Re: OT: Tent camping
In a message dated 7/8/2006 7:04:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's the website from my trip, by the way. Yes, it's been three years... but I'm still working on it. I've still got about 1/2 the trip photos to upload. http://www.exposedfilm.net/journal/seattle/index.htm Happy Camping! - Jerome = All good advice, thanks. Enjoyed the photos. You have some very nice ones. Just out of curiosity can you tell me what was your usual lens for the mountain shots? Wow, that was SOME trip. My aspirations are a tad smaller. :-) Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
In a message dated 7/7/2006 10:19:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/brothers.html DS w/K24/2.8 Shel Don't much like cat photos, but that's nice. Because it's different. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
In a message dated 7/7/2006 11:40:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I am killfiled. Shel is quite happy to post a pic, but the moment someone suggests an alternative preference, he gets goes defensive and woe betide if you don't see things His Way. His photography is skilled and most of it is excellent but his attitude is bollocks. But he won't be reading this. Cheers, Cotty = Really? Killfiled? But you are a harmless twit, oops, wit. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PAW: Reactions
In a message dated 7/8/2006 5:04:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somtimes people react very differently to the sam event. I saw this a an outdoor consert, where the band wasw playing Steven Reich compostions: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/185094507/ Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk Nice one, Jens! What great expressions. What great contrasting expressions. The only thing I am bothered by is that very patterned dress in the background behind the guy. Distracting. But not much you can do about it. Hmmm, have you tried it BW? Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
In a message dated 7/8/2006 9:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have a twinge of guilt about this image, also. Any idea why? (assuming you feel like playing) All comments appreciated. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=123 = Actually, I like that a lot. But why turn it blue??? Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Farmer's Market
In a message dated 7/8/2006 3:23:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is another web album on Picassa of the farmer's market this morning. I took about 30 pictures in raw and have spent too much time converting them. First I did 30 raw into jpegs, then highlight reduction on the jpegs. Uploaded from full 4 meg jpegs to a reduced size by Picassa. http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/FarmerSMarket02 I can see better results in terms of details in the highlights, but this is starting to be work not fun. :-( Comments and sugestions would be appreciated. Regards, Bob S. == Intriguing. Makes me want to try it. :-) Interesting abstracts. BUT... don't know why, Bob, when I went from thumbnails to full images, the full image for each one would not load. So I was looking at very pixelated low res. Sort of like a progressive JPG that only did one or two progressions, but not the full set. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Brick wall shot
In a message dated 7/8/2006 11:59:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somebody has recently painted some spectacular graffiti on about 100m of wall on one of the wharves near my house. I photographed the full length of it today, and might do a panorama. Here's an excerpt http://www.web-options.com/P7080771.jpg You can see the shadow of my magnificent head in it, but it was unavoidable. Cheers, Bob === Would give me nightmares to live near that. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
You're so full of shit Cotty it's running out your ears. Had you been reading some of the messages here recently you'd know damned well that's not true. You're kill-filed for reasons we discussed privately (which you decided to make public) and because of your annoying sig line, which we also discussed privately recently and several months before. Tough shit if you don't like the idea that I question comments made by others. If someone wants to make a point that I change something in a photo, I'll ask why if their motive or point isn't clear to me, or challenge their position, or explain why something wasn't possible. It's called discussion, or debate. From it comes clarity and understanding. So just crawl back into your hole and leave me the fuck alone. And, I agree with Marnie - you are a twit. And she's half right about you being a wit. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml@pdml.net Date: 7/8/2006 11:32:29 PM Subject: Re: PESO - Brothers In a message dated 7/7/2006 11:40:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I am killfiled. Shel is quite happy to post a pic, but the moment someone suggests an alternative preference, he gets goes defensive and woe betide if you don't see things His Way. His photography is skilled and most of it is excellent but his attitude is bollocks. But he won't be reading this. Cheers, Cotty = Really? Killfiled? But you are a harmless twit, oops, wit. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: The arab family
Thanks, Godfrey, Bob and Carlos. I'm surprised - and happy - you liked the photgraphs. No, I didn't have the peoples adresses. But the shots are published under a link button called Palestina, which I told them, they would be. From the web site statisitics I can see that the images have been watched during the first days - until recently no one else but these people knew the adress, so hopefully they are among the 15 vistist that site had the firs day ;-) I think I will do this kind of photography again. It was quite entertaining, but very difficult (the boys were constantly standing in front af the camera, waving their hands or just looking into the lens - and the light was difficult (low sun, backlit scenere etc.) Next time I'll make sure I'll bring an external flash and perhaps use slow flash technique. I have don many pano there that day - I think you psoetive comments will inspired me to stitch a couple more ... ;-) Speaking of statisktics. In january this year (where I did the city council portraits) I had an average of 2500 hits pr. day and the best day gave 18.000 hits. That a lot, isn't it? If you have a web site - try to look at the statistics. I was quite surprised to see that so many people has passed by. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Carlos Royo Sendt: 8. juli 2006 21:05 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: OT: The arab family Jens Bladt wrote: All the children and women wanted me to take their pictures, which I eventually did. They didn't come out very well, though as I wasn't really equipped to do portraits. I on had the RTF flash (D and DL), which I'm not familiar with at all. I used a FA* 2.0 24mm and a FA 1.8 31mm. Here are the shots, which I have published only because they asked me to: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Stroeby/Stroeby-1.html click below the panorama to see the portraits I don't know if you took the address of the family, but if you did, I'm sure they would be grateful if you send them the photographs. Some of them are really good, lively portraits. Carlos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
My apologies to the list. This was to be sent privately to Cotty ... sorry
you had to see it.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're so full of shit Cotty it's running out your ears.
{snip}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 10-17mm Review
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, William Robb wrote: From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review Since it's a fisheye, one would expect that. No? Some, but this is really bad... Can you show us something? TIA! Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
I don't see it as a cat photo, but rather as a photo in which there are cats. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/brothers.html Don't much like cat photos, but that's nice. Because it's different. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
On 9/7/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: You're so full of shit Cotty it's running out your ears. Gotcha. Job done. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Why do you take pictures?
On 8/7/06, Russell Kerstetter, discombobulated, unleashed: to me trolling has two connotations: a troll, but also poking about hoping to find something interesting, like when fishing but according to the wikipedia, there is only the one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll I think you mean 'trawling' ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
On 9/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Really? Killfiled? But you are a harmless twit, oops, wit. Mostly harmless ;-)) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: Why do you take pictures?
These fish are HUGE, aren't they? Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Cotty Sendt: 9. juli 2006 11:47 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: OT: Why do you take pictures? On 8/7/06, Russell Kerstetter, discombobulated, unleashed: to me trolling has two connotations: a troll, but also poking about hoping to find something interesting, like when fishing but according to the wikipedia, there is only the one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll I think you mean 'trawling' ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
On 9/7/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: My apologies to the list. This was to be sent privately to Cotty ... sorry you had to see it. I'm not sorry at all (for once). I'm also not as full of shit as you think I am, old chap. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: Panoramas and the speed issue
Thanks, David. The backslash was done by - the Namo Web Editor 5.5. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af David Mann Sendt: 6. juli 2006 08:10 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: OT: Panoramas and the speed issue On Jul 6, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano\Nordstranden-6092-6108-web.htm That URL works better if you replace the \ with a / http://www.jensbladt.dk/pano/Nordstranden-6092-6108-web.htm - Dave (I'd like to play with a 6x17) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.9/382 - Release Date: 07/04/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
A client of ours flew out a new cutting head for their dredge. Approx weight 15 tonnes. I hope to God it didn't cost them $33 million to get it here. Dave On 7/9/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Brothers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/7/2006 11:40:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is why I am killfiled. Shel is quite happy to post a pic, but the moment someone suggests an alternative preference, he gets goes defensive and woe betide if you don't see things His Way. His photography is skilled and most of it is excellent but his attitude is bollocks. But he won't be reading this. Cheers, Cotty = Really? Killfiled? But you are a harmless twit, oops, wit. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Well you're half right... -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
A few pics around the garden
I'm still collecting flower pics. There are a few on Picassa. Here: http://picasaweb.google.com/don.donwilliams/Converted I thought I'd try it since it seems to be quite easy to use. The space they provide -- 250 megabytes -- is not to be sneezed at either. I should have changed the directory name, but it was my first try. Some of the pictures had 'levels' adjusted and some were cropped. The lens was a Sigma A EX Macro 50/2.8 with a Tokina doubler. But 100mm was still not enough for the butterfly. I used no ro reflectors, and didn't mess about too much they are just hand held snapshots. I'd have taken more, but it was rather hot -- 31C. Its hotter today, but my thermometer sensor is in the sun at the moment and reads 37.9C. A few years ago the baffle I had on the wall fell off and the sensor is now exposed to the sun in the afternoon in the summer. But I can tell you its bloody hot! Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don David Savage wrote: A client of ours flew out a new cutting head for their dredge. Approx weight 15 tonnes. I hope to God it didn't cost them $33 million to get it here. Dave On 7/9/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
Kodak did that, Marnie. :) I divulged the process in a post last evening. While reviewing some color negative poppy shots, this image stuck with me. I ultimately mounted the frame in a slide mount and took it to a lab and had a reverse Fujichrome print done. Complete accident, but has been a successful shot for me. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/8/2006 9:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have a twinge of guilt about this image, also. Any idea why? (assuming you feel like playing) All comments appreciated. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=123 = Actually, I like that a lot. But why turn it blue??? Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO -- Untitled VI now in BW was [Re: PESO -- Untitled VI]
Me too! Rick --- Russell Kerstetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like it better BW than color russell -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A few pics around the garden
Nice Don, Picassa works for me. The macros are particularly sharp. Some of those flower shots belong in a catalogue. Regards, Bob S. On 7/9/06, Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still collecting flower pics. There are a few on Picassa. Here: http://picasaweb.google.com/don.donwilliams/Converted I thought I'd try it since it seems to be quite easy to use. The space they provide -- 250 megabytes -- is not to be sneezed at either. I should have changed the directory name, but it was my first try. Some of the pictures had 'levels' adjusted and some were cropped. The lens was a Sigma A EX Macro 50/2.8 with a Tokina doubler. But 100mm was still not enough for the butterfly. I used no ro reflectors, and didn't mess about too much they are just hand held snapshots. I'd have taken more, but it was rather hot -- 31C. Its hotter today, but my thermometer sensor is in the sun at the moment and reads 37.9C. A few years ago the baffle I had on the wall fell off and the sensor is now exposed to the sun in the afternoon in the summer. But I can tell you its bloody hot! Don -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: An exercise in triangulation
Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Re: New K bodies listed on B
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/09 Sun AM 10:46:01 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. Normally, the price goes down when one purchases more. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
Jack Davis wrote: Okay, so you'll get some sleep tonight, I'll tell you this is a positive print of a color negative. Cool. So this is actually a photo of a red flower. This is just the kind of flower shot I like: So close up that it becomes a study in form, shape, texture and light, rather than just a picture of a pretty flower. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
We import fresh fruit and flowers from South America and the Hawaiian Islands to the US using air freight, it's important that these get here while still fresh, I'm sure that a Canada does the same. If it cost $1000/lb no one could afford to buy a dozen roses or even a mango. So lets think about this. How much does it cost to buy two dozen roses, weight about three pounds, airfreighted from Argentina, (or maybe Chile)? Amazon has them listed at about $30.00 US. That doesn't include the $10.00 delivery price in the US. Flowers are mostly water so by extension it costs less than $15.00 a pound for roses delivered by airfreight to the US. Assuming that the grower, and shipper, (not the carrier, it the shipping business they can be and often are different organizations or persons), and retailer, make a reasonable return on investment, (between 3 and 8%), then we can see that the actual cost of air freight per pound is probably less than $7.00 per pound for bulk items probably a lot less. Still expensive as shipping goes, but no where near $1000/lb. That's what it costs to put something into orbit, (if you're using something other than the STS that is). Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/07/09 Sun PM 03:16:34 GMT To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Subject: OT: An exercise in triangulation Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. Pure guesstimation; Gibraltar - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: GESO - Red, White and Blue Kites
I forgot to say these were taken with either the DA 16-45mm or the 50-200mm on the istD. Thanks for the comments. See you later, gs http://georgesphotos.net On 7/7/06, George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On July 1 - the local kite club held their Red, White and Blue Festival. Here's a link to a few photos from the event: http://georgesphotos.net/gallery/1638381 This is a friendly bunch of guys. They had seen the photos I took at last October's event and let me have the run of the field. I got a few good shots from angles that I wouldn't have achieved from the sidelines. The winds were shifting and intermittent that day so they worked hard to keep things in the air. See you later, gs http://georgesphotos.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
Mark, To show a version of the color, I'm attaching a shot of the actual Poppy used for the shot. Both taken on Ektar 100 with an M 50mm f/1.4 and close-up filter. (forget which #) Appreciate comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=125 --- Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jack Davis wrote: Okay, so you'll get some sleep tonight, I'll tell you this is a positive print of a color negative. Cool. So this is actually a photo of a red flower. This is just the kind of flower shot I like: So close up that it becomes a study in form, shape, texture and light, rather than just a picture of a pretty flower. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs The numbers I was referencing were old (I cribbed them from an early 90's text on cheap access to space), and it's quite possible that the prices have come down by an order of magnitude, but not two. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
It's too late to try and figure out exactly, but it's somewhere south west of London and west southwest of Rome. Somewhere in the southern area of Spain or North Africa? Dave On 7/9/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 10-17mm Review
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review Some, but this is really bad... Can you show us something? What would you like to see? BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing. It's a pretty cool lens. Can anyone recommend a defishing utility? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I just got a quick quote from Fed/Ex to ship a 1000 pound pallet from Tokyo Japan to the Beacon Hill Library in Seattle Washington. They want US$15,516.38 for the pleasure. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: 10-17mm Review
Can you show us something? What would you like to see? BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing. It's a pretty cool lens. Can anyone recommend a defishing utility? No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we teach you to defish we'll starve you for a lifetime. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Magic Hour
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Magic Hour Quick question: Color temp around magic hour is about 3100K - 3200K, right? Shooting at or around that temp will give more normal colors, shooting around daylight temp will give the warmer evening colors ... is that right? I always forget this. You are close on the temperature, wrong on how you are defining normal, since the warm colour is normal for that time of day. You can try to convert that back to something resembling 5000K, but i bet you get cross curves. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 10-17mm Review
- Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: RE: 10-17mm Review No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we teach you to defish we'll starve you for a lifetime. Im not asking you to give me defish, nor even teach me to defish. Just point me in the general direction of defish. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
On 9/7/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. I'll go Ceuta. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
Bob W wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. Gibraltar? -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
First glance it looks like it might be Gibraltar, but I don't think so. I'm guessing somewhere in the Canaries. Could be Santa Cruz De Las Palmas. On Jul 9, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Bob W wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
In a message dated 7/9/2006 9:21:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark, To show a version of the color, I'm attaching a shot of the actual Poppy used for the shot. Both taken on Ektar 100 with an M 50mm f/1.4 and close-up filter. (forget which #) Appreciate comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=125 === Agree with what Mark said, I like flower shots that become abstracted. That is a very nice shot too. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 10-17mm Review
I've been experimenting PTLens photoshop plugin from ePaperpress. It seems to do a pretty good job. It used to be free under the GNU copyleft agreement, but the new versions cost money, (I don't really have a problem it costing money, I just hate to pay for something that used to be free), so I haven't upgraded to the latest version. The only problem is that there is no profiles available for Pentax lenses except for the 16-45mm DA. Since the lens I'm using is the SMCP 17mm Fisheye, I'm using a tweaked version of the Zenitar 16mm fisheye on the *ist-D/Ds, this is close enough for government work. If you send them sample images they say that they'll produce a profile for your lens. That probably only applies to people who've actually paid for the product. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: 10-17mm Review Some, but this is really bad... Can you show us something? What would you like to see? BTW, I was just funnin' about the fisheye thing. It's a pretty cool lens. Can anyone recommend a defishing utility? William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
Or should I say Santa Cruz de la Palma. too many ssses.. On Jul 9, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Bob W wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
And you would actually use FED/Ex? William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I've shipped 4000 pound cars via air freight. I think the charge was about $100,000, which works out to $25 per pound. There's no way anyone pays $1000 per pound to ship anything of any size. On Jul 9, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: I just got a quick quote from Fed/Ex to ship a 1000 pound pallet from Tokyo Japan to the Beacon Hill Library in Seattle Washington. They want US$15,516.38 for the pleasure. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 10-17mm Review
Ok, it's in the general direction of deocean. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Bob W Subject: RE: 10-17mm Review No way. If we give you a defish, we won't feed you today. But if we teach you to defish we'll starve you for a lifetime. Im not asking you to give me defish, nor even teach me to defish. Just point me in the general direction of defish. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Mark, To show a version of the color, I'm attaching a shot of the actual Poppy used for the shot. Both taken on Ektar 100 with an M 50mm f/1.4 and close-up filter. (forget which #) Appreciate comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=125 I'd like to look at your photos, Jack, but at the bottom of each is instructions to write a description. I just can't take that much pressure. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
Thanks, wish I could take credit for the idea. Jack --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 9:21:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mark, To show a version of the color, I'm attaching a shot of the actual Poppy used for the shot. Both taken on Ektar 100 with an M 50mm f/1.4 and close-up filter. (forget which #) Appreciate comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=125 === Agree with what Mark said, I like flower shots that become abstracted. That is a very nice shot too. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Tricked Up Poppy
That, of course, would take me a couple seconds, so, of course, it never gets done. ;) Jack --- Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Mark, To show a version of the color, I'm attaching a shot of the actual Poppy used for the shot. Both taken on Ektar 100 with an M 50mm f/1.4 and close-up filter. (forget which #) Appreciate comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=125 I'd like to look at your photos, Jack, but at the bottom of each is instructions to write a description. I just can't take that much pressure. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Brick wall shot
Well done, Bob. It's so well exposed, that I wondered if the sky is painted too ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Bob W Sendt: 8. juli 2006 20:49 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: Brick wall shot Somebody has recently painted some spectacular graffiti on about 100m of wall on one of the wharves near my house. I photographed the full length of it today, and might do a panorama. Here's an excerpt http://www.web-options.com/P7080771.jpg You can see the shadow of my magnificent head in it, but it was unavoidable. Cheers, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 07/07/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:46:01 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 8, 2006, at 6:40 PM, John Forbes wrote: $1,000/pound. What rubbish. On that basis an airfare for a human being would be $150,000. I do wish people would think before making such crazy assertions. John, you'll note that he says for large quantities. Human beings are not shipped air freight by the thousands at once. Likewise, Pentax does not import one or two cameras at a time, and this is why the shipments of K100D and K110D cameras that are specifically being talked about are coming over on ships. I realize that it's hard for people to understand the difference in scale, but there is a massive difference in scale. How many cameras do you think they're bringing in, and how much space do you think they take up? -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Francis wrote: On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Possible, I don't have the reference I was using handy. Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. Of course not, they're barely going 3000 miles and typically far less, instead of 2-3x times that, with much more cargo per lb of fuel since they are using aircraft with intercontinental range, allowing much less than max fuel loads at Maximum Takeoff Weight. I'd be shocked if their cost was even $5/lb for short ranges (Note the same goes for air freight from South America, which, while higher cost than within the US proper, isn't going to approach the cost of flying Japan-US by even a close margin). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Cite all the figures you want, $1000 per pound is still way off the mark. The numbers I cited for transporting cars on pallets where from Detroit to Christ Church New Zealand. It was approximagely $25 per pound, two cars, 8000 pounds. Difficult loading and unloading constraints. Extra precautions and heavy insurance, since the cars were for a two million dollar commercial shoot. Nowhere, no how, does it cost $1000 per pound to move anything, save perhaps cocaine from Columbia. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Francis wrote: On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 12:40:13PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). They're still cheaper to operate than passenger aircraft, pound for pound. Passengers demand expensive, heavy, support equipment (seats, crew, etc.) And if any one of a dozen airlines can ship me and my luggage across the Atlantic (business class) at a cost well under $100/lb round trip, and make money when the plane is loaded to less than half capacity, there is simply no way it costs orders of magnitude more to ship air freight. Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Perhaps you confused price per tonne with price per kg? Possible, I don't have the reference I was using handy. Another point to consider: FedEx ship air freight across the country (using their own dedicated L1011s and other similar aircraft). I assume they make money on the deal - they've been doing this for many years now - and they sure don't charge anywhere near what you've been suggesting. Of course not, they're barely going 3000 miles and typically far less, instead of 2-3x times that, with much more cargo per lb of fuel since they are using aircraft with intercontinental range, allowing much less than max fuel loads at Maximum Takeoff Weight. I'd be shocked if their cost was even $5/lb for short ranges (Note the same goes for air freight from South America, which, while higher cost than within the US proper, isn't going to approach the cost of flying Japan-US by even a close margin). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Brick wall shot
Thanks - it looks like it, doesn't it? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 09 July 2006 20:07 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Brick wall shot Well done, Bob. It's so well exposed, that I wondered if the sky is painted too ;-) Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk http://www.web-options.com/P7080771.jpg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: An exercise in triangulation
...and the winner of the coveted award is... Mike Wilson! Tell us, Mike - when you've caught your breath - how are you going to use your title to further the good of mankind and promote worldwide peace this year? To be precise, it is Europa Point, the southernmost tip of Gibraltar, and the place where the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic, circa 1968. You can see Africa from there, although I think the landmass in the background of the photo is probably Spain. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike wilson Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. Pure guesstimation; Gibraltar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Farmer's Market
Marnie, I don't know what's wrong with your downloads. These are the biggest sized uploads that I have used with Picassa. Maybe they are acting up...this is a beta copy of Picassa. Thanks for looking. Regards, Bob S. On 7/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/8/2006 3:23:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is another web album on Picassa of the farmer's market this morning. I took about 30 pictures in raw and have spent too much time converting them. First I did 30 raw into jpegs, then highlight reduction on the jpegs. Uploaded from full 4 meg jpegs to a reduced size by Picassa. http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/FarmerSMarket02 I can see better results in terms of details in the highlights, but this is starting to be work not fun. :-( Comments and sugestions would be appreciated. Regards, Bob S. == Intriguing. Makes me want to try it. :-) Interesting abstracts. BUT... don't know why, Bob, when I went from thumbnails to full images, the full image for each one would not load. So I was looking at very pixelated low res. Sort of like a progressive JPG that only did one or two progressions, but not the full set. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Dig, dig, dig, dig :-) On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Going back to the original question, I can't imagine that Pentax has ever shipped 40 tons of anything, anywhere. I would guess their typical shipment to New York is a ton at most. Look at the numbers. They haven't sold 40 tons of cameras in the history of the company. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Okay, my last post was an exaggeration. But it takes Pentax a long time to sell 40 tons of cameras worldwide, let alone to one market. I would guess shipments to distributors average quite a bit less than one ton. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
You see a statue of a Falcon while you were there? Bob S. On 7/9/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation
Interesting. They must have had the distances wrong then. My wife and I once decided, in a rare double brain cramp, to hike to the top of Gibraltar. Compounding this idiocy was that I had somehow strained my left knee walking/climbing around Granada for a week, so it was a lot of uphill limping. We didn't make it. But the good news is that apparently everyone not running an eatery on Gibraltar weekends in Spain, so we were able to get quick seating in a restaurant. On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Bob W wrote: ...and the winner of the coveted award is... Mike Wilson! Tell us, Mike - when you've caught your breath - how are you going to use your title to further the good of mankind and promote worldwide peace this year? To be precise, it is Europa Point, the southernmost tip of Gibraltar, and the place where the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic, circa 1968. You can see Africa from there, although I think the landmass in the background of the photo is probably Spain. -- Cheers, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
[Fwd: postprocessing filmscan with heavy grain]
|NOTE: |This may be the second time this message appears, but I think I've been |using an old address of this list? | Original Message |Subject: postprocessing filmscan with heavy grain |Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:07:16 +0200 |From: Vic Mortelmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] |To: pentax epostlijst pentax-discuss@pdml.net Hi, I'm looking into low-level postprocessing techniques and I'm a bit puzzled how film grain influences postprocessing. More precise: will a film scan that has no grain (e.g. scanned at low resolution) look the same as a film scan that has visible grain (e.g. high-resolution scan), when you apply exactly the same postprocessing? Because postprocessing is typically non-linear, the change applied to dark pixels may be totally unrelated to the change applied to bright pixels. But what happens to an image area that---to the eye---has a medium-gray brightness, but---at the pixel level---is a mixture of bright and dark pixels due to grain. I doubt that the effect is as desired, i.e. as you would expect on a smooth image that has no grain, even if the processing is as simple as a gamma-correction. Any experience with this? Groeten, Vic -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/9/2006 5:45:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don === Yeah, I run a small home-based business. While I do not ship overseas, it usually is cheaper to do anything when you have a larger quantity. The more the product, the cheaper, in other words. Businesses are given breaks that way, otherwise they couldn't stay in business. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam Maas wrote: Don Williams wrote: I've been watching this thread for a while and can no longer be silent. This is the biggest load of bullshit I've seen in ages. I just did two calculations for 4000 kgs and 2000 kgs of cartons (holding about twenty cameras each) across the Atlantic from Toivakka to New York -- door to door. The TNT Air Freight cost would be 22.97 Euro per kilogram for a shipment of boxes that total 4000 kgs. If anyone doesn't believe this go to the TNT website and do the calculation yourself. I think 4000 kgs is a large quantity. Yes? Or is the poster (I can't remember who posted the original rubbish) going to say 4000 kgs is not a large enough quantity. By the way *the more you send* the cheaper it gets! Don I said large quantities, and I meant it. I'm talking by the multiple containerload. 747-400F's are relatively cheap to operate, the larger freight aircraft aren't so cheap, and are rather limited availability (which drives up the price). So, 4000kgs is not a large quantity, it's rather small actually when a single container is 10 times that. Remeber we are talking items that run around 1kg in packaging and are produced in quntities of 30,000+ a month. Shipments are not going to be 4000kgs The numbers I was referencing were old (I cribbed them from an early 90's text on cheap access to space), and it's quite possible that the prices have come down by an order of magnitude, but not two. -Adam Ballocks! -- Dr E D F Williams www.kolumbus.fi/mimosa/ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/ 41660 TOIVAKKA – Finland - +358400706616 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: An exercise in triangulation
Wrong place - but Gibraltar was full of Maltese families, brought over as a matter of policy to weaken any loyalty to Spain. And Russian sailors. Back then you could spot the Russians because they were always laden down with consumer goodies to take home. The Americans just wanted to take photos of me in my school uniform - Gee, Wilmer, a typical Gibraltarian schoolkid. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: 09 July 2006 20:58 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT: An exercise in triangulation You see a statue of a Falcon while you were there? Bob S. On 7/9/06, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where am I? http://www.web-options.com/walkden083.jpg PDML Geographer of the Year Award to whoever gets it right, within a 3 mile radius. -- Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Pentax produces 120,000 or so DS's in 2005 according to numbers posted here earlier (Nikon and Canon do that in a month of course, per model). At a conservative estimate of 1kg/box (Since the camera is about 1lb, plus packaging, CD's, cables, batteries, etc). That's 120 tons of DS's a year, including packaging. Plus whatever number of PS's and the other DSLR's and lenses and other such sundries and the packaging of the PS jobs is maybe half the size of the DS's. And given market size, probably 1/3 of them came to to North America (As Europe and the US are similar sized markets and Asia is collectively around the same sized market). That's easily a few containerloads a year to Pentax US. -Adam Paul Stenquist wrote: Okay, my last post was an exaggeration. But it takes Pentax a long time to sell 40 tons of cameras worldwide, let alone to one market. I would guess shipments to distributors average quite a bit less than one ton. Paul On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Adam Maas wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: OT: An exercise in triangulation
Interesting. They must have had the distances wrong then. that wouldn't surprise me. I've no idea where the distances came from, or what they really are. I suppose it depends on whether you measure them on a flat map, or on a globe. My wife and I once decided, in a rare double brain cramp, to hike to the top of Gibraltar. Compounding this idiocy was that I had somehow strained my left knee walking/climbing around Granada for a week, so it was a lot of uphill limping. We didn't make it. We were up and down all the time, like little Barbary apes, but at that age you don't notice such things. But the good news is that apparently everyone not running an eatery on Gibraltar weekends in Spain, so we were able to get quick seating in a restaurant. The border with Spain was closed for most of the time we were there. If we wanted to get off the Rock we had to borrow a Navy boat and go over to Morocco for the weekend. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Adam Maas wrote: Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). My little sub-$200 ipod came via Fedex right from China- overnight. -Ryan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Sun Shadow
In a message dated 7/8/2006 7:45:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Would appreciate y'all taking a look and sending along your reaction/repulsion. Taken 10 years ago on a foggy AM at Crater Lake, OR. I've always felt a little guilty about the donut shadow. Should I? Mamiya 6, 75mm lens on T-Max 100. Seeking comments. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=121 = Nope, definitely not. It adds a nice level of abstraction, yet again. :-) I like it a lot. I'd put that up on the wall, easily. Love the trees. You're turning up some nice older photos lately, Jack. Keep it up. Find more gems. Marnie aka Doe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? You, the immortal genius who claims that trans-Pacific airfreight costs $1,000 per pound when it actually costs just over $1.00? The supreme Economist who claims that things go up in price the more you buy? And who hasn't worked out that if it costs more per unit to buy two of something than one of something, then people will buy one, twice? You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:18:10 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John Even with your numbers, you argument about how their shipped is wrong. -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? You, the immortal genius who claims that trans-Pacific airfreight costs $1,000 per pound when it actually costs just over $1.00? Actually, the best numbers for large quantities and masses that have been quoted here was $25/lb (Paul's two cars), and a much smaller shipment was $15/lb (William's 1000lb pallet). At least I'm willing to admit my numbers were wrong. Yours are only right for very small quantities (the size of which that can fit in passenger aircraft, where much of the cost is subsidized by paying passengers, and the aircraft are significantly more efficient (See previously posted numbers on 747-400ER vs 747-400ER freighter range, taken from Boeing's site this morning). The supreme Economist who claims that things go up in price the more you buy? And who hasn't worked out that if it costs more per unit to buy two of something than one of something, then people will buy one, twice? Somebody doesn't understand that for very large quantities, some shipping methods are simply not economical due to lake of ability to scale. Everything has a limit to which you can scale it, above which the costs go up because you start losing efficiency or simply run out of capacity (for which you aren't the sole customer). Air Freight doesn't scale particularly well beyond a certain point. Which is why most things are still shipped by sea and rail for long distances. Also, economies of scale only apply for mass produced iems when you aren't exceeding production capacity. Call caterham and order 1000 cars and see how much more they cost per unit a single car (Caterham hand builds sportscars) You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John I'd rather be a moron than someone who's ignorant of logistics, economies of scale and basic math. -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:18:10 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BS. Larger quantities only are cheaper when they still fit inside the cheapest method of shipping, without monopolizing it (If you suddenly started using up all available cheap air freight, your prices are going to go up, a lot), which is only viable for small quantities of items. And if that doesn't do bulk shipments, then either you go by sea or you pay more. Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). -Adam John Forbes wrote: It would never be more expensive to ship a larger quantity. It would only be more expensive if you were shipping one huge item that wouldn't fit conveniently into a conventional aircraft. Something like a Sherman tank, or perhaps Canon's latest pro body. Pentax cameras are not in that league. 40 ton containers go by sea because they contain items of relatively low value and there is no hurry to get them to their destination. Items shipped by air are typically sent in much smaller packages. I have no idea how Pentax ships its cameras. I am simply saying that $1,000 per pound for airfreight is a load of baloney. Get real. John On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don points out, large quantities would result in lower prices, not higher ones. I suspect whoever posted this meant $1,000/ton, not per pound. And LESS for larger quantities. If larger quantities cost more, people would just ship consignments of one, wouldn't they? Work it out for yourself. John After a certain point, it gets more expensive, not less. Which is why we use container ships rather than sending 40 ton containers by air freight. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Ryan Brooks wrote: Adam Maas wrote: Most electronic goods are shipped by sea in containers. Pentax cameras fall into that category, as does most of Canons stuff. Only expensive, low volume sales items would be shipped by air (Like a Canon 1Ds or Hasselblad H2D, and the former likely gets sent by sea anyways, stuffed into a container with 40 tons of Rebel XT's). My little sub-$200 ipod came via Fedex right from China- overnight. -Ryan Not surprised, Apple's got huge margins and production capacity issues. They'd rather eat some profit on shipping than give up marketshare on the iPod. And you can get a large number of iPod's on even a standard air freight container for an airliner (Notice how small Apple's packaging is getting lately? Shipping costs are likely one reason for that) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Yikes! Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear -- I wasn't defending the numbers, which I know nothing about. I was trying to clear up the fact that Pentax DOES ship by sea for large orders and by air for small ones. Regardless of what one thinks of common sense or basic economics, that is actually what they do. The first batch of K100D and K110D bodies destined for North America are on a boat last I heard. My DS2, which was a very late production model, shipped by air directly from the Philippine warehouse (by Purolator, if I recall correctly) and took only a couple of days to get to me. We've seen a clear demonstration already with the real-world numbers from Paul and Bill of how bigger shipments actually do get more expensive by air. The real world is under no obligation to conform to common sense, and frequently doesn't. And how can I be digging if this is only my second post on the subject? ;) IN SUMMARY: Pentax ship large orders by sea and small orders by air. They're either doing it in the most economical way, or total idiots. Arguing that they don't do this is akin to arguing that they don't sell cameras. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New K bodies listed on B
when you enter a crowded room for the first time do you make a habit of lecturing the people already in there? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Strain Sent: 09 July 2006 22:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT canon pro-1 and viewfinder comparisons
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Happened into the local Micro Center electronics store and found they had one Canon Pro-1 camera left. It's an in-case demo unit. If Ann or anyone else would like it, I found they would let me have it for $610 plus tax. --- Godfrey thanks for the thought, Godfrey -- I do recommend the camera highly... I got my new one from KEH for $379 total. It was the camera only, no memory card, booklet or battery charger ro batteries - but I had all those things. I listed my dead one on craigslist with the note this camera is definitely dead It does seem to me remarkable that something that looks so healthy could have been totally murdered by on drowning... I keep hoping someone would like to fiddle with it for amusement or get it to work or use some parts. sigh. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Bob, He's got a point. For all my participation in it, this was one of the sillier threads in recent history. -Adam Bob W wrote: when you enter a crowded room for the first time do you make a habit of lecturing the people already in there? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Strain Sent: 09 July 2006 22:23 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New K bodies listed on B I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and it has nothing to do with the age of the data, and a lot more to do with simple common sense. Or uncommon sense, in some cases. John Even with your numbers, you argument about how their shipped is wrong. Really? You have been consistently wrong and irrational throughout this discussion. You are utterly without credibility. Nothing you say makes sense or can be believed. I don't believe your figures about passenger versus freight payloads either. They just don't make sense. Anyway I am reminded of the saying that arguing with fools just makes one look foolish, so I will desist. Goodnight, and pray for a gift from the brain fairy. John -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:06:44 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are my numbers off, possibly by an order of magnitude (Which I've admitted earlier, since I'm pulling form an old source I don't have handy) John Forbes wrote: Adam, You're still talking nonsense. If these freight aircraft can carry 78 tons, then charging $1,000 per pound would yield gross revenue of $156 million per flight. At $100/lb, that's 15.6 million. Before any costs are taken off the numbers. Strange that most of the American airline industry is in Chapter 11 when there is so much money to be earned shipping cameras. Cameras don't go air freight, they come over by the containerload on ships. That's essentially the point of the argument. Even at $10/lb, it's not economical to send a $500 camera by air freight except for very short distances or single sales to customers, where the customer is paying freight anyways. Also it's passenger airlines which are all facing chapter 11. They're not the ones running large-scale air freight operations, they do very small scale freight, see my numbers upthread as to the cargo capacity of a 747-400ER. Now take a deep breath and come back down to earth. John I suggest you do as well -Adam On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:15:40 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: Aaron, When you're in a hole, stop digging. And put your brain in gear. As Don
Re: New K bodies listed on B
Yep, the $1000/lb number is wrong (unless you are talking a Super Guppy or AN-224, which is where I expect my source got it, unfortunately they didn't divulge the math behiond the umber, and I took it on face value, mistakenly). It doesn't change the basic equations of air freight vs sea freight. The real world is typically far more complicated than common sense allows for. -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: Yikes! Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear -- I wasn't defending the numbers, which I know nothing about. I was trying to clear up the fact that Pentax DOES ship by sea for large orders and by air for small ones. Regardless of what one thinks of common sense or basic economics, that is actually what they do. The first batch of K100D and K110D bodies destined for North America are on a boat last I heard. My DS2, which was a very late production model, shipped by air directly from the Philippine warehouse (by Purolator, if I recall correctly) and took only a couple of days to get to me. We've seen a clear demonstration already with the real-world numbers from Paul and Bill of how bigger shipments actually do get more expensive by air. The real world is under no obligation to conform to common sense, and frequently doesn't. And how can I be digging if this is only my second post on the subject? ;) IN SUMMARY: Pentax ship large orders by sea and small orders by air. They're either doing it in the most economical way, or total idiots. Arguing that they don't do this is akin to arguing that they don't sell cameras. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On 9/7/06, Adam Maas, discombobulated, unleashed: Other way around actually. Passenger Aircraft are cheaper to operate, and longer ranged. Take the Passenger and Freight versions of the 747-400ER. The Passenger version can move between 416 and 524 passengers depending on configuration, plus 4800-5600 cu ft of freight/baggage(Based on passenger configuration) 14,205km in one go. The Freighter version can move 112 tons, with a aggregate total of 31,967 cu ft of space (less for palletized cargo, which is the typical method of shipment) but only has a range of 9200km, or it can carry 123 tons of a similar sized cargo for greatly reduced range. It does use approximately 6500 gallons less fuel in a max range flight, but that's 10% or so less fuel to go more than 30% less far (Freighter has 57,285 US gallons capacity to the 63,705 gallons the passenger version carries) . And fuel is the primary operating cost for aircraft. So you've got at a minimum a 30% efficiency advantage here, and quite possibly more (Due to palletization, which costs max load and size in favour of significantly enhanced speed). Note that most small air freight goes via passenger aircraft, one reason why it's much cheaper. Adam, you're beyond redemption there lad. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
On 9/7/06, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed: Are you accusing me of talking bullshit? Mark! PS -- ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Welcome to the PDML
Hi Joe, Welcome to the list. As you've already seen, we sometimes talk about things that have very little to do with Pentax cameras. That's due in part to the fact that we cover Pentax cameras in depth. Sometimes there's just not much more to talk about, so we digress. We're more than a source of information, we're a group of friends who empathize, argue, congratulate, and more. We're a big family, that can't always keep it all together. If you stick around for awhile, I think you'll like it. And you'll eventually learn a lot about Pentax cameras and photography in general. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar --- Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'll be on-topic shortly. Thread drift happens (in this case, because I used a bad source on air freight numbers). So, which Spotmatics do you use? I'm an M42 afficianado, and I shoot with a Spotmatic SP, as well as a Chinon CM-3 and M42 adaptors in my LX, MX and Ricoh KR-5sv. My main bodies are the CM-3 and LX though as the meter is broken on my SP and I don't like Match-needle much anyways. (the MX is out on loan at the moment) -Adam Joe Strain wrote: I just joined the list today from a SPOTMATIC group having chosen to use my Pentax optics on a new *istDL My interests are in technical and macro phorography using f 4.5 Pentax Macro 50 mm, 100 mm (or thereabouts) bellows takumar So far I havent learned a thing and will be keeping my responses OFF till I see the this list going back ON THEME Best wishes and silently lurking here in Winter garden Fl. Yodar --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/9/2006 1:42:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are a moron, my friend, plain and simple. John === Sometimes you just have to love PDML. Sling some name calling around here, sling some name calling around there. Definitely not boring. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT canon pro-1 and viewfinder comparisons
There's an *istDL on EBAY whose bid currently is half that (19 hours) I got mine (a body)for $330 yodar --- Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Happened into the local Micro Center electronics store and found they had one Canon Pro-1 camera left. It's an in-case demo unit. If Ann or anyone else would like it, I found they would let me have it for $610 plus tax. --- Godfrey thanks for the thought, Godfrey -- I do recommend the camera highly... I got my new one from KEH for $379 total. It was the camera only, no memory card, booklet or battery charger ro batteries - but I had all those things. I listed my dead one on craigslist with the note this camera is definitely dead It does seem to me remarkable that something that looks so healthy could have been totally murdered by on drowning... I keep hoping someone would like to fiddle with it for amusement or get it to work or use some parts. sigh. ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Yodar Words MEAN things. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Welcome to the PDML
On 9/7/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: Hi Joe, Welcome to the list. As you've already seen, we sometimes talk about things that have very little to do with Pentax cameras. That's due in part to the fact that we cover Pentax cameras in depth. Sometimes there's just not much more to talk about, so we digress. We're more than a source of information, we're a group of friends who empathize, argue, congratulate, and more. We're a big family, that can't always keep it all together. If you stick around for awhile, I think you'll like it. And you'll eventually learn a lot about Pentax cameras and photography in general. Here's the FAQ: http://www.graywolfphoto.com/pentax/pdml-faq.html Don't believe anything Mark or Frank say. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New K bodies listed on B
John Forbes wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:49:18 +0100, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Forbes wrote: You said $1000 per pound, not $100, you devious little man. So it IS $156 million. Except, if you'd actually read my numbers, I'd admitted the $1000/lb number was probably wrong (As is the source I got it from). So I'm not being devious, I've said repeatedly that I was likely wrong about the $1000/lb number. Likely Did you say Likely? What a comedian! Not only was $1,000 wrong, so was your next wild guess - $100. And even that was 100 times (two orders of magnitude) too much. Umm, it was at most 4 times too much (given Paul's $25/lb cost for an actual shipment for a slightly shorter distance), and possibly not even that much (since I was guessing for larger quantities than 2 cars). I said likely because we don't have hard numbers (And I'm sure there are situations in which my original number is accurate, just not this one). This wasn't a simple error. It was simple stupidity. If airfreight cost anything like the amounts you claim, just a moment's reflection would be enough to tell you that there would be no airfreight industry. Funny, but run the numbers on a Shuttle Launch sometime. 27 tons of cargo, half a billion or so launch cost (Possibly more, can't be bothered to look up the number). Yet they fill the hold with commercial satellites often enough. High costs don't kill industries, they push them into niches. Look at the rates quoted here, for shipping from China to New York. They quote $3 per kilo for items over 500 kilos, which is about $1.30 per pound. http://www.binocularschina.com/guide/freightoptimization.html That tops out at 2000kg, which is a pretty low number, they quote sea shipping for larger amounts. 2 tons != 40 tons. While I'd expect that pentax likely uses the smaller 20' containers rather than 40'containers, due to smaller volumes. I really don't see viable numbers for air freight unless they ship more than once a week to Pentax US. Which makes no sense economically. This website was one source of freight rates, and it quoted rates up to 2000kgs. It didn't say that was the maximum you could send. If 2000kgs IS the max parcel size, you obviously send more than one parcel, if you need to send more than 2000kgs. No, it actually quotes rates far in excess of 2000kgs, just not via air. I suspect this was for a reason (Costs going up due to capacity issues) Quite a difference, I think you'll agree, and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Except we're talking a hell of a lot more than 2000kg worth of cameras. Note that your source ships anything more than 54 units by sea. So your source alone disproves your argument about sending air freight. Neither you nor I know how many consignments Pentax sends in a month, or what they weigh, so this doesn't disprove anything, let alone my argument. Bear in mind they are talking about Chinese-made binoculars, which would probably have a very much lower cost/weight ratio than a Pentax camera. I actually said: and since the goods get there more quickly and more safely, it probably IS worthwhile to use air-freight. Note the probably. Since the difference in price between sea and air would be around $1.00 per camera, given the manifold advantages of airfreight I think my statement stands up, especially since these people are working on a Just-in-time manufacturing and stocking system. Actually, given Pentax's posted production numbers, we can make a solid guess as to shipping numbers. And we've had references from the one person here with solid inside information stating that Pentax does use sea freight for large shipments (Which was my basic argument anyways). Also you are merely asserting that Air Shipping is safer (It's certainly faster) although that's certainly a defensible argument, you have yet to argue it. Note that just-in-time systems work quite well with 2 week shipping times, in fact they'd mostly make air freight unnecessary since they're able to plan around the shipping times to be most efficient. Given the size of these binoculars (Approximately 35kgs), it's probably possible to ship significantly more Pentax cameras via air freight and stay in the area of reasonable cost. However you should note that the Binoculars appear to be targeted towards individual stores or mail order firms rather than a single national distributor (a la Pentax US) based on quantities that shipping is quoted for. I doubt that Pentax ships cameras in qunatities of 1000 to Pentax US, far more likely to ship 10,. Their quotes for quantities of Binoculars suitable for a national distributor are all quoted with sea freight. I wonder why that is? You are actually off by much more than an order of magnitude, and
Re: Spotmatics, Was Re: New K bodies listed on B
Joe Strain wrote: I have an F and a Ricoh Singlex with the self timer and the 50mm f 1.4 lens that looks exactly like my 50 f 1.4 super takumar. Great lens, I've got the 50/1.4 Super Takumar as well. Will using most of my lenses with M42 to K adapter on my *istDL Worked really nicely on my D when I had it. I used to soup my own color reversal and direct positive B W film but prefer the convenience of digital Yodar I like digital for colour work, but prefer film for BW (which is a significant portion of my work). I soup my own BW, but use a lab for the rare time I shoot colour film (I also shoot with Nikons, and my current digi is a D50). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
