Re: 28mm/3.5 shift lens: worth getting?
Mark Roberts wrote: If you need shift lens capability, use a standard lens, scan your film and correct the perspective with Photoshop. If you can't live the limitations of that approach get a view camera. The problem I've seen with this is that it can badly distort other elements of the image. There is no distortion with the shift lens. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 67 Leaf shutter experience
[ A week behind, but no one answered this directly: ] J. C. O'Connel wrote: I find the old 90mm to be just as sharp as all the rest of the 67 lenses. Is the 165 as good as your other lenses in terms of sharpness and contrast? I would be shocked if it isnt. I personally don't have either but I have done a bit of research: Various sources that I've found indicate that the 165 f4.0 LS lens is a bit softer than the 165 f/2.8 lens. Sharp, not Razor sharp. On the other hand, that may not be all that bad for portraiture. I have not seen any comments which rate the 90 f/2.8 LS as inferior to or better than the 90 f/2.8. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 67 - K Adapter and long lenses?
I've been experimenting with the 67 to K-mount adapter lately; haven't taken any pictures, but I was wondering if anyone else is successfully using this adapter? In particular, the view through the viewfinder is great on the 200/4 and the 90/2.8, but a Tak 400/4 and 55-100mm look like the top 10% of the view is blacked out.Are there some lenses that the adapter doesn't work with? It appears as if the top of the image on these lenses is vignetted; almost as if the 35mm camera isn't in the center of the image circle. Mechanically, the adapter is fine. The 6x7 to k-mount adaptor allows for shifting the lens. That allows you to have PC (perspective correction) when using 67 lenses on a 35mm body. Is the shift adjustment set to zero? Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 6X7 55mm lenses
The original 55 I had was the f3.5 SCM Takumar. I still have some 100mm filters that I couldn't sell with the equipment. Now that I have been steered back onto the correct path, how do the various 55s stack up. The original was a monster, but it was my most used lens. There are 3 Pentax 67 55mm lenses. The all have different optical formulas: SMC Takumar/6x7 55mmf/3.5 (100) (cannon barrel) SMC Pentax-6x7 55mmf/4.0 (77)(Looks like a 35mm m-style lens) SMC Pentax 67 55mmf/4.0 (77)(Lens description on end of focus barrel, not by front objective) By the accounts I have read, the earliest lens (the Takumar) and the latest lens (the Pentax 67) are both excellent. They are both sharper than the Pentax-6x7 version of the lens.The newer 55mm is slightly sharper then the old Takumar 55mm. The 55mm f/3.5 Takumar is supposed to have the highest degree of rectilinear correction of all three lenses. That means that straight lines near the edge of the field are rendered the most straight with this lens. The older lens weighs a bit more than the newest one; 2.0 versus 1.6 pounds. The 55mm f/3.5 _does_not_ have a gel filter clip at the rear of the lens. It may have *only* the Pentax Bay67 100mm bayonet filter mount on the lens; it may not be possible to use 100mm screw-mount filters with this lens. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: OT: News from Epson, better digital bw from colour printers
Brian Campbell wrote: Bolo Wrote: It seems to me that ever since Canon released the S800 (and now the S900 and S9000), that Epson has been needing to be competitive again, instead of standing on their laurels. Hmm - does that apply to *ALL* Epson printers? I just purchased a brand new Stylus Photo 1280, and am REALLY pleased with the results (after fighting with Winblows to get my color balances correct.) I think that the availability of the Canon printers has made a serious indent into Epson's near exclusive market of good photo-quality printers. I think a number of factors contribute to this: print speed, print quality, longer-duration inks, individual ink cartridges, etc. A factor for some people are the individual ink cartridges which allow you to replace only the colors you are using. Another important factor is the lack of chipped ink cartridges which dedicate you to Epson, and make it difficult to use a continuous flow system or try different inks. Paul Stenquist wrote: The Epson 1280 is a great printer. I've spoken to a dozen pro photographer reps in the past few weeks and asked them how the photographer's portfolios were printed. Eleven out of twelve were printed on one or the other of the 1200 series Epson printers (quite a few on the early 1200). The other was wet prints. The ink jets were, in many cases, stunning. There is no doubt about that -- I've also seen good prints from the 1270/1280. Perhaps I was a bit ambiguous -- I don't think that the Canon is necessarily a better printer, but it is a realistic alternative to the Epson. It seems to me that Epson has been sitting on its current crop of printers for quite some time and not improving them. For example, all the problems with the 3000 series printer which they never did anything about. The high cost/age of the 2000 printer. Hopefully, with a larger company which is producing some products that are intruding into Epson's market, Epson will have to push to make things excellent across the board. Previously, without viable alternatives, you pretty much had to take what they gave you. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Film suggestions needed
What would be an excellent print film to photograph cars, both static and on the track, daytime, although some cars may be under a tent or in a garage trackside. I need something that can be used for both purposes, as I plan to keep two bodies loaded, one w/ a telephoto for the action stuff, one with a wide angle for the static shots. Though I'm a bit late, I wanted to kick in my $.02: I've had good resuls from using Kodak Royal Gold at auto events, both for static photos of display cars, in the paddocks, and action shots out on the track. The colors are good, rendering the cars, the gray of the track, and the grass well. Highlights from chrome were OK, paint colors had good reproduction. Dark Shadows may have suffered a bit, but I wasn't exposing for them. There were not the kind of blown-out effects that Kodacolor would give. I've been shooting Supra more extensively for the last 8-9 months, and really like it. I've been most impressed by it's color rendition and range. I think of it as Royal Gold ++. I think it would also work quite well for the race environment -- it's what I'm going to try this year. Last time I did this the results for the static car display (large number of cars) wasn't so good. The day was overcast and the cars and details were a bit washed out. In retrospect (after having learned a lot) I think taking (and using :) a more saturated and/or contrasty film on that display day would have resulted in better results. Kodak Portra VC perhaps, Fuji NPC, and Konica Centuria 200 would seem to be good candidates for that. I've only used the VC so far, I have some NPC in the fridge, and I'm waiting for my next order to BH to pick up some of the Konica. You mention in-tent cars -- the lighting would most likely be diffuse, and such a film would work well in that scenario. In other words, take a medium/med-low saturation film with you to get good rendition under decent lighting conditions. However, take some more saturated/contrasty film with you in case the lighting is flat; it _could_ make all the difference. Anyone else have experience along those lines? Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 67 versus 35 tradeoffs (was Re: Split Image Or Not Split Image)
Bill Casselberry wrote: Bolo wrote: Fast glass is also a problem in 67. U, begging yer indulgence ... f4 at 400mm, 600mm 800mm cannot realisticly be considered as slow glass, large expensive fer sure, tho I wrote that poorly; thanks for pointing it out! You are right; the longer (actually all) 67 glass is quite reasonable speed-wise. I really have no complaint in that regards. Particularily, I think that the 1000mm reflex lens is the cat's meow. Outer bayonet mount ... but it doesn't matter since there is no aperture coupling anyway! Built-in filters. Built in ND filters seperate from the color filters. f/8 versus the f/11 or f/13 commonly found in 35mm reflex lenses. Too bad someone (pentax preferably) doesn't make a 35mm reflex lens like that! Speed-wise I was refering more to the shorter lenses. A 1.x normal or short tele would be nice to have when it is darker. However, perhaps the DOF on such glass would be so short as to be unusable. That is soemthing I didn't consider in my previous thoughts. I just realized that most of my slow shutter speeds have been due to DOF issues, which a faster lens won't do anything for. Thanks Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Vivitar 285 flash info./manual?
Also, I assume the 285 is the newer version of the 283? Are they rated the same in terms of power output? The 285HV and the 283 are both current production models. The GN of the 285HV 50mm zoom is the same as the GN of the 283. The 285HV has a built in manual optical zoom on the flash head. It has three settings -- 35, 50, and 105mm equivalent for 35mm camera lenses. There is also a diffuser for 28mm coverage. The flash has a a built-in vari-power control that adjusts by full stops (1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8); 4 stops. The 283's _optional_ vari-power control replaces the front sensor and is infinitely adjustable. Though it gives you a lot of flexibility, it is reputed to be quite touchy and hard to get repeatable values. Both flashes have incompatible setups to remote the sensor and trigger off-strobe. In other words, you need different cables for each, even though they look similar. Accessories from other manufacturers for the 283 are more common than those for the 285HV. Gel holders, fresnel focus lenses, diffusers, etc are relatively easy to find for the 283. Because of the zoom headon the 285HV , you need a different set of mounts to attach filters and other components to the 285 than you do the 283. They seem evenly matched -- the built-in zoom head and power control on the 285HV give you some flexibility straight out of the box. The 283 is simpler, hence more robust, and has more after-market light modifiers. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Super Program buyer
Shel wrote: One problem with some of the electronic designs is that you can't feel the shutter speed settings change. A quick example that comes to mind is the ME Super, which has push buttons to change the speeds. I imagine that numerous other modern cameras have a similar feature where there is no way to feel the steps when changing speed, as on a camera like the MX which uses a dial and at each speed change you can feel the the dial click into place. That is true of some electronic interfaces, typically on AF bodies. However: The buttons on the SP give you definite ideas of the shutter speed. For every click you get a one-stop change in speed, no more, no less. Reliably time after time. Just as you count clicks in the darkness on a knob type dial, you count button pushes on the SP. It isn't like a newer body where you spin the wheel and have no idea when something is changing. One push, one stop on the SP (and presumably the ME super too). At first, I was skeptical of the push buttons for changing shutter speed, especially after I had looked at so many newer bodies which tend to have control wheels with no feedback. The buttons on the SP are so natural you can use them without thinking. The camera becomes more an extension of your body. You can be locked-and-loaded in your shooting position and affect exposure changes just by moving your index finger to a speed button, tapping it, and returning to the shutter. No lost motion, grip change, or anything. It allows one to change either the aperture or the shutter speed equally, without jostling the framing. Using such a dial allows one to change the aperture and feel each change with the finger. With practice - and practice is necessary to some degree - the photographer can change shutter speeds in the dark and know ... That is true of the SP as well -- see above. As an aside, when Leica introduced the M6 TTL there was quite an outcry from long-time Leica users because the shutter speed dial, after almost 50 years of rotating in one direction, was changed to rotate in the opposite direction, causing, if not confusion, a need for the ... Agreed; this is annoying. On occasion I borrow a lens whose focus ring turns backwards from a Pentax lens. It is annoying to use, and I can often lose shots (in rapid changing situations) due to tweaking focus the wrong way with it. Zoom direction changes are equally annoying (either push/pull or 2/touch). I've made a decision to only get Pentax glass, which keeps everything consistent. Now that I have more Pentax gear, I've opened up some to considering non-Pentax glass. However, a lens with focus ( zoom) controls which run in the same direction as Pentax is something higher-up on the consideration list than I though it would be. -- My wetware is wired for Pentax! One of the small things I really like about the P67 system is that focus and zoom (and aperture) controls all operate in the same direction as the 35mm K-Mount equipment. I can transition between them with no wasted thought or motion. One thing slightly annoying is that the shutter speed dial is in the wrong position -- on the left side of the body -- instead of next to the shutter release. On the other hand, when I grab the F4 and a lens, I need to think about which direction the focus ring moves, and which direction the zoom ring (on zoom lenses) move. Until my mindset switches, I often do the wrong thing -- and discover that Oh, its _this_ lens, zoom is backward, but focus is normal. Normal to Pentax, that is! And, even worse, the directions can _change_ across lenses, instead of being the same for all -- as Pentax does. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Leaf shutter operation on Pentax 67 165mm f/4.0 LS
I asked about the operation of the leaf shutter, and have two conflicting answers! Paul Stenquist says: Scenario 1 is correct. The focal plane shutter opening is the start of exposure, the leaf shutter closing ends the exposure. William Robb says: After much observation, and some debate, my wife, who has very fast eyes and I have determined that scenario 2 is the correct one. Were it otherwise, there would be no high speed sync available, which is why the camera has the built in shutter. The ^^^ I think you meant lens? 90mm leaf reopens after the focal plane shutter completes it's cycle, the 165mm leaf does not reopen. To answer William, my thought was that since Pentax was trying to make the lens simpler that perhaps they built a leaf shutter which just closed. High speed sync would still be available -- the flash would fire after the focal plane shutter curtain opened, which would illuminate the entire frame. Then the 1/2 leaf shutter would close quickly, giving the high speed sync. Yes, there could be uneven exposure side due to the movement of the shutter curtain -- but there is already uneven exposure center to edges caused by the leaf shutter. Given the two answers I have one more question/statement ... I think the deciding factor has to go to the presence of of PC-cord sync connector on the lens. I've been tracking down photos of the lens, and finally found one which _I think_ definitely shows the presence of a PC connector. That implies that the leaf shutter must open and close. If it only closed then there would be no need for a sync connector, as the focal-plane-shutter-open event would allow for flash sync. In other words, does the 165LS have a PC connector? If so, I think it must work as William reports. Thanks again for any info! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Medium Format - To Pentax or not to Pentax.
William Robb writes: I don't know who you were quoting Mike, but the person being quoted is wrong (my opinion only). 6x6 is a different format from 6x4.5, with different shooting requirements. If you shoot 6x6, and make rectangular prints, you have chosen the wrong format to shoot with. I know a couple of people with Hasselblads who have taken the time to learn how to use the square format to it's best advantage, and they make beautiful large, square prints. I think you are right on target here. I've observed that from my own experiences. I used to have a 6x6 MF camera before I started using 35mm gear. I happened to stumble across my MF negatives last fall. When I look at them I see photography that is quite different from the photos which I make in the rectangular 35mm format. There is framing and composition in the square format which I _just wouldn't try_ in 35mm. I would do something else instead. That something else is often incompatible with a resulting square crop, or would not contain the right elements to make into a good square photo later. I just don't know how to say it well, but the framing and composition comes out _different_ in the square format. Not better, different. Sometimes I think the square composition is better than any composition I would have done with a rectangular 35mm camera. Other times a 35mm wide composition may have been better ... however cropping with MF isn't as bad as 35mm cropping. Going through my 6x6 negatives was one reason that I started to push hard for MF gear again, instead of just thinking about it in abstract terms and holding off purchasing it. As I've mentiond earlier, I was looking to get a 6x6 body. I noticed the Pentax 6x7 due to the mystical brotherhood, and discovered the affordability of the components. 6x7 is not _that_ different from 6x6, unlike the much wider 35mm. If I really want to shoot square format with the 6x7 I don't really loose all that much; I could always insert some framing material between the finder and the body to aid square framing. The only downside is that you still get 10 shots per roll. :) Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 .
Leaf shutter operation on Pentax 67 165mm f/4.0 LS
I was curious about something and wondering if someone with the Pentax 67 165mm f/4.0 LS lens or its manual could answer a question I have about the operation of that lens. I don't have the lens or a manual for it to examine or try myself. When the camera's shutter release is triggered, the auto-aperture coupling from the body steps down the aperture and also triggers the shutter. I can see two behaviors for this particular leaf shutter, and I was wondering which is correct: 1) The leaf shutter stays open and starts running it's timer. When the time runs out, it closes the leaf shutter. In other words, the first curtain of the focal plane shutter acts as an open-shutter event, and the actuation of the leaf shutter after delta-t acts as the close-shutter event. This would seem to reflect the not quite a leaf shutter comment that has been made. 2) The shutter closes immediatetly so that when the focal plane shutter opens, no light is admitted. Then the leaf shutter opens and closes depending upon it's own delta-t timer again. This is the true leaf-shutter mode. However it is more complex than the first scenario. If the manual has the answer, that would be great. Otherwise, I suppose one could determine this by triggering the 165 LS manually and observing if it 1) closes from the open position after shutter time or 2) closes, then opens and closes again after shutter time? Thanks for any info. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Rollei introduces AutoFocus in Medium Format
Rollei has announced an auto-focus variant of the 6008 camera system, the 6008 AF. It is compatible with existing Rollei 6000 series lenses. http://www.rollei.de/en/news/presse_detail.cfm?id=2156 Rollei achieves compatibility with the existing 6000 series lenses courtesy of their all-electric lens mount. The autofocus is just another function added to the lens network. This network even works with a reversed lens for macro work -- there is a bayonet with electrical contacts on a cord which links the mount end of the lens back to the camera system. In addition, compatibility with the non-electric SLX lenses still exists, though I believe they need to be used in stop-down metering mode. In case you are wondering my interest in this non-Pentax product: The Rollei 6x6 system was what I was considering for a MF system. It is quite well designed and has some very good integration between the bodies, film backs, and lenses. It has interchangeable film backs, which is something I looked forward to instead of having multiple bodies. It even has a 6x4.5 rotatable film back. The downside of this system is cost: The initial system cost with a standard lens is comparable to a 67ii + AE finder + standard lens. The gotcha is that buying your next lens (any lens) is what drives the cost up into the shock-factor range. Of course, Zeiss or Schneider glass is nothing to laugh at, but even the economy line glass costs. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: pro or hobby
[ I choose a random post to reply to, nothing particular about this one. Oh, by the way, this IS NOT a rag on you guys and gals who are professional photographers. It is a statement about how the times they have/are a changing, more or less. ] Graywolf wrote: Yes, I think that amateur is one who does something for the love of it. This isn't photography specific, but rather a bit more general. A long time ago the status of amateur in many fields was a highly acclaimed position. To grab a quote from webster: 2 : one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession Amateurs were honored and upheld as much or more than professionals. In many cases their skill level and quality of work often _exceed_ that of professionals. The difference is that one was _paid_ for the work, or worked to maintain a living in the field. Looking in webster again, it can be seen that the definition of pro is based upon the amateur status: 2 : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs It seems the earlier definition of amateur still holds true for many things in the UK. However, in the US, another definition has taken hold when the word amateur is used: 3 : one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science This is unfortunate thing, as it demeans the, IMO, true definition of amateur. It implies that people who aren't paid to do something are idiots, which can be the furthest thing from the truth. Even in this day and time, there are fields where the _amateur_ is still esteemed, and occasionally called upon to perform tasks that _professionals_ are unable to do. Why? Because the professionals in that field lack the skill, talents, and craft to do the job. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 .
P67 Bayonet filters (was Re: a P6x7 question)
Hey - one of you bro's care to reveal the nomenclature for the 67mm bayonet filters for 6x7 lenses??? The Pentax filters for bayonet mount 6x7 lenses are called _Pentax SMC for 6x7_. The filter ONLY fits on a lens with a front bayonet lens, it will not fit on a screw-only filter mount lens. The filter itself has both a bayonet and a screw mount on the objective side. This allows both screw mount and bayonet mount lens hoods to be used. The 6x7 filters are rather more hefty than the normal Pentax filters. I think it is due to the front/aft space required for the bayonet. Even though the bayonet filters could stack, Pentax recommends not doing so for reasons of vignette -- after all the filter rings are larger than normal. A screw-in (non 6x7) filter will fit in a lens with bayonet mounts. However if the lens hood has a bayonet on it, you won't be able to use it with the screw filter. The non-bayonet filter lacks the front bayonet to attach the hood with. Screw in hoods will work with either filter. In general, most Pentax 67 lenses have combination bayonet/screw front filter mounts. The exception are lenses with 77mm front filter threads. Many of them lack the bayonet mounts -- and remember the bayonet filters won't fit. To be more precise, the Pentax filter sheet says that 67,82,100 mm filter lenses will accept the bayonet. The 77 and 95 mm filter lenses can be either screw or bayonet, depending upon the lens. The sheet reflects common practice in 1982, so it could be quite out-of-date with respect to modern production lenses and presence of bayonet mounts. I don't know which kind of filter is used on lenses which accept rear-mount filters; I don't have any and the manuals don't really say. That's all I know right now -- I hope it helps. Bolo -- Josef T. BUrger - 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: Medium format negative storage
For what it is worth, I am using BesFile from BH. They hold 3 strips of 4 horizontally. I have purchased oversized binders to hold them They are similar to the clearfile product I have at the moment. A bit more compact actually, mine have a strip at the top to bring them up to some standard size. and it works just fine. To me, the key here is storage. If I end up using 2 negative pages per roll of 120, I have effectively doubled my storage requirements. That is why I am very happy to have these slightly oversized pages. Thickness of storage is a good point which I hadn't considered. I've been looking for some nice sealed / crushproof binders to hold the larger pages in storage. I have some from plastic box binders from clearfile for my 35mm negatives which work out well.The boxes are too small for the larger pages. As for contact sheets, I can't make them at home anyways, so it is not of as much concern. I am not doing any darkroom right now, but I want to start working at it. Contact prints of BW seem to be easiest and lowest risk way to start it up. Developing my own negatives next, and then on to printing. So, it is a bit of a consideration. The flip-side of the perfect 6x7 format is that it just doesn't break down nice onto an 8x10, unlike the other 6x formats. However, the 6X7 negative makes it pretty easy to directly see them by just setting the page on a light table, even though they are negatives. You are right about that! It's been a long time since I've seen fresh MF negs. After 35mm for many years I am amazed by the 6x7 negs, they are a joy to behold in their own right. Thanks Bolo -- Josef T. Burger ps: How's the 300mm working out? - 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: Some rainbow shots
David Mann wrote: Luckily it wasn't raining at the shore so I grabbed the Pentax 6x7, 45mm f/4 and spot meter in a mad hurry, and as the minutes went on I I don't have a spotmeter, so perhaps the simple answer to this is wait until you have a spotmeter, but ... What did you meter and what did you try to achieve with the metering? Off-hand guesses are going for shadow detail in the shore on the right side of the photo, which comes out quite detailed. Or, do you look for a middle gray somewhere for overall exposure? Or ...? Curious Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Another reason to like the Pentax 67...
It can with the 165/4 LS lens or the 90/2.8 LS. The 90 is discontinued, but widely available used. The 165 is not a full leaf shutter lens, but it does offer the high speed synch and an iris shutter. I've found it How or why is it not a full leaf shutter lens? works very well. And since my only real use for high speed synch flash is outdoor portraiture, this single focal length is perfectly suited to the task. Indeed, Pentax made a good choice there. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Medium Format Enlarging
As a decision about a medium format camera gets closer, questions about enlarging the negatives are coming to be a consideration. Do those of you working in medium format find that film flatness is an issue? Do you use glass carriers, or glassless? Cold light or condenser heads? Which enlargers do you use? Have you found a particular negative carrier that works better for you than others? I seem to recall that I had some problems when working with 2 1/4 negs and a condenser enlarger many years ago. Negative popping was an issue, if I recall. As you may have read, I recently entered the medium format realm with a 67ii. I've always looked forward to a darkroom, but have been putting it off. However, I've found that the only BW MF printing in town costs an arm and a leg ... so it looks like I'm going to start a darkroom sooner rather than later. Fortunately I already have a darkroom, but no equipment. I've been giving this issue serious consideration; these are the questions and thoughts I have had about it. Of course, this is from a different perspective than someone who already has a active darkroom and lots of experience. 1) Diffusion enlargers seem to be more readily available in the larger sizes than condensor enlargers. It may be more effective to get a enlarger with a VCCE head up-front if you want to use multi-grade paper. Some diffusion enlargers also have interchangeable mixing boxes for different formats. As grain effects decrease with increased negative size, the difference between condensor and diffusion enlargers may not be as large as with 35mm. Also watch out -- some enlargers only have condensor lamphouses for 6x6 -- they don't support 6x7. 2) Some enlarger families have interchangeable color, VCCE, and condensor lamphouses or filter modules. This can be an affordable (space and $$) way of choosing more than one option. I would like to do some color printing too, and the ability to add in a dichroic head or filter house on 1 enlarger is a powerful attraction. There is even one enlarger which is VCCE and dichoic color in one head, and I think it may have a condensor light path after the dichroic head as well! That's the DUNCO, which was available for a couple of years from Patterson. 3) Do you have any interest in LF (Large Format) in the future? I do, and I'm giving serious consideration to an enlarger which can support 4x5. However I think you loose wall projection and tilt/swings in many 4x5 enlargers. It may be worth spending a bit more now -- and it also eases the transition into the LF world, as you wouldn't need to look for yet another enlarger at that point. It also works for panoramic roll-film backs on a LF body. Didn't Aaron have a 4x5 enlarger from his view-camera days? I wonder how that works with his 67, or does he use something else for MF? 4) Depending on the source there are glass-less and glass (1 and 2 glass) negative carriers for both MF and LF enlargers. Some of the glass carriers can take glassless inserts for a particular smaller format (35, 6xwhatever, slides, etc). 5) Some enlargers accept negative carriers of some standard form. If you get one of these enlargers you will often have a wider variety of carriers to select from. This allows you to choose from many manufacturers selections, instead of just one manufacturer. 6) [My understanding of this isn't perfect, I could be misguided] Column length becomes more important with larger formats (MF, LF). That's because you need a larger base-lens distance to make larger prints from a large negative. That effect is due to the longer focal length lens you use. You can use some wide-angle EL lenses to make larger prints from a larger format, but they often have light fall-off in the corners. More expensive wide angles (for the format) lenses could compensate for that, however. 7) With a larger negative you want to look at the light output of the enlarger head a bit more than 35mm. A more powerful head can keep exposure times more reasonable and/or allow you a larger choice of usable apertures. Some of the more powerful lamphouses also come with a built in ND filter for those times when you want increased exposure times as well. Such as for complex dodging and burning, or for printing to smaller sizes. Also easier to focus! 8) Cooling the lamphouse is more of an issue. Some use fans, others use a passive convection design that keeps things cool. I don't know how loud the fan driven units are. I'm most likely missing a boatload of important issues, but these are the ones that _seem_ important so far. I look forward to your comments and suggestions. As do I! I'm finding that MF is forcing me to expand my horizons; that's not a bad thing, sometimes I need a bit of a shove to get going :) Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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
Re: Ok here is the 2nd attempt
Oh Don't be brutal this time :-) just need even more tips and pointers. Very cool! Good use of fill, backgrounds, color variations in clothing, poses, etc. I see you you found an interesting use for the distinctive skyline; perhaps a wee bit suggestive :) The diagonals in the brick wall add a strong dynamic component to those particular compositions. Sometimes it over-powers the model. You might be able to reduce that over-powering effect by moving the model *away* from the wall and blur the wall with selective focus/DOF. The diagonal components would still be there, the decrease in sharpness wouldn't make them so dominant. That would also reduce the effects of the model's hair blending into the shadow a bit. About the problems with your background not staying in place; if the top was secure some bricks or other weights on the bottom could hold it still. The other thing to do is to secure the edges of the background to the (or some) uprights. Use spring clamps. Once it is secured on all sides it will act less like a sail (I'm guessing that was the problem) as long as the wind can't get behind it -- which the brick wall prevents in your situation. You mentioned the silver reflector was too strong -- did you try your gold reflector again? If so, how did that turn out vis-a-vis the model's skin tone? One thing to try with the hands (your 2nd email mentions that) is to place them non-symmetrically; up and down for example. S-curves. Another thing I've seen is to form geometric shapes with the limbs; I think you do that in a couple of the photos. Thoughtful poses with chin cupped in hand, elbow on knee. One last thing to try would be some props! For example, something to hold in a hand that the model looks at. A pole or rope to grab. A Meditative or prayer-ish composition. Athletic movements/poses such as diving or graceful skating. Dynamic poses such as pauses from a martial arts kata. I thought the from-the quarter photos illustrated the model's ... ahh .. curvature .. for lack of a better word, better than the frontal shots did. They made her body more 3 dimensional. Nice job! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Amateur wedding photography (was: my disappearing buyers...)
Graywolf wrote: And the pro just loves you, Bill. On a list of things wedding photographers hate, amateur competition is second, right after not getting paid. I think it depends on the photographer.The photographers I've seen pretty much ignore the people with point-n-shoots and SLRs as ps; guests with random cameras. However, if you have camera gear and act like you know how to use it .. then it changes: I've seen some who are certainly quite hostile towards others who try to take photos; won't say a word to them, act to interfere with their shots, just generally unpleasant to be around. I don't know what's up with them. Then there are some photographers who _ARE_ photographers. They are certainly there to make money, but photography is also something they are enthusiastic about. They have a job to do, but their interest in photography shows through -- if they have time they often stop and talk with you and compare notes! The third class that I've seen are photographers who don't have a clue. In that case perhaps you should consider doing *the best* you can do to provide some good material for the couple to supplement that which the pro provides. The best experience I had at a wedding I attended to shoot at was my sister's wedding in Chicago. The pro obviously knew what he was doing. He was one of the ones who I'd classify as having an interest in photography, rather than just being there for the $$ and nothing more. Though quite busy he had the presence to notice when I was taking some long exposure natural light shots of the church interior and *back off* out of the scene between shots. He also worked hard to do same available light photography of the static parts of the ceremony ... which turned out quite nicely. Later at the reception we had an interesting conversation about what he did and some of his experiences. Also commented on some of the slow shutter handheld shots I was taking of the church interior -- how he could hear how slow the shutter speed was! Later, while he and my brother and I were working at candids, he'd often take advantage of thing's we worked at ... and with that kind of attitude, the reverse soon happened as well. Oh... and the best thing about this guy -- he was shooting Pentax -- a 645N with 2 or 3 primes! Not all pros mind us! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 67 Mania infection complete ...
Welcome to the brotherhood! The first time I hefted and played with a 67II I fell in love with it. It does handle great, doesn't it! Glad that you had a good experience. Thank you Bruce, and thanks for the information. Your notes on lens preference regard length versus hardware were illuminating. I am spoiled in my 35mm lens choices by having two of the *best* zooms ever created, the SMCP-A 35-105/3.5, and the SMCP-A 70-210/4. The result is that that I *don't* know which primes I like. With lenses such as those I don't drag out primes very often, except for wide angle glass. The only primes in that range I would like to have are faster ones ... which are difficult to find these days. Anyway, with regards to 6x7: It was a flip between the 90/2.8 and the 105/2.4 for me -- I consider either to be a good candidate. I picked the 105 for its extra speed and brighter focus; I often push the limits of light and every little bit help. It's also part of my master plan -- I do want a 90, but I'd like to get one of the 90 LS lenses so I can have flash sync at any speed. Now I just have to locate one of those beasts! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Pentax 67 and mechanism-induced camera shake
Bolo wrote: [my opinion] 2a) It seems a ball-head does better than a 3d (xyz) head since it has a larger lever-arm (ball radius or diameter) to resist the camera forces than the small diameter XYZ spindle locks on a 3d head. Paal wrote: It has nothing to do with lever arms but mass coupling. All tripod heads I'm aware of locks completely. With a ball head the camera is bolted to the tripod via a thin stem. Most pan-tilt head offer two point support and much beter mass coupling than any ball head. Here in Europe, the general wisdom is that ball heads can only hold lenses up to 300mm (for 35mm). I'm not disagreeing with you, rather bringing a few more points forward on this topic. Thanks for starting some discussion! Above 300mm it seems that people should be using gimbal heads instead of 3d heads or ball heads; they balance the weight of the camera+lens combination and eliminate most of the mechanical lever-arm problems. You still have inertia to contend with, but many other problems are eliminated or minimized. Speaking of the 67, the gimbal head doesn't help an, as the camera is still bucking around, but now on the end of the lens. Perhaps a gunstock style support for camera + lens is really needed? Mass coupling is a good point, and mechanically I can't disagree with you. However, note that a ballhead is quite compact compared to a 3d head. This gives the ball head a mechanical advantage over the 3d head, or to be more precise, gives camera-induced motion a greater mechanical advantage on the 3d tripod head. With the 3d head the camera has a greater lever arm on the tripod head, and thus a given force can exert a larger torque on the joints in the head. You mention the thin stem on the ball head. Again, as above, a great mechanical point. However that same thin stem, at least on the ballheads I've looked at or on the one I own, is rather short and stout. For example, my 308RC ball head has a stem of 3/4 long and 5/8 diameter. The length could be reduced to 5/8 without affecting the operation of the head. The lever arm from the base of the camera mount to the center of the ball is approx 1-1/4. To contrast, the lever arms on my 3030 3d head are 1-1/2 to the first (roll) joint, 2-3/4 at the next (pitch) joint. H, I'll leave the above, but I think I have a better way of examining this: A ballhead is compact compared to a 3d head. It is also massive in the same scale. The compact size reduces the lever arm and torque of camera induced forces. The mass concentration allows a great deal of strength in that same compact volume. The other advantage is leverage on the tripod itself. The compact ball head makes the lever arm to the top of the tripod shorter; the camera is closer to the top of the pyramid formed by the legs and can direct the force directly to that platform, rather than to a lever arm to that platform. I think another important thing to emphasize is the QR plate mentioned. Although I don't own any, the arca-swiss dovetail QR plate and holder are more massive than the bogen systems I have. Instead of a 3 point grip with a reversible wedging action, there is a full dovetail which is clamped solidly. There is more surface area in the QR system to hold the load and to transmit forces effectively. The other important part is the RRS plate, or some other plate which holds the camera well and transmits *torque* effectively between the camera and the tripod/head system. The RRS plates do this by bedding the body in a cradle. Pentax's own plate system does this with the anti-rotation hole in the base. The bogen plates (unless modified as some people in the group have mentioned) don't have any such provisions. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: 67 Mania gaining foothold, victim needs help!
[ Finally some replies from me on this thread, after being out of town and trying to catch up to life, work, and the PDML. ] [ Oliver Raymond wrote ... ] I've brought your comment about LS 'up top': [ my 7 step guess of Leaf Shutter use ] Not quite: 1) Focus and meter (leaf shutter open) 2)Set Camera to 1/8s 3) Set LS to metered results (aperature, shutter speed) 4) Cock the LS 5) Fire the camera. Note that only 1,4,5 need to be repeated for a new shot The camera should be set for 1/8 for all LS work The LS will open after firing to allow re-composition. So the LS is actuated by the camera body, NOT by a seperate release on the LS lens? If so that seems a nice setup, much nicer than my guess of two shutter releases per photo. I'm going to answer more later :) Gotta go play with new(ish) ATL3 - 140lbs to carry to darkroom (groan!) Looking forward to anything more you have to say. An ATL3? At first I thought that was a Jobo processor, but checking their WWW pages, there isn't such a thing. Is it an older processor, or something else? Thanks Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Re[4]: M35/f2.0 (Re: Re[2]: OT: Oh, I get it...)
Though, once again thinking about it, I do most of my shooting when it is dark and where even the best AF would have trouble. If I am going to be shooting on manual focus, I might as well have lenses that manually focus smoothly. You might be surprised at what even old autofocus systems can do. My F4 (yeah, it's not a Pentax, it just sits next to them and hopes the SMC will rub off a bit :) can focus through a slow (f5.6) zoom in a dark room lit by a dim candle better than I can. Certainly, it has to have a vertical line to do it with, as it doesn't have a cross-type AF sensor. But if there is an edge ... boom ... in focus all the time. The AF on the PZ-1p is similar to the F4, though not as old, so it should do at least as well. From reports on the PDML that seems to be true. Tne newer Pentax AF bodies with wider? cross-type sensors should do better, at least as good as my brother's N-60 which locks on more often than my F4, but can still go seeking focus every once in a while. The MZ-S should be better still. [Unfortunately] I don't have any Pentax AF bodies or lenses yet, so I can't compare them head to head -- I can just compare the technology. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 .
67 Mania gaining foothold, victim needs help!
For the last year I have been debating about MF quite a bit. I'm not getting rid of my 35mm gear, for I use it and have a nice kit that I slowly work on improving. The size and lightness are important for a lot of things. However, I started out in photography long ago with MF 6x6 TLR equipment. It died eventually and I used my parent's 35mm gear on and off. Now that I am a well equipped 35mm user I find myself missing MF. The difference seems to have a lot to do with peering through a tiny viewfinder versus a nice big ground glass. I think that the MF ground glass lets me slow down instead of squinting through a tiny eyepiece I also spend a lot of time with my 35mm gear on a tripod. Once that happens I often think I should go the extra distance for a larger negative. That certainly won't make the shooting any slower than it already is! All along I have been planning on adding some MF equipment, but the costs for my favorite 6x6 are a bit high, at least for newer stuff which is still manufactured. Some 6x6 backs cost almost as much as a used Pentax 67! So, I put it on the back burner. Prior to this I didn't really consider Pentax due to the lack of 6x6 and I'm not particularly interested in 6x4.5. Though not interested in Pentax MF gear, I've still followed along the pdml posts about the 645 and the 6x7 and the 67 and the brotherhood of mystic 67 users. Well, I probably should have not followed the 67 message since it piqued my interest. I went looking and found that the Pentax 67 gear is quite affordable, even _new_ compared to 6x6 systems used. As I said above, you can get a 2nd 6x7 body for the price of a 6x6 back! At pricing like that it seems that if I want a 2nd back I might as well get a 2nd body (if it comes to that). I'm quite familiar with the astounding properties of the Pentax SMC glass, and it seems the 67 lenses share all the qualities of my Pentax 35mm gear ... just in larger cannon sized diameters. I'm off to Chicago this weekend to see some Pentax 67 gear in person so I can handle it and see what it feels like. I was hoping to pick the collective brain of the PDML for some extra info before I left. I've already read the existing articles, but I haven't seen any info on the following: 1) The 67II does TTL flash. From the photos I've seen the hotshoe appears to be a Pentax 4p hot shoe. That means that the 67II will do TTL flash with my existing Pentax TTL Flashes, such as the AF280T? Also, the 67 flash system is a straight 4p system and won't TTL with the auto-focus 5p flashes? 2) Only the AE prism for the 67 does metering, all the other finders lack metering so you need either a hand-held or sunny-16 meter? I would like to have a waist-level finder that would meter, so I don't have to peer through the small peephole viewfinder so much. 3) The 6x7 metering prism is a full-average meter, while the 67II AE prism is closer to 35mm gear with center-weighted, spot, and matrix metering modes? 4) Can you adjust TTL flash fill via exposure compensation like you can on the SuperProgram? In other words use manual metering, and adjust the exposure compensation to control the flash fill? 5) What is the highest shutter speed on the leaf shutter lens(s)? 1/500? When using the leaf shutter lens does the body sync the flash correctly? 6) I have read that mirror and shutter vibration are a big problem with the Pentax 67 bodies. An article on The Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pentax67ii.htm shows multiple images on photographs with Pentax 67 gear because the shutter and the mirror shake the camera so badly. On the other hand, the PDML photographers have been getting excellent results. What's up? 7) Some things that I've read say that the camera and lenses have two bayonets, an inner bayonet and a outer bayonet. Digging around it seems that some accessories (extension tubes for example) work only on one of the bayonets. Does this mean there are essentially two incompatible lens systems for the 67, and you need to have, for example, extension tubes and teleconverters for *each* of the bayonets? 8) Any lenses to stay away from? Any particularly outsanding ones (yes, I already know about Aaron's 75mm f/2.8 :)? Any recommendations for any particularly good pairs or triplets of prime lenses? 9) Is the film loading particularily onerous, or is it comparable to 6x6 TLR bodies? 9) Any other good questions to ask which I haven't? :) Thanks for any info! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger ps: Just wait till I ask for info about 6x7 capable enlargers! - 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: CRITIC WANTED!!!!!:was what are you shooting this weekend
I look back and want to kick myself in the head ( back lit shots what was I thinking! I didn't think that was so bad ... I thought it had potential! I'll preface this to note that I photograph railroad equipment, animals, buildings and other non-people subjects most of the time; portraiture isn't my strong suite ... I just dabble in it from time to time. First, the clothing has too much contrast with her skin. Something with a lighter color would help a lot, both top and bottom. There isn't a lot of detail in the dark colors; I didn't even realize the pants were _blue_ jeans until one of the later shots. I thought that one of the back lit shots showed promise; lub9. With the model backlit, the shadow problem that you see in many of the sidelit photos is eliminated. The contrast *in* the subject is lowered, which helps. You also get a touch of a hair-light, which differentiates and adds texture to the hair. If you pose the model to move the backlit light source *behind* the model's head you would increase the hairlight-- while simultaneously reducing the flare problem. The flare has the effect of *softening* the photo, such as a soft-focus filter would do; you may want to experiment with such a filter -- the effect seems to show potential. lub9 also provides the start of an opportunity for a good background. Eliminate the parking lot in the lower portion and use the model to cover some of the background buildings. Leave the distinctive parts of the skyline, such as the needle, in place to provide a silhouetted where to the photo. Another thing to try would be to shoot earlier or later in the day; the low-lying sun will give you some of the warm or gold tone which you were hoping for with your bounce. If any of this is particularly stupid, please say so; as I said, I only dabble in portraiture. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 .
Which have more utility ... 35mm MF or AF Macros lenses
I have manual focus Pentax gear. I've been using my A-series 50mm F/2.0 with extension tubes and/or a reversing ring for the macro photography that I do. I've been considering a dedicated macro lens, and have a question about the MF versus AF variants. The MF macro lenses that I've looked at all go down to 1:2. After that you need extension tubes for 1:1. That is well and fine. However, I've noticed that almost all of the AF macro lenses that I've looked at tend to go to 1:1 ... without extension tubes. Presumbably this is because the rackpinion and/or IF mechanisms allow a greater a bit more freedom in lens design than the helicoid does. I've not settled upon a focal length for a macro lens; my first guess is 100 mm, since I already have a 50mm, and I'd like some additional stand-off than I have now. I've looked idly at macro lenses. Comments on this list seem to indicate that the FA 200mm macro is even a *better* lens than the awesomely rated A* 200mm macro, so quality doesn't seem to be an issue with the AF macros. Naively it seems that the AF macro lenses with 1:1 are a win over the MF 1:2 macro lenses. So, ... Since the AF lenses goto 1:1 without a extension tube, is there something which you lose with a 1:1 AF macro lens compared to a traditional MF Macro lens? Besides requring a lot of extension tubes to get to 1:1 with the longer MF macro lenses? Thanks for any illumination. Bolo - 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: Which have more utility ... 35mm MF or AF Macros lenses
I wasn't talking Pentax lenses to exclusion, it was more a (I thought) a general observation. Looks like I wasn't observant enough! In terms of magnification, here's a quick table: SMC-A 50mm F2.8 Macro: 0.5x SMC-A 100mm F2.8 Macro: 1.0x SMC-A 100mm F4.0 Macro: 0.5x SMC-A* 200mm F4.0 Macro: 1.0x A. All the Pentax MF macro lenses that were available for purchase -- hence the only ones I looked at -- only goto 1:2. I didn't realize that the ones I could never find anywhere were capable of 1:1. That sorta figures ... the good glass can't be found! I just noticed everyone elses AF lenses went 1:1, MF to 1:2, and assumed it was rather uniform. Someone else mentioned the a Vivitar series 1 macro lenses; I have heard good things about several of them from people with other mounts. Maybe something to look at, though they are non-SMC. I bought my A* 200 a couple of years ago from BH for $950. The FA* 200mm F4 Macro goes for $1350 at BH. That's quite a price hike! I was considering one (A* 200) back then, and then *blam* it was no longer available. Pentax kills yet another product that I would buy from them. Oh well, story of my history with Pentax. Time to keep an eye out for the 100/2.8 or the 200/4.0. Those are the lenses I would prefer to have anyway. Thanks for the info. Bolo - 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: Which ringlight, AF-080C or AF-140C?
Sorry to be so late to respond Thanks for the email I thought the ringlight thread had dried up; I was cleaning up my PDML mail when I noticed your contribution If I get you right, you are working with _fairly_ small motifs, and want a _directional_ light without too much contrast That is a good summary I think reducing it to the above is a big step in providing a definite problem to analyze One thing I have tried (but not often) is to use a white plastic bag over the flash head as a diffuser Or a white cardboard strapped to the flash and pointing it slightly away from the motif Well just another suggestion I recently started experimenting with a small on-flash diffuser, a Sto-fen I haven't returned to try it on the problem objects, but it seems to have helped out considerably in some random experimentation I've done with different subjects One, surprising, effect of the diffuser was to eliminate the need to clean the dust off the subjects With their smaller scale the directional light from the strobe casts distinct shadows not only from subject detail, but from dust lying on the surface! With the diffuser the dust no longer cast shadows and is not so noticeable Your suggestion of trying a larger diffuser is interesting, though Combined with the pan/tilt flash head or a hand-held off-camera flash I could noticably move the light source to minimize the shadows, or to move them to a better location Mostly I work with natural light, and rather take the long exposure times than digging the flash out of the bag:-) Natural light works well with many things However when I'm indoors with random lighting and backgrounds the flash provides a couple of instant corrections -- one is to correct the lighting tone to daylight The other is to provide enough light that I can try to use a higher shutter speed to dark down distracting backgrounds Hope you find a solution that works for you Thanks for the info, and Thanks! Bolo -- Josef T Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe, go to http://wwwpdmlnet and follow the directions Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pugkomkonorg
Re: Which ringlight, AF-080C or AF-140C?
I've been considering getting a ringlight for closeup and macro photography. The choices of Pentax equipment are the no-longer-made AF-080C, and the newer AF-140C. Thanks for the info about the ringlights. To rehash a bit... The big difference between the AF-080C and the AF-140C is: The AF-140C has modeling lights and can fire either L/R/L+R strobes so you can control the light and provide contrast, even at macro scale. Timothy Sherburne mentioned: John Shaw's John Shaw's Closeups in Nature (ISBN 0817440526) is a great book for getting started with macro photography. He shuns ring flashes in favor of using small ordinary flashes mounted on a butterfly bracket. And, indeed, his images do make use of shadow perfectly. I took a look at the book, has a lot of good info. However it made me realize that perhaps Macro photography is the wrong term to describe what I'm trying to do. It looks like a good book about Macro, though. Jostein mentioned: However, there's a lot of nice things that can be done with ordinary flashes too. Take a look at Mark Cassino's site; http://www.markcassino.com/index.htm he's using a Z-1p with a A*200/4 macro and a AF500-FTZ. Ahhh, I remember reading that now that you mention it. Same note as with the Shaw boo, though ... perhaps Macro is the wrong term. Describing the subjects that I want to photograph as macro may be misleading. Most of the things I want to photograph in this style are typically quite a bit larger than the negative, so perhaps 4:1 or 3:1 at the best -- with most work requiring less magnification. Because of the non-macro size of the objects (for example a model RR locomotive or some other scale object), in addition to being small one often needs a great DOF to record the object. So, that is one thing a bit different from Macro work which is done at such a high mag that DOF is very small. The next difference is that the subject often has a number of interfering structural details which cast shadows when using a strobe on or off camera. The ideal setup for shooting subjects in this vein would probably be some sort of light stage which reflects the light of the strobe a bit to diffuse it and eliminate the shadows. However, that doesn't work so well when you are at random venues and trying to photograph these items. Multiple off-camera strobes only work so-so, since they all cast shadows. They are also a chore to setup when you don't have the time or leisure or environment to do so. So ... I was thinking that perhaps a ringlight is the right solution; it is easily portable, it will push all the shadows to locations that can't be seen by the lens. If I use it in combination with a second, easily portable, strobe to provide some contrast and shadow so that things look 3d .. but without huge black strobe shadows. Comments, suggestions!? Thanks again! Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 .
Which ringlight, AF-080C or AF-140C?
I've been considering getting a ringlight for closeup and macro photography. The choices of Pentax equipment are the no-longer-made AF-080C, and the newer AF-140C. The obvious tradeoffs I see is the AF-080C is less powerful than the AF-140C. I assume for macro work that will affect how far I can stop down to get a reasonable depth of field. The AF-080C, can use the same external power supplies which the AF-400T uses. The AF-140C doesn't seem to take any external power. On the other hand, the 140C fits on lenses of filter size 49,52,58mm, unlike the 080C, which only fits on 49mm? lenses. I'd like to use the ringlight for macro and near macro photography. For example, construction details, closeups of intricate 3d structures, and scale model (HO through G scale) photography. Admittedly, G scale may be large enough for conventional flash gear. The reason I'd like the ringlight is to be able to use a single flash and not have bad shadows cast by it. As a secondary consideration I'd also like to use the ringlight for some portraiture type work. I was wondering if any of you had thoughts or comments about the two ringlights and what the real photography tradeoffs are between the two. Thanks for any info. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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: Wimter Carnival photography: Pentax goes to the races
[ I am tremendously behind the pdml due to the volume of traffic that is flowing these days. I hope this info is still of use to someone. ] Get a power cord for the Motor A and put the batteries inside your jacket. See BH Regards, Bob S. Thanks Bob, I was wondering if there was something like that made. Do they make something for the button batteries as well? I was a bit surprised though, as it wasn't all that cold: when I took the dawgs out after my initial post it was only -14C. I was using fresh batteries in both the camera and the motor, but the thing was pretty much choked after less than an hour outside. I've had my super program out at night for astrophotography, for up to about 1.5 hours or so. I didn't have any problems with the camera giving up; heck, I gave up before the camera did! I was pleasantly surprised at how well it did compared to an all-manual body. There are two battery cables here. One cable is the "Battery Cord A". The cable has an insert that replaces the 2 1.5v cells in the Super Program. The other end of the cable has a "battery pod" which you place your batteries in. The other cable is the "Power Cord A", which allows you to separate the Motor Drive A and the Battery Pack A from each other. I've been planning on getting one or both of these for my SuperPrograms. The Battery Cord A for when I do astrophotography at night time in the winter. Brr. The Power Cord A, in addition to moving the battery pack a off-camera, is supposed to give you a remote electric release via the vertical trigger on the Battery Pack A. There may be a problem with using the Battery Cord A and the Motor Drive A at the same time it looks like the Battery Cord sticks out perpendicular to the bottom of the body, and therefore sorta eliminates use of the Motor Drive. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - 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 great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax
Its 1/250 via hot shoe and 1/125 via PC socket. I saw that. Wondered about it a bit, for it doesn't make a lot of sense. Just put a PC adaptor on the hotshoe. Or mabye only dedicated Contax flash gear works at 1/250th. It can't use lenses from previous Contax AF SLR, because it (Contax AX) was a weird contraption that achieved autofocus by moving film plane. Oh my. That is unusual! The review mentioned, BTW, that the "street" price tag that isn't outrageous, $1300 or so. And it is available. Did the review mention the cost of lenses? The cheapest is the $600 50/1.4 and the rest are well over $1000. And there are only 4 lenses (2 more on the way). Ability to use 645 lenses isn't that much of a bargain. How many people can afford to fork over $5800 for the privilege of using a 350/4 tele. No, the review didn't mention the cost of lenses. Yikes! This is the kind of vitality and innovation that I would hope to see in a body from Pentax. I hope Pentax does something soon. The MZ-S seems to be way behind the power curve. What exactly is so innovating aboutN1? Or are you using Bill Gates' definition of the word? All the things you've mentioned have been done before, and at much lower cost. But that's just me. Others may find an SLR with 2 slow zooms irresistable for $4000. Those are the kind of features I would like to see on a body from anyone! Even more so if it were a company with an extensive lens lineup such as Pentax or Nikon. Especially at that price level, just a bit dollars more than the cost of a PZ-1p when it was new! A decent back that prints exposure info between frames. A digital preview so you can see what you are going to be recording on film. Interchangeable focus screens so you can have focus aids that the user wants. Conventional, simple controls. All those things have been done before. But not in an affordable "advanced amateur" or "semi-professional" body. The closest I've seen to this point is the Nikon F4, and its accesories ... a clearly professional line. A 4+ year old used F4 body runs as much as a *new* N1. And even Nikon doesn't have a digital preview in an SLR. I'm not going to buy an N1. I have pentax lenses. I want pentax to make a decent body with features something like the N1 has. Not another lame body that drifts farther and farther away from the basic capabilites that I want, and that all other manufacturers seem to provide at some level.Every time I get another Pentax lens I always debate with myself. The debate is whether I should continue with Pentax, or switch to another manufacturer who is actually introducing new bodies that are capable, or retaining and/or upgrading the older capable bodies. I wait for some sign from Pentax that they are going to turn around and make higher end equipment again. Something like an LX. Something that is a step beyond the PZ-1p. Instead they go the other way. That's why I think it is innovative; it has good features at a good price. A real bummer about the cost of the lenses though. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax
This AF body can't use the lenses of the previous Contax AF SLR body. To me, that's most damning. I would consider such a body from Pentax to be unworthy of further consideration, regardless of how many bells and whistles are hung upon it. Someone else noted that is because the older Contax AF body focused by moving the film plane of the camera. A most unusual system they probably wanted to get away from. And it probably didn't sell well enough to have any desire for some tele-converter like adaptor between the two systems. He continues: This is the kind of vitality and innovation that I would hope to see in a body from Pentax. I hope Pentax does something soon. The MZ-S seems to be way behind the power curve. And if incompatibility is the price of being in front of the "power curve," I hope Pentax remains well behind. I didn't ask Pentax to switch their lens mount. I didn't ask for bells and whistles. I showed what kind of camera body that another company can produce at a reasonable cost. What good would it do me and my existing pentax equipment? The reason that I want Pentax to produce a good body is so that I don't have to switch to something else. I don't think that viewpoint is any different from most pentaxians. Perhaps you want a spotmatic with a K-mount. That's fine with me. I want something different. I don't particularily care for bells and whistles, but I want some solid features. They are offered in this body from another manufacturer, along with software-driven junk that all manufacturers seem to be adding to their bodies these days. That is a trend that I consider fairly harmless as long as the basic photographic features of a body are easy to use; And are present to be used, instead of being erased in the interests of low cost or mass production. Perhaps I should have just stated this upfront so that erroneous interpretations of what I wrote would not happen: "Here is a company that makes a body with features that are very competitive with other manufacturers and at a reasonable cost. It is a great shame that a company like Pentax doesn't produce a K-mount body that has those or similar features at a similar price. Instead, the prospectus on Pentax's newer offering is a step down from the top of the line PZ-1p body. At the same time it carries high price comparable to the features of this body. Here is what can be done for this kind of cost. Too bad pentax can't do something better". Bolo -- Josef T. Burger - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: Combining AF140C and AF400FTZ flash (was:Flash Cabling)
You could do this by using the AF400FTZ off-camera using the adapter-F or Fs and a 5-pin cord to the flash. Than just attach the AF140C on top of the adapter. Physically, it is possible to mount everything like that... 1) will it work correctly, will the flashes fire simulaniously? 2) could this be harmful for the camera or one of the flashes? The combination analog + digital type of TTL flash might complicate things I guess ... I have not tried this yet, calculating relative flash-intensity would be the next issue :-) However, everything that I have read states that you can not combine the digital and non-digital TTL flashes. You can either use non-digital TTL flashes OR digital TTL flashes, but not a setup where both are interconnected. I don't know what will happen to the equipment if you do try combining them; I do know that the digital flashes won't do TTL on the non-digital bodies, they are not wired the same as the older flashes. As the AF140C is a "T" series flash, you could use it with an AF280T or AF220T or AF200T "T" series flash. And you'll get TTL control of the light on the subject. Bolo -- Josef T. Burger This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
