Re: pentax 85mm soft
Can I bump this thread with a question if there were any other focal lengths that Pentax made a soft-focus lens in? I can see a 28/2.8 soft-focus @ Adorama. Any others? On 6/4/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Which raises a question. I also have the F version and I find it puzzling that it has the A contacts on the mount, even though it lacks the A position on the aperture ring. Does anybody know what function the contacts serve on this lens? I am not certain this is relevant, but this lens reports its focal length correctly to the *istD... Boris
Re: pentax 85mm soft
Yeah but wouldn't the 135/3.5 have been a manual-focus lens William? Do you remember me? Hint: I only use auto-focus and am proud, and that pissed you off. Was a while back, but I'm an elephant. Thanks for the response. On 7/2/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, William Robb wrote: Valentin thought the 135/3.5 should have been called a soft focus lens ??? Do you mean the Takumar 2.5? Kostas
Re: Free image browser
I'm not anti-Mac or anti-Godfrey but OS X would be deadset struggling on a G3 Powerbook buddy - no wonder the viruses couldn't install properly. (this is all wa off-topic, and I think most of us, apart from Mr Studdert, prefer talking about Sophia Loren if it must be off-topic)... On Apr 6, 2005 5:04 PM, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: [...] No computer is perfectly safe. My Apple iMac 20 and PowerBook G3 systems running Mac OS X are well managed to minimize security risks and viruses, behind a security firewall and with proper user accounts limiting access to virus invasion. No virus attacks have been detected since May 24, 2001. Godfrey And, what virus did you get, please? Did it have a name? Or, did I read it wrong, and you're simply saying I've been online since May 24th, 2001, and have detected no viruses. keith
Re: Free image browser
IrfanView is ok. Picasa actually does a pretty good job processing raw files. That's what I go to when I need the fastest, passable-quality workflow (god I hate that term). I occasionally adjourn to Photoshop but that literally is it for paid software - everything else, incl. all .pdf functions can be performed by freeware. Google sucks for a lot of things, anything involving free is one of them - I've chosen freeware based on community suggestion and feedback in my local geek forums (whirlpool.net.au ; overclockers.com.au). If you have tested your drives and they're a-ok, then defrag every so often and keep non-buggy versions of crucial drivers like .net, java, gpu etc Windows is ROCK solid, and there's a lot of decent freeware out there. I'm not going to try to delve into the mindset of Mac users and their justifications, but their insinuations re Windows reliability are pretty much unfounded with XP. (possible red rag to a few bulls here...) If you put as little thought into a Mac OS or a Linux OS as you have to do with Windows to bug out XP (ceteris paribus wrt hardware), then you would have a very unstable Mac and Linux machine too. On Apr 5, 2005 1:06 AM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: http://news.com.com/Mac+OS+X+in+hackers+crosshairs%2C+report+says/2100- 7349_3-5630481.html Oh flippin eck, I'm going to have to move off the Mac soon and find some other niche system that's still ambling happily along. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Limiteds Question :) - THANKS GUYS AND GIRLS!!! :D
Gotta say I'm with you there William on both film and digital it's just too sharp. I actually prefer the results from the (F) 50/2.8 macro. Has anyone used the 85/2.8 soft-focus? Seen that floating around but have found user experience hard to find on this. On Apr 3, 2005 12:08 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: RE: Limiteds Question :) - THANKS GUYS AND GIRLS!!! :D I am very interested in your conclusions about using the 77 for portraits without the crop. I may have missed some, but all the portrait samples I saw in that thread about the 77 were on a -D(s). Which is why I have never bothered with it[1]. I don't really like the 77 as a portrait lens. I find it to be too sharp, and it has very high micro contrast. It is not an especially flattering portrait lens. This is on film. William Robb
Re: Dagor77 is still the funiest guy on the net
Yeah, but is it auto-focus? Seriously, I'd never seen his work before, and scanning his other items for sale he certainly deals in obscurity and hilarity. On Apr 1, 2005 12:49 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter Subject: Re: Dagor77 is still the funiest guy on the net I hope I am not spoiling an auction for anyone. --- Thanks, Wheatfield. Sorry, Joe. William Robb
Re: *istD overexposure with manual lenses
Can't help with an explanation but can attest to the same experience w/ M 50/1.7 and 28/2.8. I just go for a solid under-exposure and it turns out well, but then again I do not plan on using them again as I now go auto-focus. (If anyone wants the above two lenses for AUD130 plus postage email me). On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:26:50 +0200, Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, I was trying out some of my K and M lenses on the *istD: 24/2.8, M28/2.8, 35/2.8, M50/1.4, M85/2. I was really looking forward to use some of these old pearls. The strange thing is that I get very overexposed pictures with the M50/1.4 and the M28/2.8. I am using the M mode + the green button. Firmware is updated. Any explanation? Peter
Re: Wanted to Buy
I bought mine new for AUD1149 from an Australian supplier so I'd hardly consider BH good value at those prices. Used ones are going for circa AUD950 no-reserve on ebay Kevin so the list and KEH are pretty much your only hopes OB1. Kevin I'd save for the other lenses you need then call CR Kennedy and see what they can do for you as a package deal, masquerading as a convert to Pentax (=$$$ on lenses) rather than a sitting duck wanting a backup body. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:43:42 +1000, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BH still has some new ones for $1149. Paul Oh, I should mention, I am in Australia, freight and import duties can be a killer Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax lenses) On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:07:40 +1000, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SMC PENTAX-A 1:2,8 20mm 5862014 http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemrd=1item=7502833948 Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Cory, if I had a buck for everytime I've had people talk lovingly of older, quality glass and end up not being able to cite, then convincingly explain why, more than three cases of the AF version of a given lens is inferior to the manual mount, I'd have a lot more AF lenses, at current eekbay prices. Take away the quality factor and you're back to build quality arguments, which are about as interesting as watching the D/DS write raw files to memory cards. Each to his own and I definitely got out of bed on the wrong side today. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:42:57 -0500 (EST), Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax lenses) Great news then... so the 10% of us that like to tinker with quality old gear won't have to pay as much for it. A DSLR with manual lenses is still instant gratification, there are just a few more steps to do along the way. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Let the market decide, Shel. If you want to collect lenses and that floats your boat, by all means do. But the only delusions are indeed yours if you think a) they're consistently and noticably superior optically to their younger AF siblings and b) they're worthy investments. By all means collate the relevant data as you see it, talk to someone who actually designs lenses for a living, preferably with the company concerned, learn the history and find yourself completely debunked as I did. Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyncratic mindsets but if it were larger items such as older cars the (de)merits of collection become immediately apparent. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:09:10 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HAR! If you pay much attention to anything this antonymous poster, Quasi Modo, says, you'd be deluding yourself. Rob Studdert is probably right. There's still a very strong demand for manual focus lenses throughout the world, both from users and collectors. Shel [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax lenses) Great news then... so the 10% of us that like to tinker with quality old gear won't have to pay as much for it. A DSLR with manual lenses is still instant gratification, there are just a few more steps to do along the way.
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Don the domain name rather gives you away. A brief analysis of the market opens an opportunity, yes: D/DS have been successful releases not matched with commensurate lens production/adjustments for crop factor (+ issues with 35mm lenses at certain focal lengths = discontinued production) = shortages of AF lenses. This becomes more and more truistic for auto-focus as we take into account prices paid for second hand versions of still in-production lenses Vs averages for those out of production and supposedly rarer. The most interesting part is claiming manual focus virtue in its cheapness and profitability. Pause for reflection... Signs point to increased lens production Don so those returns will be more difficult to sustain but good luck. Endow an Australian with the acronym AO and you make him a happy man, Shel. With regard to manual focus lens collection, optical quality and/or superiority to AF is the classic fallback position. It was assumed that you were part of this manual-focus clique (pretty much what it is) based on your defensiveness and immediate resort to ad-hominem re my anonymity. Therefore, the fallback of optical superiority was only a matter of time. Finally, it's amazing how few of these head to head comparisons between F/FA/DA/DFA and A/K/M etc lenses see the light of web. I'm all ears. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:35:47 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did I say that older lenses are superior? I just said there's a market for them. Some older lenses may be superior to newer glass, but, Anonymous One, it's necessary to define superior. Different lenses have different fingerprints, as it were, different optical qualities, and depending on the look and feel one wishes to achieve, an older lens, with low contrast or less sharpness, or different bokeh, may be superior to a newer lens for a given task. If you desire to use only newer glass, that's your choice. But don't go putting words in my mouth. And I do have a small collection of vintage cars, and while they are not superior in many respects to newer cars, they are in some ways, and they certainly provide a pleasure and gratification that newer cars don't. Shel [Original Message] From: Quasi Modo Let the market decide, Shel. If you want to collect lenses and that floats your boat, by all means do. But the only delusions are indeed yours if you think a) they're consistently and noticably superior optically to their younger AF siblings and b) they're worthy investments. By all means collate the relevant data as you see it, talk to someone who actually designs lenses for a living, preferably with the company concerned, learn the history and find yourself completely debunked as I did. Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyncratic mindsets but if it were larger items such as older cars the (de)merits of collection become immediately apparent. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:09:10 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HAR! If you pay much attention to anything this antonymous poster, Quasi Modo, says, you'd be deluding yourself. Rob Studdert is probably right. There's still a very strong demand for manual focus lenses throughout the world, both from users and collectors. Shel [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax lenses) Great news then... so the 10% of us that like to tinker with quality old gear won't have to pay as much for it. A DSLR with manual lenses is still instant gratification, there are just a few more steps to do along the way.
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
Aside: there's at least 1other Australian active in this thread (although I recall Rob is leaving Pentax...?) - Paxtons (Sydney) is no longer buying 2nd hand and as such is reducing the prices to clear. I did see a 135/2.5 of one description (manual, of course) for circa AUD250 amongst others. Graces in Kings Cross (Sydney; incidentally, the last place I had a manual-focus argument) has a mint Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and a stack of other manual mounts. Both are probably worth a phone call if this is up your alley. On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:10:58 +1000, Quasi Modo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don the domain name rather gives you away. A brief analysis of the market opens an opportunity, yes: D/DS have been successful releases not matched with commensurate lens production/adjustments for crop factor (+ issues with 35mm lenses at certain focal lengths = discontinued production) = shortages of AF lenses. This becomes more and more truistic for auto-focus as we take into account prices paid for second hand versions of still in-production lenses Vs averages for those out of production and supposedly rarer. The most interesting part is claiming manual focus virtue in its cheapness and profitability. Pause for reflection... Signs point to increased lens production Don so those returns will be more difficult to sustain but good luck. Endow an Australian with the acronym AO and you make him a happy man, Shel. With regard to manual focus lens collection, optical quality and/or superiority to AF is the classic fallback position. It was assumed that you were part of this manual-focus clique (pretty much what it is) based on your defensiveness and immediate resort to ad-hominem re my anonymity. Therefore, the fallback of optical superiority was only a matter of time. Finally, it's amazing how few of these head to head comparisons between F/FA/DA/DFA and A/K/M etc lenses see the light of web. I'm all ears. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:35:47 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did I say that older lenses are superior? I just said there's a market for them. Some older lenses may be superior to newer glass, but, Anonymous One, it's necessary to define superior. Different lenses have different fingerprints, as it were, different optical qualities, and depending on the look and feel one wishes to achieve, an older lens, with low contrast or less sharpness, or different bokeh, may be superior to a newer lens for a given task. If you desire to use only newer glass, that's your choice. But don't go putting words in my mouth. And I do have a small collection of vintage cars, and while they are not superior in many respects to newer cars, they are in some ways, and they certainly provide a pleasure and gratification that newer cars don't. Shel [Original Message] From: Quasi Modo Let the market decide, Shel. If you want to collect lenses and that floats your boat, by all means do. But the only delusions are indeed yours if you think a) they're consistently and noticably superior optically to their younger AF siblings and b) they're worthy investments. By all means collate the relevant data as you see it, talk to someone who actually designs lenses for a living, preferably with the company concerned, learn the history and find yourself completely debunked as I did. Anyway we're here to learn not impose idiosyncratic mindsets but if it were larger items such as older cars the (de)merits of collection become immediately apparent. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:09:10 -0800, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HAR! If you pay much attention to anything this antonymous poster, Quasi Modo, says, you'd be deluding yourself. Rob Studdert is probably right. There's still a very strong demand for manual focus lenses throughout the world, both from users and collectors. Shel [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: Manual lenses = too much hassle in this day and age. We are the Instant Gratification Generation. If I didn't filter my lens browsing to auto-focus only I'd be there all day. (I think that captures the sentiments of ~90% of ppl in the market for Pentax lenses) Great news then... so the 10% of us that like to tinker with quality old gear won't have to pay as much for it. A DSLR with manual lenses is still instant gratification, there are just a few more steps to do along the way.
Re: Future of DA lenses
Ken - thorough, positive post to come out of the woodlurk with. Thank you. Perhaps also consider the Tamron 90/2.8 Di instead of the DFA100/2.8 macro (unsure of size/weight comparison). I know I'm a heretic but keep 3rd party in mind (even the Sigma 50/2.8 macro EX DG is getting very good feedback). On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:29:08 -0500, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, the question was (paraphrasing) will the chance that pentax release a full-frame camera make DA lenses obsolete? The answer is no. Because there is no chance that pentax will make a full frame sensor. They may not make a full frame sensor, but I think Pentax will certainly have a camera with a full frame sensor - as soon as such sensors become economically feasible. That'll be a couple of years at *least*. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
I saw your sig and just had to take it up a level - you followed it as fluidly as if it were metered and focused in SAFOX VIII itself. I'm all for economising on lens expenditure, and not waiting ad infinitum for a lens release. I've seen a lot posted in several places about the superior optical quality of manual focus Vs AF lenses and have seen the arguments lose their legs within 100 characters. As such, without putting too fine a point on the human instincts to collect or economise then justify, let's just keep a spade a shovel on manual lenses. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:45:29 -0500 (EST), Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Quasi Modo wrote: Cory, if I had a buck for everytime I've had people talk lovingly of older, quality glass and end up not being able to cite, then convincingly explain why, more than three cases of the AF version of a given lens is inferior to the manual mount, I'd have a lot more AF lenses, at current eekbay prices. Take away the quality factor and you're back to build quality arguments, which are about as interesting as watching the D/DS write raw files to memory cards. That's an impressively convoluted sentence, but note I never made the claim that older glass is necessarily better than new glass. I can tell you for sure that as far as I'm concerned it *is* better because I cannot afford to get high-quality new glass. -Cory * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: Future of DA lenses
if everything else is at least equal to the FA version - ceteris paribus is a dangerous thing Ken! I've only seen one comparison page between the FA 100 and the DFA 100 but the FA 100 used in the comparison looked severely compromised. The dpreview Pentax SLR forums usually has plenty of comparison threads posted every week so it'd be worth searching and trawling through. I also know a couple of fellow Australians who will be getting the DFA version soon and I'll be sure to get them to subscribe to the list and post something resembling an opinion on it! On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:12:24 -0500, KT Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/29/05 10:37 AM, Quasi Modo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps also consider the Tamron 90/2.8 Di instead of the DFA100/2.8 macro (unsure of size/weight comparison). I know I'm a heretic but keep 3rd party in mind (even the Sigma 50/2.8 macro EX DG is getting very good feedback). Hi, Good day. Thanks for your advice. No, you are not a heretic :-). When I was examining my options for the DSLR, I found myself a bit more mature in that I've grown to be more practical and less biased after some period of sabbatical, although I still am a Pentax enthusiast :-). This made me more objective in evaluating what's really good for me. I am not a Canon basher but I objectively believe that their lenses are too big (for me) but then it is of course relative. As to the macro, I certainly consider and check out the Tamron 90/2.8 Di as I saw some very positive reviews here. 100mm for a 1.5 crop factor is a bit too long for my use (something like 60mm would have been useful but I recognize that they are designed for both digital and 35mm) but I can use it as a mid-tele if it is light enough. Pentax DA Macro impressed me mainly because of its size/weight, and I thought it would be an excellent choice if everything else is at least equal to the FA version. FA100mm macro I have has been very useful but a bit too heavy. Cheers, Ken
Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid
I bet a few people are thinking...take one group of photography enthusiasts, talk down the manual focus gear which comprises most of their collection, sit back and watch! The most important thing is that they're often the same optical formulas, and I'm glad I brought a few AF people out of the woodwork. Anything that brings us to Lauren and Hepburn is a good thing. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:19:25 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Like her too, don't know about John. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: I'm surprised that this one didn't attract a single bid Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:15:10 -0500 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:48:28 +0100, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kinda like anybody vs. Sophia Loren. Of course, you mean anybody except Audrey Hepburn. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: *ist portrait zooms
What Bruce said. The Tamron is solidly built, quick to focus, sharp, and meters very well. I haven't tried any of the Sigma or Pentax 24-28-70-75s because I bought the Tamron and haven't been able to fault it. VERY good value in Australia (actually cheaper than prices in the US, through a couple of places namely dirtcheapcameras, but the value probably tapers off with international shipping). On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 00:03:24 -0800, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Collin, I use the Tamron 28-75/2.8 DI lens all the time with weddings - so I'd say at least the focal length is good for what you are talking about. There could be a case or two where the max aperture is a little small at f/4.0 to really blur the background. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, March 27, 2005, 4:26:29 PM, you wrote: CRB With the 50mm being a fine portrait length, CRB does this make the FA 28-70/4 AL a really practical CRB inexpensive portrait zoom? CRB Does anyone use it as such? CRB Collin
Re: Enablement, The best 35mm camera ever!!!! With actual Pentax content now included!!!
As someone who went straight from the MZ-60 to D, and am now going back the other way looking for a capable film backup body, what film camera has roughly the same feature-set as the D, especially insofar as hyper-modes, auto-focus, and information in the viewfinder...? I take it the *ist is not the best option? On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:58:06 -0800 (PST), Gianfranco Irlanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3234402 The F2 and the MX mount both a 50/1.4 lens. BRAVO!!!. You have the hot shoe. I never missed not having a way to mount a flash on my F2s. Do you use yours? I did, although not a lot. I used the Nikons for weddings every now and then and, although the F2 was usually loaded with BW, the possibility to mount the flash was a great thing. Think that a week before I bought that one, in another shop I saw a *brand new* (I'm talking about 1998) F2 AS, a remnant they discovered that day... They asked me for body only and without flash adapter the same amount I was going to pay for mine (complete outfit *with* original ER case!) few days later. I've never regretted I skipped that collector body... I did use an SB-15 on my F3. It was cool, it flipped 180ยบ, one way it was right over the lens, the other it was as far above (though slightly off centre) the lens as possible. It was really well thought out. Prism mounted flash just doesn't work as well, it seems. I noticed that poor little Pentax that Don showed us has an offset hotshoe. Did Pentax make a flash to take advantage of the offset? All the Z/PZ series cameras had that feature, it was one of the things I really liked about them (along with the Hyper modes). The flashes didn't have the possibility to be centered over the lens, but you always had the weight in the right place (right hand). I do prefer to shoot verticals with my right hand up, so the combo made perfect sense to me. Gianco _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Enablement, The best 35mm camera ever!!!!
Aah stories about the Nikon F's life-saving moments brings me back to an uncle accused of being CIA in the Congo and actually having to bludgeon his way out of a jail with the original Nikon F in one hand and a decent length telephoto (I think it had a tripod mount to improve technique) in the other (can't remember the specifics). Also later used to hammer all sorts of things into place. It's not exactly mint but it's what his daughter learnt to shoot on some 20 years later. On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:44:04 -0800, Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since you seem to have some sort of interest in Nikons, I thought I'd ask. My camera repairman has some sort of a Nikkormat in his case, for sale. No idea what actual model number, what lens is mounted, or anything else, but was wondering how they are regarded. keith frank theriault wrote: On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 22:45:05 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Probably not of much interest to anyone who wasn't shooting during the era of fine Japanese mechanical SLR's but I owned one of these cameras from 1975 until the late 1980s, and have always been sorry I let it go. This is probably the best mechanical SLR ever produced anywhere. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7502289298rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AITrd=1 And, since I have a fetish for standard lenses, I couldn't let this one go by http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7502329123rd=1sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AITrd=1 For you hopeful sots, no, I am not changing mailing lists.. Yer still stuck with me. William Robb When I was younger, I thought that was the coolest looking camera ever. It was just all-business in a brutish sort of way, and of course, it screamed PRO!. Of course, nowadays, elegant, understated design is my preference. But, that big old Nikon still gets the blood rushing through my veins. Nice one, Bill. cheers, frank
Re: storing photos in the field: OTG device
Ouch. That is a very bizarre little episode in distribution politics or are taking route 1 to get customers interested in a new product. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:45:10 +1000, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23 Mar 2005 at 16:32, Village Idiot wrote: Speaking of CompactDrive PD7X, I thought this was interesting: http://www.compactdrive.us/ This is also worth a read: http://www.3hdigital.com/ Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 V's Tamron 28-75mm XR Di
Am I the only one struggling to find one? On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:56:38 -0500, Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a small gallery of shots taken with the FA35/2. It's a very nice lens and makes a great walkarounder on the istD. http://www.alphoto.com/recent/page1.htm On Mar 6, 2005, at 5:19 PM, John Whittingham wrote: All opinions much appreciated. I currently have an unhealthy interest in enabling myself with an FA 35mm f/2, however I have a Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 which appears to perform very well. Do you think I should be content with the Tamron or pursue the FA 35mm? Does anyone have both that could offer some insight? I've read plenty of tests on the Tamron but only one on the FA that was just opinion without any MTF score or other information. http://shutterbug.com/test_reports/1100sb_pentax Does anyone have a link they could point me to for the FA 35mm f/2 test? John
Re: Weekend WTB. ;)
Add another who's interested in the FA 35/2. Thanks, Alex On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:11:48 -0800, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope that a WTB post isn't against the list's charter. If so, I apologize. I'm looking for a few lenses on the used market (aren't we all?). SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 I'm also interested in an AF500-FTZ flash. ...I guess that'll do it for now. If I manage to get my hands on those items, I may be selling an FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6 Off-list contact is probably best, if you have either of those lenses to offer. :) Thanks! Dave
Tokina AT-X 270AF PRO II 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
Did a pretty thorough search of the archives to find not much posted about this lense. I've read the ~ 50 reviews of this floating around from users of other camera makers (not sure if there's some unofficial cultural taboo about using other brand names in here) and it seems very good to slightly mixed. Google failed to release any resolution pixelpeeping on this lense either, so if anyone owns it and has some anecdotal evidence and/or comparisons they'd like to swing my way, then I'm all ears! I know it was just the other day that I started one on the F 50/2.8 macro but at least this way it's easy to map my growing collection! Thanks, Alex
Re: 18.6 MP 645 announcement
Don't ruin the moment by thinking about price! Let's hope the chipset features don't let the sensor down. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:25:15 -0500, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that answers that question. I'm assuming the sensor size is greater than 24 x 36 mm or they could have just used their 35 lenses. The bigger sensor should mean good noise characteristics. I wonder what the price on that puppy is gonna be. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/15/05 6:10 PM Per The Luminous-Landscape.com, Pentax has just announced an 18.6 Megapixel 645 Digital Camera ! Larry in Prescott http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
F 50/2.8 macro
Hello I'm new to the list but have used Pentax 35mm film SLRs for a while and just purchased a D, and am slowly collecting. I saw the F 50/2.8 macro on ebay and was wondering what the feedback on this lense was like, given it is an earlier version of the now discontinued FA version which everyone raves about. I don't particularly care about manual focus (have read that the FA is easier to manually focus). TIA, Alex
