Re: shift lens or shift and tilt lens????
On June 24, 2003 08:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And If you're not really serious but just shoot architecture for the fun on > it, get some wide angle lenses and use photoshop to correct the, I believe > it's called, parallex problems. (merging verticals). Before photoshop, > shift lenses made a lot of sense. Now photoshop can do an adequate job in > most situations for most of us.. Shift lenses are dman expensive... Shift cameras aren't. The price of even an Arsat shift lens should get you a camera and one lens if you buy used. Nick
Re: OT: trivia
On June 23, 2003 10:18 pm, frank theriault wrote: > Now that you mention it, I think you're right, Nick. I wonder if anyone > had two or more cameras, so that one always had a camera when the "used" > one was sent back for processing and re-loading. > > And, I wonder if you got back the same camera, or if they just sent back > another one which was just sitting there full of fresh film, waiting to be > shipped? Found this http://www.eastman.org/5_timeline/1899.htm Check out 1888. $25 for a camera. At those prices I bet few people could afford even one. 100 exposure per roll. Might take awhile to finish for most people-) Nick
Re: OT: trivia
On June 23, 2003 09:55 pm, frank theriault wrote: > That's cool! I love trivia - in fact, my whole life is a collection of > trivial, unimportant events (but I digress...). > > I suppose that around the turn of the last century, the only cameras > available to the general public (other than big, bulky, hard to use view > cameras) were Eastman Kodaks. I'd never heard of Kodak being used as a > verb, or as a synonym of photography, but it makes lots of sense. I guess in a way those cameras were the first disposable cameras. You sent the whole thing in for processing and they sent back double prints and a reloaded camera. I think they sent the camera back. Nick
Re: macro experiment update
On June 22, 2003 07:41 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I think i may have fiqured out what went wrong.I shot a roll of Provia 400 > F today,duplicating the same > shots and conditions, and the results will prove me right or wrong.I wont > say what i think happened,I > dont have a flame suit nor a helmet to ward of the glancing blows aimed at > my noggen. BTW Nick the spot is a 1 degree and i think the SP is centre > weight.??? > Something I thought about later. How close does your meter let you get? I just checked the Minolta website and without closeup filters you're limited to more then 4 1/2 feet. Nick
Re: The Myth of the *ist is entry level
On June 19, 2003 11:18 am, Anthony Farr wrote: > I'm not sure which market you mean isn't very big today. What I am sure of People who have never owned a SLR and now want one. I guess some people will consider the feature list when looking to get thier first SLR but some are going to be scared off by the long list. Some are even going to say "Spot meter? How much for a meter without a spot?" Nick
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
On June 19, 2003 05:12 pm, frank theriault wrote: > Of course not! Simple photo-electric cells don't record images, do they? But it's about producing an image not recording one. It's not a very realistic image but it's an image. Now replace the single bulb and sensor with a bunch of little ones. Would that be a photograph? Nick
Re: The Myth of the *ist is entry level
On June 19, 2003 11:03 am, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 19 Jun 2003 at 10:55, Nick Zentena wrote: > > How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the > > aperture ring other then losing in camera metering. > > Talk about feature laden. > Haven't you heard. Feature rich equals entry level. Arguing that a person needs to use a handheld meter makes a camera aimed at entry level makes no sense to me. Nick
Re: The Myth of the *ist is entry level
On June 19, 2003 09:29 am, Anthony Farr wrote: > > Pentax don't plan to sell most *ists to present Pentax owners, but to > people who've never before owned a 35mm SLR. That's what makes it 'entry > level'. If you or I or anyone else on this list bought an *ist, that would > not be an 'entry' purchase. We don't count in the *ist's reasons to exist, > and that's why it doesn't appeal to so many of us. That's not a very big market today. The *ist has some nice features in a relatively small package. The only thing I've heard about it that's questionable is the build quality. If it's more robust then some of the suggestions here I'll consider it. Nick
Re: The Myth of the *ist is entry level
On June 19, 2003 10:51 am, Matt Bevers wrote: > Exactly - that's why I said the user interface supports it's entry > level status. The single dial doesn't work for people who don't use > autoexposure. How does that make sense? Nothing is stopping you from using the aperture ring other then losing in camera metering. Camera metering is entry level. The camera is aimed at people who use a handheld meter. Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
On June 19, 2003 05:24 am, Bob Walkden wrote: > > Besides, 'darkrooms' are only dark for the brief moment while you load > the film in the tank. Otherwise they are lit normally or by a > safelight and the light of the enlarger. Only if you're using a daylight tank for film and doing B&W prints. Nick
Re: Is an inkjet print a photograph? (was Re: Agfa Competition)
On June 19, 2003 07:39 am, frank theriault wrote: > AND, that definition would include digital photography as well. The > words "sensitized surface (as a film)" clearly mean "sensitized surface > including but not limited to film". I think a digital sensor would fall > into that category. One of those lights that turn themselves on when it's dark would count to then? Nick
Re: Agfa Competition
On June 18, 2003 06:52 pm, Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: > > It is a B/W photo competition, not an Adobe Photoshop skills one. > > So? Since when can't a digital b&w print be called b&w photograph? I suggest looking at the secondary prizes. Nick
Re: Cost of cameras (WAS Re: Lens Mount Progress)
On June 18, 2003 01:30 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Nick, > > I think that pretty much holds true even at MF. I have yet to hear a > complaint about the 67 lens mount or the metering modes (or lack) that > it has. > > Oh, the tangled web of the 35mm world... I was more joking about the lack of built in meters with LF. OTOH LF really is the simplest thing out there. If the lens isn't so big it breaks the camera it can be mounted with some fairly simple tools on almost any camera. The postman brought a new to me 210mm lens yesterday. 10 minutes with the bandsaw and the drill press and the lens is on a board for the camera. The thing is this lens didn't start out a camera lens but a process lens. Now if only I hadn't been outbid on that clamp on shutter last month-((( Nick
Re: Cost of cameras (WAS Re: Lens Mount Progress)
On June 18, 2003 11:47 am, Bruce Dayton wrote: > mike, > > Funny thing, once you move past 35mm into something bigger, then all > this arguing about whose weeny little camera is better doesn't matter > so much. All of the 35mm bodies have that same liability - small > negative. And once you get to LF no more complaining about lens mounts or the fact they don't meter-))) Nick
Re: Lens Mount Progress
On June 17, 2003 08:07 pm, Caveman wrote: > Good. Now I'll send you a free screwmount Zenit camera, but you have to > use that one only for the rest of your life. No other gear allowed. Any chance of making it a Flexaret? Nick
Re: First shot a keeper (was Re: "My" Photography Show)
On June 16, 2003 05:11 pm, frank theriault wrote: > pooched - didn't even use a handheld, didn't even know about Sunny 16, just > went by the exposure "instructions" on the inside of the film box! Came > back with incredible photos of Egypt. The stuff on the box is basically Sunny 16. It's modified a little for modern shutters [How many 1/100 or 1/400 shutters today?]. What I find funny is Fuji's datasheet for Velvia gives the same info. Makes you wonder just how accurate exposure needs to be. Nick
Re: Paypal?
On June 16, 2003 02:14 pm, Paul Eriksson wrote: > Ok, please help someone ebay illiterate. What pros and cons are there with > paypal? I can only talk from the point of somebody that sends money. Pros: Fast payment so the seller ships the item fast. Hopefully. No fees. Supposedly you can ask for your money back within 30 days if things go bad. Never had to do this so don't know how easy it is. Cons: If you're buying in a different currency they now do the currency exchange themselves. While the rate they give isn't horrible it's worse then what my CC company gives. Nick
Re: a thought on marketing philosophy
On June 15, 2003 07:44 am, Keith Whaley wrote: > Speaking of the right time to enter the market with a product, how about > Kodak, and it's 27 exposure "one-time-use camera system [disposable] > DIGITAL cameras? > My Sunday paper came in a plastic wrapper/envelope, with the Kodak adv. > on the outside. > Order Premium prints and you'll get a CD with your images on it. > > All sorts of questions come to mind, but I'd sure like to know more of > the details about the camera, even tho' it's considered a disposable... > > Come to think of it, they didn't call it a digital camera - they said > you'd get back digital pictures, on a CD, when you ordered Kodak Premium > prints. Does that mean all jpegs? > > So, perhaps I'm doing some assuming of facts not in evidence. How is > this any different from recording your images on regular film, with a > regular camera, and having it developed and printed by Kodak, and asking > for prints plus a PhotoCD? > Seems to be the same arrangement to me. > Were the Kodak Photo CDs you used to get back when requested recorded > with a proprietary format, but they're offering jpegs now? Don't know, > but I'll bet someone here has the info... > > Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but it's the first time > I've seen Kodak include the word 'digital' in an ad for disposable > cameras! > Sounds like a disposable film camera. Nick
Re: Velvia was Re: Exposure
On June 14, 2003 11:40 pm, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Caveman > Subject: Re: Velvia was Re: Exposure > > > Simple. Follow the ISO standardized method of determining the film ISO > > rating. > > The ISO standardized method is the first thing that is abandoned by > advanced photographers. This is why people do film speed tests. > The ISO standard presumes a certain scene type which bears only passing > relevence to the real world. The ISO rating is just a reference standard > so that everyone can be on the same page WRT film and meter sensitivity. > There is nothing in the ISO rating to imply that it is the gospel for > how the product will work in the real world. Not with Fuji claiming you can use an EI of 32,40,50 or even 60 depending on your goals. Nick
Re: Aperture coupling was Re: Exposure
On June 14, 2003 09:31 pm, Jostein wrote: > Valentin, > I think the diaphragm itself will continue to be made from little metal > pieces for a pretty good while yet. > > Erratic electric contacts will of course cause errors. Unless you have some > interesting definitions of "erratic", "electric", "contacts" or "error" > that I'm not currently aware of. :-) Use waterhouse stops then perfect apertures each and every time. Might slow things down a little-))) Nick
Re: Exposure
On June 14, 2003 12:23 pm, Caveman wrote: > Had you attended your physics course, you would never make statements > like "Any meter not faulty give 100% correct readout". Depends on how you define faulty and correct. Nick
Re: Pentax dropping M Shift, A 15/3.5, ...
On June 14, 2003 08:02 am, collinb wrote: > Given how technology changes and how fabrication needs > would seem to require some consistency ... > I wonder how many of these were made all in one batch > with the expectation that they'd be sold over time. > Perhaps make 500 (in whole or parts awaiting later assembly) > knowing that the stock will last 15 years. > Seems practical. Not sure about the 15 year part but it makes sense. Nick
Re: OT:[fabric] Seamless Paper or Muslin?
On June 13, 2003 03:54 pm, William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > A side question.What material would be best to help cover a window,or > > door frame for that > > > matter. I > > have a piece of black foam board cut to fit my bathroom window but it > > has a few tiny > > > leaks.I want to > > place something over the frame to cut out any stray leaks(also for the > > door).We have a > > > fabric shop in > > town.Do the home B&W printers use felt pieces or is there something > > else you like. If looks don't matter cardboard. Just get a piece big enough to cover. Take it off when not in use. Easy to replace. If looks matter go and get some thick cloth and make what amounts to drapes. Doubled over. Nick
Re: OT wanted to buy - a piece of polarizing gel
On June 10, 2003 10:29 pm, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > I MUST be able to get a piece of 12" x 12" for > less than the $79 K and M wanted to charge me - > and they would have to have ordered it. > > I'd be happy with 8" x 8" - even if it has a few > little scratches... > having discovered that putting a polarizing filter > on my scanner and then > placing a piece of cloisonne jewelry on it for my > ebay display did wonders > for reducing glare and making the ladybug look > like it really looks, I would like to > use it more extenslively. I don't need the > frame... I dont care if it has raggedy > edges... > > any ideas??? > > annsan Is this good enough? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___45130___ROPS___REG___CatID=0___SID=F5F2FF4FA70 Nick
Re: virus
On June 11, 2003 08:03 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > Me too. The pertinent info is: > > FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > TO: [No To Addresses] > Subject: Your Amazon.com order (#103-5647566-7192624) > > Attachment Name: preussen.gif.exe > No mention of Pentax for me. Without full headers it doesn't mean too much. The irrating thing is I've got a book on back order and thought they'd finally delivered-)) Nick
Re: Hobbyism (Was Re: Pentax proudly presents a new lens mount, the KAF3 )
On June 9, 2003 06:13 pm, frank theriault wrote: > > > But on the whole, I agree with Collin. Since for me photography is a > hobby, and likely always will be, I'm completely happy shooting with 20 > year old bodies and lenses, since they serve my needs, and take damn good > photos. I realize that the limiting factor is behind the viewfinder . > It's much more cost effective for me to spend my money on film, and learn > to take better photos than it is to become an equipment junkie - I'll just > be taking bad pics with newer equipment, is all. You're the first type. Some one who gets into a hobby because they enjoy it. Not because some magazine/tv show etc told them it was the right thing. I'm just saying that type of person [me included] are still out there. The people who are putting the toys on the shelf are for the most part different. They'll move onto the next fad. Be it pot bellied pigs or something else. That they've quit the hobby doesn't mean the hobby has disappeared. Nick
Re: Pentax k-mount
On June 8, 2003 11:07 pm, Peter Alling wrote: > It seemed just as silly then as it does now, and I'm a software engineer. I wonder if they ever built the subdivision that was announced around 1999. Nick
Re: OT fridges (was Re: Pentax k-mount
On June 9, 2003 09:38 am, Cotty wrote: > > Worse it might not stop with death. You know the stories about people > >who die > >and nobody notices? > > Nick, I work with some of these people! Do they still get paid?-))) Nick
Re: Pentax k-mount
On June 9, 2003 10:08 am, Fred wrote: > > So toasters and coffee makers hold conversations while I`m > > sleeping? > > Yes - the caffeine keeps the coffee makers up all night, and so then > they pester the toasters into staying awake... It's because the toasters are so hot-))) Nick
Re: Hobbyism (Was Re: Pentax proudly presents a new lens mount, the KAF3 )
On June 9, 2003 01:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Our hobbies are our toys. > But I do agree that many have disintegreated into things to set on the > shelf rather than build and work with. And now they're all "consultants" > to help you develop your hobby! I disagree. You're just seeing the normal boom bust. When it's a "real" hobby then you've got a certain type of person involved. It grows. It becomes popular and you start to attract a wider group. Finally it gets hyped and you'll see a bunch who have no real interest. Then you'll have the bust. I know plenty of people who setup darkrooms during the 70's and 80s. It was faddish. Many stopped and moved onto the latest fad. Others moved further into the thing. Nick
Re: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time)
On June 9, 2003 04:23 pm, Pål Jensen wrote: > the correct one. Neither have I with the LX. The thing is about > consistency. Not what exactly is correct exposure. You may not want that > precision. Thats fine by me. Consistency not== accuracy. Make the same mistake 100 times in a row and your consistent. Nick
Re: OT fridges (was Re: Pentax k-mount
On June 8, 2003 10:40 pm, Caveman wrote: > Nick Zentena wrote: > > The common suggestion would be they would keep track of what was in the > > fridge. Re-ordering from your internet supermarket. > > C'mon. So if I buy by mistake the wrong film and I keep it in the fridge > some time before using or trashing it, the fridge will keep reordering > the stuff until my death ? Scary. Worse it might not stop with death. You know the stories about people who die and nobody notices? Well the fridge would keep stocking up on things. I guess the person dropping them off would start to wonder. Nick
Re: Pentax k-mount
On June 8, 2003 10:19 pm, Peter Alling wrote: > Since most 30 year old appliances fulfill their purposes more > than adequately why would one want a networked refrigerator let > alone a wireless one? On second thought I don't want to know. The common suggestion would be they would keep track of what was in the fridge. Re-ordering from your internet supermarket. Telling you when the milk was going bad. They would connect with the microwave and share info. Say you made something in the microwave it would tell the fridge to add it to the order. Much of this was during the tech boom when money was being thrown at anything. Nick
OT: www.islandblue.com in BC? Any body dealt with them?
Any body in BC [Victoria is the retail location] ever dealt with this store? Any reason not to? Thanks Nick
Re: A question for the brotherhood
On June 8, 2003 01:10 am, Caveman wrote: > Well, I just did it, and now I have some hot potatoes on my hands. I.e. > several rolls of 120 film chromes (noticed how quiet I was today?). > Here's the question: what is supposed to be a decent price for having > these processed (E-6) ? Last I checked the price wasn't much different then 35mm. Really no reason it should be. I just checked one place www.torontoimageworks.com and the price is less. Nick
Re: Digital vs. film cave test
On June 5, 2003 09:19 pm, Mark Roberts wrote: > > It was stacked *against* digital. How can any test that gives one side that much of a monetary advantage be stacked against the side with more money? Nick
Re: *ist
On June 5, 2003 10:30 pm, Caveman wrote: > Nick Zentena wrote: > > Has > > Pentax ever made a lens with lower resolution then any current digital > > sensor can handle? The worst Pentax lens ever made likely exceeds the > > best current digital sensor. > > Don't underestimate digital. It's still in its infancy stage. In 5 years > we'll laugh at the current 6MP cameras like we laugh now at the Barbie Cam. Maybe but I'll bet that the current lenses [or those 40 years old] won't be the problem even then. Nick
Re: Digital vs. film cave test
On June 5, 2003 11:04 pm, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:51, Nick Zentena wrote: > > So it was stacked in favour of the digital. What's new? > > Read again. > > It was nicely highlighting the inadequacies of mainstream digital > projection options. No it was testing a digital projector that cost 2x what the film one did. That's biased in favour of digital. A fair test would have compared items in the same general price point. Claiming this was biased against digital is like the Yankees whining about having to play the big bad Twins. Nick
Re: "Cheap" 135mm lens?
On June 6, 2003 07:22 pm, Daniel Liu wrote: > > > Also, interestingly enough, i've run into a zeiss 135mm m42 lens on > ebay running for about $35 US, and even an Angenieux (are they still > around?) 135mm m42 lens going for *faints* almost $700. Is that a Zeiss Jena? You can find a real Pentax 135mm for less then that usually. Nick
Re: Pentax to close Head Office, Repair Station and Warehouse in Vancouver!
On June 6, 2003 11:51 pm, Cameron Hood wrote: > Vancouver is a city of 1.5 million people. And this is the only > Pentax repair station west of Toronto, over 3,000 miles away. They plan > on operating in Canada out of Toronto only. This can not be a good > thing, and cannot be a sign of a healthy company. > > BTW, Pentax has been here since the 70's, and they own their own > building. > > While you're worried about crippled lens mounts and such, how would > you people in Britain like to have to ship your cameras to the middle > east to get fixed? 3,000 miles for a CLA? This is just plain awful, and > yet another reason to jump ship (not to mention the fact that their new > cameras are supremely ugly, MZ-S excluded). Many companies have no offical representive in Canada. Maybe a disbutor at best. Aren't the people in the UK having to ship Scala film out of the country for processing? Nick
Pro Cameras
CityTV showed one of it's "Naked in the House" episodes this week. It's an invitation only competition. The photographer gets 30 minutes with a naked model and one roll of film. I've yet to see a Nikon or a Canon. I've seen Pentax,Mamiya,Hasselblad, lots of Texas Leicas, something that I swear looked like a Graflex Crown and almost every other camera ever made. Yet no Nikons no Canon. Nick
Re: *ist
On June 5, 2003 05:48 pm, Harold Owen wrote: > > Pentax will have to release quality FAJ lenses for the *ist D rather > than the 'economy' type lenses supplied for the *ist SLR. > Why would the *ist digital need better lenses then the *ist film? I'm guessing they're filtering the lenses on the *ist digital just like every other digital camera. What's the point of wasting good lenses on a digital camera? The FAJ for the *ist are going to be over kill for a digital camera. Nick
Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
On June 5, 2003 07:44 am, Herb Chong wrote: > oops, i meant filtering and interpolating. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 07:33 > Subject: Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post > > > it doesn't interpolate. you can tell when you take pictures of things > > that would be improved by a small amount of interpolation. i have some > > test images done up as photographic prints and there are a few places > > where these artifacts are visible. if they interpolated, they would not > > be. > If it doesn't interpolate then what does it do? Do the pixels cover the whole sensor? That link claimed the pixels are on a 9 micron centre spacing. That would be a big sensor with a lot of false data. If they've got gaps then you're using swiss cheese. Aren't those the only choices? Interpolate,cover the whole sensor or ignore the gaps? Nick
Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses
On June 5, 2003 01:11 pm, Artur Ledóchowski wrote: > > Nope, you're right. It's a stopped down aperture lens - I missed the word > "open". OTOH, how can one use automatic diaphragm of an m42 lens on any > K-mount body? I haven't heard of any adapter that allows such operation. Is > there any? Regards > Artur Which is why I brought up the Spotmatic F the last camera with full backward support. Every camera since then has had a crippled mount. The only question is how crippled. Nick
Re: *ist in stock
On June 5, 2003 07:08 pm, Daniel Liu wrote: > > Oh, the days of metal cameras with fake leather are over, aren't they? > But i'm sure some brave soul will try painting theirs. http://www.hartblei.com/products/cameras/trim-finish.htm Now that's a company that believes in choice. Nick
Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
On June 4, 2003 09:20 am, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 4 Jun 2003 at 7:06, Nick Zentena wrote: > > How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated? > > Won't it always be? Digital won't over come that. > > Well actually the Foveon concept negates the need for inter-pixel > interpolation already. And grain only comes into the equation if the > enlargement is sufficient to resolve the source grain. How does it do that? Either you've got a lot more pixels some how. Layers? Which can't work can it? Or you've got much much smaller pixels. Which can't work. Nick
Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses
On June 4, 2003 12:19 pm, Artur Ledóchowski wrote: > > You know what I meant, I'm sure:) > I need a camera which allows me to use AF lenses along with m42 ones and > for example my Zenitar-K 16mm f/2,8 Fisheye. I'm waiting for the MZ-5n/3 > successor... Regards > But the MZ-5n doesn't meter right with open aperture M42 lenses. Or does it? If it's just stopped down then it's not really much of an improvement over the *ist. Nick
Re: bulk film loaders?
On June 4, 2003 02:50 pm, Brendan wrote: > Val, humm I want a loader cause I have 2 reels of > 100/1000 kodak slide film, 36 ft each, and I want to > shoot the stuff, and bulk buy provia to. Photo-co in Quebec sells one model for a good price. http://www.photo-co.com/securestore/ Where do you find 36' rolls? Nick
Re: *ist SLR and K-mount lenses
On June 4, 2003 07:11 am, Artur Ledóchowski wrote: > Buying an external meter only to be able to work with the plain K-mount > lenses in the M mode of the *ist makes no sense to me. The camera has a > new, advanced, 16-segment matrix and it's IMHO better to get rid of such > lenses and get the KA-mount ones to be able to use it. I can't see too many people having K-mount lenses and not having an external meter. > One thing I'm sure is that the *ist is not the camera for me - I need full > backward compatibility... Spotmatic F isn't that the last camera with full backward compatibilty? Hard to find new. Nick
Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
On June 3, 2003 11:53 pm, Rob Studdert wrote: > > A good image shouldn't look like a film or digital it should stand on it's Why not? All the people doing alt processes must want the look. > own, I would guess that was the original gist of the comment. Also the > reference was to "flatness" which I read as subdued contrast/gamma. Under > the visual grain threshold it is hard if not impossible to determine a good > digital or film print these days and in any case the biggest virtue of > digital imaging processes is their inherent and relative neutrality. Given > that you can apply filters to digital images to make of them anything that > you want after the fact. How big is a pixel? How big is a grain? Isn't digital interpolated? Won't it always be? Digital won't over come that. Nick
Re: OT: 2 articles from the washington post
On June 3, 2003 07:12 pm, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:28, Christian Skofteland wrote: > > Film v digital: (tv, take note to what a Bethesda wedding photographer > > has to say about digital's ability to hold detail in the highlights. > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60430-2003May30.html > > The other interesting quote was: > > "Philip Brookman, the Corcoran Gallery of Art's senior curator for > photography and media arts, has his own complaint with the output of > digital cameras. 'I think that digital images have a flatness to them, and > you can see the difference if you're looking for it,' he said." > > This sounds like nonsense. I believe that apart from the occasional > instances of excessive sharpening the digital look may simply be a function > of contrast manipulation. If a digital image has a similar response and > gamma to film (or has a film gamma transformation applied) then no one > should be able to tell the difference. Why do you think that? Film and digital are different. Even different films look different. Or different B&W films in different developers. Why should digital look like film? I'm not sure why you'd want it to. If you want film look use film. If you want digital look use digital. Isn't that the best of worlds? Two options? Nick
Re: *ist SLR now available in UK
On June 3, 2003 12:28 pm, Caveman wrote: > Harold Owen wrote: > > will test the camera tomorrow > > This is cruel. > > cheers, > caveman Shouldn't a cave man have a higher pain threshold-))) Nick
Re: Vs: Pentax Macro/pix for the web question
On June 2, 2003 04:32 pm, Alan Chan wrote: > >If he needs 10x magnification the only alternative would be bellows with a > >special real macro lens (like Zeiss Luminars) are needed - outside his > >budget, though. Maybe a microscope, too? > > But we don't know if she meant 10X on film, or just on the monitor. No but we can guess. What is a jewellers loupe? I'm betting the idea is to have on the web the same sort of detail that the loupe would show. That means 10X on the film to me. Nick
Re: Pentax Macro/pix for the web question
On June 2, 2003 10:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Can anyone help this customer: > > < > I have been on the internet for hours and I have no hair left!! I want to > phoograph diamonds for a web site. They need to appear on the site abot 10 > times real size. I bought a 3+ filter but this was a waste of time and > money. I got myself a camera book (I am a photo novice) and it would appear > the only way I am going to get quality macro images is with a macro lense. > I have a Pentax MZ30 and can not afford anything like £500 for a new Pentax > Macro Lens. Being a novice the auto features of any lense are important. > From the book I read. Taking Macro images of a diamond will require maximum > depth of field so I need an apeture priority compatible lens (does this > make sense?). > > Any help you can give would be wonderful and restore my faith in the > internet. > > Thanks > > Hayley>> > > Post your replies here and I will forward to her (?). Since I know nothing > about file sizes for the web. Okay so no budget? Needs 10x? Which if I understand would limit it to a max real life size of 2.5 mm if she stuck to 35mm? Plus she wants full automatic? I assume she wants it to bake bread to?-)) I think it might be possible to do this on the cheap. But not on automatic. Not 35mm. Even on the cheap you've got lights etc. Smart thing send it out to be done. Second thing maybe find a school that is teaching photography and would be willing to do the work in return for borrowing the subjects. How big are these things? Nick
Re: Hello and lots and lots "for sale"
On June 1, 2003 08:49 pm, frank theriault wrote: > supplier to meet their needs somewhere. It's a real credibility problem > when Sigma and Fuji, and other smaller manufacturers have had a dslr on the > market for some time. Fuji is small? Nick
Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread)
On June 1, 2003 10:27 am, Steve Desjardins wrote: > Sci. Am had a special section on this a while back. (July 2000) My > favorite arguemnt involves assuming that a tehcnoogocial species arises, > sends one colony ship out at 0.1 c, it takes 400 years for that colonoy > to send out another ship, etc. Making these estimates, the entire > galaxy should be colonized in about 5 million years, whihc is a blink of > the eye in cosmic terms. So where are they? > You then get into "intelligent but no tech", deliberately avoiding us, > etc. A good read if you like this stuff. My feeling is when the next door neigbour is 4+ light years away you're aren't going for a cup of sugar. At 1/10 of light it's 40+ years each way. Ignoring speeding up and slowing down. That's next door. Now lets say they have come. Say 100 years ago a ship showed up. Took out there disposable camera. Took pictures of all the tourists things. Left some graffiti on a wall. Ticked Earth off the list of things to do before they die. Are we ever going to know they've been here? Nick
Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread)
On June 1, 2003 08:19 am, frank theriault wrote: > > First, one of the things that pisses me off about much sci fi that has to > do with ET's is that aliens always bear such a striking resemblence to us! Cheaper to slap green make up on your local out of work actor then to come up with something more complicated. But that's only really true of TV/Movie Sci-fi. When it comes to real Sci-Fi the aliens are more likely to be alien. Nick
Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread)
On June 1, 2003 08:14 am, Fred wrote: > > I'm not sure I'm so eager to have the universe populated with > species such as ours (the most dangerous - and easily the most > destructive - species on this planet we call "ours")... Isn't that why it's "ours"? There is a quote in one of Niven's books Something like "How much intelligence does it take to sneak up on a leaf?" Nick
Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread)
On June 1, 2003 07:56 am, Keith Whaley wrote: > I just did look it up. Thanks. > > http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html > > Redoing the existing formula's default parameters to some a bit less > optimistic, I come up with 200 possible communicating life forms within > OUR galaxy... The downloaded formula says 2400. I'm less optimistic. I'm actually of the view the Drake equation is too pessimetic. It's too human. Counting only plants like Earth. The real question is why would they want to talk to us. Nick
Re: OT: The problems of E.T. (was Re: pentax smc 15mm A turned into Star Trek Thread)
On May 31, 2003 11:59 pm, Butch Black wrote: > Given the Star trek thread am I the only one with reservations that mankind > will ever find another space faring species? If you think about it. If in Somebody did a series of statiscal estimates on this years ago. Basically turns out that quite a few intelligent life forms are likely out there. Look up Drake equation. Nick
Re: OT: MacOS 9.1 X-server?
Okay I missed the first message and the last time I used a Mac Reagan was in office so take it easy on me. http://www.xfree86.org/4.2.1/Darwin1.html#1 That doesn't work for you? BTW my Mac with finder 0.9 [or was that 0.89] still likely works-))) Nick
Re: Anyone got a good source for framing supplies
On May 29, 2003 09:25 am, Herb Chong wrote: > yes it is the point. metal frames come from kits and cut pieces of some > long length. i can make my own digital camera with a KAF2 mount too. being > possible in theory doesn't make it possible in practice. You're saying you can't cut the metal accurate enough? Have you seen a wooden door shrink during the dry winter? Then during the summer the same door will swell so much it won't close? Why do you think a wooden frame wouldn't do the exact same thing? It's harder to seal wood then something like metal. Even very stable types of wood move more then metal. Nick
Re: Anyone got a good source for framing supplies
On May 29, 2003 08:26 am, Mark Stringer wrote: > I've heard that relative to oil paintings but not photos... I've heard it with RC prints. Not sure about fiber. How are prints stored in museums? Not the ones on display but the ones in storage? Nick
Re: Anyone got a good source for framing supplies
On May 29, 2003 08:43 am, Herb Chong wrote: > would you be willing to pay for a frame sealed that way? Not the point. It was mentioned metal couldn't be sealed. I'm also having problems with wood being sealed easier then metal. Wood breathes. Contracts. Expands. Even the most stable does that. How can it be easier to seal something that changes with the weather? Nick
Re: Anyone got a good source for framing supplies
On May 28, 2003 08:59 pm, Herb Chong wrote: > metal frames can't be sealed as tightly as wood ones and so prints are last > less long. ozone circulation fades inks and dyes. if you are selling for > the fine art market, it matters. > They make submarines of metal so it must be possible to seal metal. OTOH I thought the problem with frames was they trapped in all the gases that came out of the prints over time. Nick
Twin mate [was Re: Incident meter suggestions wanted]
On May 28, 2003 03:09 pm, Bob Walkden wrote: > But, having suggested the Twin Mate (that name should be grist > to the Caveman's mill), I looked into availability, and see that B&H > have one in stock according to their website, so I may just buy one > and forget about the L-398M. The price is not much more than I'd have > to pay for a set of spare slides anyway. Actually I keep thinking about it to. Awhile back B&H had them on sale but I had some other stuff to get. When it was suggested the sale was a national one that would show up sooner or later with the other shops I decided to wait. Of course a week after ordering the darkroom stuff I got a lot of stuff off ebay so I could have gotten the meter. What can you do-)) Nick
Re: Incident meter suggestions wanted
On May 27, 2003 04:33 pm, Bob Walkden wrote: > The main disadvantage is that you have to use a slide to cope with > 'extremes' of light - ie, outdoors in daylight, or indoors or low > light. The slides are easily lost, although I admit I've never lost > one, and difficult to replace; at least, I haven't been able to get a > spare. Also, the material the slides are made from is quite soft, and > the place where the slide attaches to a kind of clippy thing on mine > has now broken, so it's slow, difficult and quite painful to get the > slide out once it's in. > > Finally, the dome is also detachable so you can replace it with a flat > thing and other little bits & pieces, but again, these could easily > all get lost. In contrast, modern meters have a retracting dome. I think all the little parts are available from B&H or I guess any other dealer. The problem is the cost. If you had to replace all the items it's almost 1/2 the price of a new meter. Might make more sense to find a broken meter with good slide etc. Nick
Re: Somebody got a bargin
On March 30, 2003 10:19 pm, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Folks also need to title and catagorize their things right. Yesterday > some one put EOS in the title and listed it Camera parts and > accessories: it was a brand new, never used EOS 3 for $500 and no one > even bid on it. Stuffs only worth what people are willing to pay for it. Right now the seller might be wondering why anybody would be so dumb to pay so much. Hopefully the seller is thrilled at finding a sucker and the buyer is thrilled at getting a steal. Nick
Re: 6x7 quiry
On March 30, 2003 05:21 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just when i thought it was safe to go into the water lol.Thanks > Pat,interesting idea. Ebay Item # 2919910899 went for nobid. $18. Will supposedly handle 3"x3" [that's inches-)] I think it's back on sale. Needs a new cord. This one sold for $2 item # 2916981447 Currently somebody is selling a 3.25"x4.25" projector with the bidding at less then $25. It's almost 20lbs and shipping will be more then the projector. Big stuff is out there for anybody who wants it. But you'd have to do some work to fit your slide. Maybe make some sort of adaptor? On the other end of the things. Somebody seems to be selling a Zeiss projector lens for $1300. Nick
Re: ARSAT 35 mm Tilt & Shift lens
On March 30, 2003 02:59 pm, Peter Alling wrote: > They seem to be available in screw mount I'd go for that if I could find > one. Wouldn't surprise me if they are all really screw mount to start with. Nick
Re: 6x7 quiry
On March 29, 2003 06:06 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thanks David,Paul,Bruce,William for your replies. > > Everything seems pretty constent except for film,which is understandable,as > its a personal preference. > For those who shoot trannies,.mounted or unmounted. I have seen > internet ad's for projectors which > will show 2 1/4 so i'l assume there are ones (although expensive i'm > sure)that can show 6x7.Although > at this size its like viewing a slightly smaller proof, isn't it :) Some old ones have been going on Ebay lately for less then the cost of shipping. These are big old monsters but other then the bulb they seem pretty simple to keep going. Nick
Re: Victorian Photography
On March 29, 2003 10:00 am, Chris Brogden wrote: > Asking this question on behalf of another list: > > > Does anyone if there was any public exhibition of Victorian photography (as > art) in England before 1900? Don't know about England but stuff like this was being doing long before 1900 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?consrvbib:2:./temp/~ammem_Hg1m:: Is it art? Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 28, 2003 08:53 am, gfen wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Nick Zentena wrote: > > Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. > > I think it has less to do with money and more to do with the fact that you > can design and build your own camera with your own hands. How many people > do you know who can say they've built their own camera? > > If I had the skills to do something like that, cost be damned, I would. Drop in on the Camera makers mailing list. You'll find quite a few. I still don't think buidling a 4x5 makes a great deal of sense. The cost and effort shouldn't be much less then 8x10. If some one is building for the enjoyment of building that's one thing but to use? 4x5 of every kind are fairly common. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 28, 2003 09:03 am, collinb wrote: > I'm going to chime in again with some thoughts. > > Lens coverage information > http://www.graflex.org/lenses/lens-spec.html > > Resolution information > http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html > > The particular lens can make a perception difference here. > > A very good medium format lens, say on Pentax 67, will hit around 90 lp/mm > A mediocre medium format lens, like a Yashica D, will hit around 40 lp/mm > > A good LF lens, Super Symmar XL, is up at that 80+ lp/mm range. > A decent LF lens, Fujinon-W 135/5.6 (70s vintage), is around 70 lp/mm. > A mediocre LF lens, like a Wollensak, will be about 35 lp/mm, and really > bad corners! Which F stops are you interested in? If the resolution tests of LF lens showed anything it was that at working F stops [F/16 and smaller] the difference between lens are fairly small. Often so small that sample variation might explain it. A good example of this is the Fuji CM-W f/5.6 125mm dated some time in the 1990s versus Carl Ziess Jena f/9 12.5cm with a serial number that dates it at 1931. If you're actually stopped down to F/32 that likely gets even closer. Obviously if you have a need for a fast lens with large coverage then the modern designs can be better. But if at the smaller stops things get pretty damn close. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 27, 2003 03:21 pm, Jostein wrote: > Guys, > If you really mean it about large format, > build the camera yourself! > > It's a lot cheaper than buying, and will give you _hours_ of fun at > the computer keyboard with your fingers glued together...:-) For what he charges for the book you're almost 1/2 way to an older monorail. The cost of just a new set of bellows might exceed the cost of an used camera Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 27, 2003 12:54 pm, Mishka wrote: > jco, > the subject states "35mm SUCKS!". i disagree. > 4x5 is a *special purpose* tool, and as such it is wonderful. it's like > saying that 50mm lens sucks since 1000mm allows for better quality of far > away detail, or that honda civic sucks since any formula-1 car is faster. > btw, 4x5 definitely sucks since 10x12 blows it away quality-wise, doesn't > it? > this very much pointless, anyway -- for *what you are doing* 4x5 is better, > you are excited about it and i am happy that you share your excitement. > Nah 35mm is the special purpose tool. Other then the few things that need the speed of 35mm bigger is better-))) Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 26, 2003 09:46 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Anyway, I suggest any of you yearning for better > quality images give 4X5 a shot. The lenses and > "bodies" ( monorails) arent very expensive used > and give an incredible bang for the buck. > I spent about $2500 for two cameras, ( a press and > a monorail view) and 6 lenses used (great shape) on > ebay. Really good lenses too.( Schneider & Fujinon). > As a comparison, I spent over $4000 on my P67 > with 8 lenses and of course the quality is lower > with P67 than with 4X5. Well one obvious advantage of LF is that cheap old lens are often quite good. Take a look at the http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html Add in the effect of small F stops and the field is even more even then the tests show. Depending on what you use the camera for then shutters aren't even needed. I forget who said it but I'll quote it anyways "The pyramids haven't moved in thousands of years. Why do I need a faster shutter?" I've picked up a total of six lens. Ranging from 105mm to 19" [480mm] Total price less then $300 including shipping etc. Only one has a shutter but when your exposure times are in the multi second range a shutter is just added weight. My lenses range from Agfa to Zeiss. The process lenses cost quite a bit new. Now? The 19" I got Saturday was $20. If the rumours are true the lens I got is a Goerz Dagor. Worse case it's still worth the $20 I paid. The budget Nikons are a bit of a pain. They are so big they can be hard to fit. Just something to think about if the front of your camera is small. Nick
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On March 26, 2003 10:44 pm, William Robb wrote: > Mostly, I agree. > In print sizes up to 11x14 there is no significant quality difference > between 6x7 and 4x5. Well a 4x5 contact print can almost be big enough. A 5x7 is easily big enough for some uses. I like 6x9 contact prints but 6x7 would be too small. Nick
Re: Technical Pan OT
On March 25, 2003 05:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Any thoughts or comments before i possible waste some developing time. > BTW it's rated it at 50 with just a standard uv filter for the test. I forget but isn't that way too fast for Techpan? Nick
Re: Complaints
On March 25, 2003 11:05 am, Roland Mabo wrote: > > Do you compare date models? The *ist comes with a data back as standard, it > can't be bought without one. You must compare with date models from the > competition. > How much is the date feature worth to people? If all it does is record the date it's worth nothing to me. If it records things like F stop and shutter speed it's worth something. But am I going to pay extra for it? Not likely. Nick
Re: Complaints
On March 25, 2003 10:59 am, Roland Mabo wrote: > From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:50:51 -0500 > > > >B&H has the camera listed for $300. That is only $20 less than the ZX-5n > >and twice the price of the ZX-60. It is $60 more than the Canon Ti and $40 > >less than the EOS Elan 7. It's $100 more than the Maxxum 5. > > I don't understand the american pricing, the *ist has an entry level price > tag in Europe. Only 10 UK pounds more than the EOS 300V date (Rebel Ti), > and 180 UK Pounds less than the EOS 30 date (Elan 7). According to > http://www.jessops.com. The B&H current price is quite a bit lower then Jessops in the UK. I say current because until they actually change it from coming soon to selling now anything can change. Nick
Re: Metering
On March 24, 2003 01:21 pm, Chris Brogden wrote: > As Bruce said, evaluative metering usually does a very good job overall, > especially with print film. But if you enjoy taking the time to expose a > subject precisely, you're doing fine. The MZ-5n's spotmeter (was that > what you're using?) covers a 2.5% area, so you might want to pick up a With what focal length? If that's with a 50mm then wouldn't it be okay with something like 150mm? Obviously a pain if you need to change lens but if you're already using a long lens then the camera spot might be small enough. Nick
Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax <--> Canon
On March 22, 2003 04:56 pm, Peter Jansen wrote: > > Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the > latest and the greatest can improve your photography > immensely, then??? Depending on what you're doing "latest and greatest" varies from a big yawn to essential. For me it's all a yawn. I've got a camera with 22" of bellows draw that I can stick a pretty big lens on. All it needs is a heavy old fashion tripod. When it comes to the 35mm world all those added features are just added wasted weight for me. If you need them you need them. I don't. I've no need. No interest. I don't understand the need for people to convert others. Use what fills your needs. If that's not enough use what excites you. BUT understand different people have different needs,wants,fetishes. Nick
Re: Horizon Panoramic camera
On March 20, 2003 03:00 pm, Herb Chong wrote: > you don't get the same field of view except with a horrendously expensive > lens. Which brings up the other issue. You can use whatever lens you'd like. I checked the field of view using the formula on the webpage dealing with the horizon camera. Using a common 90mm lens you actually get more in one direction but I guess that's not the one that matters. Using a 65mm lens gets you about the same. Now a new 65mm isn't cheap but it's cheaper then one of those digital SLR. Considering the list of problems listed for the camera it's a tradeoff no matter how you go. Nick
Re: Horizon Panoramic camera
On March 20, 2003 08:44 am, E. van Ginkel wrote: > Hi All > > Mayby a bit off topic. I'm considering a Horizon 202 camera. Does anyone > here has any experience with one of these Russian panoramic cameras? > > A longtime Pentax User (over 22 years now) Try this: http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/panorama/horizon202/horizon202.html I checked what the new price is here in North America and it seems like a lot of money for not much camera. Why not just get a roll film back for a view camera? Doesn't seem like it would cost too much more. 6x12 would be the same sort of thing but I'm betting in the long run more enjoyable. This is the second time in a couple of weeks somebody mentioned these cameras. The last time to tell me they'd sold it for a 6x12 back. Nick
Re: Stupid question about M lens on *ist
On March 18, 2003 07:51 pm, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I got it. The problem was I was playing with an old m42 super tak set > on manual and it stops down when on the camera or not. I'll try an M > lens when I get home. Which might mean a 50 year old manual M42 lens will work just fine. Will the M42/K mount adapter fit? Nick
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 18, 2003 02:58 am, Roland Mabo wrote: > From: Nick Zentena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:12:55 -0500 > > > > Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet >you'll get > > 101 different answers. Maybe 201. > > Since many are choosing Canon or Nikon because of the support for USM and > IS, and since many are leaving Pentax because of the lack of USM and IS (we > have seen this in this forum lately...) - it's clear that the majority of > the customers wants USM and IS. > > It's rare that Canon and Nikon users switch to Pentax, but it's common that > Pentax users switches to Canon or Nikon. Majority of people are choosing disposable cameras. I'm guessing they don't have either USM or IS. Like I said before define your market. Pentax doesn't need to provide a camera for everybody in the world. Canon doesn't have anything in either MF or LF. Nikon nothing in MF. Pentax nothing in LF. They provide what they think they can sell and make money at. Nick
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 17, 2003 01:46 pm, Roland Mabo wrote: > > Pentax must supply what the market demands. Great now define the market. Ask 100 people here and I bet you'll get 101 different answers. Maybe 201. Nick
Re: What I lust for (was Re: Pentax needs USM and IS)
On March 17, 2003 11:17 am, Caveman wrote: > Nick Zentena wrote: > > Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the > > 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models. > > I don't know what Pentax actually needs, and it's not my business to > decide it anyway. But I definitely know that I'm eyeing a Bronica GS-1. > I'm pretty much sure that the 6x7 format will let me get much better > enlargements than 35mm with USM, IS, VR, SW and whatnot. And lots of fun. The nice thing about the 645e is it's so cheap people are choosing it instead of used. That brings people into the Mamiya system so to speak. If Pentax wants new users it won't get it from copying others by just adding features. They need to make people stand up and notice. It can be from a good cheap camera. Or it can be from adding something that nobody else has. But feature wars don't get you far if you're behind. Nick
Re: Pentax needs USM and IS
On March 17, 2003 09:15 am, Roland Mabo wrote: > "enthusiastic amateurs" as Pentax calls it. > This is not a bad thing, but eventually - amateurs wants more than the el > cheapo plastic le chique consumer zooms, they start to explore new areas of > photography. They discover macrophotography and the novelty of extension Pentax needs something like the Mamiya 645e. People are buying into the 645e who would never have looked at Mamiya higher priced models. Nick
Re: Disappointing test samples of Optio S
On March 16, 2003 04:56 pm, Jostein wrote: > I don't forget, Bill. :-) > > When Joe takes a picture of Jane's family at the garden party and the > old aunt on the left looks _alot_ stranger than in real life, the Well you've got a 50% chance she will look better then real life-))) Nick
Re: some bessaflex specs
On March 16, 2003 01:29 pm, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Why would anyone collect a clone? Like the Bessa like cone, this is > strictly a user, and probably not as good a user as a Spotmatic. I've > purchased four Spotties on ebay in the last four years, and they're all > very nice. Two have had CLAs., and they're like brand new. Spotmatics > are easy to find and easy to fix. We don't need no f-ing clones :-). People collect anything-)) It's too expensive for just a user. Nick
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On March 16, 2003 08:18 am, frank theriault wrote: > Hi, Nick, > > Well, if it's old and abandonned you're looking for, I fear that the old > St. Clair Starion (I'm assuming you mean the North Station that I referred Hi, There is or was a station in the St. Clair/Calendona area. CNR [Might have been CP] wanted to tear it down but the city was putting up a fuss. I don't remember what the outcome was. It was built when St. Clair would have been the far north and likely outside of the city borders. Nick
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On March 15, 2003 10:29 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Rode the train from Toronto to Niagara Falls this summer, and one of my > memories was it going past the large old abandoned station at Hamilton. > No idea how easy it is to get access. Sounds perfect for a longer trip. Thanks Nick
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On March 15, 2003 05:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Markhams old station is still there, on Hwy 48, north of Hwy 7.It was the > old GO station too,but it has > moved.If you go in the spring they trot out some old farm equipment and > display it out front.My Sept > PUG IR picture was shot there. What shape is it in? I figure in four or five weeks the snow will be melted-))) Nick
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On March 15, 2003 05:04 pm, KT Takeshita wrote: > > Old village of Unionville north of Toronto, close to where we live has a > couple of railroad stations. > One is a restored station of yesteryear which I think is actually used as > a commuter station, and another one nearby which is an abandoned old > station if this sort is what you are looking for. Hi, I found a few websites covering the Markham Go station and one that got moved to the Markham Muesem. Sounds good. Thanks Nick
Re: Railroads stations around Toronto
On March 15, 2003 04:40 pm, frank theriault wrote: > Hi, Nick, > > Union Station's pretty old . > Too nice-)) I was hoping someone would say the old St. Clair station was still standing. Nick
Re: some bessaflex specs
On March 16, 2003 07:52 am, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > $400? > > That's way too much over the price of a near mint > spotmatic IMHO. IMHO it's both too expensive and too cheap at that price. Too expensive for those looking for a cheap body to mount old lenses on. Too cheap for collectors or others looking at the camera for non-photographic reasons. Nick
Re: some bessaflex specs
On March 15, 2003 09:36 pm, frank theriault wrote: > Nice! > > I hate to nit-pick (and I'm not usually a nit-picker ), but it would be > nice if the ISO range went up to 3200, but it ain't a big deal... > > 60,000 yen, eh? Anyone know what that's likely to be in US (or better yet) > Canadian dollars? > > > MSRP: 50,000Yen (w/o tax) Divide by about 120 yen to get US$. That's not exact but it'll get you close. Nick
Re: Bessaflex in M42 mount
On March 14, 2003 02:40 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > what new russian one? I couldn't remember so I did a search. Seems Zenit is making various models using the M42 mount. They even make one using a K mount. These aren't feature rich. Shutter goes from 1/8 to 1/500. That's the highlight. OTOH they are very cheap. I thought somebody also made a camera that came in either M42 or a nikon mount. All I found was a kiev that came in a Nikon mount. My guess is most of these cameras are being bought to use the cheap potentially interesting Russian and East German lens. Nick
