RE: Arizona trip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If you have the time to drive for a couple of hours, you might consider a > trip to Tucson and the Sonora Desert Museum and Saguaro National Monument. It's been Saguaro National Park for the last few years. - 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: Arizona trip
Philip Courtay wrote: > I am going to Scottsdale Arizona in mid-october for > business but will be > able to escape for a couple days to burn a few rolls. > > What should I go see (shoot) ? anything outside of scottsdale? There are many preserves in Phoenix metro area with great views. Boyce Thompson Arboretum is worth a trip. If you hike up Squaw Peak or Camelback Mountain, you're in for some spectacular views of the city. > I'm planning on a short stay at the Grnad Canyon. Which are > the best views? If staying overnight, sunset views can be spectacular. > What is the light like at that time of year? Overcast, hot > and sunny? Scottsdale is in the desert, so most days in October will be clear. If it hasn't rained in a while, there will be lots of particulates in the atmosphere, making for some spectacular sunsets. October is the time when it begins to cool down. - 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: MX/LX focussing screen discrepance question
"Hugo Kok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having heard/read about differences in metering properties of > respective focusing screens, I would like to ask if anybody can answer > this question: what is exactly the exposure compensation to be used > when inserting a LX-focusing screen into a MX-camera? When I had my MX, the LX screen actually worked perfectly without any compensation. A friend of mine had to reduce metered exposure by 1/2 a stop. So my guess is that it depends on how well your meter is adjusted. > > And, if anybody has experience in above mentioned screen exchange: are > there still other differences that makes my trick less likely to work > out properly? Aside from light transmission, the screens are identical. In fact at one time Pentax recommended using LX screens on MX if you needed a new screen. - 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: Direct from Chasseur d'Images
"Paul Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hahaha... I've wanted to try some californian wine, but its not readily > available in Australia. French is though.. That's ok. French wine has been produced from grapes grown on American vines for over 100 years. Ever since philloxera plague, the only place still using original French vines is Chille. > >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Direct from Chasseur d'Images > >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:40:07 -0600 > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Paul Jones" > >Subject: Re: Direct from Chasseur d'Images > > > > > > > But we Australians still make better wine again:) > > > >I was watching some TV show one night, I don't recall what it > >was, but it was on one of the educational channels, possibly PBS > >out of Detroit. > >A fellow was interviewing a vintner in France. During the course > >of the conversation, a bottle of wine was opened and the vintner > >was asked to sample it and discuss it's merits. > >The fellow was quite effusive about the quality of this > >Chardonnay that he was sampling, until he was told it was an > >Australian wine. > >At that point he stood up, took the wine out side of his work > >shed and poured it on the ground. While I don't speak French, it > >was pretty obvious he had changed his mind about the wine. > >William Robb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Subject: Re: Direct from Chasseur d'Images > > > >Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:03:29 -0500 > > > > > > > >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:21:38 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > > > > >In actuality, anybody in the world that criticizes the > >French for > > > >anything, > > > > >is, by French definition, an American. > > > > > > > > >America - a country which the French helped create, many long > >years > > > >ago, and which became a bunch of obnoxious ingrates who had > >the gall > > > >(gaul?) to produce better wine. > > > > > > > >So pour me another splash of LinCourt Vineyards Santa Barbara > >County > > > >1996 Cabernet while you're up, please, and slap another roll > >in the > > > >LX. This thread could go on for some time. > > > >-- > > > >Happy Trails, > > > >Texdance > > > >http://members.fortunecity.com/texdance > > > >http://members1.clubphoto.com/john8202 > > > >- > > > >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 . > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_ > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To > >unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't > >forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > > > > > > >- > >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New (reported) 18mm - smart move
"Ralf Engelmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. It is not as radical as the 15mm wides of the other companies, > but still a dramatic wide angle. It will of course be much smaller > and affordable than the 15mm's. It will probably be more expensive than the Sigma 14/2.8. > 2. Af is not that much useless with a 18mm than it is with a 15mm. > The very wide coverage of the new SAFOX VII makes especially sense in > this lens range too. AF may not be useless, but it will certainly be less than essential. - 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: Wehreabout of MZ production (was: Minolta restructures)
"Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: Wehreabout of MZ production (was: Minolta restructures) > Ralf Engelmann wrote: > > > Of course, Pentax has moved the MZ-production off-Japan already a while > > ago. Medium format and telescopes were the main Japan activities. > > Is that really so? My MZ5N from 1997 is "made in Japan", and all my FA > lenses say "Japan" on the aperture ring. Ralf is right, sort of. The initial run of these bodies was manufactured in Japan. Later, they were assembled in Phillipines. The same is true with many lenses. I have seen FA 28-70/4 manufactured in Phillipines, while mine is made in Japan. It seems that the initial runs of many mid and low price items is made in Japan and later production is moved to Phillipines. Seems like a pattern with all major manufacturers. - 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: Sears lens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A friend want to sell me several old manual lenses (K-mount). Two of which > are "Sears" lenses. I have no knowledge of this brand. Would you please > tell me about its quality? Sears is an American department store chain. They used to sell camera gear under their name from other manufacturers. Years ago they sold Asahiflex under Tower name. Their K mount cameras were made by Ricoh. So it's possible that you are dealing with a Ricoh lens. YMMV, but I would stay away. - 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: PZ-1pN
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seth wrote: > > > > As Pål is so fond of saying, this is utter bullshit. The cost of > > cameras was always primarily a function of materials used and the > > manufacturing process. That's why a Leica rangefinder will always > > have to cost more than latest plastic fantastic SLR. This is > > inspite of the fact that all of R&D money that went into M6 was > > spent years ago, while Canon has to come out with with a new Rebel > > evey couple of years. > > > I wasn't talking about the cost of the camera but the cost of developing it. R&D of the Leca M6 cost nothing compared to the latest plastic fantastic Canon. > Another issue is that when the electronic is already developed, adding electronic features cost close to nothing since most is already embedded on the microchip anyway. Maybe I haven't express mysel clarly enough. > I would certainly agree with your second point above. For exampe, after developing ZX-5, it was relatively simple to add a few features such as electronic DOF preview. And presto, ZX-5n is born. > > Pål's "proof" is just plain wrong. Many companies that went bust > > were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica > > is a good example. Konica didn't go belly up only because it could > > rely on its other businesses. On top of that, many companies > > disapeared long before electronic cameras became commonplace. > > > Miranda, Petri, Topcon basically went out of business when camera went computer controlled. The extra cost of developing AF took the rest. > The last Miranda appeared in 1976. Petri went bust in 1977. Topcon swan song was in 1979. This quiet some time before AF became commonplace. That's also the period when all mechanical Pentax MX was selling very well. Those companies got into trouble, mostly because of marketing failure, long before electronic cameras became standard. A better example might have been Chinon which hung on into the 80's. But even Chinon had a huge marketing disadvantage. The major manufacturers built extensive distribution networks that gave them huge advantage when the inevitable consolidation came. There may not be a Pentax today, if they had not taken over US distribution from Honeywell in the 70's. BTW, when refering to the demise of of Miranda/Petri/Topcon, I am only considering cameras actually made by these companies. The Petri name sputtered out for a few more years as re-badged Cosinas. - 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: PZ-1pN
"Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seth wrote: > > > Many companies that went bust > > were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica > > is a good example. > > > Heh. Yashica is Kyocera, which builds Contaxes. You might as well say GM > went out of business because the Oldsmobile nameplate was discontinued. Double Heh. Before Kyocera bailed out Yashica in the 80's, Yashica was on the verge of extinction. This similar to Voigtlander (the company) going poof in the 50's, while the Voigtlander (the name) persisted into the 70's (before being revived by yet another company in the 90's). Funny aside. Carl Zeiss chose Yashica to make Contax SLRs, because they thought it had better long term prospects than Pentax. - 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: PZ-1pN
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SETH wroth: > > > This was always the case. > > > No. The electronic revolution broke a number of camera manufacturers. In fact, developing cost have increased dramatically after camera became electronic. As Pål is so fond of saying, this is utter bullshit. The cost of cameras was always primarily a function of materials used and the manufacturing process. That's why a Leica rangefinder will always have to cost more than latest plastic fantastic SLR. This is inspite of the fact that all of R&D money that went into M6 was spent years ago, while Canon has to come out with with a new Rebel evey couple of years. Pål's "proof" is just plain wrong. Many companies that went bust were the very ones that lead the "electronic" revolution. Yashica is a good example. Konica didn't go belly up only because it could rely on its other businesses. On top of that, many companies disapeared long before electronic cameras became commonplace. - 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: MZ-S First look
"John Edwin Mason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pal wrote: > >My guess is that the MZ-S will sell very well the > >first year. Then I think it will settle as a steady > >long term seller but in relatively small > >volumes. > > Part of me hopes that you're right, Pal. A larger > part of me hopes that you're wrong and that Pentax is > forced to drop the price into my range. Don't get me > wrong, I like most of what I've heard about the > camera. Just don't want to part with that much > money. > > I still worry about Pentax's marketing. Retailers > I've spoken to about the MZ-S (in Charlottesville and > and Abby and Penn in DC) think of Pentax as a maker of > P&S and cheap SLRs (and high quality lenses that are > too often difficult to find). To them the LX and MX > are ancient history. They're going to steer anyone > with nearly a grand to spend towards Nikon and Canon. > How is Pentax going to overcome this prejudice? If you asked those same dealers 20 years ago, they would have told you that there was no way LX could survive against the likes of Nikon, Canon, and Olympus. They would have told you that K2 and KX are ancient history and all Pentax is good for is a basic AE camera like ME and MV. They would have told you that Nikon F3 is o so much better for only $300 more and any real "pro" would only use a camera that weighs a ton. > More on marketing... Wouldn't producing a silver > version would be a mistake? (Yes, I know, matches the > limited lenses.) But Nikon and Canon have trained > consumers to see silver SLRs as low end. Pro cameras, > the thinking goes, are black, unless they're high end > rangefinders. Regardless of impression, I prefer silver. Pentax would do the right thing by offering us a choice. - 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: PZ-1pN
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The price of a camera these days isn't decided by the number of electronic > features, which are dirt cheap, but built standards and material choice. This was always the case. - 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 Pinhole Project
"Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ]I thank all of you for responding to my little project, very kind of you. I > think > since I do not know about contacts and such, I`ll use a body cap on the LX > with a piece of brass fastened on it. I know, I`m a chicken. You may want to invest in "The Hole Thing" by Jim Shull. - 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 Pinhole Project
"Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I was researching pinhole photography a couple of months ago, I came > across Bender Photographic on the web. They have a lot of pinhole camera > kits that take 120 roll film, and one that takes 35mm cartriges. I didn't see any kits that use roll or cartrige film there. I thought he specialized in large format stuff. > They also > sell Pentax body caps (for both screwmount cameras and K mount cameras) with > brass pinholes built in. For anyone who wants to get into large format on > the cheap, they have build-it-yourself 4x5 kits for less than $300, and I > think they offer 8x10, too. Hope this helps. I'd like to try a little > pinhole photography myself. Bender stuff is a good idea if you want to build your own camera. If you are interested in LF, you'd do better with a nice Graphic or even an entry level Toyo 45CX kit. - 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: New Cosina rumor
"Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is OT for the Pentax list, but a juicy bit of new camera news > nonetheless: evidently Cosina's website is announcing a new rangefinder on > March 15th, and the Leica User Group is abuzz with speculation that it will > feature an M-mount. > > As you probably know, the Konica Hexar RF features the Leica M-mount, which > evidently went out of patent protection in the mid-'90s. So far, Cosina's > "Voigtlaender" rangerfinder, the Bessa-R, has been LTM (Leica Thread Mount). > > Are we about to see a "Bessa M"--a cheap M-mount camera for the first time > since the Minolta CLE was discontinued? That could be. OTOH, Mr. Kobayashi had publicly rejected the idea of making M mount camera in the past. Additionally, Cosina has recently announced 3 lenses in Nikon/Contax mount. Could this new Bessa come in Nikon/Contax mount? We'll know in 2 weeks. - 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: Amazing eBay package
"Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, it went for pretty close to what I was thinking. I guessed that the > reserve would be about $10,000 but it seems that it was lower, since it > sold for $9,900. I don't recognize the high bidder, though. Is it anyone > from this group? I don't know who he is, but he's been laying some serious scratch on Pentax gear. This is the same guy that blew $1,853 on 135/1.8 a couple of weeks back. He seems be mostly sniping, but based on feedbacks, is a prompt payer. If you are selling Pentax gear, you probably want his attention. - 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 filters
"Lasse Karlsson" wrote: > Pål wrote: > BTW Can anyone tell me what an L39 filter is supposed to do? It comes with the 600/4 and is slightly yellow. > ++ > > L39 is a Nikon designation for a UV-filter. It's not just Nikon. All Pentax UV filters are designated L39. The original designation was probably assigned by Kodak or some other early photo company. - 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: MZ-S delivery (WAS: Thoughts about the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) and other things)
"Pål Jensen" > > Btw - Pentax Scandinavia says that they > > expect a summer release for the MZ-S, > > they have "no idea" about the price. Pentax USA is saying the same thing if you contact them. If you know a local distributor, you'll get a different story. > They are probably lying. A week ago I received > price lists and information about the MZ-S in the > mail from the Pentax distributor. The price was > clearly stated: 14.000Nkr. Wow! that's more than $1,500. In US the dealer cost is $850, so the price will be a bit over $900. > They also took preorders for the MZ-S and the > digital sibling (no price yet on the digital). The > digital camera was expected in the summer. > They will get a sample in mid March but they > do expect the MZ-S delivery to customers to > start in April (not certain though). My local distributor is taking orders now and says to expect cameras by sometime in April. The channel will probably be fully saturated by June (i.e. Summer). > There is also strong interest in Europe for these > camera(s) and early reservation is necessary to > ensure early delivery. So it might be that ordinary > delivery won't start until summer while the lucky > among us may get early samples before that. Time will tell. As is usually the case, those who "must" have it first will probably pay more. By the end of summer, the price will settle down to a reasonable level. - 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: Limited again...
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Has anyone figured out what that 645n custom set is? Considering that list price of a standard P645 body is 300,000Yen and the new set set is 310,000Yen, it could mean that Pentax is bundling a few sets with to film holders, a screen and a remote at a discount. From what I can figure out, that's a savings of about 42,000Yen. - 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: PZ1 vs. PZ1p. Hmmmmm... ..
"dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Still looking at good, used Pentaxes. Now noticing the differences between > the PZ1 and the PZ1p. Main ones seem to be, Z1 has 1fps drive less speed > (NoBigDeal), no red eye reduction(NBD), and no 2 sec mirror lock-up. On this > last one my ignorance shows What is a 2 sec mirror lock-up, and why > would I need, or want, to have it? > Oh, one more big difference. $100. (Aprox.) Also PZ-1p flash covers 28mm while PZ-1 covers 35mm. OTOH, PZ-1 has built-in intervalometer and keeps track of two focal lengths with power zoom lenses compared to one for PZ-1p. - 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 LZ-A?
"Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 9:20 PM Subject: Re: Pentax LZ-A? > Yeah, I forgot about the slower speeds being unusable on the LX. > > I think I may be failing to grasp a key concept here. You said the mechanical speeds of the LX are only good in case of battery failure. Are you implying that the FM3A is designed to be usable as a full time manual? If so, why would they build it as an EM? Wouldn't the whole idea behind an EM shutter be the ability to keep shooting if the batteries fail? Nikon seems to imply that the shutter does not use batteries at all in manual mode. I think that instead of taking electronic shutter and adding some manual speeds to it, they took a fully mechanical shutter and added electronic functionality to it. Essentially, FM3A still remains a fully manual camera. I really like Nikon FM series cameras. But that shouldn't be too surprising since it was originally Nikon answer to the small size Pentax and Olympus cameras. - 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 LZ-A?
"Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a 30 year old Fujica ST-901 that has a stepless electronic shutter > from 2 sec to 1/2000 on auto and 1/60 to 1/1000 plus B on manual. Doesn't > sound like a big deal to me It may not be, unless your batteries have died and you need to take shot at a slow shutter speed. > > "Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So the big deal is that Nikon is going to market as > > > "new" a type of shutter that the LX used for twenty > > > years? > > > > Not exactly. FM3A mechanical shutter is supposed to operate at all > > shutter speeds. LX only works at above 1/75. Aside from that, LX > > is still a better (and more expensive) camera. > > > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: UK Photo Stores, etc.
"Jim Meeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey everybody, > We're going on a trip to London in March and have about 10 days to visit. > One; I was wondering if anyone has a good store to recommend for new/used > Pentax gear (I saw one on the list a few days ago and have put it down on > my list) and Two; Are there any good photo shows going on now in the area. > Any tips would be appreciated. Jim Take trip to Brighton and visit Camera Direct http://www.camera-direct.com./contact.asp Peter seems like a nice guy to deal with. I think his stuff is mostly gray market equipment. - 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: MZ-S Info Not Yet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My knowledge of western Europe is much better than my knowledge of eastern > Europe. When I was in school, eastern Europe was part of the 'Evil Empire', > behind the 'Iron Curtain' and somewhere few folks traveled. Our knowledge of > these areas only came from our relatives and the parents or grandparents of > our classmates who were immigrants from those areas. Technically, Slovenia is not in Eastern Europe and former Yugoslavia was never behind "Iron Curtain". That term is usually reserved when referring to Warsaw Pact countries. Yugoslavia was not a member. - 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 lens that only fits on plastic lens mount
"Dennis Klimovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My guess is that under similar use, the metal lens mounts > will last > substantially longer than plastic ones. > --- > Sorry, what do you mean with longer? 300 years longer than > 250? Well, if you just mount one cheap zoom lens onto it, the plastic mount may last 1,000 years. But then why bother with interchangeable lens SLR. If you keep changing lenses, the plastic may not hold up as well. And if you keep mounting lenses that cut grooves into it, the plastic mount may not hold up beyond a year or two. I'm not opposed to judicious use of plastics in cameras, but lens mount and other stress points aren't the place to do it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: A lens that only fits on plastic lens mount
"mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After discussion of how a lens with damaged mount would not go > onto a camera with a metal bayonet after fitting one with a > plastic bayonet, SETH wrote: > > Sounds more like a reason to avoid plastic lens mounts. > > > I reply: > > If it copes with lenses with damaged lens bayonets, it sounds > like an argument _for_ plastic mounts to me. > > Whilst I appreciate the aesthetics of a metal mount, this is a > camera part which is _designed_ to wear. It is also easily > replaceable. I wonder how many cameras of the "professional" > ilk have lens mounts which are wholly worn out due to years of > use and not holding the lens in proper relationship to the film > plane? Anyone ever replaced one due to wear rather than > accident? Anyone examined their mount to see if it is > functioning properly in this respect? My guess is that under similar use, the metal lens mounts will last substantially longer than plastic ones. - 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: Cosina Limiteds?
Stephen Gandy has updated his page that started this thread: http://www.cameraquest.com/pen4319.htm Everyone can draw their own conclusions. - 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: Century 650/6.8
"John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not too keen on Ebay postings, but this one is too unusual to keep > under wraps, and only 36 minutes to go: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1210643724 > > Isn't Century a semi-famous optics maker for the movie industry? Yes, but since they use T mount, they can be used on any 35mm with an adapter. Back in the 60's and 70's when long teles were rare and expensive, a lot of nature photographers used these. AFAIK, they are still selling these directly from Burbank factory. The lens on ebay above sells for around $900 new. Not a bad deal when you consider the price of more common lenses. - 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 lens that only fits on a Pentax with plastic lens mount
"Peter Spiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's another risk to watch out for in lenses that I never knew was > possible before. I was thinking of buying a used MZ-M as a spare body, > which had an autofocus Sigma lens that came with it. I didn't need the > lens, and so I would have been putting it up for sale on eBay. I know that > autofocus lenses can get their electronics messed up, so I put it on my MZ-5 > to make sure that it worked in autofocus mode. Imagine my surprise when I > slipped it in position, and it just wouldn't turn clockwise on the MZ-5, > even though it went on the MZ-M perfectly well. On examination, it looked > like one of the metal claws on the lens was slightly bent. I guess it > gouged a path for itself on the MZ-M's plastic lens mount, but was stopped > by the MZ-5's metal mount. This would be a pretty rare event, but it is one > more thing to think about when buying used lenses. A seller who only tried > a lens on a camera with a plastic mount could in all good faith claim that > it was in good shape, while you might not be able to use it when you get it > home. Sounds more like a reason to avoid plastic lens mounts. - 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 lens definitions...?
"dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, I know what the Pentax F, FA, A, and M lenses are, and how they mount > onto what, and what they do > > But what does Takamur mean? Do lenses so designated also mount on a ZX type > k-mount? > > And what about the stuff I see on KEH that says SMC only. No other > designation, such as A, F, M, etc. Are these screw mount lenses that > require an adaptor > for a ZX k-mount? If a K mount lens does not have M, A, F, or FA designation, it is simply one of the original K mount lenses. Its mount is identical to M, but the lenses are somewhat larger and more likely to use 52mm filters than 49mm. Takumar was the original lens name for all Pentax lenses. Much like Nikkor is the brand name for Nikon lenses. These screw mount lenses are usable on most Pentax K mount cameras with an adapter. With the introduction of K mount, Takumar name was dropped and all lenses were labeled simply SMC Pentax. Than, just to make things confusing, Pentax resurrected the name for a budget line of lenses. These were called Bayonet Takumar. These were often similar optically to SMC Pentax lenses, but without multicoating and construction was not up to the same standard. The line was later expanded to include Takumar A, and Takumar F lenses. IF you weren't confused already, Pentax used yet another brand name for budget K mount lenses: Cosmicar. Now Cosmicar is used on Pentax CCTV gear. > Reason I ask is I saw some 24mm f2.8 lenses there, marked only SMC. A little > expensive, at 2C's, so I would want to ascertain their compatability with my > ZX-M before I even considered them... All lenses labeled Pentax are compatible with ZX-M. If it doesn't have A aperture setting, you will not have program and shutter priority modes. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: what does AL in a lens name mean?
"Frank Wajer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was wondering what AL in a lens name means. Aluminium? It means Aspherical. - 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: Cosina Limiteds?
"Doug Brewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike, > > All due respect, but I'd be more inclined to believe Pål and Yoshihiko. They both have a long-standing relationship with the list and have proven reliability (okay, well, Pål is hit-and-miss at times, but I have faith in him overall). Actually, this is a situation where Stephen Gandy is uncharacteristically engaging in the sort speculation that Pål Jensen has become famous for. We are supposed to beleive some unnamed double secret sources. We are also supposed to beleive that Cosina made these lenses on the basis of their supposed similarity to Cosina's Voigtlander lenses, when anyone who has seen or used both will see no such similarity. It also brings up a question. If Cosina made Pentax 77/1.8, why would they go through the trouble of designing and developing a 75/2.5 at nearly the same time? Aside from similar focal length, these two lenses share very little. - 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: Nikon follows in Pentax footsteps
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FM3A looks real nice. I'm glad that Nikon hasn't decided to abandon > FM line (FM10 is a bastard child). I wish Pentax would put out a > camera like that. > > REPLY: > They do. Its called LX. In fact, its much better than the FM3A. You mean they DID. Currently LX is a limited production model available only in Japan. Besides I wish Pentax made something like FM3A to replace K1000, instead of (or in addition to) ZX-M. LX is in a different class altogether (features and price). - 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: Nikon follows in Pentax footsteps
"Bob Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The real interesting thing on the web site was not the lens, but a link > to the new Nikon FM3A camera. A completely manual camera with batteries > required only for auto exposure ( like the LX). I think Nikon will sell > a lot of these. FM3A looks real nice. I'm glad that Nikon hasn't decided to abandon FM line (FM10 is a bastard child). I wish Pentax would put out a camera like that. Of course Nikon gives with one hand and takes away with the other. The G series Nikkors will have no aperture ring and will not be useable on manual focus cameras including FM3A. - 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.
Nikon follows in Pentax footsteps
Looks like Nikon saw how well Pentax is doing with its Limited lenses and decided to do one better. http://www.maxwell.com.au/photo/cameras/lenses/Nikon/Manual/45mmf28P .html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: I'm a happy owner of FA* 24 2.0 now!
"David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan Chan writes: > > Few years back, I read in a UK magazine which rated the Nikkor and > > Contax(Zeiss) had the best sharpness while the Pentax was not so hot > > (vignetting and sharpness were problems until f8). The only thing great > > about the Pentax was flare control (as well as the Zeiss). The Nikkor had > > flare problem. > I can confirm that the Pentax 15mm is not terribly sharp wide-open. I > remember that the sharpness increased and light falloff reduced dramatically > at f/5.6 and by f/8 they weren't a problem. This lens holds a lot of detail > when stopped down, especially at high contrast due to SMC. My PUG pics > for Oct 2000 and Jan 2001 were shot with this lens. > > I sometimes wish that it had at least 6 aperture blades, and a slightly > deeper hood. And a more sensible choice of built-in filters (grumble). F/2.8 > and internal focussing would be nice, too (15mm limited, anyone?:) Ok I'll bite. Why do you need f/2.8 on 15 mm lens? I don't think I ever used it at wider than f/8. As far as hoods are concerned on 15 mm lenses, they are pretty symbolic. At best, all they do is offer some minimal protection for the front element. - 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: Polarizers on ultra-wde angle lenses Wa suggestion ultra-wide angle lens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:47 PM Subject: Re: Polarizers on ultra-wde angle lenses Wa suggestion ultra-wide angle lens > In a message dated 1/29/01 10:33:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << The other issue is use of filters. Pentax comes with built-in yellow, > orange, skylight, and UV. Tamron and Sigma has a slot for gelatin filters. > The Ultra-wide Heliar (12mm) has an optional 77mm filter adapter. In > practical terms that means > that only Ultra-wide Heliar will allow you to use a polarizer (but it's > still a pain). >> > > Someone makes a "wide angle" Polarizer, a filter that is evenly dark in the > center then lightens at the edge (like a gradient filter) to compensate for > light fall-off? The problem with using a polarizer on Ultra-Wide Heliar is that it's a rangefinder lens. You can't see the effect of the polarizer as you rotate it. Leica and Mamiya make special polarizers for their cameras that can be swung out to show in the viewfinder. Leica comes with adapters for 39mm and 46mm and Mamiya should work with 58mm and 67mm. Not really helpful with 77mm filter thread. The only way to make this work is to mark the side of the filter so that you can view the effect through the filter and try to position the filter in the same way when mounted on the lens. If there is a polarizer as you described, it may be useful here. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: Any suggestion for ultra-wide angle lens
"Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many of us have been pleased with, and recommend, the Russian-made > Zenitar 16mm. f2.8 fisheye (available in M42, Pentax K, or Nikon mount). > It is sharp, solid, and inexpensive. > > Some users report that recent batches have had coating problems, so buy > one with a warranty from a place you can return it to. You pays your money and you takes your chance. As has been the case for the past 50 years, quality of russian camera equipment varies incredibly from one sample to another. Japanese may no longer need JCII stickers to assure quality, but Russia could still use something like that. Caveat emptor. - 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: Any suggestion for ultra-wide angle lens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 22:40 29.1.2001 +0800, you wrote: > >I always bring along with my Pentax FA20/f2.8 for taking landscape > >photographs. I satified with the results very much. Now, I would like to > >buy another ultra-wide angle lens of either 15mm or 17mm, preferably an > >automatic and fixed-focus lens. Does anyone have any suggestions or > >recommendations for me? > >Chi-Wai > > You might consider this heretical, but have you thought of a specialised > rig: Cosina's Bessa L (non-slr body) with their 15mm rectilinar lens + > dedicated finder, it should run $-wise perhaps even quite less than a new A > 15/3.5 from pentax. I read reviews about it telling it's a very fine lens, > also would be propably very flare prone and much, much smaller than the > pentax 15/3.5. Of course, it's worth trying it out yourself, at least in > the shops, or renting. You might not like having to use non-slr finder and > scale focusing. OTOH, the lens is in M39, so usable on Leica LTM bodies if > you have some and save money off the Bessa L. And they introduced a 12mm > rectilinear lens in M39 too! The Bessa-L with Super-wide Heliar (15mm) combo is probably the most economical and lightest choice. It is not any more flare prone than Pentax 15/3.5 and much less so than the new Tamron 14/2.8. Don't worry about scale focusing. It doesn't matter with such wide lenses. DOF is your friend. One problem all such lenses suffer from is light fall-off. The other issue is use of filters. Pentax comes with built-in yellow, orange, skylight, and UV. Tamron and Sigma has a slot for gelatin filters. The Ultra-wide Heliar (12mm) has an optional 77mm filter adapter. In practical terms that means that only Ultra-wide Heliar will allow you to use a polarizer (but it's still a pain). One more consideration. When using such wide lenses, it's very important to keep your camera levelled. With SLR lenses, I like to use a grid screen (if your camera allows interchangeable screens). Voigtlander sells a nifty (but expensive) level which along with double shoe adapter lets you look at the viewfinder and level simultaneusly. For more information on Voigtlander check http://www.thkphoto.com/catalog/voigtlander.html or Stephen Gandy's page http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm. > It's just a suggestion to look at non-slr options too. I don't have any > _actual_ experience with this lens and camera, so I am only offering > suggestion to another option for you to investigate ;) Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I think that Pentax 15/3.5 is a truly superb lens that has stood the test of time. It is the first mass produced lens with aspherical elements and the first mass produced rectilinear lens shorter than 18mm. Yet, I think it is better than any of recent competitors including Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron. - 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: F or FA
"Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the main diffenence between the 50mm "F" and "FA" lens other than the "F" is the older of the two. Is > one better than the other and, if so, why? They are the same optically. FA 50/1.4 is more compact and has a nicer focusing ring. - 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: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro)
"Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Could it be that these rebadget lenses are actually original Pentax designs? It would not surprise me the least. Pentax have among the largest R&D dept out there; they license and sell designs to other manufacturers. Since Pentax is first and foremost an optical company, its very likely that many lenses on the market are designs bought from Pentax. If you read Canon's patents on IS lenses, both the zooms and the telephoto lenses, you'll see that their optical design fully refer to Asahi patents. > Frankly, I think its more likely that eg. the 28-200 Tamron is designed by Pentax and bought by Tamron, than the other way around. That is possible. But what does it mean in practical terms? Is there a real advantage to buying Pentax 28-200 over Tamron 28-200? As long as the lenses share optical design and construction quality and both have multicoating of some sort. One may argue that Pentax branded lens may hold its value better on the resale market, but these are lenses of bargain construction and not likely to survive long enough to really matter. - 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.
Help Me Identify This
Can anyone help me identify this item, I came across. It looks like a chrome step-up ring from 49mm to 53mm or 54mm. On the side, the following is written in silk screen: ASAHI OPT Co, Japan - 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" name - why?
- Original Message - From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 6:11 PM Subject: R: "Pentax" name - why? > It's true that Asahi was not allowed to use Pentax name for a while. > However, it didn't happen in Germany, it happened in South Africa in late > Fifties, where Pentacon registered the name Pentax for a line of movie > projectors. > For that reason, Asahi called their SLR's with such names as Asahi Pentar > (models S and K in 1958) or Asahiflex (model H2 of 1959). You can see one of > them currently auctioned at ebay: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1208904588 > > It has also been reported that Pentacon made a prototype medium format SLR > called the Pentax in mid-fifties, but it never reached the market. They > probably planned to use such a name for other camera models too, but when > they were ready to do that, Asahi had already established the Pentax name > worldwide. Well, it's possible that *someone* registered the name Pentax. I just don't see how Pentacon could have done it *before* it came into being in 1964. - 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: SMC again
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: RE: SMC again > This is from an article called "Flare control in multi-coated lenses of the > Seventies",By Dario Bonazza. It has interesting info about SMC. Full text > at: > http://digilander.iol.it/aohc/selart07e.htm > [article text clipped] This article is mostly on target. The fact remains though that Pentax was the first photo lens manufacturer to offer multicoating on all of its lenses after 1971 (Takumar K, Takumar F, and Cosmicar don't count). Nikon did not start using NIC (their version of multicoating) until 1974. Since most manufacturers other than Leica licensed the technolgy from Pentax, it may be reasonable to assume that they were following Pentax lead rather than the other way around. - 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: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro)
- Original Message - From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:07 AM Subject: Re: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro) > Alin Flaider wrote: > > > > Given the expiration of original SMC patents, we might expect that > > most other manufacturers optics must be coated at least up to the > > level of the first SMC lenses. > > Maybe, but even if a patent has lapsed doesn't mean anyone else has > figured out how to do it. I may be confused, but isn't the whole point of the patent, that you publish that information, and once it expires, ANYONE can implement it? Besides several of the companies paid Pentax for the license to at least part of the original SMC. - 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: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro)
- Original Message - From: "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "SETH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:53 AM Subject: SMC again (was Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro) > > Given the expiration of original SMC patents, we might expect that > most other manufacturers optics must be coated at least up to the > level of the first SMC lenses. Even Pentax acknowledged recently > that SMC is no longer a technology, but rather a brand name. > However, in my experience this doesn't appear to be true. I've > been playing with and examined pictures taken with original K > lenses, BBAR Tamrons, Sigma, Canon L and common glass, zooms and > primes included, and I can tell no one came even close to SMC. In > fact, the modern Canons were among the poorest, flaring like an old > russian single-coated Helios. Ok, but has anyone here actually compared the images taken with Pentax 28-200 vs. the equivalent Tamron? Given its 16 element construction, one would expect any differences in coating to jump out. Or is this rebadged Tamron (and similarly Vivitar 100/3.5) simply an example where SMC is merely a "brand name"? > Besides, Pentax upgraded SMC multicoatings with each new > generation of lenses, and this is obvious with FA lenses performing > visibly better in this respect than their 20 years old ancestors. > Now latest FAs and Limiteds come in ghostless SMC flavor and owners > attest it's truly superior. In fairness, it shouldn't be unexpected for owners of lenses to attest to their superiority. It'd be more surprising if someone bought an expensive lens and proclaimed that it was inferior to a cheap zoom. - 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 head for a monopod?
- Original Message - From: "dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:22 AM Subject: OT: A head for a monopod? > Can one operate effectively with the camera screwed directly onto the top of > a monopod, or would this be too rigid and awkward? (As I suspect...) Absolutely, get a small ballhead. > And if this is not a good idea, then what would some of you recommend as a > head for a monopod? Right now I'm thinking I'd like a ball head rather than > a pan because of the compactness of size. This head would probably be > strictly for the monopod and would not be switched to a tripod, so I don't > want anything too elaborate. > Can someone recommend a ball that they're using now with good results? I really like Bogen 3413QR (Manfrotto 308RC). Easy to use and clean. Depending on the monopod, you may need 1/4" to 3/8" adapter to mount the head. Under $50. Also available without quick release. For lightweight duty, it can be used on a tripod as well. - 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 AF 100 mm f3.5 micro
- Original Message - From: "Clive Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro > I believe that, unlike the similar-looking Vivitar and > other models, the Pentax one has full SMC coating, and its colour > performance seems to match my other Pentax lenses. The original Cosina as well as Vivitar and Phoenix are also multicoated. But that brings up a question. How much of difference is there between Pentax SMC and multicoating on other modern lenses? The original SMC patent must have expired by now and anyone is free to use it. And anyway many manufacturers like Nikon and Zeiss licensed it back in the 70's. Pentax claims that SMC reduces loss of light transmission to 0.2%-0.3% compared to 5% for non-coated and 2% for single-coated lenses . How does multicoating on non-Pentax lenses perform? Of course this is more critical on complex zoom lenses than would be on this 5 element lens. - 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: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro]
- Original Message - From: "Anupam Routh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:23 AM Subject: Re: [Re: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro] > Many thanks for your reply. Can you elaborate about "the low weight could be a > curse in disguise"? I live in a small place. There is no opportunity to > handle the lens. No store in our area carry this lens. What about its optical > quality in taking pictures during family vacation? with thanks. What I meant is that the lens feels too light. The build quality seems too flimsy. If you can't find a store that carries Pentax version of the lens, see if someone carries Vivitar, Cosina, or Phoenix brand of 100mm f/3.5 Macro in either manual or autofocus. Depending on the part of the world you live in, it may be available under other names. I don't know about the image quality, but other Cosina made lenses are typically good, though not great (recent Cosina made Voigtlander lenses are a pleasant exception). If you don't need macro capability and can afford it, consider getting Pentax FA 135 f/2.8. It is a great lens and will certainly last longer. - 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 AF 100 mm f3.5 micro
- Original Message - From: "Anupam Routh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:52 PM Subject: Pentax AF 100 mm f3.5 micro > Greetings! I am reading a review of macro lenses in November 2000 issue of > Practical Photography. Pentax 100mm f3.5 macro is one of them. It is same as > Vivitar AF 100mm f3.5 macro and Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro available in UK. Any > of the members of this NG has any experience of any of these three lenses > about the capability of these lenses as telephoto lenses? Main appeal to me > is the light weight [7.8 oz]. It is to be used for family vacation along with > a 35mm f2.0 AL. The film used will be Kodachrome 200 ASA. [If I had money I > would have bought the limited 77 mm f1.8mm] With thanks. Before spending the money, make sure you at least handle the lens. That low weight could be a curse in discuise. - 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: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...?
- Original Message - From: "dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...? > > > 3. Usually, unless the subject is really close, the height of > > the > > > tripod doesn't affect point of view all that much. > > > Sure it does. Anytime you move or adjust the camera's position, it affects > the POV very much! (IMO.) It's all in the definition of "very much". If your main subject is 30'-40' away, moving your camera up or down by a couple feet will make little difference. If the main subject is 5'-10' away, moving the camera up or down by a couple feet would make a drastic difference. > > If you have a tripod that extends 63" without center column, you've > > got a pretty hefty piece of gear. Add to that the weight of the > > head, camera, and the lens. You are essentially talking upward of > > 15 lbs. > > Pretty hefty? You better believe it. I really do not want to walk around, > say, NYC, all day with a 30" long 12-15 lb weight on my shoulder. (Might as > well be in the military again!) > Which is why I'm now considering several (relatively inexpensive) tripods > that extend from 22" compressed to 59" to 64" high (including column), and > weigh from 2.5 lbs (the 59"), to 4 lbs (the 64"). IMO, bigger is not always > better! (SUV's, anyone?) Well, you have to pick your poison. Do you damage your back with a tripod that weighs 5-6 lbs more, or do you hurt it with constant crouching . Besides, I'm not sure how well a 2.5 lbs tripod will do with a 400mm lens, regardless of the amount of leg extension used. > Here's a chance for another new thread; > ---Who here use's a monopod? And why on earth why? > (But I would change the subject title here to "Monopods?", before it gets to > unwieldy...) The reason to use a monopod is where a tripod would be too unwieldly, but the extra 1-2 stops of stability is sufficient to get a usefull shot. Sport photographers use them all the time with long glass. - 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: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...?
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...? > Me too, most of the time, even though one of my tripods + head will extend > to 235cm (~92.5") with a 10kg load, it's more stable down low. If you gonna > pull out a tripod why not make it worth your while, otherwise hand hold the > damn rig. Unless you are over 8' tall, fully extended 92" tripod would be more impractical than unstable. It would make little sense to use it fully extended in the field, unless you also carried a stepping stool as someone suggested earlier. - 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: Info needed Pentax <> Ricoh
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 5:41 AM Subject: Re: Info needed Pentax <> Ricoh > In a message dated 1/21/01 11:22:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << The only way to reach 22 or 25 or any such large number is to count > rebadged cameras or those that have made K mount lenses but no bodies. >> > > The original list of 22 (now 27) manufacturers *was* confined to "K" mount > lens, not bodies, unless I missed something? You said: > My list, complied over eight months research, listed 22 manufacturers. Of the > three URLs above, this one: > http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ultimate_k-mount.htm, is the most complete of > the three. Whether it lists all 22 manufacturers (I haven't counted yet), I > seem to remember there were two Russian lens makers, Zenit being one, who > copied the "K" mount. You also said: >> Give me time and I'll come up with the entire list, but there were 22 >> manufacturers (world-wide) who made the PENTAX "K" mount their own, >> including two Russian camera makers. Since the linked page only lists BODIES and not LENSES, I assumed that you were referring to bodies. In fact if you want to count K mount lenses, the actual number is likely to be much higher than 22, 25, or even 27. You'd also be hard pressed to identify unique manufacturers as opposed to licensees and re-badgers. However, your other statement: >>> It also proves, if there ever was a doubt, that the PENTAX "K" mount is the >>> most popular (and copied) lens mount ever. >>> *Which also indicates there are more "K" mount lenses in the world than any >>> other kind. would then have to be false. There have been more manufacturers making lenses in Leica Thread Mount and Praktica/Pentax Thread Mount (variants of Nikon F Mount have been quiet numerous as well). - 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: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:36 PM Subject: Re: Why do we? was: Tripods, cable extensions...? > For information purposes only: does anyone, other then we macro shooters, > accustomed as we are to crawling on the ground in search of tiny flowers or > even smaller insect-type critters, ever shoot from a tripod *without* > extending its legs? Or set a tripod up so the platform is just high enough > off the ground to clear obvious foreground obstacles? > And practically, isn't a tripod only used to steady/level the camera platform? > Finally: why do we shoot from the standing position most of the time? Let's try these in reverse. 1. We shoot standing up because it's easier and faster than getting down and up all the time. 2. I suppose a tripod could be used as a weapon, but its primary purpose is simply hold a camera or some other piece of gear. 3. Usually, unless the subject is really close, the height of the tripod doesn't affect point of view all that much. So since it is easier to shoot standing up, that's what we do. Why make your life more difficult than you have to? 4. Of course if you are trying to catch just the right reflection off the lake (or river), the exact height of f the ground can make a lot of difference. - 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: Tripods, cable extensions...?
- Original Message - From: "dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Tripods, cable extensions...? > Don't fully understand the following message. Why would a 63" or 66" tripod > be "kind of short"? My stand-up eye level is just about at 62", and I don't > intend to carry around a step stool, so why would I want something larger > (and potentially heavier) to carry around with me, to use with my light > weight ZX-M SLR? Am I missing something here? Yes you are. Many people are a little taller and need a tripod that doesn't require them to bend down. Also tripods are often listed with maximum height using the column extension. G1228 for example extends to 60-7/8", but only 52-1/8" without using the center column. IOW, it may be a little short even for you. > Seems to me that a medium sized, 63" tripod, rated to carry 10-11 lbs, would > be just about ideal for what I have now, and also for the forseeable future > too...?? 63" without center post extension would fine (maybe a couple of inches too long), but Gitzo only has a handful of such models. > > 63" is quite short for a fully extended tripod - are you including the > head > > in this measurement? (For the imperially challenged 63" = ~155cm). On the > > Gitzo page you'll see that the G1228 extends to 158cm, but weighs > > 1.5kg, which for the metrically challenged is about 3.25lbs. It has 4 > > leg sections, which means it is not likely to be very stable fully > > extended. A more stable one for you would be the G1227, which weighs > > the same, has only 3 leg sections but is higher at 163cm/66" - also > > rather short for most purposes. - 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: Info needed Pentax <> Ricoh
- Original Message - From: "Yoshihiko Takinami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 2:14 AM Subject: Re: Info needed Pentax <> Ricoh > Sears and Vivitar had/have their own K-mount bodies, > which, I suppose, are OEM bodies from Cosina or so. Vivitar bodies were made by Cosina, while Sears bodies were made by Ricoh. Chinon also made a number of K mount bodies that were sold under a variety of names such as Agfa, Alpa, Revue, etc. - 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: LX Strap Lugs
- Original Message - From: "Chris Niesmertelny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:01 PM Subject: LX Strap Lugs > What's the deal with strap lugs for the LX? Rarer than a Ruth's Chris > porterhouse, and just about as expensive. I thought I was out of my mind > for bidding $36 for a set on ebay...and now I've been outbid. It's really quiet simple. These buggers are only used on LX. They get lost. Pentax has had them missing from the catalog for years. In addition, camera stores that deal in used gear have a habit of separating straps from the cameras and throwing them in a junk bin. When the uninitiated buy the camera, they don't think about the strap and forget to ask for them. > Cans't thou telleth me where I may findeth the little buggers for less than > a well-used Spotmatic? Check http://www.camera-direct.com. This UK site lists the pair for UKP10.00. It may be worth a try. - 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 zooms.
- Original Message -
From: "Kouznetsov, Anton {RX~Moscow}" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 2:20 AM
Subject: Pentax zooms.
> I'm currently in the search of budget (< 300 $) long telephoto
zoom for my MZ-5n. Since most of time I'm shooting outdoors and
handheld, therefore it's more preferable that the zoom be as compact
as possible and not outweighting the camera. Among the Pentax
lenses I've found three options of 100-300: older black SMCP-F Zoom
100-300 f/4.5-5.6 and SMCP-FA 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 and newly introduced
silver SMCP-FA 100-300 f/4.7-5.8 Zoom, and one silver SMCP-FA
80-320mm f/4.5-5.6.
> I would appreciate if anyone could share their personal opinion on
the quality and use of the above items as well as any other decent
K-mount budget (< 300 $) long telephoto zoom by Tokina/Sigma/Tamron,
etc.
I can say from personal experience that SMCP-F Zoom 100-300
f/4.5-5.6 and SMCP-FA 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 (same optically) are pretty
poor. Very soft beyond 200mm. I was glad to unload mine. The lens
that I have now is Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Macro. It is just
slightly above your budget (it sells for $320 in US), but to me it
is well worth it. It is very compact and I have occasionally used
it hand-held, although at 300mm tripod should be used.
-
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: Wake up
- Original Message - From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Wake up > Nope. The US have the higest percentage of poor in western world. So Pål, do you actually have statistics to back this up or did you get this info from your famous unnamed sources? According to World Fact Book here are some statistics: US Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 1.5% highest 10%: 28.5% (1994) Norway Household income or consumption by percentage share: lowest 10%: 4.1% highest 10%: 21.2% (1991) So, if we compare United States to your own country, taking into consideration the fact that US has much higher per capita income and GDP growth rate, a picture emerges. For all of Norway's income redistribution, it has much higher proportion of poor people and fewer rich people. Considering that Norway is fairly well endowed with natural resources, it looks like it has failed miserably on this fairness score. Before you decide that I'm picking on Norway, consider that: US Population below poverty line: 12.7% UK Population below poverty line: 17% > Doesn't matter. The whole point is that theres is a significant percentage of population thats excluded from the buying feast. This percentage is far larger in the US than comparable western nations. Hence, the market isn't as large as seems from pure population number and income statistics. This is because the money is less evenly distrubuted in the US than probably anywhere else. Theres far smaller percentage of poor in, say, Sweden than in the US. Hence, an average population of 8 million Swedes will consist of larger market than 8 million average americans. This is because this average american groups will contain more people unable to consume Pentax cameras than the similar Swedish group. The american group will on the other include far more onscenely rich people but that does not create more consumers. This is illustrated also by the density of typical consumer goods like computers and cellular phones where the US isn't on top because a large number of people fall out. ! Since your data is faulty, your conclusions are faulty as well. You are flat out wrong about computer ownership and misinterpreting cell phone numbers. The fact is that US has the most sophisticated land phone network and cell phones are not as necessary. I myself can well afford a cell phone, but simply don't need one. > My point isn't to bash the americans (although its sometimes tempting), but to illustrate that the number of people don't have linear relation to the number of consumers even when comparing within the western world. I know the third world have it far worse but this was about Pentax markets and third world isn't an important market. Pål, I think you protest too much. Of course your point is to bash americans. I'd have no problem with that. It's just that your argument would carry a bit of weight if you actually had some facts behind it. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: new Asahiflex!!!
- Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: new Asahiflex!!! > > Does anyone have the adapter to use these 37mm lenses on a 42mm screw > mount body? Failing that, any idea where I could find one? I want to put > the tiny little 50/3.5 on my MZ-5n and see how it feels. :) I seem to recall that Stephen Gandy was selling these for a while. Check his site at http://www.cameraquest.com and send him an email. He may have a line on these. I know that he's got all kinds of adapters there. - 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 taxing question...
- Original Message - From: "Sid Barras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 5:54 PM Subject: OT: a taxing question... > Knowing that you guys are not accountants, and I don't expect expert > opinions, but for you USA photogs: Is the money I spend on equipment tax > deductible in any way? Is there any other things I can do to lessen my > tax burden in relation to the money I've spent this past year, > particularly regarding the money I've spent to be able to shoot > professionally? (Not just cameras and equipment, but educational stuff, > books, advertising and the like? It would seem clear that if you spend money advertising your services ought to be deductible. The rest would depend on weather you can prove that this is a business and not a hobby. IRS generally frowns on allowing deductions for hobby expenses. You should normally be allowed to deduct the costs of this at least to the extent of the income you receive. With equipment there is an additional wrinkle. It would have to be depriciated over a number of years (check with an accountant). Also if some the equipment is dual use (personal and business) you may only be able to deduct a portion of it. - 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: Odd looking pentax zoom on ebay
- Original Message - From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 6:59 PM Subject: Odd looking pentax zoom on ebay > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1208129654 > > This is a "new" Pentax 35-70 f2.8 pentax zoom according to the ad. Was this > an early Pentax product? This dates from 1981 when Pentax introduced world's first interchangeable lens SLR system. The ME-F was essentially ME Super with AF capability. The bulge at the bottom of the lens housed the motor and batteries.for the autofocus. It didn't catch on because of general weirdness and bulk, although several other camera manufacturers introduced similar monstrosities. Pentax only introduced just that one lens for this AF system. Then in 1985 Minolta blew them all away with Maxxum 7000 with the first AF camera that had the focusing motor and power source in the body. If memory serves, at the time, ME-F with the lens sold for around $500 (1981 $$). Kinda puts all the complaining about the potential cost of next Pentax in perspective. - 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
- Original Message - From: "Bolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 8:08 PM Subject: Re: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax > > > 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 too think that a back that prints exposure info and is an intervalometer to boot, is very useful. WRT the digital preview viewfinder, only time will tell if this is at all useful. All it is a tiny CCD that hooks up to the viewfinder. Contax suggests that this will allow for remote photography, but there doesn't seem to be any way to remotely control camera functions. To me this sounds like a gimmick destined for ebay. All of its other features are relatively common place in cameras costing much less. > 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. There is no point fixating on camera bodies. The body is just a light-tight box that can make accurate exposure. All the bells and whistles are fine, but they shouldn't be an end in themself. In recent years, Pentax has filled out its lens line and produced bodies that are capable of attracting entry-level users. Sure it'd be nice to have a new body that had fancy options. But even without one, I want to keep using Pentax because I like Pentax lenses. A fancy camera with only 4 stratospherically priced lenses in the system leaves me cold. - 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
- Original Message - From: "Bolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 5:56 PM Subject: A great body ... too bad it is not by Pentax > The N1 has a reasonable set of features, and capabilities, some > quite "professional" level in modern body parlance. The body > has "traditional" shutter speed, compensation, etc controls like > the MZ-5n has. It has a 1/8000 shutter and 1/250 flash sync. Its 1/250 via hot shoe and 1/125 via PC socket. > It has an optional data back that can print data between frames, > as the MB-23 for the Nikon F4 does. Or collect all the exposure > data and place it on a "index" frame. There is an optional-extra > digital LCD viewfinder that you can use to preview the image. > And, it can be used on or off (via cable) camera. There are some > new features this body has, such as "focus bracketing", which will > bracket around the DOF of the lens at the distance it is focused at. > It has 5 autofocus sensors, placed at the traditional 1/3 points > of the image, and one in the center. Oh yes, and it has interchangeable > viewfinder screens. > > There are some downsides. This AF body can't use the lenses of > the previous Contax AF SLR body. However, there is an auto-focus > adaptor for the Contax 6x45 SLR lenses. No auto-focus-bracket, though, > as those lenses lack the DOF info at the digital level (my best guess). 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. > 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. > I just read the article of this equipment, by a company that is less > known in the SLR market than Pentax. And I couldn't believe the kind > of stuff they "got right". And all Pentax might have in a couple of > months is a MZ-S which doesn't really compete with this? Contax is extremely well known in the SLR market. In fact Carl Zeiss originally wanted Pentax to develop an SLR for them. The result of that collaboration is the K mount. Carl Zeiss eventually chose Yashica to make the cameras. When Yashica went belly up, Kyocera took over and they make Contax cameras today. Contax may not be competing in the mass market, but it certainly a well known SLR line. > 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. - 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: 2X Liars?
- Original Message - From: "dosk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:35 PM Subject: 2X Liars? > In Jan 2001 PopPhotog, on page 219, Smile Photo has a TC listed under Pentax > lenses. It says, "2x 7-element converter fPentax AF $119.95" I took this to > mean it was a Pentax "f" type TC. Is no? [ more ads deleted] > If none of these converters are made by Pentax, these advertisers are sure > trying hard to make it look like they are. fPentax is supposed to mean *for* Pentax. Putting that aside, you should ignore ads from most PopPhoto advertisers. Only B&H, Adorama, and Camera World of Oregon are even remotely reputable, and only B&H has understandable ads. Remember that Smile Photo is an anagram for Slime Photo. - 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: P3n macro tips for DJ
- Original Message - From: "ToddEStan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 1:07 PM Subject: Re: P3n macro tips for DJ > You can use any old extension tubes, but if you get ones with the A > contacts, you can use Program mode with A lenses on the tubes. Otherwise, > without the A contacts, you will just have aperture priority or manual mode. Pentax has produced two styles of extension tubes. Automatic and non. Automatic in this case refers to open aperture metering. If there is an extension tube that would provide "A" contacts, please specify the brand. Although for the life of me, I can't think of a reason to use extension tubes in program mode. - 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: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65
- Original Message - From: "Mark Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 1:00 AM Subject: Re: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65 > > For me, the added weight of an optional battery pack is enough of a > deterrent to outweigh any handling improvement. But thanks for the > suggestion. ZX-5n weighs less than a pound. With the pack, it weighs a little over a pound, still one of the lightest SLRs around. N65 is slightly heavier, but still in the same weight class. As I've said many people hate the idea of battery pack, but you owe it to yourself to be sure. - 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: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65
- Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65 > > When comparing the feel of the two cameras, see how they feel > > with > > the optional battery pack. > > > Good point Seth. I do believe the F65 is CR2 lithioid only. I > cannot think of a better reason to avoid a camera than that. Sorry, I was not clear enough. Both ZX-5n and N65 take CR2 batteries, but both accept an optional AA battery pack. For N65 its MB-17. Unlike battery pack FG which can be used with ALL ZX cameras, MB-17 is dedicated for N65. Nikon has a habit of producing different set of accessories for each body. At any rate with the battery pack attached to both cameras, the preference in the feel may change. Personally, I think that the feel of both cameras improves with the pack attached, but some people absolutely hate it. - 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: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65
- Original Message - From: "Who Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 7:40 PM Subject: Pentax ZX-5n or Nikon N65 > About 30 years ago, I enjoyed using a Pentax Spotmatic with two prime > lenses, but later sold everything several years ago. > > I'm now considering the Pentax ZX-5n and Nikon N65, and would appreciate > some feedback. > > On paper, although the N65 is newer, both cameras seem to have similar > specs. Pros and cons: the ZX-5n has a spot meter and the auto-exposure > system can work with manual lenses, whereas the N65 exposure (which requires > auto-focus lense) seems better (in that it considers distance info when > using Nikon D and G AF lenses). Also the N65 flash is brighter (GN 39 vs > 11), and the N65 body fits my hand somewhat better. Nikon GN spec is in feet, while Pentax is in meters, so the disparity isn't so great. Compare the viewfinders as well. Pentax has more coverage and built-in diopter adjustment. OTOH, Nikon has built-in multi-exposure, ZX-5n doesn't. When comparing the feel of the two cameras, see how they feel with the optional battery pack. - 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: P3n macro tips for DJ
- Original Message - From: "David James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 7:21 PM Subject: P3n macro tips for DJ > thanx for the info. as for the owner's manual, heck, i haven't seen it in > years!!! :) > > i would suspect, from what you said, that a dedicated macro lense will be > out of my price range, as this is just an occassional hobby. i currently am > using a 28-200 Tokina with macro capabilites, but it consumes too much light > and the macro isn't very good. what other options do i have in the way of > more limited zooms and telephotos with macro cabilities better than 1:5 > ? For about $120 you can get Vivitar 100/3.5Macro lens that has 1:2 magnification and includes an extension tube that will provide 1:1 magnification. - 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: If you were me,what short prime would you choose?
- Original Message - From: "BYRON BUTLER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: If you were me,what short prime would you choose? > As me, you have an F 17-28 fisheye zoom, an FA 50 1.4, > FA 100macro 3.5 , F 70-210 4-5.6, and the first > version of the Tamron 28-200. As me, you only want > one good short prime of either 28, 31 or 35mm. I am > impressed with what I hear about the FA 35 F/2, in > that it rivals the FA 50 F/1.4 in sharpness and > resolution tests. But I would like to have this > optical quality at a slightly wider focal length if > possible. I have no info on the 31 Ltd., but would not > like to spend too much more than the $285 US price tag > of the FA 35 F/2. The FA 28 f/2.8 I have heard mixed > reviews about. And Sigma has recently introduced a new > heavy 28 F/1.8 which looks nice, but I know nothing > about, and have only heard mixed reviews about sigma > wide primes in general. You comments will be greatly > appreciated. Just curious, why aren't considering FA* 24/2? Sure it's big and heavy, but its a super lens and a used one can be had for around $200. Of the other lenses you listed, I would pick the 28mm. The 31mm is probably going to be too expensive and 35mm is a little too close to 50mm. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos
- Original Message - From: "Alexander Krohe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- SETH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sadly, Pentax is not making 52mm filters. > > They do. They do make filters with 49, 52, 58, 67, and > 77mm thread mounts plus several diameters of bayonet > mount filters for medium format. Actually, they did.If you are seeing 52mm Pentax filters, that's old stock. Only UV, Skylight, and Cloudy are still in the catalog. AFAIK only 5 current Pentax lenses have 52mm thread: 28-70/4, 50/1.2, 50/2.8Macro, 85/2.8Soft, and 135/2.8. If you want to use B&W film with those, better find another brand of filters. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos
- Original Message - From: "ToddEStan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:40 PM Subject: Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos > > I have always wondered why Pentax doesn't market their filters more. The > SMC ones seem quite good, and they could make a killing along with gaining > some new customers who currently have nothing Pentax. Most filter buyers are perfectly satisfied to pay $10 for an uncoated tiffen or hoya filter. The same in Pentax SMC is $28. And that's just in the inexpensive 49mm size. Mulltiply by the different types you need, most buyers just don't care enough to spend that much money on superior filters. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Re: Excessive arrogance and trolling (Was: Help on digital for newsprint)
- Original Message - From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:52 PM Subject: Excessive arrogance and trolling (Was: Help on digital for newsprint) > Len wrote: > > But one thing it *was* written to do was to hopefully discourage > > yet another long non-pentax message thread. > > This is excessive arrogance and a clear breach of any basic list rules, certainly of the directions for the PDML. Someone who, without any valid grounds but his own personal dislikes, takes it upon himself to, on the list, actively discourage other list members from discussing a perfectly valid list thread. > It is called trolling. > In my opinion Len ows the list an apology and deserves a word of warning from the list moderator for such behaviour and his clearly stated intentions. And in my opinion, Len is showing incredible amount of common sense that is often so severely lacking. After all this is PDML (pentax-discuss mailing list, not VDML (verbal-diarrhea mailing list). This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the PUG at http://pug.komkon.org
