Re: Recommendations
Hi, The Schneider lupes are excellent - I have 4X. It's also useful to have an 8X. I have a no-name one which is very good, but doesn't cover the full 35mm. I use it only for checking critical sharpness in small areas of the slide. I assume you want these things for 35mm. There are several types of lightbox. Mine is a Jessops brand (UK). It is very sturdy metal with a properly balanced lightsource. It is angled and has 2 removal metal strips which can be used as slide 'shelves'. Most lightboxes I've seen are flat. If I were to choose again I'd investigate the ones that are in a briefcase because there have been numerous occasions when it would have been useful. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 5:14:53 PM, you wrote: > Hi ALL, > I would appreciate recommendations on: > 1. Good Loupes/Magnifiers > 2. Good Lightbox/Panel/Tables > 3. Good Slide Viewers/Sorters > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: what i'd really like in a camera(body)
Hi, Sounds to me like you want a Contax RX:- Av, Tv (4-1/4000), P (16-1/4000), Manual (4-1/4000), B, X (1/125) Exp. comp in 1/3 stop increments Spot (EV5-20) or centre-weighted metering (EV1-20) DOF preview no mirror lock-up, but extremely low-vibration shutter auto-bracketing modern ttl flash capabilities, but not built-in interchangeable screens data-imprinting digital focus indicator (can be useful) mid-roll rewind auto film loading DX, with manual override winder up to 3 fps (no manual winding :o( ) very quiet winder 9 custom functions manual focus smaller and lighter than an LX+winder copper/silumin chassis with brass alloy top & bottom covers --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, February 28, 2001, 6:03:38 PM, you wrote: > I have a KX and A K1000 and i love them. I'd like, though, the ability to > have the option of a spot-meter though. There are also times when Av and Tv > modes could be particularly useful. Essientially what i'd like is a > Super-program with a spot meter. But the super-program only has exposure > compensation in increments of 1EV...how useful is that? > How much work would it be for pentax to take a superprogram and give it > better exposure compensation and a spot meter? Based on what it is that i > would like, i could get a ZX-5n. If i were to go there, why shouldn't i get a > MZ-3 with a faster shutter and higher sync speed. That begs the question that > i don't get...why the hell is the MZ-3 not available in the US. Is it because > Ashai thinks that the US is a bunch of punks (which we generally are) and > need to know what it feels like to not get something (which we could also use > as well). But regardless of that, it doesn't seem to make good marketing > sense. Are they holding out so we'd spend more for the PZ-1p, whose sales > could drop if the MZ-3 were in the US? Please help me make sense of all this. > No i'm not die-hard about pentax demolishing the competition of the photo > world, but it is sort of frustrating to know what you want and not be able to > get it. My objections to the PZ-1p: large price for the stuff i don't want > (AF, power-zoom, built in flash, red-eye reduction, built in motor drive) > just to get the stuff i do want (quality camera with Av & Tv with good > exposure comensation and a spot meter), and no truly manual mode (what is > hyper manual anyway?). > brent > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Pros don't use Pentax...
...they're only for amateurs and beginners. a certain photographer's wife... "...was an architectural student, and bought a camera to make pictures for her studies. It was a Pentax Spotmatic, and he remembers it with great affection. "It was the first I had looked inside a camera, and for me it was incredible. I had a big, big interest in this. It was June 1970, and Lelia bought it with a 50mm lens, and just one week later we bought a 28mm and a 200mm. These were real excitements, allowing us to look at things in a different way. [...] it totally invaded my life. "At the time I was writing my PhD thesis [...] Inside a month I had a big wish to abandon it all and become a photographer." from an interview by Simon James with Sebastiao Salgado. 'RPS Journal', March 2001. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Fw: Pentax System, Is It Worth It? (Was RE: MZ-S Is It Worth It !)
Hi, > But one thing is clear: some people buy certain brands only to impress > the other persons around them, or because they feel that way they show > their economic or social status. competitive or not, there is a great deal of pleasure to be had out of using products with certain brand names that goes beyond simple utility. I've been a Pentax user for over 20 years, and have never experienced this snobbishness that other people write about, and never really wanted any other brand, because the Pentax equipment suited me fine. The only camera brand that ever nagged at me has been Leica rangefinders, so last year I succumbed and bought my M3 with a 50mm Summilux lens. So, from the utilitarian point of view it is a great pleasure to use because it is so unassuming, so quiet and so unthreatening. I feel more laid back, and not at all aggressive when I use it. Also, the viewfinder perspective, for 50mm, seems qualitatively different to looking through a 50mm lens on an slr. Somehow it seems easy to see 50mm pictures when I'm using that camera, and I get more pictures of the HCB / Tony Ray-Jones type, which I enjoy. But beyond all these utilitarian qualities, I personally also get a great kick out of the history of the camera. The pleasure & pride of using it are increased manifold knowing that it is part of such a great tradition and that it is favoured by some of my favourite photographers. This is irrational, of course. But photography doesn't have to be rational. It should be a pleasure if nothing else, so what harm is there in getting out of it as much pleasure as one can? Because of this I see no reason to deride anybody who chooses a brand 'because the pros use it'. Why not? Even if they never use the camera, so what? If it gives them pleasure to be connected to a tradition, and they're not starving their children to do it, who cares? Of course, in their turn they mustn't look down on me for my choices. But if they do then, huh! - je m'en foue! --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: OT: Darwin fish? (was : March Gallery
Hi, thanks for all the replies. > If you ask me, Darwin fishes are a bad idea, a way of putting > creationists in the wrong mood from the start. I'd like to reply "well, that sounds like a good idea to me", but we probably don't want to go there...:o) --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Winder Batteries
Hi, I used to put lithium AAs in my LX winders when I went on long trips. They last longer than conventional batteries and are very significantly lighter. Unfortunately they're also much more expensive and much harder to get, at least in London. I didn't notice any difference in the speed of the winder. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, March 01, 2001, 5:50:38 PM, you wrote: > The various Pentax winders with which I'm familiar take AA size > batteries. Is there any battery brand, or type, in this size that > offers markedly better performance - i.e., longer life, more power? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[4]: OT: Darwin fish? (was : March Gallery
Hi, > #4. "Intelligent Design", William Dembski. The best starting point on the > matter of design and creation. Philosophical, Scientific, & Mathematic. > Dembski is a PhD Math and PhD Philosophy, both Univ. of Chicago. there are numerous sites criticising so-called theories of 'intelligent design'. An interesting one is http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/box/behe.htm. It doesn't address this person Dembski specifically, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find suitable treatments. Another useful site is http://www.talkorigins.org/ Many of the contributors to these sites also have PhDs in relevant subjects. Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Bresson( Was: An important step)
Hi, so, this is the 'Found View' is it? --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, March 03, 2001, 9:02:44 AM, you wrote: > How do your carve an Elephant? > Simple: you cut away everything that doesn't ~look~ like an Elephant...if, > that is, one can see an "elephant" in their photos; just keep cutting and > cutting... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT, Darwin, Pratchett, Adams, God (was Re: Off topic Re: Okay, kids, put your books away, we're having a pop quiz
Hi, may I respectfully submit that this thread, which has not had the decency to change its subject line, is as full of crap, as off-topic, and considerably longer than the Darwin Fish thread, and therefore should _also_ be terminated forthwith. At least with the Fish one it was clearly recognisable and avoidable from the subject line. This one has taken an interesting on-topic thread - Mike's quiz - and dragged it through junk literature and boring quotes that almost make the interminable and tedious Monty Python threads look interesting. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, March 03, 2001, 6:20:22 AM, you wrote: > Quotes are from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy > (HHGttG) A book by Terry Pratchett. Just worked it > out. Aren't you proud of me? Think I read it once. >> Curiosity has got the better of me. I have to ask: >> What the HECK are you >> talking about??? >> > >But that's not the question. Or so Marvin says, >> > >and he read it directly from Arthur's brain. >> > >[OK - I know *far* more than is healthy about >> HHGttG] >> > Don't try to out-weird me three-eyes. I get >> stranger things than >> > you free with my breakfast cereal. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Have an ebay laugh
Hi, come on Peter, cut the poor guy some slack. After all, he's from Lancashire* where most people make a living from picking over landfill :o) Also, he's offering to include a tripos. That's an honours examination from Cambridge University, and well worth having. Bit of a bargain I'd say. *in case anybody from Lancashire is feeling offended, please make a note of my surname --- Bob Walkden mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, March 04, 2001, 1:56:51 AM, you wrote: > Try this one if you are bored - Bargain **ntax > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1217647209 > Even has an "optical" lens. > Peter - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Fast Portrait Lens Suggestion
Hi, The focal length appears to be somewhere in the 75-135mm range (assuming it's shot on 35mm). It is not a very wide aperture because the depth of field keeps quite a lot of the head in reasonably sharp focus. For a 35mm camera using a 100mm lens I'd guess it was about f/5.6. The background is dark because it's night time - it's a flash shot. And there is nothing very close behind the soldier's head, so the background blur is quite smooth. The number of sides on the highlights is the same as the number of diaphragm blades in the lens. This is also a bit of a clue about the size of the aperture because a wide-open lens produces a circular highlight, whereas the more stopped down it is the more obvious is the polygonal shape of the aperture. I would recommend you use a lens in the range 85-135mm if you want to try this kind of shot. 85mm lens are generally available with apertures as wide as f/1.4, but they tend to be very high quality and correspondingly expensive. You could get a good 85/2 lens for a much better price and this would also allow you to experiment with background blur. To get a really nice effect you could do a head shot against back light through the leaves of a tree, exposing for the subject's face. Make sure the background is way, way back from the subject - ie he's not standing against a wall or something. Make the shot at several different aperture/shutter speed combinations to judge the effect of the varying size of the aperture on the degree of blur. This photo (http://www.web-options.com/ethiopia/index.htm) shows something of the effect, and it was taken with a cheap zoom with a maximum aperture of f/4. Although it's not backlit it shows a nicely blurred background which helps to abstract away that person in blue behind the subject, and it demonstrates that the effect is easy to get without special equipment. Hope that helps. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, March 04, 2001, 8:58:01 AM, you wrote: > Can I refer you to the following image I came across: > http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Feb1998/980119-A-6522J-503.jpg > The dark, blur background and the 9-sided image of a > light source far into the background suggest that this > photo is taken with a very big aperture. (Please > correct me if I'm wrong) > Can you suggest at what aperture and focal length that > photographer took the photo at? I would like to buy a > lens that allows me to shoot this kind of photographs. > Thanks, > Kelvin - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Fast Portrait Lens Suggestion
Hi, [...] > blur. To get a really nice effect you could do a head shot against > back light through the leaves of a tree, exposing for the subject's face. > Make sure the background is way, way back from the subject - ie he's not > standing against a wall or something. Make the shot at several different > aperture/shutter speed combinations to judge the effect of the varying size > of the aperture on the degree of blur. > This photo (http://www.web-options.com/ethiopia/index.htm) shows something > of the effect, and it was taken with a cheap zoom with a maximum aperture > of f/4. Although it's not backlit it shows a nicely blurred background > which helps to abstract away that person in blue behind the subject, > and it demonstrates that the effect is easy to get without special equipment. this is a better example of what I mean: http://www.web-options.com/Guerrilla/img0035.htm shot with an MX, SMC A 70-210/4 probably at f/4 or f/5.6. Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: More on cropping (Was: An important step)
Hi, I'm only aware of one photo from over 70 years of photography and many, many thousands of photographs that HCB cropped, which is the 'Railowsky' man jumping a puddle. He doesn't allow his printer to crop them and his prints are sent out with specific instructions to editors not to crop them. If anybody has other examples of his allegedly cropped photos perhaps they could cite some specific examples. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, March 05, 2001, 2:59:52 AM, you wrote: > I heard he said he never crops. I also have heard that he does not do his > own printing. So his statement is probably true he never crops his > pictures, his printer does though. > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Like I said before: HCB cropped. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[6]: More on cropping (Was: An important step)
Hi, >Why not crop when the scene / composition calls > for it? no reason whatsoever. It's entirely a matter of personal choice. When I started photography the people who influenced me were those who avoided cropping, and I emulated them. Over the years I have become trained to see in the 2:3 rectangle. It's my loss, I suppose. I make no claims for any form of superiority. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, March 06, 2001, 12:00:35 AM, you wrote: >> >> > In real life there are many possible scenes that are not > ideal at 1:1.5 aspect ratio. Why not crop when the scene / composition calls > for it? > I shoot 6X6 sometimes but rarely find the square framing to > work for a shot. I almost never compose "square" and NOT crop those 6X6 > shots. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Bresson a cropper?
Hi, yes - I understand that, but the borders look different when they're printed in. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, March 05, 2001, 11:26:54 PM, you wrote: > A black border is not necessarily an indication of a full-frame, or > uncropped, print. Borders can be printed in, and they often are. I > have read that HC-B has done just that in some instances, but I've > never seen documentation of that. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Bresson a cropper?
Hi, > << HCB a cropper? >> > Did he stick his eye to the viewfinder, level the camera then shoot...always? > If so, ~he~ did not crop...but his camera[s] sure did. this is Humpty-Dumptyism. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Hi, > The gist of my post was this: Had HCB/Adams been around to shoot "pro" zooms, > would they have, and would their zooms shots be masterpieces? > That is the question[s]. HCB _is_ still around. Nowadays he mostly uses pencils. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Primes Vs. Zooms: was: Re: More on croppng (Was: An important step)
Hi, > It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work, > but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism > than about quality photography. > Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about > exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story. > Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound > bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than sorry, but this is not true. Photo essays have always been just one part of photojournalism. Weegee, for instance, didn't do essays. Photojournalism is a broad subject, covering spot news, sports photography, features, portraiture, essays, goofy ostriches etc. Essays _tend_ to come into a subdivision called documentary photography. A photo with no content will not make it in photojournalism, where content is and subject matter override all other considerations - except for the occasional moronic space-filling ostrich :o). You can get a pretty good overview of what modern photojournalism covers by looking the World Press Photo site www.worldpressphoto.nl. > are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ > mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where > pictures meant something about the subject? Most photojournalists that I know or have met care very deeply about their subject. I regularly attend shows and talks given by working photojournalists, and I'm friends with several, and the striking thing is how committed they are to what they do and to the people they deal with. Your experiences may differ, of course - there are some scumbags around too. > our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term > "amateur" originated. Most bla, bla also do it for love. There sure as hell ain't no money it in. They love their photography, they really know in depth the technicalities, the history, the art, everything. Usually they take photos _all_the_time_, not just while they're at work. Outside of work they are often running self-financed personal projects which explore the things that magazines etc. will no longer pay for. Long-term work which has next to no chance of widespread exposure. Look at www.reportage.com. Almost everything you see there is a personal project (otherwise it wouldn't be there). Even Salgado can't funding for his giant global projects and has to take donkey work to fund it himself. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 1:02:58 AM, you wrote: > What I find sad about this thread is that the PJ card got > played immediately, like as if that is the only way to > photograph something. "Get it now, get it while it's hot" seems > to be the mentality. I don't work that way, I never have. I > think that it is cheating the subject to work that way. > It may be the way the modern photojournalist has to work, > but this says more about the ethics of modern photojournalism > than about quality photography. > Photo journalism used to be about photo essays. It was about > exploring the subject with the lens, it was telling their story. > Now it seems to be the visual equivalent of the political sound > bite. All form, no function, and no content. Little more than > page filler for the vacuous minded (there's a Mafudism for > you!). > And how many of us (that "us" is people with cameras in > general, not people on this list) are working photojournalists? > Most of us don't make a living with our cameras. Mostly we > are shooting for pleasure. So why fall into the modern PJ > mentality? Why not fall into the older PJ mentality where > pictures meant something about the subject? > As amateur photographers, we have that option. We can do it > better. We can tell the story. We don't have to play Rambo with > our cameras. We can do it for love, which is where the term > "amateur" originated. > The grab shooter may get the best picture they can from a > particular situation, but that does not mean they have gotten a > good picture. I let more pictures get away than I shoot, simply > because I am not willing to deliberately take bad pictures on > general principles. > As a bit of evidence relating to getting the best of a bad > situation, I invite you to click on the following link: > http://www.accesscomm.ca/users/wrobb/general/tipover2.jpg > It really isn't a particularly good photograph. Just the best I > got in the situation. > I am sure that a "real" photojournalist would have done > better. They could hardly have done worse. But a real PJ also > does it for a living, day in and day out. I don't. Perhaps this > says my skill level isn't up to snuff, and I would agree. My > forte is in the field or studio with large slow moving cameras. > It is what I enjoy, as a photo hobbiest who does the occassional > (and getting more so every year) paying job, I have that luxury. > I think most of us do, if we care to admit it. > Thanks for reading > William Robb - This messa
Re[2]: Much-deserved vacation
Hi, for anybody who comes to London I'd like to add that there is a similar facility at the Victora & Albert Museum. A little-known piece of national treasure. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, March 07, 2001, 7:03:48 PM, you wrote: > Oh! Treena. Another thing I almost forgot. Visit the Prints and Photographs > Division of the Library of Congress! It's in the Jefferson Annex just in > back of the main LoC building. You can browse the entire FSA archive in row > upon row of filing cabinets, and you can order original portfolios from just > about any photographer you could possibly name to be brought up for you to > look at. It's the most accessible photography collection in the U.S. I spent > many hundreds of happy hours there (a guard saw me leaving at the end of the > day once and blurted out, "Jesus Christ, do you _live_ here?" ) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: check this out
Hi, ...nice to see thar the Man in the Moon signed a release form --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, March 08, 2001, 7:43:32 PM, you wrote: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=178752 > Ignore the photo, and read about the camera he says he used. > Thanks, > Ed - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: First look at MZ-S
Hi, > If > I wanted respect for my camrea, not for my pictures, I'd buy a Leica or > perhaps a Nikon. you'll never get any respect using a Leica. Whenever I use mine people completely ignore me and just carry on doing what they were doing anyway. They must think I'm just some scruffy old git who can't afford a new camera. It's great :o) --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, March 08, 2001, 8:21:39 PM, you wrote: > Hi all > What a strange thread! > Someone on this list said: The editors don't care which camera was used, as > long as he likes the pictures. > Why is it so interesting if other people regards Pentax as a pro camera? If > I wanted respect for my camrea, not for my pictures, I'd buy a Leica or > perhaps a Nikon. I use my cameras strictly for taking pictures (allthoug I > like the way they look and feel). Nothing else. > Noone I have been shooting for, ever asked me about the brand I'm using. > More relevant would be to a'm nosk what film, what speed, if I shoot slides > or negs, or which lab I plan to use. > I'm on this list because I use Pentax and have for 20 years. And I'd like to > be able to continue to. > I probably wouldn't use Pentax if it was every pro's favourite. I use Pentax > cameras 'cause they are different and represent another philosophy: > Features are for taking pictures, design is for the pleasure of "wearing" or > handeling it (and maybe for showing off). Pentax offers user interface for > the thinking individual, excellent lenses, high rate of compatibility, great > design, good durability/very high quality at an reasonable price. > I think the "image" of Pentax is changing. The new generation Pentax SLR's > are not going to be "power tools" for the DIY guy or PJ-pro, for that > matter. They are going to be dedicated to people, who enjoy beauty and > exclusive quality (LX2000, Limited lenses), rather than hard core specs with > lots of gadgets, buttons and lights. Quality tools for artistic > photographers who cares about their work as well as their tools. MZ-S > illustrates this well. > Jens - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
'World Illustrated' and 'Hotshoe International'
Hi, the other day I picked up the 1st issue of a new magazine which may be of interest to some people. "World Illustrated", subtitled "Our world in photographs" covers the broad spectrum of photojournalism and refers back to Picture Post and Life. It's quite small - slightly smaller than National Geographic. Worth having a look at. The features in the June issue are: Ethnic portraits by Anwar Hussain Classic photos from the Kobal Collection A superb reportage portfolio by Tim Allen, a young British photojournalist Britain in coronation year, 1952. A portfolio by Justin Sutclifee, a young British photojournalist who's done a lot of work in the USA. An essay on the Beltane fires in Edinburgh by Paul Seftel A portfolio of sports shots from the Allsports agency The publisher's websites: www.photoshot.com www.johnstonimaging.com www.postcodepictures.com The same publisher has also revived "Hotshoe" in the same small format as "World Illustrated". This concentrates on contemporary photography. Some very good stuff in there too, including the Nikon Press Awards, a portfolio about Beaches, some of Alison Jackson's great photos, which are paparazzo-style set-ups using celebrity look-alikes, and a lot of fun. Book, exhibition and product reviews, articles etc. Cheers, Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Pentax - New Directions (now getting longer)
Hi, > PS: If your camera allowed you to set the aperture through the camera or the > aperture ring, don't be surprised if the chosen shutter speed differs a bit. > This is due to the rather "loose" manufacturing tolerance. aren't you assuming the very point that's at question here? In other words, if your camera meter disagrees with the external meter, you're assuming that the camera meter is accurate and that the aperture or shutter are inaccurate. But the purpose of the exercise is to determine the accuracy of your meter, so you've made a circular argument and undermined everything else you wrote. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:27:19 AM, you wrote: >>Can you explain in more detail? >>If I take a picture of a Kodak grey card in bright sunshine (say) and then >>compare the slide >>how do I know that I am not being fooled by the 'characteristics' of the >>film rather then exposure? >>I am sorry if this is obvious to you but it is not to me. >>I used to work on optical analytical equipment and perhaps I am thinking in >>to exact terms. >>With my cameras I just get to know the 'personality' of each >>and beat it around the head a bit until it does what I want ;-) >>I would like to be able to explain the procedure of 'calibrating' to my >>wife >>who is just getting into macro photography (MZ7 and either velvia or Kodak >>100 extra colour). >>Do you know of any links to articles about this? > My approach was rather simple. I have a Minolta IV F handheld meter which is > accurate up to 1/10EV (confirmed by the Minolta service centre). > 1) Place the Kodak card (the larger, the better) on a table. > 2) Light the card evenly, and the light source must be stable. (sunlight is > not a good choice because it varies every second even it appears perfectly > identical to human eyes). > 3) Place the light meter on different position of the grey card and take > some incident readings. If all reading are identical, the grey card will be > evenly lighted. > 4) Point the camera to the centre of the grey card to take some readings and > see if they match the incident readings from the handheld meter. This should > work for centre-weighted, spot & multi-segment meterings (since the grey > card was evenly lighted, the multi-segment metering should not do any > auto-adjustment itself, and would behave just like centre-weighted > metering). > PS: If your camera allowed you to set the aperture through the camera or the > aperture ring, don't be surprised if the chosen shutter speed differs a bit. > This is due to the rather "loose" manufacturing tolerance. > regards, > Alan Chan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Ansel Adams and Snoopy
Hi, the exhibition "Ansel Adams at 100" opens here in London soon, tomorrow I think, and of course I intend to see it. There has been a flurry of Ansel-related reviews in the press here, of course. In the review section of today's "Independent" newspaper is this article, in which the author says a number of interesting things: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=313763 Cheers, Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Ansel Adams and Snoopy
Hi, it's at the Hayward Gallery in London until September the somethingth. The Hayward Gallery is in the South Bank complex, on the south-west end of Waterloo Bridge, nearest tube = Waterloo. http://www.hayward.org.uk/ --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:44:16 PM, you wrote: > Bob, > Do you know where the exhibition is, and for howlong? > Or do you have a weblink to it? > On Wednesday 10 July 2002 20:03, Bob Walkden wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the exhibition "Ansel Adams at 100" opens here in London soon, >> tomorrow I think, and of course I intend to see it. There has been a >> flurry of Ansel-related reviews in the press here, of course. In the >> review section of today's "Independent" newspaper is this article, in >> which the author says a number of interesting things: >> >> http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=313763 >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[4]: Ansel Adams and Snoopy
Hi, same general area, different galleries. The Dali exhibition is permanent, as far as I know, and is in & around the old County Hall building (I don't know if this has been renamed - everyone still calls it County Hall I think) next to the London Eye. This is about 1km upstream from the Hayward Gallery. The Hayward is in the neo-Brutalist complex which includes the Queen Elizabeth Hall, National Film Theatre, Royal Festival Hall and so on. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, July 11, 2002, 9:30:41 PM, you wrote: > Is that where the Dali exhibition is/was? > Jostein > - Original Message - > From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Frits J. Wüthrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 10:01 PM > Subject: Re[2]: Ansel Adams and Snoopy >> Hi, >> >> it's at the Hayward Gallery in London until September the somethingth. >> The Hayward Gallery is in the South Bank complex, on the south-west >> end of Waterloo Bridge, nearest tube = Waterloo. >> >> http://www.hayward.org.uk/ >> >> --- >> >> Bob >> >> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Wednesday, July 10, 2002, 8:44:16 PM, you wrote: >> >> > Bob, >> >> > Do you know where the exhibition is, and for howlong? >> > Or do you have a weblink to it? >> >> > On Wednesday 10 July 2002 20:03, Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> the exhibition "Ansel Adams at 100" opens here in London soon, >> >> tomorrow I think, and of course I intend to see it. There has been a >> >> flurry of Ansel-related reviews in the press here, of course. In the >> >> review section of today's "Independent" newspaper is this article, in >> >> which the author says a number of interesting things: >> >> >> >> http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=313763 >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Bob >> - >> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: A 400/5.6 opinions?
Hi, The A 400/5.6 and the M* and A* 300/4s are not interchangeable by ny means. I've had an A 400/5.6 and an A* 300/4. The 400 is extremely well made and very sharp. I used to shoot it with an LX and winder and I shot quite a lot of wildlife in South Africa, although I've never shot motor sports. The balance on a tripod is very good and it is quite easy and quick to focus. I also used it a lot on a bean-bag. I wouldn't consider hand-holding it at all. I don't think the 300mm lenses have a tripod mount, do they? I can't remember. They're ok on a bean bag, of course, but that makes focusing slightly awkward because the ring is restricted. I didn't use it very much with a TC. You need really to have the proper Pentax ones, which are expensive and hard to find. I used a T6-2X and a A-2XL. On the 400mm these made the vf very dark, but I did get some successful photos of wildlife using them, particularly when I used the sports finder on the LX, which is paradoxical. If I had to choose between the 400mm and one of the 300mms, I'd choose the 400mm lens. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 12, 2002, 3:04:06 AM, you wrote: > Hi all, > I sometimes try my hand at shooting motorsports (motorcycle roadracing > to be specific) and my current longest lens of 200mm just doesn't give > me the range for the shots I'm after. So, I'm looking to purchase a > telephoto that is somewhat longer. I'm considering the A 400/5.6 but > cannot seem to find any objective or subjective data on this lens. > On the other hand, I've read tons of glowing reviews of the 300/4, both > A* and M*. I'd consider this lens if folks think the overall quality is > such that the sacrifice in focal length would be worth it. I only get > out to shoot the races a few times a year so whatever lens I get would > likely server other purposes as well (wildlife perhaps). Also, comments > on the use of this lens with a teleconverter would be welcome. > One recurring comment about the 300mm is its handling. This is not a > requirement but being able to handhold this would be a nice bonus. Any > comments on this front for both lenses would be appreciated. I noticed > that the 400mm has a collar. Can anyone comment on the balance of this > lens when mounted (would be with LX body with or without motor drive)? > I often use a tripod anyway and would consider a monopod for the races > if this is considered a good option with this lens. On a simliar note, > how is the 300mm when the camera is tripod mounted? Is there much flex > at the mount? > Well, I guess that's enough for now. The more opinions the better. :-) > Thanks in advance, > Garth > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: What good is . . .
Hi, Monday, July 22, 2002, 1:44:17 AM, you wrote: > I think it's a great idea to take the glass out of a lens. You don't want to > start wearing it out by mounting it on a camera now do you? > It reminds me of the "Yes Minister" episode where they had the most > efficient hospital in England because it didn't have any patients There's a story about a button factory in the USSR during the Stalin period. Their 5-year plan target once was to make 50 tons of buttons. They made one button, weighing 50 tons . --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[6]: AP UK on why digital is no good.
Hi, Sunday, July 21, 2002, 10:17:21 PM, you wrote: > I won't pursue my line of argument much further except to say my analogy of > film/TV was simply to show how different a function two seemingly similar > form of communication can be. And, while TV has become a metaphor for > triviality (I attempted to point this out by mentioning that TV's primary > function is SALES), film has not. Therefore, the epistemological function of > the two is vastly different. "Truth" is possible through film but not TV. I must say, I disagree quite strongly with this, but we'll never settle the matter, certainly not here. > With respect to the digital photography question, I'm convinced that it is a > different form of communication than traditional photography. As I say, > perhaps we don't know exactly how yet, but I think some of the implications I > mentioned are enough to make one think about it (the Lewinsky photo example). I'll be very surprised if the move from film to digital has as dramatic an effect as you seem to think. I see it as following, at least for the mass market, the existing trajectory of photography which is towards end user simplicity and cheapness. However, digital photography is also part of a much more important and dramatic change which is fuelled by the internet and the likely rise of so-called information appliances which we're now starting to see appear. So we're seeing the convergence of phones, diaries, cameras etc. into small cheap devices, and with wireless network connections everywhere we will see some important changes. But for the great majority of people I don't think the actual uses of photography will change much, although the photos will be distributed in a different way and mass-market cameras as we know them will probably disappear. We have, however, been arguing at cross-purposes since my original claim is about visual language, rather than end use. I really don't see that digital photography will change the visual language of photography at all. It's a big subject, but not one that can be dealt with properly with casual emails, unfortunately. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Digital video for stills
Hi, the other day I posted a link about the photojournalist David Turnley, who uses a Sony DV camera to make documentary films, and has posted some frames from them as stills in their own right. Here is the link again: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0203/dt01.htm. I dug around a bit and found out that he used Sony DSR PD100A and DSR PD150 cameras, which appear to be top-of-the-range professional DV cameras. They seemed quite expensive to me until I considered that they're cheaper than say a Nikon D1X or the other high-end digital stills cameras. I can see a lot of advantages to shooting a burst of video rather than a few frames of stills, and if it's easy to get a high quality still out of the video burst, I wonder why anybody would use a stills camera if they have a DV camera like this? It seems to me that this turns on the issue of the quality of the output. Does anybody know how the quality of these things compares with high-end digital stills cameras? Any other issues to consider? Cheers, Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Thought for the day
>From the Herald Tribune: Making the London rounds is the anecdote of a bemused Tony Blair hearing George W. Bush's simple explanation for France's economic decline. In this account of an aside at a recent summit, Bush told Blair that "the French trouble is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." http://www.iht.com/articles/64155.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Digital video for stills
Hi, er, no, you can't assume that. I have no intention of giving up my film cameras (not all SLRs). At the moment I have no intention of buying digital stuff either, but I like to think about the possibilities. If DV is good enough, there would be no need to buy a stills digital camera, instead you could kill 2 birds with one stone - I'm quite interesting in trying video sometime. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 22, 2002, 10:49:10 AM, you wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Bob Walkden wrote: >> I can see a lot of advantages to shooting a burst of >> video rather than a few frames of stills, and if it's easy to get a >> high quality still out of the video burst, I wonder why anybody would >> use a stills camera if they have a DV camera like this? It seems to me >> that this turns on the issue of the quality of the output. Does >> anybody know how the quality of these things compares with high-end >> digital stills cameras? Any other issues to consider? > Hallo Bob! > (pause) :-( > so,, I can assume that you are dumping the film SLRs going for > digital. > OK, please go ahead. > :-( > Wish you all the best. > Ayash. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Street photography
Coincident to the recent discussion about this subject, the London "Independent" is running a series of photos from the street photography website www.in-public.com. Some good photos there, but some very bad and pretentious writing. Bob - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[3]: Digital video for stills
Hi, I don't think it was a satellite phone, but I suppose it may have been. It was better quality than for example the footage John Simpson shot in Afghanistan before he liberated Kabul. I'm currently thinking about Aug 10th (a Sat.) for the Ansel Adams, and talking to another pdmler (from near your part of the world) about meeting up, although we haven't finalised things yet. I might be able to do 17/18th if it was after 6pm, but I'm freelance, which means no work = no pay. I wouldn't want to take time off just for Ansel. Hank maybe... --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 22, 2002, 7:48:32 PM, you wrote: > I don't recall the actual footage. > What it may have been is tv news footage edited, then compressed and sent > over a satellite phone. This literally gives the impression of moving > jpegs! You do get the grainy effect. Most noticeable in a moving shot, > less so in a nice stable shot. The presenters move their heads less when > doing PTCs (Piece To Camera) over a sat phone: it looks much better. > Otherwise perhaps it was just a grunt-cam (army video guy - shoot first > as questions later :-) > Cot > PS - have you been to Ansel Adams @100 yet? The only days I can go will > be Sept 17th or 18th (I refuse to go on a weekend). If you or anyone else > fancies a pint before or afterwards, I'm up for it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: SemiOT: European help
Hi Bill, I've found an invasive number of websites about this stuff and apparently it's quite common on the freshwater stretches of the Thames here in London (I live in Greenwich where it's estuarine salt marsh). I'm not a botanist and I've never noticed the stuff, but I may be able to have a look for some this weekend. I know I could probably find some in Kew Gardens, but that's hardly growing wild! I can't make any guarantees, but I'll take a look. By the way, my older brother has recently retrained as a science teacher after 25 years in the Natural Environment Research Council (he's a biologist) and just got his first teaching post, starting in September. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 5:21:44 PM, you wrote: > Hey gang, > I'm looking for a little bit of help from someone across the pond. > Basically, I'm looking for someone to take a picture for me of a > particular plant in it's native habitat (which is most of Europe). >The reason I need a picture? I'm a high school science teacher, and > I'm involved in a bit of an ongoing ecology project with my classes. > See, settlers brought over a plant called Purple Loosestrife to the > Americas and planted it for use in the honey industry (among other > things). It's now spread like wildfire because nothing native to the > Americas eats it. It outcompetes native plants and chokes them out. > Luckily this plant can only thrive in wetland environments, which > include drainige ditches alongside the road (one of the main reasons > they can be found in EVERY state . . . ) >At any rate, I've begun a website dedicated to this little project > (that will take a decade or more to clean up on our particular site), > and was hoping that I might be able to include a picture or two of what > this stuff looks like in its own NATIVE environment (i.e. anywhere in > the Europe). There are some pictures on my website to help you > understand what it looks like, if you don't already know what it looks > like. >If your interested in helping, please drop me a line at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have one or two more pictures on > identification of loosestrife, but I don't have copyright to them, so > won't be posting them to my webpage . . . (I'm trying to do this entire > website with proper photo's and copyrights.) > Thanks for reading, > IL Bill > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: SemiOT: European help
Hi, oops - that was meant to be private - sorry everybody. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 7:28:17 PM, I wrote: > Hi Bill, > I've found an invasive number of websites about this stuff and [...] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: SemiOT: European help
Hi Cotty, here's some: http://infoweb.magi.com/~ehaber/factpurp.html http://www.invasiveplants.net/plants/purpleloosestrife.htm I only live 5 minutes walk from the Thames too - we must be neighbours! --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 10:52:23 PM, you wrote: >>I've found an invasive number of websites about this stuff and >>apparently it's quite common on the freshwater stretches of the >>Thames here in London (I live in Greenwich where it's estuarine >>salt marsh). I'm not a botanist and I've never noticed the stuff, >>but I may be able to have a look for some this weekend. I know I >>could probably find some in Kew Gardens, but that's hardly growing >>wild! I can't make any guarantees, but I'll take a look. > That's a good lead - I'm a five minute walk from the Thames, and although > I wouldn't dare drink the stuff, it's alledgedly freshwater up these here > stretches. It's going to be hot and dry this weekend - I'll make it a > little project. Now what in Hades does this thing look like? > Cotty > ___ > Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Check out the UK Macintosh ads > http://www.macads.co.uk > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: OT:What other brand camera could make you change systems, or you would li...
Hi, You can do street photography perfectly well with an SLR. I did it for 21 years before I bought my 1st RF camera. The RF camera hasn't improved my street photography. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "it's the eye, stupid!". It's always better to spend money on film and on being there than on equipment. You must have very quiet trains where you live. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 26, 2002, 9:38:00 PM, you wrote: > What is going on? > - First there is a thread on street-photography, what can be done fine with > a non-slr. > - Then there is a discussion in the thread Pentax vs Voigtlander Bessa that > initiates me to look for informations and reviews about > rangefinder/viewfinder-cameras and makes me lust after a Bessa R2. > - And now a question like this! > I DON'T HAVE SO MUCH MONEY!! ILIKE PENTAX CAMERAS AND LENSES. > BTW: On my way to work I took a photo in the train with a P30t. I felt how > the -clack- was noticed by all the other passengers around me. I think a > rangefinder wouldn't make such noise. I would like one with K-mount. > Regards > Bernd > Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:33:51 EDT > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT:What other brand camera could make you change systems, or > you would li... > Leica, if they weren't so damned expensive. > - -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: OT:What other brand camera could make you change systems, or you would li...
Hi, Elliott Erwitt uses rangefinders and dogs are always jumping around him! He says the trick is to bark at them. Apparently they're not expecting that. Even less so when you bark in their own language. I've heard him do it, and it nearly made me jump. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, July 26, 2002, 11:43:01 PM, you wrote: [...] > I took a photo the other day of a beautiful Doberman Pinscher at the dog park > with my Super A and the 20mm f2.8. The shutter was so loud that the dog > jumped! I can't be sure I got the shot. [...] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: FA 100mm f=2.8 Macro and macro ring light: Questions
Hi, > re: "rings" in models eyes isnt caused by ringlights, > probably due to flashhead centered in an umbrella > causing a donut shaped large light. that rather depends. The ring-lights they use for fashion shoots and cover-girl make-up shots, which are often shadow-less and show ring highlights, are not like the dinky little things we're used to. They're about the size of a large car tyre (or tire, if you prefer). --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: MZ-S gripe and Oly pics from the weekend
Hi, > It replaces the stupid corkscrew sounds to me like you've got your priorities all wrong... --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 29, 2002, 1:23:24 PM, you wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: >> Heh...interesting, I have like 8 different Swiss Army knives and didn't >> think to include one in my camera gear. They should have a 'photographer's' >> knife! > the Victronix or whatever it is (insight, if I pull it from my pocket, > I'll know: Victorinox) Tinker model is the key. It replaces the stupid > corkscrew with a phillips head screw driver, and the bottle opener works > perfectly on 35mm canisters (well, Kodak's at least). > The Super Tinker adds a scissors, which is also useful for cutting off > film from reels. :) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: MZ-S gripe and Oly pics from the weekend
Hi, > They do not have a photographers knife, like they do for camping, angling, >trailmaster, > electrican, etc, etc. It's because they can't stand the thought of all those fecking thruds entitled "Which is sharper: Victorinox or Leatherman?" --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, July 29, 2002, 5:46:41 PM, you wrote: > I'm a collector of sorts when it comes to Victorinox knives. They do not > have a photographers knife, like they do for camping, angling, trailmaster, > electrican, etc, etc. (I ask and suggested they design one) Of course, > companies, Kodak in the case of your link, usually put their corporate > markings on them and give 'em away. I've got a few Zippo knives that have > corporate logos on them. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: OT: Writings on "The Wall"
Hi, Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 5:50:30 AM, you wrote: [...] > Sorry if I didn't make myself a little clearer- as far as I knew, there > was only ONE wall; wrong generation I guess :)) [...] you might like to remind yourself that not everybody on the list is from the USA. There was another wall for a little while, in Berlin, which some people still remember. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: MZ-S gripe and Oly pics from the weekend
Hi, > It's almost incredible that so many people don't understand the MZ-S interface. I don't know anything about the MZ-S interface, but I do know something about user interfaces in general because it's part of my job. Yours is a strange sentence to write in defence of an interface, because if it is so misunderstood by so many people then it has failed, by definition. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: OT: Walls Was RE: OT: Writings on "The Wall"
Hi, 1. there's the wall at Eton College where the play the Wall Game... (don't ask - probably involves petroleum jelly and something to bite on). 2. there's a piece of bone between your mastoid cavity and middle ear (I know all about those). 3. there's the thing marathon runners hit (why don't they move it, or run round it?) 4. there's Max 5. Afghanistan's full of wall ords (possibly misheard - see 2.) 6. (that's enough walls. Ed.) --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 9:56:46 PM, you wrote: > Then of course there's the wall that gave Wall St. in NYC it's name... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[3]: Subject: LX repair update
Hi, well, to even up the score a bit I've had 3 LXs, 4 or 5 MXs and a Super A (Super Program), and they all had problems at some time in their careers. I bought my first LX specifically to replace an MX I had problems with. (Frying pan -> fire). For Bill's benefit, I haven't had any problems with my 34- and 43-year old Leicas yet . --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, August 2, 2002, 5:09:53 AM, you wrote: > Alan, > You're not alone. I have resisted buying one for quite some time > based largely on how much I read about it's problems. You don't hear > nearly as much about problems with MX's or SuperPrograms, etc. > Bruce - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[4]: Subject: LX repair update
Hi, when my LXs were stolen the insurance company first offered me 3 F3s with MD-4s as replacements because they thought they were the nearest current equivalent to the LX. I went to a camera shop to see how they compared. Lifted one F3+MD4 and decided there and then, based on the weight & size alone, that this was not the camera for me. They are real monsters. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunday, August 4, 2002, 12:26:39 AM, you wrote: > That makes the F3 wth MD just a tad heavier than a Pentax 67II > body only. Somehow I thought thhe F3 with drive would be a bit > heavier than that. > Len > --- > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Subject: LX repair update >> In a message dated 8/3/2002 2:41:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> >> > If it has the motor drive attached, the F3 is probably > heavier. >> > Though I guess I could go through my reference material and > come >> > up with a weight for the F3 with, and without, a motor > drive. >> > >> > >> >> F3 weight, 715G >> MD-4 motor drive, 480G >> >> -Brendan MacRae - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Exposing slides (and prints too)
Hi, > Do I need to over/under-exposure slides as some sort of > general rule? this is a matter of personal preference. I suggest you bracket at least 1/3 of a stop each way and make your mind up based on your results. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Lenses in the field
Hi, as it 'appens, guys & gals, I have a book called "Visual Anthropology" by John Collier, who worked for the FSA in the 1940s and has taught and published widely on this very subject. The book was first published in 1967 but mine is a 1992 edition, so it's not particularly out of date. He likes 28mm, 50mm and 85-100mm and seems to prefer speed over zooms. Zooms in the 28-100mm range are his recommendation. This matches my own experience. Although I'm not an anthropologist by any means I am interested in that general field and when I go abroad I'm interested in photographing people and their culture, so I try to take a sort-of very amateurish anthropological approach to what I'm doing. I could easily get by with a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.4 or similar. I would take a small flash and a winder, but use the flash only when absolutely, absolutely necessary. Collier recommends bounced flash for its modelling effects. He also suggests using the open flash technique if you're not sure that the flash or camera is reliable - presumably a consideration after some time in the field. This technique means open the shutter on 'B', fire the flash, close the shutter. I've used this technique successfully myself, but with the LX and I let it decide when to close the shutter. If you're not afraid of looking at other people's photos before you go, I can recommend "A Greek Portfolio" by Costa Manos. http://www.magnumphotos.com/Manos.html --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 4:20:42 PM, you wrote: > Let's suppose you were preparing for an anthropological field trip to > Greece. Besides observations and interviews you'd also like to do some > photo-documentation (people, houses, interiors, decorations, landscapes) > but travel really light at the same time. You're taking an LX and a tripod. > The question is what lenses would you take. 1) a "classic" set of old > primes (24/2.8; 50/ 1.4 M; 85/2.0 M and maybe 135/3.5 M) or 2) the one zoom > you own (35-105/3.5 A) or 3) some other combination from the previous? > Flash or winder? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Lenses in the field
Hi, my Leica 35/1.4 is an earlier version than Rob's, and is even smaller than that! --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, August 14, 2002, 12:57:37 PM, you wrote: > Oh my! What a difference! > And I thought the lenses for my Retina Reflex III were overly large... > keith whaley > Rob Studdert wrote: >> >> On 14 Aug 2002 at 7:51, Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> > I have 2 35/1.4s - one by Leica, the other by Carl Zeiss and it's a >> > lesson in the differences between RF and SLR lenses to put them side >> > by side. The Leica is tiny, the CZ is enormous. >> >> And just to illustrate Bob's point (as I had the same combo): >> >> http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/35ASPHlux-m_vs_CZ35f1.4_top.jpg >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rob Studdert - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Let's get real, folks.
Hi, > until Leica comes up with an entry level rangefinder (i.e. never), the M2 was their entry-level rangefinder, back in 1957. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[4]: Let's get real, folks.
Hi, What would be an entry-level price, and what do you think you'd get for the money? Would you also expect entry-level lenses? If so, same questions apply. My oldest Leica is a 1959 M3, i.e. it's 43 years old and is set fair for a lot more years. But let's be pessimistic and say it dies on its 50th birthday. If you were to buy a Leica M7 today from The Classic Camera in London, at GBP 1898.00, and it lasted 50 years, which is a reasonable expectation for these things, it would have cost you Ł40.00 a year. That strikes me as being a good deal cheaper than most other cameras you can buy today. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 1:35:52 PM, you wrote: > I meant a *new* entry level camera with an entry level *price*. > Łukasz > Hi, >> until Leica comes up with an entry level rangefinder (i.e. never), > the M2 was their entry-level rangefinder, back in 1957. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
Hi, > I would have assumed that the pro end of a manufacturers line would be > similar to the motorsport divisions of car companies - costs hell of a lot > but brings in the prestige. And of course with the prestige comes all the > thousands of wannabes and the 'but it's a Canon, I must be a better/cooler > photographer already' school of thought (see photo.net for examples, > especially from the site owner). And those thousands of wannabes are where > the money is at? must be why we see all those cheap little Ferrari runarounds doing the school run. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Pentax and the joyful absence of exposure modes
Hi, London has been full of cows recently. A few weeks ago they had the Cow Parade and it seems like the cowherd got drunk, or carried away (by a cowboy?) or both, and has left them all over the place. The whole West End looks like downtown Puri, or a scene from the Magic Roundabout (Menage Enchante, pour nos amis francais). --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 8:44:27 PM, you wrote: > Oh what confusion sets in when you see that smiling tulip running across the > pasture with the cow ... what now? what now >> I've always wondered how someone whose camera has a "smiley face", >> "tulip flower" and "running athlete" is supposed to decide which setting >> to use when confronted with, say, a cow? :-) >> >> > If you are taking a closeup of its nose (or other body part), use the tulip, > if the cow is running (it might be a bull) use the running athlete, if > standing still in a field, use the mountains.non problemo. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[6]: Let's get real, folks.
Hi, you can buy 1937 Leicas for this sort of price too - perhaps a little more, but not a huge amount - and like the Rolleiflexes you can also buy much more expensive ones. Of course, part of the price of a Leica is in the name, and that's a great pity, but they really are very, very good cameras, which is one reason why they acquired such a name in the first place. It's difficult to answer the question 'why are Leicas so much more expensive?' because it raises the question 'more expensive than what?'. What can you compare them with to get a fair idea? None of the available-from-new RF cameras comes close to the build quality of Leicas. SLRs with comparable features and build quality aren't really available from new any more. High end film SLRs cost a similar price to Leica M6s and M7s, high end digital SLRs cost much more, and how many of these will still be in use in 50 years? Perhaps the answer to your question is: if this is the type of camera you want to use, then that's what you have to pay because there's no competition. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 10:03:53 PM, you wrote: > My point was that I don't really understand the high price for Leica's. I > have a Rolleiflex Automat from 1937 (!) and it's still going strong. This > camera is 65 years old. You could buy a Rolleiflex for $100-150 depending on > the condition (of course there are more expensive ones, but that's another > question). Why is it that Leicas are so much more expensive. Even > considering the fact that a rangefinder is a very complicated device, the > difference shouldn't be that big IMO. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Eve's Spottie
Hi, people desperate to know that some professional photographers use(d) Pentax equipment may be able to chalk up another one (must be getting into double figures now). I recently bought Eve Arnold's 'Film Journal'. The cover, seen here in a poor scan http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0747559171.02.LZZZ.jpg shows la grande dame during a session with Marilyn Monroe. The body (camera body, that is) appears to be a Spottie of some sort, and comparing the lens with Gerjan's book it seems to be a Takumar 1:2.8 105mm. I can't tell what type of Spotmatic it is - the film advance lever has a bright circle inside. I think it might be a Pentax K (alright, not a Spotmatic) because it looks as though it has the slow shutter speeds on the separate dial. Cheers, Bob
Re[2]: Some random thoughts
Hi, > the circumstances of taking the photo may have prevented any real sharpness > being achieved (eg. Robert Capa's D-Day landing shots), but this does > not detract from the impact. to be a bit pedantic, the circumstances in which Capa took the photos did not cause their unsharpness (although 'Life' subsequently claimed this). It was a darkroom error that screwed them up. The original post was about photos that are unsharp because of poorer lens quality. I'd be interested to know of any specific examples of photos which are unsharp for this reason alone which wouldn't be better for being sharper. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New Pentax speculation
Hi, > Heretically, more interested in improving his technique than > adding to his complement of equipment, Jeez, Mike, what sort of photographer are you? You should know by now that the only way to get better is to BUY MORE STUFF! Don't you ever read adverts? They're trying to help you. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, September 5, 2002, 11:11:54 AM, you wrote: > Hi, > I see the list maintains its reputation for solid, unspeculative > research on the possibilities of new models. > An obvious missing possibility, given the nation of production, > is the noodlecam. Take your pics, then three minutes in boiling > water and there they are, on a plate. As it were. > Yours, > Heretically, more interested in improving his technique than > adding to his complement of equipment, > mike
Re[2]: Rectangular filter systems
Hi, > The hitech ones are much better and are generally regarded as the best > value/quality buy. I have an unused Hitech filter holder with 2 filter slots, a circular holder for polarisers and a 77mm attachment thing. Also an unused Hitech graduated neutral gray filter. If anybody's interested in buying them I'll listen to any reasonable offer, to include shipping from the UK. Replies in private, please. I've also got one with 3 filter slots and I'm pretty certain I have a 2nd grad. ND (different strength), but I can't find them at the moment. I can't tell what strength the grad. nd I can find is - it's not written on the packaging. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, September 5, 2002, 3:11:28 PM, you wrote: > I have heard many times that the cokin filters are far from neutral in > colour even from day 1. > The hitech ones are much better and are generally regarded as the best > value/quality buy. > Pesonally, as grads in particulare are used for landscapes where I often > use the Fa24 or Sigma 17-35, Cokin P is probably too small, and I am > thinking seriously about Lee. You can get some combo packs of lee grads > & stuff which look quite interesting and I think I can afford it. Cokin > X-Pro is just ridiculously expensive. > Rob >> -Original Message- >> From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 05 September 2002 14:10 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Rectangular filter systems >> >> >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Jostein wrote: >> > Its is true as has been said about the cokins that they can change >> > colour >> >> Well, my plans to settle on using Cokin filters for most >> everything 'cross formats have just been sullied... What kind >> of time frame are we talking about for a change? >> >> > You mentioned Singh-Ray; other brands are Lee and Tiffen. >> >> I was under the impression that all these various brands of >> square filters could all fit the holders of other >> manufactures, regardless of brand, correct? I was thinking >> about using teh Cokin P holder on my various lenses, and then >> starting out with Cokin filters and replacing them as time >> (and motivation) lead on... >> >> -- >> http://www.infotainment.org >> "The destructive character is cheerful." - Walter Benjamin >> >>
Re[2]: NEW PENTAX PATENTS!!!: The gobbledegook and my humbletranslations...More...
Hi, I did a project once using a thing called a mains modem. The company I was working for was looking for a cheap way of networking some PCs together so with one of the engineers I got to write some rs232 comms. stuff in assembler and Modula-2 and run around the site with the engineer pushing a trolley with a PC on, plugging the thing into the mains and sending test messages to the base PC to see how far away we could get a signal. Fun project, crap product. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, September 12, 2002, 3:19:52 PM, you wrote: > Yep, you can even get broadband internet down the mains power lines if > you filter out the noise. They can implement things any number of ways > using either the digital link or the power contacts, depending on > communication speeds being up to the job.
Re[7]: Orgin Myths -- The Finale? :)
Hi, Friday, September 13, 2002, 12:59:10 AM, you wrote: > Russia-Schmussia... > that was an office park on I-95 interstate, this summer. > I mean, Boston, MA. > And I didn't really mean, bureaucracy. Make an experiment: go to any store > and snap a couple shots with a P&S. I bet no one would even look your way, > and even if the owner sees you, I bet he/she wouldn't care less. > Now try to do the same with a "pro" look/gear. Count seconds before the > owner kicks you off (or at least ask for explanations of what the heck are > you doing). Sorry - I thought from your .ru domain and your name that you were in Russia. I've been thrown out of shops of course, and there's nothing to be done about that. One of the themes I'm photographing is people and their screens, so I periodically go into enormous TV-selling superstores to try and get pictures of people lost among all the screens pumping out the crap. Even with a Leica I never manage to shoot more than one or 2 frames before somebody rushes over and stops me. All part of the game. Some of the museums here are like that too. Particularly Tate Modern and the National Maritime Museum - they're on you like a rash. Others though are fine, especially the V&A. Elliott Erwitt talks about it in his book 'Museum Watching'. He says the guards have such a boring job he doesn't begrudge them this little bit of excitement in their otherwise dull days. --- Bob "I don't know much about Art, but I know what I hate" Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
Re[2]: more Photkina information
Hi, Thursday, September 19, 2002, 1:22:23 PM, you wrote: > Hi, > Keith wrote: >> ?? 'Chamboulé' is not in my Larousse Français-Anglais Dictionnaire! > I don't know what it means either but it does _sound_ like a > good verb for describing the digital SLR market > mike > (whacking great smirk) It is. It means 'in a mess' (to put it politely). --- Bob
OT: High noon in the home of Time (was: JCO - What time is it
Hi, here's what Old Father Time himself has to say about it, and he should know: http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/museum/faq.htm Scroll down to the section entitled "Is noon 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?" --- Bob (in Greenwich) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Saturday, September 21, 2002, 5:36:21 AM, you wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BTW, theres officially no such thing as 12:00 am ( or 12:00pm ). >> The correct nomenclature is 12:00 midnight and 12:00 noon. >> One of my little pet peeves > One that is confusing! If it is am, it is midnight! I used to be like you, > but I just got old. Still do a 27 - 36 hourer from time to time. > Bob
Re[2]: Dry firing roundup
Hi, Saturday, September 21, 2002, 5:34:45 PM, you wrote: >> And you would be wrong. Every time they make em more foolproof, >> someone invents a whole new way to be a fool, and everyone so >> inclined jumps on the bandwagon. We see 3-12 blanks per day, >> depending on the phase of the moon. > "Programmers are busy writing the next best idiot proof > software. The universe, in the meantime, is busy making > the next best idiot. The universe is winning." > unknown Yea, right. I'll bet a programmer wrote that. Here are some analogue equivalents of the types of 'foolproof' design that programmers come up with: http://home.uchicago.edu/~nkouchou/downloads/Handout02.pdf Other celebrated 'programmer-style' designs include: - chocolate teapot - ashtray for a motor bike - one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest - lace condom The benefits of proof-reading: I first typed '-licking'... Bob "Oh, yeah. I used to do it meself, y'know. Yeah. I was a programmer thirty years man and boy, I was. 'ardest game in the world, programmerin'. Yeah." (Apologies to The Fast Show.)
Re[2]: UK trip in October, maybe
Hi, Sunday, September 22, 2002, 9:44:53 AM, you wrote: > I'm free that weekend. How about a meet up in town? Bob W, you up for > that? Rob? Anyone? How about a boat trip up and down the Thames and then > some lunch? Or Regent's Park Zoo? Or? I can probably do the Saturday, but I'm unlikely to be able to do the Sunday. Boat trips are very worthwhile, and it would probably be convenient for Stan. The train from Sevenoaks stops at Waterloo and Charing Cross, both of which are close to piers where we could get the boats. --- Bob "I don't know much about Art, but I know what I hate" Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
Re[4]: UK trip in October, maybe
Hi Stan, Monday, September 23, 2002, 12:36:05 AM, you wrote: > Saturday sounds good to me. > I've been walking around muttering to myself: 35mm or 645? Or both? One > body? Two bodies? One each? Two each? What lens kit? I did a quick > inventory this afternoon and found that I have a much larger stock of 120 > and 220 film than of 135. So I am seriously considering a simple kit of one > 645 body plus only 3 lenses: 45m, 75mm, and 150mm. The 35mm and the 120mm > are crying out to me that they want to go along also, but I think I will > resist. Though I may swap out the 45mm for the 35mm . . . One extension tube > for "macro" work. Maybe even leave the tripod behind. I think you'd be well advised to travel light. For such a short trip and with such little time for photography anything more than the real basics would just be in the way, and is unlikely to be used. In London if you know your way around, or are with someone who does, you'll be doing a lot of walking, and nobody's going to carry it but it you. If you don't know your way around, chances are you'll be down the tube a lot, where there isn't much to photograph anyway, especially with a tripod and certainly not with a flash (flash photography is understandably prohibited). I think your 645 + 3 lenses kit would be fine. Are there any particular sights or aspects of London that you're especially keen to see? Have you been here before? --- Bob
Re: [OT] need help from Domke F-2 users
Hi, Monday, September 23, 2002, 11:16:41 PM, you wrote: > I'm considering buying this bag, and as usual I'd like to know your opinion. > 1. What are you experiences with the F-2 (if any of course :) ? > 2. Canvas or ballistic? > 3. And the most important - how much gear do you fit in, and how > comfotable/uncomfortable it is when it's full/almost full? I have a black canvas one which I bought in about 1996. It's been in various parts of Africa, India and Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the UK. They're very tough bags and worth having. They weather beautifully - mine has a strap that is still red with the dirt of Ethiopia, despite several times through the washing machine. They are also good in rainstorms - very protective. The rubber in the grippy strap wears after a few years, but it doesn't make a huge difference. The straps never twist or get rolled up, which is a good thing. When it's full it's too heavy to be comfortable for any length of time, but this would be true of any bag of that size. I've made modifications to the inserts of my bag to suit different needs. But I find it most useful for working from when I don't use the inserts at all. Instead I keep the rigid base in, and use one or 2 beanbags for keeping the cameras stable inside. I tend to keep 2 cameras (slrs) with lenses attached in the main compartment. In the side and end pockets I keep film, notebooks, pens, Leica table-top tripod and other bits and pieces. --- Bob "I don't know much about Art, but I know what I hate" Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons
Re: OT: Hasselblad and bokeh
Hi Albano, I have a Pentax Lenses and Accessories brochure, 06771, from the time bridging the K and M lenses. In the blurb about the K 200/2.5 it says "...ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer [...] its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and definition, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights." So which bit do we believe?? I remember others from their brochures, but this is the first I found to confirm it. Incidentally, if the Hasselblad lens is a Carl Zeiss and it is like the CZ lenses for 35mm, then it certainly will have nice bokeh. Bob Tuesday, September 24, 2002, 9:41:12 PM, you wrote: > In www.hasselblad.com, they say about new HC 645 lenses: > "In addition, the special optical design of the lenses provides a uniquely > soft, smooth quality to the blurred or out-of-focus > areas of the image." > I think it's the first time I see "official" manufacturer stuff talking > about bokeh, including all brands. > We all know the great Pentax bokeh, but I've never seen it on any > promotional brochure or pdf. > Yes, I know Pentax marketing sucks. > I just found it interesting to see this manufacturer sites bulid quality > and bokeh primarly as lenses characteristics. > Regards > Albano
UK pdmlers - better learn how to set your VCRs...
Hi, I've just learned that Channel 4 will be showing Christian Frei's highly-regarded documentary about James Nachtwey 'War Photographer' at 7pm on Saturday 28th September. http://www.war-photographer.com/ Cheers, Bob
Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
Hi, Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 3:23:19 PM, you wrote: > Leicas suck, at a glance you can't tell if it's 30 years old or 3 months old, > where's the pose value in that :-( It's all about the secret thrill you get when you're sucking a Wall's "Magnum" ice cream, mate, and think 'This is what Capa would have chosen' . --- Bob
Re[3]: another round - OT
Hi, Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 7:03:02 PM, you wrote: > asking nicely goes a long way. this summer, passing heathrow (afaik notorious for >refusing this), > all my film was hand inspected. For those of you who may not have English as their first language, the correct way to ask for this is: "Hello Officer. I am from . May I have a hand job please?" --- Bob
Re[2]: Is Pentax dying?
Verily, yclepst thou: > Go to the chat room on http://www.pentax-digitalworld.de/ and you will > notice: > "here take place regelmabig live chats approximately around the digital > photography. To professional photographer the Thomas' haltner betrayal > tipps & cheat, tricks and small secrets, as they come to better > pictures. if they chatten also, they learn others pentax befriended do > know and experience them more from the fascinating pixel world. the > nachste is chat to 27.09th, of 20-22 o'clock. The topic is this time: > new approximately around photokina. " Chaucer liveth! --- quod Bob
The Big Yellow Papa speaks...
Hi, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2278678.stm "Quite frankly people do not want films or digital cameras they just want pictures" --- Cheers, Bob
Re[2]: The big yellow papa speaks
Hi Valentin, nice to hear the sound of digital speleology again . There's a flaw in your argument, unfortunately. We only get to see the cave paintings that have survived. Maybe, 60,000 years ago, there were as many cave paintings as there are now photographs, but they only lasted a few years. Perhaps, in 60,000 years, the shell-shocked survivors will be amazed at our few photographic remains that were lucky enough to be kept in cold, dark, dry storage, or frozen like Oetzi or some mammoth... --- Cheers, Bob "I don't know much about Art, but I know what I hate" Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons Friday, September 27, 2002, 3:17:53 PM, you wrote: > I resent that. Cave technology is actually great. Let's talk a little > bit about image permanency. > Under optimal storage conditions, you can expect something like: > - 200 years B&W film > - 100 years B&W prints & color slide film > - 50 years color photographic prints > - 25 years color digital prints > - next computer crash - HD stored digital images > - next file format change - CD/DVD stored digital images > Compare that with cave paintings. Which were stored in far from optimal > storage conditions. > cheers, > the caveman
Re[2]: Pentax at Photokina
Hi, Thursday, October 3, 2002, 4:55:53 AM, you wrote: >> Digital makes EVERYTHING better! > I am native I know. But digital does not make things better. Just look at > the unemployment rate all over the world due to computing automation. As far > as I can see, computers are here to take over our jobs. :( This is not really borne out by the figures. There's an interesting little piece here in which James Crabtree describes it as 'creative destruction'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2263916.stm --- Bob
Wildlife photographer
Hi, an interview here with one of the entrants in this year's BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2276648.stm Bob
Re[2]: Photokina and Pentax - the future?
Hi, > With a last name like "fenstermacher," you'd think I'd have this German > thing down... it's pretty easy really: -ei- is like ice, lice, rice, nice, dice, mice, spice, Zeiss... -ie- is like wiener, as in schnitzel. alles in ordnung! --- Bob Thursday, October 10, 2002, 3:24:00 PM, you wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, William Robb wrote: >> foo gee > I knew that one, but it makes me laugh to see it spelled out as foo gee. >> or >> Zise > Aha! I wasn't sure if it was "zice" or "zeeece," and now I know. I asked > one other person awhile back, and he said he's heard it both ways. > With a last name like "fenstermacher," you'd think I'd have this German > thing down...
Re[2]: PDML UK Camden Lock - pictures up
Hi, > I noticed Bob moved in pretty quickly though ;-) I've always been a sucker for the line "it's all part of the post-colonial experience". I keep thinking about the guy with the rings in his face. I may go back again in the next couple of weeks with a 100mm macro lens and pocket full of £s and do some really in-yer-face portraits on Scala. --- Bob Monday, October 14, 2002, 4:25:55 PM, you wrote: >>Really sorry I missed it guys. Glad to see Bob made it, makes me feel >>slightly less guilty for cancelling. At least a few of us turned up to >>look after Stan! >> >>Some great shots, but one question: What was that woman doing with the >>vaseline and apron?!? Was it some weird sexual practice, or was she >>using it to try and prise the D60 from Cotty's hands? > LOL. She was a cook, and had some fantastic dishes simmering away on some > portable gas flames, one of which was a fantastic rice dish with the most > amazing aroma. I spotted her smile and moved in, warming her up with a > few cracks to get those gnashers shining. I noticed Bob moved in pretty > quickly though ;-) So while he took over the banter, I grabbed a couple > of quickies. In retrospect I should have gone in real tight on the face - > the hat and teeth make it. > Cot > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps >
Re[2]: PDML UK Camden Lock - pictures up
Hi, to be absolutely accurate, it's an M3 (1959) single-stroke. The lens is a 1982 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit M, the thin one, with an early model hood. --- Bob Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 3:40:39 PM, you wrote: > Hi Keith, > Thanks. > The Leica was a III I believe, with a 90mm aboard. Bob Walkdens. > It's a fun, if busy place. I didn't really get a good shot of Stan with > his Pentax 645 - I should have. > Cheers, > Cot >>Lovely! >>You did solve one part of a mysteriousness I've tried to figure out >>for a time. >>I have a collector friend in Nottingham and we swap photos and camera >>tales from time to time. >>Last time I sent her a photo of a boat coming down under the >>bridge...very likely the very same Camden Lock bridge you showed in >>your display of London photos... >>Couldn't retrieve the previous photo from any of my previous haunts, >>so it seems to be lost. >>Ah well... >> >>Was that a Leica RF I saw smashed up against someone's cheek? >>Small lens like that, and a small, thin body, almost had to be... >> >>Good stuff, Cotty Sir! Thanks. > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps >
Re: OT: Depth of Field
Hi, f/8 or be square! --- Bob Tuesday, October 15, 2002, 4:27:52 PM, you wrote: > This is a techniques/opinions/experiences thread . . . > I was always a big fan of telephotos, it has been a real change to use > my new Pentax 20-35 zoom. In particular, I'm learning whole new ways to > think about depth of field. With this in mind, the big question is: > How do you think about DOF in the artistic sense and how does that > manifest itself in you photography? > What I'm looking for here is personal tendencies. Do you like maximum > sharpness everywhere of narrow selection with nice bokeh. Yes, I know > that it depends on the subject (portrait vs. landscape) but I'm looking > for the range of personal expression.
Re[2]: Pentax annonces digital SLR
Hi, > (anyone interested in such a > giant jump-into-digital from manual? ;-) after a brief but meaningful rummage with Cotty's Cannon on Saturday I could be persuaded. I can easily imagine a set-up consisting of Leica Ms for film photography, and an all-mod-cons digital camera for faster-turnround / convenience uses. Cotty's Cannon was a bit bigger than I can take, really (my eyes were watering), but something the size of the MZ-S could be comfortable. I realise this email reads in parts like a poor Carry-On script, but that's the way it happened and I can't be bothered to re-think it to avoid the innuendo! --- Bob
Re: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, it's still only vapourware. --- Bob Wednesday, October 16, 2002, 9:18:06 PM, you wrote: > Way to go Paal, keep your ear to the ground and continue getting the real > information to us! Some where Bruce should be getting out the salt and > pepper for some kind of crow eating dinner. > DG
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, well, with all due respect to Paal, his predictions are rather like horoscope. There's an awful lot of them, usually couched in vague and ambiguous terms, and 99.999% of the time they're wrong. People only remember when they're right because it happens so rarely and because, like that character in the 'X Files', they want to believe. If you fire enough buckshot one piece might hit a duck from time to time, but that doesn't make you a marksman. --- Bob Wednesday, October 16, 2002, 9:56:10 PM, you wrote: > I know it's still premature, but Paal is normally pretty accurate (remember > his pre MZ-S predictions). And the Japanese news item is zeroing in even > closer.
OT: Mrs. Malaprop - an etymologist speaks (was : How many bodies?
Hi, > I resemble that remark about bodies!!! ;-) I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, although it is possibly a little pedantic. I've seen a lot of people on this list use the word 'resemble' in this sort of context, and I've assumed they mean 'resent' (which happens to be next to it in my dictionary). 'Resemble' means to look like, to be similar to, and I can't find any word that resembles 'resemble' that has any meaning remotely resembling 'resent'. Is this a common malapropism, is it restricted to this list, to some particular form of English, or am I missing something? Just curious. --- Bob
Re[2]: How many bodies? - a good investment?
Hi, I'm not sure about prices outside London (UK), but for about £500- you can get a decent used Leica rangefinder which will cerainly hold its value if you don't trash it. It should also provide many years of photographical fun for all the family. Well, perhaps not all... --- Bob Saturday, October 19, 2002, 1:26:55 PM, you wrote: > How many people here think spending $200-$500 on a good used camera is a good > investment and at what point do they start to become bad investments..
Re[2]: OT: Mrs. Malaprop - an etymologist speaks (was : How many bodies?
Hi, thanks for clearing that up. I don't like the Marx Bros. and have never been able to sit through an entire film of their's, so I guess I would never have heard the joke. --- Bob Saturday, October 19, 2002, 4:54:16 PM, you wrote: > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Bob Walkden wrote: >> Is this a common malapropism, is it restricted to this list, to some >> particular form of English, or am I missing something? > Groucho Marx once said in response to an insult, "hey I resemble that > remark." > At least, this is what I was told a long time ago.. Perhaps its not true, > I was clearly very wrong about Boxing Day. :)
Re[5]: how many bodies do you own
Dan, now that I'm officially allowed to tell you what you're talking about, I will. The Zeiss/Contax lenses are excellent - I like them very much. They seem to be well built although I did have a tough time with a couple of mine in Romania 2 or 3 years ago. On the other hand, I did drop one of them onto the floor of a railway station office and another onto the floor of a cathedral. They were fixed under warranty though. My bodies are RXs. I bought them because they are extremely comfortable for me to hold and generally work very well ergonomically for me. The have a good weight - about the same as an LX+winder - and balance very well with the lenses - better than the aforementioned LXs, imo. In general mine have proved to be quite robust and have stood up to some reasonably testing conditions. I've had 2 problems with them. One was that I found a screw had come out of the top plate after I got back from India. I assume it was because of the vibration of the trains & boats & planes I'd been on. The other problem was that the cover of the exposure compensation dial came off one, although I noticed it and was able to fit it back. What this showed was that despite the effort and quality of almost all the rest of the body, they'd skimped on a couple of small, but important, points. If I hadn't seen this piece come off, the camera would have been unusable because I wouldn't have known what state the compensation was in. On the RTS bodies this is done properly as far as I can tell, and they should have done it on the RX too. There is a Contax list. I was on it for a while, but it was just a huge mutual love-in with sporadic outbursts of NRA fervour, and I prefer the rough & tumble of Planet Pentax where people generally stick to PK rather than PPK. --- Bob Saturday, October 19, 2002, 9:58:04 PM, you wrote: > I think so too. And I've got way more Pentax lenses than Nikon (wouldn't > have anything put the Nikons on, either, but that's beside the point). > On the other hand, Contax makes some very fine lenses for their 35mm > systemsif I hadn't heard such bad things about Contax bodies (and their > prices came down to about half of what they are) I'd probably be > participating in the CDML, if there is such a thing. > Dan Scott > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Travel Kit
Hi, speaking for myself, I would not bother with the zoom. The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths are good. I would also have a non-macro 100mm or 85mm as well as, or instead of, the macro because macro lenses take a long time to turn through the full focus range. --- Bob Thursday, October 24, 2002, 5:23:06 PM, you wrote: > Would you be happy with the following lenses for a > travel kit? > 4 are primes and 1 is a zoom > 28mm f/3.5 > 50mm f/1.4 > 105mm f/2.8 macro > 200mm f/4 > 45-125mm f/4 > Couple that with 2 bodies. > Any lens you would leave home? Any redundancy? > Thanks. > Francis M. Alviar > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes > http://autos.yahoo.com
Re[2]: law and image
Hi, I have some personal experience similar to this from a civilian's standpoint. In my other life as an IT person I was at one time in charge of the financial systems at a company I worked for here in England. One of the employees was prosecuted for stealing large amounts of cash. Computer-based accounts were used as evidence, and had to be accompanied by a signed statement that they accurately reflected the state of the business at the time indicated. There is quite a good analogy here between computerised accounts and Bob Cratchet-style ledger books, and digital photos and film. Incidentally, we had quite a long discussion here on this subject some months ago. The recent thread on whether or not to have a FAQ could profitably be extended to include a FAC - Frequently-Argued Crap. We could then adopt a UK parliamtary practice, and write 'I refer the honourable member to our previous correspondence on this subject'. It would have saved me some time dealing with the 505 messages that were awaiting me after a mere 2 days absence from the list. --- Bob Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 8:08:29 PM, you wrote: > My husband is a police investigator, and he has NEVER had to "swear" he > didn't manipulate an image, film OR digital, and that includes photos > generated from scanned negatives. If the officer has not compromised his > credibility previously, such a thing isn't necessary. If he has compromised > his credibility in ANY way, I guarantee you he won't be testifying in a > court of law, period. Judges will simply kick all the cases out with which > that officer is involved if there aren't other credible witnesses whose > testimony can be used. When that happens, that officer won't be employed for > very long. An officer whose testimony won't be accepted in court is useless. > When your credibility in one area is damaged, it calls everything else > you've done into question. > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: law and image >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this distinction will become even more >> blurred when it becomes easier to create a film-based image from a >> digital one. as I understand it, even now you need someone to swear >> that the photo was not manipulated, which diminishes its value as >> something closely tied to reality. Even CCTV images are ultimately >> going to depend on someone vouching for their authenticity. >> >> >> Steven Desjardins >> Department of Chemistry >> Washington and Lee University >> Lexington, VA 24450 >> (540) 458-8873 >> FAX: (540) 458-8878 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>
Re[3]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, Thursday, October 17, 2002, 3:38:39 PM, you wrote: > With all due respect to you, Bob, it appears that this particular duck > caught some of Paal's lead. By the way, is your middle name Bruce or "The > Who" ? we all have the right to be as skeptical or as credulous as we please, and to make our opinions known, but we don't have the right to make unprovoked ad hominem remarks. We've just been through an example of what often happens when people do make such remarks. I've been on this list for some time now, and I was on it while The Who was active. I fail to see how you can make such a comparison based on a couple of skeptical postings about yet another rumour about an unannounced camera. Since you don't have a sound basis for the comparison I can only take the comparison with The Who as an unprovoked insult, which drops you right down to the bottom of my estimation, along with all the other people who toss personal insults around so freely. Bob
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, that's nice to know Fred. I developed a theory about the Who, and it recurs from time to time. I think he and several others of our acquaintance may be Turing Tests. Some postgraduate somewhere is doing research into artificial intelligence and trying it out by subscribing it to discussion forums. Just as "Eliza" was taken seriously as a shrink back in the 60s or 70s, so Who and its avatars. are taken seriously by the guinea pig subscribers. --- Bob Thursday, October 17, 2002, 11:07:12 PM, you wrote: >> thanks - I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you - email seems to >> make that easy. > C'mon, Bob - no one could seriously mistake you for "the Who" - . > Fred
Re[4]: Film to check a lens
Hi, earlier this year I bought an extremely very excellent (as one of my former colleagues would say) little device called an Emoscop to supplement my 4x and 8x lupes for looking at slides. You can read all about it here: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002zAl It's a little device that originated in the Leitz workshops in the 1920s or 30s and is now made in China. It "is a telescope, a microscope and three loups all in a 2" tube". --- Bob > I agree, this is the only way to really see differences, I too bought a 20/40x > binocular microscope (old school type), using an instrument like this reveals > far more than an 8x loupe.
Re[2]: Travel Kit
Hi, >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths aregood. > Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are > fast enough. You can call it nonsense if you like, but you've no right to call it pretentious, which is a gratuitous insult and a good way to get another flame war started. I have quite a lot of experience of travel photography. I made it explicit in my post that I was speaking for myself, and everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of travel photography during the last 25 years. If you don't like it then fine, but don't call it pretentious. --- Bob Friday, October 25, 2002, 9:26:30 PM, you wrote: > In reference to a travel kit that includes: >> > 28mm f/3.5 >> > 50mm f/1.4 >> > 105mm f/2.8 macro >> > 200mm f/4 > Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths aregood. > Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are > fast enough. Most of us can't afford ultra-fast glass. In any case, how > often does one shoot in extremely low light with a 200? And the SMC > 200/4 is an excellent lens. When shooting with the 28, a shutter speed > of 1/15 or 1/30 is quite manageable. And that's easy to achieve at 3.5 > with most films and lighting conditions. No, they're not premium lenses, > but they'll take fine pictures. Hell, I've even shot in the dead of > night with my M 200/4. See >http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.wga?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=15 > They're not as fast as the big money, big glass. But they're not "too slow."
Re[2]: Travel Kit
Hi, Vic wrote, about my preference for fast lenses: >Total agreement. Pretentious as all heck. It's not about the lenses. It's >about what you do with them. >Vic then wrote: > Fast lenses are > prized for the brightness of the viewfinder when using them and the ease of > focusing when using manual focus lenses. so in one reply you agree strongly that my claim was pretentious, and in the next you agree strongly that fast lenses are useful in several ways! What are we to make of that? --- Bob
Re[2]: Travel Kit
Hi, no, he didn't ask if it was correct FOR HIM. He asked "Would you be happy with the following lenses for a travel kit?". He asked for our OPINION. I gave an opinion based on 25 years of travel photography in over 20 different countries, an opinion which many people might think carries a certain amount of weight. The lenses he mentioned are too slow, in my opinion and experience, for travel photography and I would not be happy with them. That's what he asked for, that's what I replied to. Read the stuff properly. He asked for an opinion, he got one. It is *only* an opinion, and anybody can disagree with it, or form another opinion, but nobody has the right to dismiss it as pretentious nonsense. --- Bob Saturday, October 26, 2002, 9:19:17 AM, you wrote: > Okay it's just nonsense. The writer of the original message had asked if > we thought his lens selection was correct FOR HIM. Like most of us, he > probably can't afford the ultra fast glass. Those are the lenses he > owns. His choice was correct. They are not too slow to produce great pictures. > Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths are >good. >> >> > Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are >> > fast enough. >> >> You can call it nonsense if you like, but you've no right to call it >> pretentious, which is a gratuitous insult and a good way to get >> another flame war started. I have quite a lot of experience of travel >> photography. I made it explicit in my post that I was speaking for >> myself, and everything I wrote is based on my personal experience of >> travel photography during the last 25 years. If you don't like it then >> fine, but don't call it pretentious. >> >> --- >> >> Bob >> >> Friday, October 25, 2002, 9:26:30 PM, you wrote: >> >> > In reference to a travel kit that includes: >> >> > 28mm f/3.5 >> >> > 50mm f/1.4 >> >> > 105mm f/2.8 macro >> >> > 200mm f/4 >> >> > Bob Walkden wrote: >> >> >> >> The primes other than the 50 are too slow, although the focal lengths are >good. >> >> > Pretentious nonsense. For the majority of situations, these lenses are >> > fast enough. Most of us can't afford ultra-fast glass. In any case, how >> > often does one shoot in extremely low light with a 200? And the SMC >> > 200/4 is an excellent lens. When shooting with the 28, a shutter speed >> > of 1/15 or 1/30 is quite manageable. And that's easy to achieve at 3.5 >> > with most films and lighting conditions. No, they're not premium lenses, >> > but they'll take fine pictures. Hell, I've even shot in the dead of >> > night with my M 200/4. See >http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.wga?User_number=stenquist&imagecount=15 >> > They're not as fast as the big money, big glass. But they're not "too slow."
Re: OT: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital)
Hi, perhaps they threw him into part of the creek where stuff accumulates. The Thames close to my house usually flows quite quickly but there are parts where all the crap that people throw in upstream, often including pairs of short planks, gathers sometimes for days at a time. There are a couple of barges that skim it off the top every now and then. The stuff even includes a sort of dirty foam - perhaps that's 'stupid', although it's not as dense as the planks. I should get the public health people to test it sometime. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 7:09:32 AM, you wrote: > So 'stupid' is a substance - less dense than water and insoluble. But creeks > flow. At least all those I've seen do - most of the time. All the 'stupid' > would be washed downstream. I don't find this one funny at all. > Still thick as two planks. > Argh! > Dr E D F Williams > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery > Updated: March 30, 2002 > - Original Message - > From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:56 PM > Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) >> The way I read it was that the person was so stupid >> that it(stupidity) dissolved in water and floated to the surface, >> which could be skimmed off the top for a period of 3 weeks. >> Now all the "funny" is gone since you made me think about it, >> thanks a lot buddies >> >> Feroze >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Dr E D F Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:03 PM >> Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) >> >> >> > Rob, >> > >> > You are not alone. I didn't understand it either. Perhaps there's a > typing >> > error? Is stupid a substance? In any case 'throw'em' translates (for me > at >> > least) to 'throw them'. >> > >> > But I am also thick as two planks! >> > >> > Don >> > >> > Dr E D F Williams >> > >> > http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams >> > Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery >> > Updated: March 30, 2002 >> > >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 2:55 AM >> > Subject: Re: Metaphors (Was Re: A funny problem with digital) >> > >> > >> > > On 25 Oct 2002 at 11:36, Feroze Kistan wrote: >> > > >> > > > That is one of the funniest I have ever heard >> > > > feroze >> > > > >> > > > - Original Message - >> > > > Treena Harp wrote in part. >> > > > > >> > > > > And, here's one of my dear, departed dad's: He/She's so stupid, > you >> > could >> > > > > throw'em in the creek (prounced crik) and skim stupid for three >> weeks. >> > > >> > > I must be thick as two short planks 'cause I don't get it :-( >> > > >> > > Rob Studdert >> > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 >> > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>
Re: Focus screen preferences?
Hi Rob, I like split-image microprism screens for focal lengths up to about 100mm. This probbly partly because that was the supplied screen with the MX, and what I got used to. I like to have several options for checking the focus, but I use the ground glass a lot. >From 100mm upwards I like plain matte because there's no centre-spot to black out and because the image seems to 'pop' into focus better. I keep one slr body with a plain matte screen in permanently, and use this for longer lenses. In the other 2 bodies I keep the split-image screens, and use those for normal and wides. I have some grid screens, and other fancy bits, but almost never use them. All 35mm, all manual focus. --- Bob Sunday, October 27, 2002, 5:15:27 AM, you wrote: > Hi Team, > I'm interested to learn of other PDMLers focus screen preferences. I guess that > there are really three main types as per the recent LX screens, split image, > full matt and matt with grid. As you know I have sold a few screens recently > and I was a little surprised by the fact that the split image and grid screens > were so popular. > So if you care I wouldn't mind hearing of your screen type preference (based on > the three main types, 35mm, 645 and 67) and why this is so? > My favourite screen by far is full matt, I find most any elements on the screen > distracting, I prefer it for manual focus however I do usually have fast lenses > mounted. > How about you?
Re[2]: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
Hi, I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. I never had one of the 'correct' Pentax hoods for it, and when I first bought the lens I was given a Mamiya heavy-duty collapsible rubber one (which I still have somewhere). Somebody else, possibly Shel, used to stack Heliopans to get maximum flare protection. But my main interest was in physical protection - impact resistance - so I never really tested the Heliopan for maximum flare protection. The Heliopan is not as physically strong or robust as, for example, the Pentax metal hood for the A* 85/1.4, but it's far easier to obtain and at a decent price. --- Bob Wednesday, October 30, 2002, 7:52:16 PM, you wrote: >> Nothing in the text mentions the lens hood. Are you sure what's >> pictured is an RH-A77? > Someone here on the PDML, I think, uses a Heliopan or a Nikon hood instead. > Fred
Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-)
Hi, > Good grief, a boat from Japan to Canada sank in the Atlantic Ocean? That > would take some serious doing. it was a Pentax boat. The captain didn't see the enormous digital iceberg heading towards him... Bob
Re[2]: A*135/f1.8 that was on Ebay
Hi Fred, I don't think they have 'models' as such. Mine was just a plain 77mm tele hood, which I got from Teamwork - www.teamworkphoto.com - in London. I can't find hoods on the website, although they used to be there. Several people from the US have bought from Teamwork without mishap, and their prices (ex. VAT) are quite good. --- Bob Thursday, October 31, 2002, 2:50:44 AM, you wrote: >> I used to use a Heliopan when I had one of these lenses. > Does anyone know which model of Heliopan hood to look for? > Fred
