okay. 6. Tried some old manual lenses on, icluding Tokina 17 3.5 and worked okay - after I took it out of AF- S mode and left it in continuous. I don't believe in single anything. No green buttons, it just works. (Already upped the firmware to 2.0) 7. It's so slw compared to the 1D but hey, no surprise. Fast enough for her ladyship. She loves the pop-up flash. 8. The SD card is easy to get at - same or different to the D? 9. So light, the whole camera weighs about the same as the 1D's battery alone. 10. Overall, a nice little thing. Looks like the MX will take a back seat for a while. We have a dodgy old FA 35-70 macro that can do duty as a jack-of-all-trades lens for now. Worryingly, she asked me what the next PUG theme was ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Presents
I bought two presents for me :-) : 1. SMC-P FA 2.8 80-200mm ED(IF) (used) 2. Flash Trax Ither tnah that i got nice kitchen stuff and books about making nice pasta... Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. december 2005 19:25 Til: pentax list Emne: Presents Biggest ones: Stefan: Canon printer! Me: Boxed sets of Voyager DVDs :-) Alma: Pentax *ist Ds Har, I been playing with this cute lil thing (the camera, not my wife). 1. Rocker switch affair on the back - it works fine, just need the knack. 2. Nice body build, feels solid enough. (my wife, as well as the camera) 3. Menu hierarchy seems okay, can't figure out how to change ISO but what the hell, will read the manual eventually. 4. Eyepiece rubber is flimsy and pretty useless. 5. Put some AAs in and in no time it was flashing 'battery depleted' at me. Measured 1.47 volts across all. Harumph. Put some fresh one's in and seems okay. 6. Tried some old manual lenses on, icluding Tokina 17 3.5 and worked okay - after I took it out of AF- S mode and left it in continuous. I don't believe in single anything. No green buttons, it just works. (Already upped the firmware to 2.0) 7. It's so slw compared to the 1D but hey, no surprise. Fast enough for her ladyship. She loves the pop-up flash. 8. The SD card is easy to get at - same or different to the D? 9. So light, the whole camera weighs about the same as the 1D's battery alone. 10. Overall, a nice little thing. Looks like the MX will take a back seat for a while. We have a dodgy old FA 35-70 macro that can do duty as a jack-of-all-trades lens for now. Worryingly, she asked me what the next PUG theme was ! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
PAW - Restoration
It's about time I did some more scanning... http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=177t=1 That was a handheld exposure at 1/15th using the trusty old K2 and SMCP 35mm f/3.5 lens. I honestly didn't think it'd work but I flipped up the mirror and tried anyway because I couldn't resist the lighting. I've also done a BW conversion of this photo: just follow the link in the comments. I used a Channel Mixer layer with about 90% blue because I wanted to reduce the impact of the yellow stuff. Cheers, - Dave
PESO - Happy New Year
This one isn't going in my official PAW gallery so I've called it a PESO instead. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=175 When I saw the window I couldn't resist taking a couple of photos of it, but a fence made it nearly impossible. To get this I had to stand on my toes and hold the camera upside-down against the top of the fence. It would have been easier if I'd been using a smaller lens as it would have fit between the links in the fence. There is an occasional down-side to carrying the A*85mm f/1.4 :) And here's another one a few frames later on the roll... it's the opposite side of the building. The Fire Exit sign grabbed my attention, but it's barely even visible in the web image. http://www.bluemoon.smurf.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=176 Cheers, - Dave (3 minutes to go... where's my drink...)
RE: Presents
Jens Bladt wrote: I bought two presents for me :-) : 1. SMC-P FA 2.8 80-200mm ED(IF) (used) 2. Flash Trax Ither tnah that i got nice kitchen stuff and books about making nice pasta... Well, that certainly puts my new slippers into perspective :-( A happy and photographically successful new year to all on PDML. Malcolm
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: RE: PESO (and Happy New Year) Very thoughtful of them to provide a menu in the middle for the crocodiles. That's an enormous poodle on the menu. Poodles: The other red meat. William Robb
AF280T Flash Question
AF280T Flash problem/question: I used it with near new batteries; it performed normally for a dozen or so shots. Then it recycled very slowly followed by heating up and not recycling at all. I removed the batteries and put it away. The next day, I loaded new batteries and it recycled as normal when used on my K2. I am concerned about using it on the PZ-1 due to the described situation. Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom. Lewis _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
RE: AF280T Flash Question
3 things I can think of: 1.) You had a bad battery in the first set, it shorted internally when it got warm and continued to discharge. 2.) The capacitor in the flash shorted internally when it got warm and wouldn't charge. When allowed to cool it started acting normalally again. 3.) The flash trigger circuit in the PZ isn't going 'open' fully. (Unlikely) My guess would be #1, set the flash to manual/full mode and fire it by hand 10-20 times. This will both test and 'form' (condition) the capacitor. If this is OK then repeat using the K2 to fire it. Try it on the PZ again, if it fails it is most likely a fault in the PZ trigger circuit. The 280 is compatible with any Pentax 35 SLR made and should work fine on any of them. Within camera limitations of course. Don -Original Message- From: Lewis Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:44 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: AF280T Flash Question AF280T Flash problem/question: I used it with near new batteries; it performed normally for a dozen or so shots. Then it recycled very slowly followed by heating up and not recycling at all. I removed the batteries and put it away. The next day, I loaded new batteries and it recycled as normal when used on my K2. I am concerned about using it on the PZ-1 due to the described situation. Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom. Lewis _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: Happy New Year!
Thank you, and a happy new year to you all from my part, too. Pancho John Coyle schrieb: As Keith McGuinness said, it's already New Year's Eve here, so here's wishing everyone a happy and prosperous 2006! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: PESO: Nice Tomatoes
Those pretty tomatoes are from Israel, as are many of our winter tomatoes. They're better than the hothouse tomatoes we used to get in the winter in that they have some flavor, but they're not very juicy, which probably helps give them a longer shelf life. I bought them because they were the prettiest I could find. The store (a pricey gourmet grocery) also had some tomatoes that were allegedly vine ripened from Mexico. They looked more like the ones I grow. Not very pretty, but very good to eat. Paul On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:20 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: Not nice - perfect! I wonder how many chemicals it took to make such beautiful tomatoes :-) Excellent photograph, though. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 29. december 2005 16:11 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PESO: Nice Tomatoes FA 35/2 on the *istD, f11, ISO 200, three flash units: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3983927
Nikon lens on M42 body???????
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PAW - Restoration
Nice shot. Interesting perspective. Paul On Dec 31, 2005, at 5:49 AM, David Mann wrote: It's about time I did some more scanning... http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=177t=1 That was a handheld exposure at 1/15th using the trusty old K2 and SMCP 35mm f/3.5 lens. I honestly didn't think it'd work but I flipped up the mirror and tried anyway because I couldn't resist the lighting. I've also done a BW conversion of this photo: just follow the link in the comments. I used a Channel Mixer layer with about 90% blue because I wanted to reduce the impact of the yellow stuff. Cheers, - Dave
Re: AF280T Flash Question
The AF280 is a pretty robust flash unit. I would do as Don suggests and fire the unit 10 times or so by hand to see what happens. I also think the PZ-1 is pretty robust and will not be destroyed by any faults in the AF280. When I have not used the AF280 for months, I do notice an initial slowness to recycle after flash. This goes away after some use as the capacitors are re-formed to accept a charge. Since I know this happens, I make sure to fire the flash on full manual 5-6 times with older batteries. Then, I change to a fresh set of batteries and am ready to go with re-formed capacitors and better recycle times. Regards, Bob S. On 12/31/05, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3 things I can think of: 1.) You had a bad battery in the first set, it shorted internally when it got warm and continued to discharge. 2.) The capacitor in the flash shorted internally when it got warm and wouldn't charge. When allowed to cool it started acting normalally again. 3.) The flash trigger circuit in the PZ isn't going 'open' fully. (Unlikely) My guess would be #1, set the flash to manual/full mode and fire it by hand 10-20 times. This will both test and 'form' (condition) the capacitor. If this is OK then repeat using the K2 to fire it. Try it on the PZ again, if it fails it is most likely a fault in the PZ trigger circuit. The 280 is compatible with any Pentax 35 SLR made and should work fine on any of them. Within camera limitations of course. Don -Original Message- From: Lewis Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:44 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: AF280T Flash Question AF280T Flash problem/question: I used it with near new batteries; it performed normally for a dozen or so shots. Then it recycled very slowly followed by heating up and not recycling at all. I removed the batteries and put it away. The next day, I loaded new batteries and it recycled as normal when used on my K2. I am concerned about using it on the PZ-1 due to the described situation. Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom. Lewis _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
RE: AF280T Flash Question
From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: AF280T Flash Question Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:05:35 -0600 3 things I can think of: 1.) You had a bad battery in the first set, it shorted internally when it got warm and continued to discharge. 2.) The capacitor in the flash shorted internally when it got warm and wouldn't charge. When allowed to cool it started acting normalally again. 3.) The flash trigger circuit in the PZ isn't going 'open' fully. (Unlikely) My guess would be #1, set the flash to manual/full mode and fire it by hand 10-20 times. This will both test and 'form' (condition) the capacitor. If this is OK then repeat using the K2 to fire it. Try it on the PZ again, if it fails it is most likely a fault in the PZ trigger circuit. The 280 is compatible with any Pentax 35 SLR made and should work fine on any of them. Within camera limitations of course. Don -Original Message- From: Lewis Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:44 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: AF280T Flash Question AF280T Flash problem/question: I used it with near new batteries; it performed normally for a dozen or so shots. Then it recycled very slowly followed by heating up and not recycling at all. I removed the batteries and put it away. The next day, I loaded new batteries and it recycled as normal when used on my K2. I am concerned about using it on the PZ-1 due to the described situation. Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom. Lewis Thanks, Don. I will follow your directions for #1. The Pz1 is okay with my AF400FTZ, so it isn't likely to be the PZ trigger circuit. Best, Lewis _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
RE: PESO -- Flat Iron's come in all sizes...
I like this a lot. Colours, exposure, angle, a interesting subject, and ... I have a feeling it would grow after a little cropping at the bottom. The only thing is that it is a bit too large for my monitor. So I can't really say. Cool. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28. desember 2005 03:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO -- Flat Iron's come in all sizes... Usually when you think of a Flatiron building you think of a skyscraper, (more than 4 stories at least), but not in this case... http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_flatiron.html Tech info: Pentax *ist-Ds iso 200 @ 20s smc Pentax 17mm fisheye f4.0 @ f5.6 -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: PESO Shit happens...
Sorry about the hand. Kind of cool shot. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Albano Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27. desember 2005 23:04 To: PDML Subject: PESO Shit happens... http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar/2005/12/27/operado/ I'll be out of business for about 3 to 4 weeks. I got a simple surgery on my hand due to a stupid-moment-punch I gave to a street signal. Regards Albano Albano Garcia Photography Graphic Design http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar http://www.flaneur.com.ar __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: PAW - Restoration
David, Is that an old railway car? Regards, Bob S. On 12/31/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's about time I did some more scanning... http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=177t=1 That was a handheld exposure at 1/15th using the trusty old K2 and SMCP 35mm f/3.5 lens. I honestly didn't think it'd work but I flipped up the mirror and tried anyway because I couldn't resist the lighting. I've also done a BW conversion of this photo: just follow the link in the comments. I used a Channel Mixer layer with about 90% blue because I wanted to reduce the impact of the yellow stuff. Cheers, - Dave
Re: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
It doesn't say anywhere in that eBay listing that it maintains infinity focus. Bob On Dec 31, 2005, at 8:25 AM, Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: Adobe's User-to-User Photography Forum
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I just discovered Adobe's User-to-User Photography Forum this evening. Looks like there are some topics that would be of interest to PDMLers. Where are the threads on beer, cars, guns and GW Bush? :-) S
Re: Kodak EasyShare Picture Viewer $30 thru 12/31/05
Bob Sullivan wrote: It is really quite slick. I popped the SD card out of the *istDs and into the viewer and volla!, there are my pictures. Think of it as a digital version of 'Grandma's Brag Book'. Bet it can't read RAW tho'... S
TOPDML meet up pics
Hey gang. Had a good meet up Friday afternoon. Dave was pretty much on time.vbg Met Adam for the first time. Nice chap, with interesting travel bags.:-) Jeff had the newish Texas Leica and Dave had real Leica's. Frank had a neat hat, no Leica.LOL http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks Still trying to get the hang of Flickr's tags and sets, but here are three shots from Friday. Stole Godfrey's idea for one shot. Not bad for a first attempt i think.:-) Comments appreciated. istD with 16 fisheye, one converted to BW using Godders method. Still have problems with it as i don't know how to position layers between things very well yet.:-) Dave
Re: PAW - Restoration
Great shot Dave. I like both versions, but the colour one has a more dramatic feel to it. Dave It's about time I did some more scanning... http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=177t=1 That was a handheld exposure at 1/15th using the trusty old K2 and SMCP 35mm f/3.5 lens. I honestly didn't think it'd work but I flipped up the mirror and tried anyway because I couldn't resist the lighting. I've also done a BW conversion of this photo: just follow the link in the comments. I used a Channel Mixer layer with about 90% blue because I wanted to reduce the impact of the yellow stuff. Cheers, - Dave
RE: peso: Coils
Spooky, but I really like it. The shallow dof makes it a bit abstract, but it _is_ a snake. I love how it rolls in and out of focus. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28. desember 2005 05:28 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: peso: Coils (A different kind of coils than in the book) To get this shot I used a technique that I read about in one of Tim Fitzharris's books. As soon as I found this guy I quickly dropped my Tilly hat over him, then got all set up and, when I was ready, quietly lifted the hat. and there he was exactly how and where I wanted him. This fellow was quite ripe to molt (as you can see from the fogging up of the scale that covers his eye) and though they tend to be extra fierce then (I guess they're nervous because they can't see any thing) he was very cooperative. note: the colors that come out of my scanner are quite unrelated to the colors on the photo I put into it so, though I spent about half a hour trying to fix them in PS, they aren't much like the original. http://www.photosynth.ca/photo/f/snake.html That was on Fuji 100 print film (while I was waiting for them slow pokes to send my next case of slide) in my P3n (sitting on my bean bag) with my late 2x Vivatar macro TC and M 50mm f2. What do you think? Cheers, Francis
Re: Happy New Year!
This one time, at band camp, John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Keith McGuinness said, it's already New Year's Eve here, so here's wishing everyone a happy and prosperous 2006! Its now new years day in .au A happy and safe new year to you all. 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: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
RE: Happy New Year!
Hipp, hipp, happy, new year to you all! Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31. desember 2005 08:44 To: Pentax-Discuss Subject: Happy New Year! As Keith McGuinness said, it's already New Year's Eve here, so here's wishing everyone a happy and prosperous 2006! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
PUG open
Hi folks, the PUG gallery for January is open. It can be viewed at http://pug.komkon.org And on my Website http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/06jan Happy New Year Adelheid -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
Continuous vs. Single focus
Cotty wrote: 6. Tried some old manual lenses on, icluding Tokina 17 3.5 and worked okay - after I took it out of AF- S mode and left it in continuous. I don't believe in single anything. No green buttons, it just works. (Already upped the firmware to 2.0) For many years I was regretting that my Pentax camera did not have a continuous focusing capability. [lyrical digression = ON] In 1997 I was looking at Nikon N70 and N90 (aka F90 outside of the US). (I had a manual body - Kiev 19 that had N-mount). I shot a roll of film with each of them around the local photo store that allowed me doing that. I liked Nikon's AF. I didn't like N70's ergonomics, and couldn't afford N90 at that point. Then I saw description of the ZX-5n and some praises to its ergonomics and qualities, and bought it from from BH or Adorama, even without trying. I loved its ergonomics. It was so close to what I used to - the manual SLR camera - where I could set the shutter and aperture blindfolded. The only thing that made me sad is the absence of continuous AF. I didn't know that it wouldn't be there.. I've used ZX-5n for several years, and really liked it. There a few times I wished I had a C-AF (e.g. when shooting dancers). ... But I learned how to work with a single-AF in a variety of situations. In 2004-2005, while considering a digital camera, I was glad that finally, *ist D had the continous focus. I was thinking about switching to D-70, but my existing Pentax-dedicated gear was a big factor to stay with Pentax. I was really disappointed to find out that DS that I finally decided on, - again, didn't have C-AF. Nevertheless, I purchased it in June 2005 (as I had an event where I needed it). I was rather pissed when shortly after that DS2 came out with the C-AF. [lyrical digression = OFF] Earlier this month I was glad to read that the firmware upgrade finally included the C-AF. So, I upgraded the firmware, and had an occasion soon after (some variety on stage performance) where I could use that. What I found is that I am so much used to S-AF, that I prefered it even when I was shooting dancers. (Well, it was a bit dark there, and the C-AF was not keeping up..). I am going to try C-AF again, but so far, I haven't used it... Igor
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Alan seems to be holding forth on Pentax's long term viability on the DP review Pentax Forum these days. Though I've seen a post from him here not long ago. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Fred wrote: I ask because I used to have the 43/1.9, and I used to grumble about a whirring sort of manual focus feel to that lens design, yet I do not feel that annoyance with the 77/1.8 at all. Is the 77/1.8 better in this regard, or is my mind merely playing tricks on me? Alan Chan (where is that soul? Hope you are well mate!) had reported that Pentax had modified the 77's gearing. Perhaps you have one of the newer models. HTH, Kostas -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PUG open
Thanks! And Happy New Year! DagT Den 31. des. 2005 kl. 18.43 skrev AvK: Hi folks, the PUG gallery for January is open. It can be viewed at http://pug.komkon.org And on my Website http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/06jan Happy New Year Adelheid -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Fred, That 43/1.9 you sold me still has a whirring to it, but I don't mind. My silver 77/1.8 is a lot quieter, but still has a bit of noise when focusing. I bought a black 31/1.8 and it is quieter still, the quietest but still some noise. Then I splurged on a black 77, a little more noise, and then a black 43, still more... On the whole, the blacks are without a notable whir, more like a drag or very high pitched, quiet/constant meshing of gears. Here's how they rank... Your silver 43 - 'whirring' like always The silver 77 - modest noise, -1db, not a clicking or whirring but something The black 43 - just a bit quieter than the 77 (-.5db?) The black 77 - still quieter The black 31 - quietest of the crew, probably -2db (did somebody say fine sand?) Perhaps the blacks will develop more noise, but the 43 and 77 are just out of the box. So now I think I'm gonna sell the silvers, after I test the lenses (damned Wheafield Willie has to go and say some are sharper than others!) Regards, Bob On 12/30/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. For those of you with the 77/1.8 and also either the 31/1.8 or the 43/1.9, could you please describe the focus feel of the 77/1.8 as compared with the either or both of the others. I ask because I used to have the 43/1.9, and I used to grumble about a whirring sort of manual focus feel to that lens design, yet I do not feel that annoyance with the 77/1.8 at all. Is the 77/1.8 better in this regard, or is my mind merely playing tricks on me? [Of course, I do know that, even if they are different, my mind may still be playing tricks on me, but I digress...] Fred
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Fred, I know you didn't like that whir in the 43, but it is really very, very quiet...barely a whisper. Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, I'm sure you could learn to love that 43mm limited you orphaned some years ago. Regards, Bob S. On 12/31/05, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred, That 43/1.9 you sold me still has a whirring to it, but I don't mind. My silver 77/1.8 is a lot quieter, but still has a bit of noise when focusing. I bought a black 31/1.8 and it is quieter still, the quietest but still some noise. Then I splurged on a black 77, a little more noise, and then a black 43, still more... On the whole, the blacks are without a notable whir, more like a drag or very high pitched, quiet/constant meshing of gears. Here's how they rank... Your silver 43 - 'whirring' like always The silver 77 - modest noise, -1db, not a clicking or whirring but something The black 43 - just a bit quieter than the 77 (-.5db?) The black 77 - still quieter The black 31 - quietest of the crew, probably -2db (did somebody say fine sand?) Perhaps the blacks will develop more noise, but the 43 and 77 are just out of the box. So now I think I'm gonna sell the silvers, after I test the lenses (damned Wheafield Willie has to go and say some are sharper than others!) Regards, Bob On 12/30/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi. For those of you with the 77/1.8 and also either the 31/1.8 or the 43/1.9, could you please describe the focus feel of the 77/1.8 as compared with the either or both of the others. I ask because I used to have the 43/1.9, and I used to grumble about a whirring sort of manual focus feel to that lens design, yet I do not feel that annoyance with the 77/1.8 at all. Is the 77/1.8 better in this regard, or is my mind merely playing tricks on me? [Of course, I do know that, even if they are different, my mind may still be playing tricks on me, but I digress...] Fred
Re: Presents
In a message dated 12/31/2005 3:17:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jens Bladt wrote: I bought two presents for me :-) : 1. SMC-P FA 2.8 80-200mm ED(IF) (used) 2. Flash Trax Ither tnah that i got nice kitchen stuff and books about making nice pasta... Well, that certainly puts my new slippers into perspective :-( A happy and photographically successful new year to all on PDML. Malcom === Yeah, but you'll notice that a lot of us (not all, but a lot) that got cool photography-type presents bought them for ourselves. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: OT: Published!
In a message dated 12/30/2005 8:47:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sent on the day itself but list appeared to have eaten it up.. Anyway, small joy- a photo I took has been published around 4 x 6 in the Courier Mail (4th highest circulation Aussie paper (2nd highest broadsheet). Page 52 on xmas eve, to promote the Woodford Folk Festival (130,000 crowd last year). Not taken with any Pentax gear, hence the OT. For anyone who's interested, a scan: http://www.divineimagination.com//images/press_woodford05.jpg Have a great New Year everyone! Ryan Cool, congrats! And that's a very cool shot, I can see why they used it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
Love the Pelican photo. They are such primitive looking animals. I think I have dozens of shots of them, but none as nice as yours. Glad you faced the dangers and got to a enjoy a nice looking beach. Happy New year to you and all of PDML. Perry. On 12/31/05, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of days ago we had Perry's story of The attack of the rogue squirrel (Peso(s) How a nice day went wrong). I offer this PESO as evidence of the dangers I faced in obtaining the photos I posted in my recent GESO (not PESO, as pointed out by Cory)! http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/pesosigns/photos/photo1.html (FYI The photograph of the seagull was taken from a spot on the beach almost directly behind the left hand sign.) Happy New Year to all! (It's December 31 here, so I can say that.) Keith Enjoying the photos and discussion. http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/peso/index.html -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PAW - Restoration
In a message dated 12/31/2005 5:44:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, Is that an old railway car? Regards, Bob S. === Yeah, I couldn't quite figure out what it was/is. Looks like a subway car or something. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
Australia? Jack --- Perry Pellechia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Love the Pelican photo. They are such primitive looking animals. I think I have dozens of shots of them, but none as nice as yours. Glad you faced the dangers and got to a enjoy a nice looking beach. Happy New year to you and all of PDML. Perry. On 12/31/05, Keith McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A couple of days ago we had Perry's story of The attack of the rogue squirrel (Peso(s) How a nice day went wrong). I offer this PESO as evidence of the dangers I faced in obtaining the photos I posted in my recent GESO (not PESO, as pointed out by Cory)! http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/pesosigns/photos/photo1.html (FYI The photograph of the seagull was taken from a spot on the beach almost directly behind the left hand sign.) Happy New Year to all! (It's December 31 here, so I can say that.) Keith Enjoying the photos and discussion. http://www.users.bigpond.com/keith.mcguinness/ph/peso/index.html -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
Re: PESO: Nice Tomatoes
In a message dated 12/29/2005 7:13:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FA 35/2 on the *istD, f11, ISO 200, three flash units: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3983927 == Nice shot, Paul. Very colorful and graphic. Two niggly little points. There appears to be a bit of dirt (curved) to the right of the top tomato that I'd clone out. There is also a darker grain in wood that appears to be almost suspended between the two prongs of the knife. I'd clone it out too or tone down the darkness so that it lays back instead of springing forward. Niggly, like I said. ;-) Very nice. Marnie aka Doe
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PUG open
Favorites on the Technology theme: #1 - Disk Reflection by Jan van Wijk is technology today! #2 - Power by Jens Bladt is a really nice composition. #3 - Wing by Adelheid v. Kirschten has a great interpretation of a common image. Honorable mentions: Old Transformer by Martin Albrecht - great light, memorable subject Zytglogge by Dan Matyola - Einstein's clock!...anywhere you haven't been Dan? Steam by Mark Stringer - love the contrast between the steam and green fields Thanks everyone for sharing and Happy New Year. Regards, Bob S. On 12/31/05, AvK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, the PUG gallery for January is open. It can be viewed at http://pug.komkon.org And on my Website http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/06jan Happy New Year Adelheid -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
Re: PESO: Nice Tomatoes
In a message dated 12/31/2005 12:22:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I know it sounds weird but I've never eaten tomato since then, unless it's either finely chopped or pureed, and used as an ingredient in a dish of some sort. - Dave === I love homegrown tomatoes (not the overly green ones they sent to supermarkets), and tomato sauces of all kinds in all kinds of food. Yum, yum. But I no longer eat nightshades because of the arthritis in my knees. This is a disputed theory, of course, but I've been doing it for 1 1/2-2 years and my pain has been reduced by 90-99%. I am not that suggestible (I am a very hard sell), and if one is in pain one can really tell if they are or not. I.E. -- It's hard to imagine no pain. :-) In other words, it works for me and it works for many others. And my attitude is what works works. It's a shame really, because I love tomatoes. OTOH, I hate pain more. http://noarthritis.com/ I slip every now and then and eat a pizza or something, then invariably I hurt the next day. But usually I stay on track. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PAW - Restoration
The BW image has a lot more shadow detail than the color version. It would be nice to see if you can pull some of that detail out of the color image. It is interesting and I think I would like the color version better with a little more work. Perry. On 12/31/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's about time I did some more scanning... http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=177t=1 That was a handheld exposure at 1/15th using the trusty old K2 and SMCP 35mm f/3.5 lens. I honestly didn't think it'd work but I flipped up the mirror and tried anyway because I couldn't resist the lighting. I've also done a BW conversion of this photo: just follow the link in the comments. I used a Channel Mixer layer with about 90% blue because I wanted to reduce the impact of the yellow stuff. Cheers, - Dave -- Perry Pellechia Primary email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternate email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry
Re: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
On 1/1/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? Because it's a fun technical challenge? Dave there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- Wrom: XRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREX Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- Wrom: CAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEM Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PUG open
Thank you Adelheid. And Happy New Year to you as well. Dave On 1/1/06, AvK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, the PUG gallery for January is open. It can be viewed at http://pug.komkon.org And on my Website http://www.kirschten.de/PUG/06jan Happy New Year Adelheid -- Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch? NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
Re: PAW: Into the Game
In a message dated 12/29/2005 10:26:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We take our hockey seriously here in Canada: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3972928size=lg Taken at a Toronto-Montreal hockey game back in November. Yet more fisheye fun. g Yet another standing-room-only game in Toronto. In both Toronto and Montreal, tickets are so hard to come by that it used to be (and may still be) that seasons tickets were bequeathed from one generation to the next in wills... Comments are always welcome. cheers, frank -- = Interesting shot, frank. Nice use of the fisheye, with the weird perspective. I'd like it better if the guy in front (fist in front of mouth) was in focus, but it's still an eye-grabbing shot. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
Pentax bodies with similar capabilities are usually way cheaper than Nikon bodies (LX vs F3 excepted). And some of us are fond of our Nikon glass. If I didn't still have a couple of Nikon bodies, I'd be looking at this myself. Minolta AF and Canon EF have a shorter register than K mount. IIRC EF mount is ~44mm but the larger diameter makes things easier, as the adaptor can be fit entirely in the mount, like the K-M42 adaptors. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
I consider it therapy. ;-) Don -Original Message- From: David Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:10 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? On 1/1/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? Because it's a fun technical challenge? Dave there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- Wrom: XRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCRTNHGSWZIDREX Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- Wrom: CAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEM Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PESO - Happy New Year
In a message dated 12/31/2005 2:59:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/view.php?p=175 When I saw the window I couldn't resist taking a couple of photos of it, but a fence made it nearly impossible. To get this I had to stand on my toes and hold the camera upside-down against the top of the fence. Cheers, - Dave (3 minutes to go... where's my drink...) That's a cool shot. You angled it right for the graffiti to sort of complete the message. I like it very much. All we have are about 30-50 wild turkeys. Which are annoying, but not really anything else. Oh, and lots of deer. Since deer apparently are starting to attack people maybe there is some danger in shooting around here. Or maybe I could fool myself that there is. Marnie aka Doe aka the Deer Braver ;-)
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
I wasn't implying that there werent any nice desireable nikkor lenses, I was just stating I don't think its worth the effort to try to use them on Pentax K bodies when there are so many nice new and used SLR/DSLR nikon bodies to easily use them withespecially since Nikon didn't change the mount when they went AF so even the latest bodies can at least use the oldest nikkor lenses to the same extent as any pentax body w adapter would ever be able to and much easier... jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PESO - Happy New Year
Oops, wrong thread re jelly fish and other dangers (i.e. deer) Sorry, Marnie aka Doe.
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
Peter McIntosh wrote: Bah - that's up north. Down south we have brown snakes in the 'burbs... http://tinyurl.com/9cz2q Come to think of it, brown snakes are everywhere over here! That's right. Crocs and stingers in the north. Funnelwebs and redbacks in the south. And snakes all over! Cheers Keith
Happy New Year
Happy New Year everyone. Its warming up here -- just barely below zero but there is a hell of a lot of snow on the ground. Don -- Dr E D F Williams ___ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature: The Cement Company from Hell Updated: Print Gallery-- 16 11 2005
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
David Mann wrote: At least you get a specific warning: http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/5-nov-2005/xp3.jpg (it probably relates to the horrendous undertow at this beach) I like that! Very helpful! Actually the crocodile warning sign is also not that useful because only people walking along the path would see it...and 95% of people do NOT walk along the path. In reality, the chance of a croc there is fairly small (although they have been seen). The stingers are a definite threat -- I've seen several washed up on the beach in the last week -- and there are warning signs about them all over the place. Keith
Re: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
That's not necessarily the case, many of the 'newer' Nikon bodies will not meter with non-CPU lenses, while we should get at least stop-down metering with them adapted to K mount (With the exception of a couple crippled bodies, the MZ-60 and MZ-50). And the Nikon bodies are typically pricier for what you get. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't implying that there werent any nice desireable nikkor lenses, I was just stating I don't think its worth the effort to try to use them on Pentax K bodies when there are so many nice new and used SLR/DSLR nikon bodies to easily use them withespecially since Nikon didn't change the mount when they went AF so even the latest bodies can at least use the oldest nikkor lenses to the same extent as any pentax body w adapter would ever be able to and much easier... jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: PESO (and Happy New Year)
Bob W wrote: Very thoughtful of them to provide a menu in the middle for the crocodiles. That's an enormous poodle on the menu. Or very tiny people. Ha! Love it! Keith
Re: Presents
Biggest ones: Me: Boxed sets of Voyager DVDs :-) Voyager as in Star Trek? My wife decided we wanted the Star Trek movie boxed set for Christmas. That, and a new Espresso machine. I'm saving my Christmas present until my birthday (in May), when I'll probably pick up the DA 12-24
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
I would venture a guess that you get a good bit of pleasure out of adapting some of those beautiful enlarging lenses to M42, mounting them on an M42 bellows, adapting that to K to fit on a nice KX and taking beautiful images to help sell the whole rig on eekBay. This is pretty much the same thing, I just enjoy _doing_ it and then seeing the results. It makes the journey itself as fun for me as the arrival. (Plus I've yet to see a Nikon with the lovely viewfinder of an MX.) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:24 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I wasn't implying that there werent any nice desireable nikkor lenses, I was just stating I don't think its worth the effort to try to use them on Pentax K bodies when there are so many nice new and used SLR/DSLR nikon bodies to easily use them withespecially since Nikon didn't change the mount when they went AF so even the latest bodies can at least use the oldest nikkor lenses to the same extent as any pentax body w adapter would ever be able to and much easier... jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
There is some whirring in 31 and 77 that I have -- feels kinda like sand in a gearbox. Fine sand. Very fine. And very expensive. vbg Fred
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
I do, however, wish the 31/1.8 and 77/1.8 had the on demand manual focus feature of the newer DA lenses. Is that like the focus clutch on certain of the FA* lenses (e.g., the 85/1.4 and the 80-200/2.8)? Fred
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Alan Chan (where is that soul? Hope you are well mate!) had reported that Pentax had modified the 77's gearing. Perhaps you have one of the newer models. I just compared the gearing (the focus feel) on a silver 77/1.8, and it is much like what I had noticed a couple of years (or so) ago on two different 43/1.9's (which I personally did not care for). However, I have to say (and some of you know that I am picky about focus feel - in fact, some of you are probably tired of hearing me fussing about focus feel - g) that the focus feel of the black 77/1.8 I have sitting next to me is really quite good. Really, really good. It's a winner (as in it's a keeper)... Fred
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
I know you didn't like that whir in the 43, but it is really very, very quiet...barely a whisper. Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, I'm sure you could learn to love that 43mm limited you orphaned some years ago Well, Bob, it's not just the sound (and it ~is~ audible), but it's the focus ~feel~ that turned this here Adrian Monk off - g. (That, maybe, and the barrel distortion...) ;-) Fred
Re: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
In a message dated 12/31/2005 11:38:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not necessarily the case, many of the 'newer' Nikon bodies will not meter with non-CPU lenses, while we should get at least stop-down metering with them adapted to K mount (With the exception of a couple crippled bodies, the MZ-60 and MZ-50). And the Nikon bodies are typically pricier for what you get. -Adam === You mentioned the other day that some friends of yours have Nikon wide angles they use on Canon EOS bodies. Since I have a 300D I was curious which lenses. Write me off list if you want. Marnie aka Doe
Need a 15mm/3.5
Hi, I've a need to shoot a few frames with a 15mm - my 18mm isn't wide enough. Is there anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area area who has one that I could borrow for a day or two? Please contact me off list. Thanks! Shel
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, Well, that's just it, Bob - I did ~not~ have to learn to live with the 77's gears in manual focus - the manual focus feel on this black 77/1.8 is just as smooth as silk, and I'm sure I'm still just as picky (as in just as neurotic) as ever about it... Fred
Re: Peso(s) How a nice day went wrong.
In a message dated 12/28/2005 6:08:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Afterwards I thought I should have taken photos of the ordeal but at the time I had other things on my mind. I do have this photo of the aftermath: http://homer.chem.sc.edu/perry/peso/img_1966a.jpg This is the back of my shirt and the tracks left by the sooty pest. Perry Pellechia = Doesn't look like he touched down much. In fact, I bet he was running so fast he was practically flying. ;-) I am sure he was more scared than you or Marianne. Good story. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO: Kiss
In a message dated 12/29/2005 2:23:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, Juan, doesn't work for me. The man's face is completely invisible, and the woman's is not exactly passionate. In fact, if he'd just knifed her through the ribs, she might have much the same expression g. Rick === Yeah, it looks like a duty kiss, no positive emotion involved. In fact, they don't look involved. It's odd, but even though it's odd, it doesn't work for me. Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO: Kiss
I've been thinking a bit about this photo, and alluded to my thoughts in my original post. We're all commenting on the lack of passion and closeness between the partners, visible eye that looks wrong, and so on. In other words, we're putting our idea of what the photo should be on this image. However, what if Juan wanted to show the lack of passion and the odd position of the people? Would that make the photo better in our minds? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, Juan, doesn't work for me. The man's face is completely invisible, and the woman's is not exactly passionate. In fact, if he'd just knifed her through the ribs, she might have much the same expression g. Rick === Yeah, it looks like a duty kiss, no positive emotion involved. In fact, they don't look involved. It's odd, but even though it's odd, it doesn't work for
Medium Format comparison
My wife has offered to buy me a medium format camera for my 60th birthday in March. I've found a site on Pentax 6x7 lenses by a man called Colucci. Is there an equivalent of Boz or Stan for 645 or 67? No I won't be hanging on for the digital 645 Pentax. God knows what the crop will be. Enough to turn decent wide angles into pedestrian short telephotos, I shouldn't wonder!! Happy New Year to everyone Peter
Re: Burned sky, underexposed subject
In a message dated 12/29/2005 9:16:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your page wouldn't come up. But in general, when shooting RAW you should expose to preserve your highlights right at the limit. When processing in the PSCS RAW converter, adjust the highlight level with exposure slider, then bring your midtones back up to where you want them with the brightness slider and adjust the black with the shadow slider. Don't expect a RAW to look good right out of the camera. Paul === Good advice that Paul has given. At least, in my experience. And I am not the most experienced here by a long shot. But here is my inexperienced experienced .02 cents... Shooting RAW, yes, means more post processing, but on the whole it also means one can make photos actually better. It really gives one a great deal of control over how they turn out. And the latitude is somewhat similar to slide film, so don't expect things you can't have (you still might have to use a ND filter in some situations as someone mentioned). Except for the fact that post processing can improve the latitude -- in a sense. Digital has some advantage over film, and RAW has some advantages over JPEG. But digital and RAW are still not magical. It's still photography and there are still limitations. However, a lot of limitations can be dealt with with post processing. If you'd play with them a bit, your photos will be fine. Marnie aka Doe
RE: PESO: Kiss
I think the photo works precisely because of the things that other people are criticising. If the woman's eyes were closed, or she looked passionate then it would be a run-of-the-mill photo. It's because it goes against our expectations that it's successful, in my opinion. Juan can speak for himself, of course, but having seen the way he photographs (I think you have too) I'd guess that he didn't want to show the lack of passion or the odd position or anything else in particular, but reacted instinctively to something without analyzing until later. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 December 2005 20:31 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: Kiss I've been thinking a bit about this photo, and alluded to my thoughts in my original post. We're all commenting on the lack of passion and closeness between the partners, visible eye that looks wrong, and so on. In other words, we're putting our idea of what the photo should be on this image. However, what if Juan wanted to show the lack of passion and the odd position of the people? Would that make the photo better in our minds? Shel
Skiing with cameras...
...wise or foolish? Discuss. I'm going skiing for the first time at the end of February. I expect the Alps to be alive with the sound of the James Bond theme within about 5 minutes of me strapping the planks to my feet. Anyway, I will take a couple of film cameras. I assume that it is unwise to ski with a camera round my neck, but presumably I could carry one in a small backpack, next to the parachute. I imagine also that it will be quite difficult to take pictures with ski gloves on. Does anybody have any experiences, hints and tips about Alpine-style photography that they'd like to share, please? -- Thanks, Bob-Claude Killy
Re: PESO: Kiss
In a message dated 12/31/2005 12:32:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've been thinking a bit about this photo, and alluded to my thoughts in my original post. We're all commenting on the lack of passion and closeness between the partners, visible eye that looks wrong, and so on. In other words, we're putting our idea of what the photo should be on this image. However, what if Juan wanted to show the lack of passion and the odd position of the people? Would that make the photo better in our minds? Shel = More of the story. To me it's a sliver of something odd, but just a sliver. A little more would show a little more oddness, or more of the story. IE another position while taking the shot, showing a bit more of her and/or him. Can't explain it better. But I don't think it has enough story to be an interesting odd story. Marnie aka Doe
RE: Presents
Thanks Marnie, Yeah, but you'll notice that a lot of us (not all, but a lot) that got cool photography-type presents bought them for ourselves. There's always next year - remind me, how many shopping days left? ducks Malcolm
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Augh Fred, now you've gone and hurt the lens's feelings! Bob S. ;-) On 12/31/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, Well, that's just it, Bob - I did ~not~ have to learn to live with the 77's gears in manual focus - the manual focus feel on this black 77/1.8 is just as smooth as silk, and I'm sure I'm still just as picky (as in just as neurotic) as ever about it... Fred
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Bob W wrote: ...wise or foolish? Discuss. I'm going skiing for the first time at the end of February. I expect the Alps to be alive with the sound of the James Bond theme within about 5 minutes of me strapping the planks to my feet. Anyway, I will take a couple of film cameras. I assume that it is unwise to ski with a camera round my neck, but presumably I could carry one in a small backpack, next to the parachute. I imagine also that it will be quite difficult to take pictures with ski gloves on. Does anybody have any experiences, hints and tips about Alpine-style photography that they'd like to share, please? -- Thanks, Bob-Claude Killy Mechanical Cameras are your friends. Batteries and cold weather don't mix. -Adam
Re: TOPDML meet up pics
In a message dated 12/31/2005 6:40:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey gang. Had a good meet up Friday afternoon. Dave was pretty much on time.vbg Met Adam for the first time. Nice chap, with interesting travel bags.:-) Jeff had the newish Texas Leica and Dave had real Leica's. Frank had a neat hat, no Leica.LOL http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks Still trying to get the hang of Flickr's tags and sets, but here are three shots from Friday. Stole Godfrey's idea for one shot. Not bad for a first attempt i think.:-) Comments appreciated. istD with 16 fisheye, one converted to BW using Godders method. Still have problems with it as i don't know how to position layers between things very well yet.:-) Dave === BW looks fine. Except it has a ghost. g Thanks for sharing the photos, I enjoyed looking at them. (And seeing what all you characters look like. Well, frank I've seen, and he's definitely a character, but the rest of you characters. :-)) Marnie aka Doe
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, Well, that's just it, Bob - I did ~not~ have to learn to live with the 77's gears in manual focus - the manual focus feel on this black 77/1.8 is just as smooth as silk, and I'm sure I'm still just as picky (as in just as neurotic) as ever about it... Augh Fred, now you've gone and hurt the lens's feelings! Bob S. ;-) I'm confused (again?), Bob. Are you referring to the new black 77/1.8 (quoted above)? (I'm thrilled with it so far.) Or, are you referring to the ol' 43/1.9? (I might have hurt its feelings when I used to call it R2D2 - g.) Fred
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
It is all here: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm Powell Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
Thanks, this could be fun. H, Olympus OM, 46.00... :-) Don -Original Message- From: Powell Hargrave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? It is all here: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm Powell Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don
Re: Medium Format comparison
Happy 60th Peter(when ever that happens:-)) I connot comment on a site, but i have a 6x7 system. I like the 90 leaf shutter, i LOVE the smc Takumar 200 F4 So, get that for sure.:-)Sharp as all get out. I looked at William Robbs stuff at GFM and his wide angle(the 45 i think)was stunning. Dave(waiting for the 300 to go down in price)Brooks My wife has offered to buy me a medium format camera for my 60th birthday in March. I've found a site on Pentax 6x7 lenses by a man called Colucci. Is there an equivalent of Boz or Stan for 645 or 67? No I won't be hanging on for the digital 645 Pentax. God knows what the crop will be. Enough to turn decent wide angles into pedestrian short telephotos, I shouldn't wonder!! Happy New Year to everyone Peter
Re: TOPDML meet up pics
In a message dated 12/31/2005 6:40:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey gang. Had a good meet up Friday afternoon. Dave was pretty much on time.vbg Met Adam for the first time. Nice chap, with interesting travel bags.:-) Jeff had the newish Texas Leica and Dave had real Leica's. Frank had a neat hat, no Leica.LOL http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks Still trying to get the hang of Flickr's tags and sets, but here are three shots from Friday. Stole Godfrey's idea for one shot. Not bad for a first attempt i think.:-) Comments appreciated. istD with 16 fisheye, one converted to BW using Godders method. Still have problems with it as i don't know how to position layers between things very well yet.:-) Dave === BW looks fine. Except it has a ghost. g Thanks for sharing the photos, I enjoyed looking at them. (And seeing what all you characters look like. Well, frank I've seen, and he's definitely a character, but the rest of you characters. :-)) Marnie aka Doe Thanks Marnie. I enjoy showing them.:-) you may have SEEN Frank, but we have to live NEAR himVBGCharacters we are.:-) I just wish Toronto had more snow. (like we have here)Might have made some dramatic shots.:-) Dave
Re: Manual Focus Feel in the 3 Limited Lens Models
The poor 43/1.9, it's got big tears on the front lens... On 12/31/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you've learned to live with the 77's gears in manual focus, Well, that's just it, Bob - I did ~not~ have to learn to live with the 77's gears in manual focus - the manual focus feel on this black 77/1.8 is just as smooth as silk, and I'm sure I'm still just as picky (as in just as neurotic) as ever about it... Augh Fred, now you've gone and hurt the lens's feelings! Bob S. ;-) I'm confused (again?), Bob. Are you referring to the new black 77/1.8 (quoted above)? (I'm thrilled with it so far.) Or, are you referring to the ol' 43/1.9? (I might have hurt its feelings when I used to call it R2D2 - g.) Fred
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
just like pentax, nikon has some crippled newer bodies but unlike pentax they at least still offer higher level SLR/DSLR bodies that arent crippled and offer the highest level of compatibility that is still technically possible with the older nikkor lenses. jco -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:37 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? That's not necessarily the case, many of the 'newer' Nikon bodies will not meter with non-CPU lenses, while we should get at least stop-down metering with them adapted to K mount (With the exception of a couple crippled bodies, the MZ-60 and MZ-50). And the Nikon bodies are typically pricier for what you get. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: I wasn't implying that there werent any nice desireable nikkor lenses, I was just stating I don't think its worth the effort to try to use them on Pentax K bodies when there are so many nice new and used SLR/DSLR nikon bodies to easily use them withespecially since Nikon didn't change the mount when they went AF so even the latest bodies can at least use the oldest nikkor lenses to the same extent as any pentax body w adapter would ever be able to and much easier... jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
Raw and Sharpness question(s)
Hey gang. For the most part, i shoot jpeg's. Times are i wil shoot Raw especially if its a once in a life time day and i want to be sure i get something to save, if i blow shots. However, lately the shots, mostly in Raw, after conversion, seem softer for some reason. Could it be i'm not sharpening properly in Raw, or is it see next paragraph. I am still a bit concerned when the camera and DA 16-45 took a small tumble from my belt case onto the ground this past August(long wet grass,semi soft ground).I 'm thinkng something may have been knocked a skew, but this is were i'm not sure.. Is there a good or best way to check focusing. I am thinking of putting a ruler against a wall and shooting that . Is that a pretty good standard.? As far as Raw proccessing, in El3, the defaults give me good colour/tint etc,but it shows sharpen at 25%. Should i make this more or do it in PS when doing final adjustments. If i move the Raw slider for sharpen,. i cannot see any change at all. Any help is appreciated and will be rewarded with good Canadian beer at GFM.:-) Dave
Re: HNY PESO
Lovely shot. Same to you Dave Brooks My youngest, Elin, greets you all: http://www.oksne.net/paw/hny.jpg Best wishes to all for 2006 Cheers, Jostein
RE: Nikon lens on M42 body???????
I am not a nikon guy but they sure made tons of SLR models and finders and screens. None of them are as good as an MX? Wow, I am glad I never got into Nikon if that's the case. Good thing too they don't take M42 or PK lenses either. To hell with that. jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:48 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I would venture a guess that you get a good bit of pleasure out of adapting some of those beautiful enlarging lenses to M42, mounting them on an M42 bellows, adapting that to K to fit on a nice KX and taking beautiful images to help sell the whole rig on eekBay. This is pretty much the same thing, I just enjoy _doing_ it and then seeing the results. It makes the journey itself as fun for me as the arrival. (Plus I've yet to see a Nikon with the lovely viewfinder of an MX.) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:24 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I wasn't implying that there werent any nice desireable nikkor lenses, I was just stating I don't think its worth the effort to try to use them on Pentax K bodies when there are so many nice new and used SLR/DSLR nikon bodies to easily use them withespecially since Nikon didn't change the mount when they went AF so even the latest bodies can at least use the oldest nikkor lenses to the same extent as any pentax body w adapter would ever be able to and much easier... jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 2:14 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? I have several rather nice Nikon lenses, that's why I bought the FM, to have something to use them on. Just for grins I just held a NIKKOR-P 105/2.5 in place on an ME Super body. Compared the relatively small/dim finder on the FM the view was amazing. Actually: T'was a beautiful thing! The modification would be relatively simple, and reversible. A K mount ring, a spacer and a few holes to match the ones in the lens. Hey, it's been a cold, dark, rainy winter. I'm getting cabin fever! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:53 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Why would you ever want to use nikon glass on k bodies? there are plenty of really nice nikon bodies both film and digital to even entertain the thoughtnow using k (or screw) lenses on nikon bodies, that would be nice ( but impossible) because there is nowhere near as many nice pentax bodies to use especially digital to choose from with your pentax glassala Cotty jco -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:38 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Nikon lens on M42 body??? You're right, I just measured an FM at ~46.53 and an ME at ~45.5. Silly me had assumed that the M42 to Nikon adapter allowed infinity focus with M42 lenses. It only focuses out to about 8 feet! ;-( I've had the adapter for over a year and just now realised it doesn't work. This DOES however make adapting Nikon lenses to K bodies a possibility. With a little Cottying, of course. ;-) Anyone know the register on Canon and Minolta bodies??? vvbg Don -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 10:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon lens on M42 body??? Register for the Nikon mount is IIRC 1mm longer than M42 (46.5mm vs 45.5mm), but there's no way this adaptor maintains infinity focus, it's way too thick. -Adam Don Sanderson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7575287348 Anyone see how this could possibly focus to infinity on an M42 body? Seems to me the register distance is already 'shorter' on Nikon lenses. My Nikon body to M42 lens adapter spaces the lens about 3-4mm farther out from the body, it seems the one above would act as an extension tube as well as an adapter. I'll probably buy one anyway 'cause of the 'wierdness factor' but I don't see how it could actually work. ;-) Don
