See Ya - This is Crazy
On Jan 19, 2007, at 11:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RE: PISS OFF JCO: Camera sold,but worries remain (yet another eBayquestion) I like the digest format, helps me sort through the vast messages on this list. I know I could go to individual emails and filter out children but I don't want the hassle of sorting through all the messages so this relatively new member is going to say adios. It's really sad, there's some good folks providing good resources on this list but with no moderation to control pure and obvious trolling as well as the out of control OT posts I can't handle this and hope to see some of you helpful folks elsewhere. I'm unsubbing, email me off list if you have thoughts (invitation does not extend to trolls). Best regards, Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SD Cards
Saying you had an SD card failure is a lot like saying you got a flat tire almost -- it happens all the time. Go to Newegg and read all the product reviews and on just about every SD card you will read about failures (even *gasp* Sandisk!).. I think SD cards are more prone to failure because they are relying on an outboard controller as opposed to inboard like CF cards. Personally I liked CF better but it seems as there will not be a choice much longer, SD seems to have won out as the standard. --Guy On Jan 14, 2007, at 5:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:21:10 -0500 From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SD Cards To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Could be. But I had a Transcend card failure, and I'm not gong to try for a second. Paul On Jan 14, 2007, at 1:06 AM, W. Guy Finley wrote: I think you're mistaken on Transcend -- good Taiwanese made stuff. I've got 2GB in my MacBook Pro and haven't had a single issue. --Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SD Cards
I think you're mistaken on Transcend -- good Taiwanese made stuff. I've got 2GB in my MacBook Pro and haven't had a single issue. --Guy On Jan 13, 2007, at 11:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:24:07 -0500 From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SD Cards To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed I consider Transcend a bargain band. But time will tell. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Metz SCA K110D
Well my SCA adapter showed up yesterday (along with my M 28/3.5 and my A 50/1.4 the day before) so I did a little shooting around the house yesterday in a target poor environment: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgfinley/sets/72157594463628609/ It will take some getting used to and, even with the adapter, it doesn't support TTL with my 50 MZ-5. Interestingly enough the mode I had the most pain-free time with was strobe mode, it seemed to be overexposing a lot in Auto and Manual so I'll have to fiddle with some settings some more and figure out what I was doing wrong as I'm certain it's operator error! I am really impressed with the A 50/1.4, what a great lens, looks a complete slouch look talented! --Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Metz SCA K110D
SCA 3702 which is the adapter for almost all Pentax cameras. According to Metz' chart the *istD and the *istDS do TTL but TTL *only* which seems odd. The *ist, *istDL, K100D, K110D are all listed as manual or automatic modes only. --Guy On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is normal it doesn't support TTL. The K110D, K100D, K10D, DL/DL2 do not support TTL and never will even if the flash/adapter combination does. Could you tell us the exact adapter model, some are known to cause exposure problems in A mode. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D and raw converters
Two words: Adobe Lightroom. Public Beta, free for the next few months, supports Pentax PEF files natively with no conversion needed which is a far better way to edit the file anyway. Three more words: Adobe Photoshop CS3. Public Beta, goes up to the release if you have CS2, 30 days if you don't. Also supports Pentax PEF files natively with no conversion. I did all my Christmas photos from my K110D using a Lightroom workflow and was amazed at how easy and what an actual *joy* it was to edit the photos. Sounds like about 1/10th of the work you're doing right now with converters and hacking files. Photos that needed more intense work than Lightroom could provide got sent over to Photoshop to be worked on and then seamlessly returned edited to the Lightroom workflow. When I was done it did a batch job from Lightroom resizing and converting to JPEG for me to upload to Flickr. All of my originals are preserved unaltered and unconverted, any conversions done in Lightroom are done so non-destructively and are completely reversible including reverting back to the original. The only thing close to this kind of functionality is Apple Aperture but I've been so pleased with Lightroom I don't think I'm going to go that route, may grab the demo and give it a try. In fact, it looks like Adobe bought out Pixmantec and they apparently had a lot of input on the development of Lightroom: http:// www.pixmantec.com/newsletter/19/index.html --Guy On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pancho Hasselbach wrote: Hi, I've got a new K100D. I installed the sillypix software on my PC. It's a real PITA. I asked myself why RSE (which I really like and got accostumed to) does not support K100D files, and searching the list I came across a thread, where Gonz wrote this post: http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg343701.html. Apparently, there is something in the binary file that compares an internal list of compatible camera models against the one stored in the PEF file. As Gonz stated, one possibility to achieve a match is editing the raw file. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PDML Digest, Vol 9, Issue 84
On Jan 4, 2007, at 5:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This all sounds like upgrading to WinXP, which I am definitely not planning. I like RSE, and am accostumed to work with it, and which works fine for me. It was a question of editing one file once, to make it continue working for me, no hassle. Since I am on Mac, um, no! You're still running Windows 98? Well, sooner or later I think you're going to have to move on because more and more programs are requiring Windows XP. Personally, buying a nice camera like a K100D or K110D and then using a clunky program to edit the photos is sort of like buying a new car and then going out and putting cheap tires on it -- what's the point? I know some folks are resistant to adopt new technologies sometimes (i.e. What I have works fine) but as someone who has used photo editing software going back a number of years, the vast improvements that are being made are worth the upgrades. As far as system requirements, etc, you'd have to check the Adobe Labs website (http:// labs.adobe.com) and see what they are, I'm not sure. Also, how fine is it working if you have to spend gobs of time trying to alter the files to get them to work? Sounds like it isn't working so fine to me. Of course, valuable knowledge of pixmantec has been bought by Adobe, so I'm sure these will be great programs. Pancho Well, what you might need to know is that pixmantec is not supporting RSE any longer, if you followed that link I sent you'd see where they are suggesting moving on to Lightroom. --Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Introduction
Hello all! Found this list after intensely studying Stan's Pentax page trying to figure out what in the world I was doing with lenses for my new baby. I learned on my dad's K1000 (more later) and after a hiatus until early adulthood I got back into photography but went Canon with an EOS-3 and a Tokina 28-80/2.8 as my mainstay lens and a couple of primes. I went broke feeding film into that camera so when digital started hitting it big I grabbed a Canon G3 and ditched my EOS system. I then had a Sigma SD-9 and then a Sony DMC-V1 that I went to the extent of getting a Metz 50 MZ-5 system for. The Sony has long since been wanting to be retired so I started looking at another bridge camera. That's when I saw reviews for the new Pentax K digitals. I had thought about an ist-D a bit back but never made the leap. I went and found the trusty K1000 and sure enough the M 50/2 and Takumar 135/2.8 were still with it. Not the best lenses in the world but hey, a start. When I saw these would work with the new digitals I made the leap and went for K110D deciding I really didn't need shake reduction. After much confusion and screwing up of my order I ended up getting the kit lens which isn't too bad but after doing my first Christmas photos in Lightroom and PS CS3 beta I saw just how many shots I was taking at 50 or 55mm. I was going to get an ultra-wide zoom but decided to get some manual primes instead given these results but I can't find an FA50 in stock anywhere with a UPC intact (with the Pentax rebates going on I wonder where those UPCs went?? h). After much debate, back and forth, etc, I picked up an A 50/1.4 from KEH and saw by complete accident an M 28/3.5 at Adorama and grabbed both along with the new Metz SCA adapter so hopefully I should be doing some decent flash work soon. I did Christmas completely in RAW with the kit lens, the M 50 and the Takumar and I was really pleased with how the shots came out aside from the obligatory tweaking I had to do in Lightroom and PS. After working with JPEGs for a long time since the SD-9 (which has a proprietary RAW) working in a RAW workflow is a godsend. It was actually a joy to work in Lightroom and then send images that needed more care over to PS if they needed it and then have Lightroom recognize the PS update and add that to the shoot. Adobe has been doing some great work there. So, I look forward to tips and suggestions, any thoughts on lens areas I may wish to fill in would be welcome. I'm considering holding out a few months until the new f2.8 zooms come out, the 17-50/2.8 likely being the prime target. My meager start is up at http://www.flickr.com/photos/wgfinley Thanks, Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Introduction
On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:43 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, W. Guy Finley wrote: Hello all! Found this list after intensely studying Stan's Pentax Welcome. Stan is great ;-) both along with the new Metz SCA adapter so hopefully I should be Not sure this will work with the K110D. Yeah, I checked with Metz' site before I purchased, it uses the same adapter the *ist D et al have been using, the K100D and K10D are supported as well. So, I look forward to tips and suggestions, any thoughts on lens areas I may wish to fill in would be welcome. So, you stopped film because of cost but ask *this list* for enablement suggestions. A-ha. How deep are your pockets? I joined the list with 2 lenses and have lost count of how many I have since bought, traded, kept, used... :-) Kostas LOL, very true! However, I remember shooting ten rolls in a weekend and bringing them down to the camera shop. I can fondly remember forking over $200 on several occasions for the 10 rolls to be developed, another 10 rolls of film and whatever other consumables I needed. Maybe I should have just had them develop without prints but I was young and stupid, what can I say. All I can say is thank God for digital, I can shoot to my heart's content and not worry about putting myself in the poor house. --Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Introduction
On Dec 29, 2006, at 9:06 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Quoting W. Guy Finley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: LOL, very true! However, I remember shooting ten rolls in a weekend and bringing them down to the camera shop. I can fondly remember forking over $200 on several occasions for the 10 rolls to be developed, another 10 rolls of film and whatever other consumables I needed. Maybe I should have just had them develop without prints but I was young and stupid, what can I say. All I can say is thank God for digital, I can shoot to my heart's content and not worry about putting myself in the poor house. LOL I switched to digital in 2001, and I AM in the poor house now. Dave Welcome BTW Well, I'm sure you have much cooler stuff in the poor house with you than you would if you were still shooting film! --Guy -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: The value of DP Review.
Oh man, that is priceless. I'm crying right now I'm laughing so hard, don't miss the Ricing your 50 portion near the end. LOL --Guy On Dec 29, 2006, at 5:01 PM, William Robb wrote: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029message=21437336 I just can't say enough about this thread. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Sigma 12-24
For an ultra wide zoom going from 12-24 I suppose its decent. It's pretty soft obviously... Looking at your shots it appears that F11 is significantly softer than F16, which is unacceptable IMO. The trees and foliage quickly become green mats rather than delineated leaves and twigs. Having to shoot at F16 to get fairly sharp pictures is not worth the price of this lens IMO. The 16-45 is cheaper and has a much more useful range. I thought this would be a nice focal length, but is clearly too difficult to produce to be of use to most people. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sigma 12-24 i've taken a few pictures now with my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 lens in Pentax mount and so far it seems to be a better one that the Sigma 15-30 i used to have. sharpness is better and there isn't any significant chromatic abberation. here is a selection of shots taken with it. these are lowest compression conversions from RAW as done by Photo Laboratory and average about 4 megabytes/shot. i made an exposure adjustment to one of the images, but otherwise are as shot with all default conversion options. flare is not good, but at least it's predictable when it will happen. unlike the Sigma 15-30, there is no chance of using any filter on the front lens cover ring. it vignettes noticeably until zoomed to at least the 20mm mark with just the ring attached. not being able to use a filter is limiting, but not as limiting as it could be. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/ as an aside, every time i use Pentax Photo Browser and Photo Laboratory, i tell myself never again. however, it's the only program that knows how to read the lens information from the EXIF. Herb
RE: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90)
Pål, The problem with these people who put down a lens like this, is that if it isn't tack sharp wide open they can't find a reason to like it... People spend too much time comparing F stops. Obviously the F4 on a 50mm and the F4 on a 300mm are two completely different things in terms of light transmission... The 43 may be a touch soft wide-open, but it has other qualities that allow it to shine, not to mention that it is tack sharp stopped down. My honest opinion is that people who put down a lens like this have opinions that aren't worth trusting -That Guy -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 9:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 43 Limited (WAS: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90) Rob wrote: The 43mm LTD is the only one of the series that I've owned and subsequently sold. IMHO it's surrounded by more hype than its performance deserves. It is small though and it performs far better than the similarly over-hyped M40/2.8. It is the sharpest lens I've ever used something that deserves quite a lot of hype in my opinion. Pål
RE: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90
The 43 is widely known to be soft wide-open -That Guy -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: 16-45 vs. 20-35 vs. 24-90 Interestingly - according to these tests FA* 85/1.4 is sharper at f1.4 than 43 Ltd. at f1.9... -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: PAW - Homage to WES
http://www.bluehorizon3d.com/explanation.jpg -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PAW - Homage to WES I don't quite 'get' walking down either. However, there are two possibilities which I can picture: Photog at top of stairs looking down at someone at the bottom of the stairs about to step onto them. Or Photog at the bottom of the stairs looking up at someone who has almost reached the top. Only the second of these really feels right in my minds eye though... I am probably wrong though! -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 July 2004 16:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW - Homage to WES Looked at it several more times. Maybe I'm too close to it, but I cannot see this figure walking down. The bend of the body, which is obvious to me, clearly indicates upward. I wonder what other people see. Shel From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~sbelinkoff/paw/homage.html Work in Progress Depending on how you look at it, the person could be walking up into the light or down into the darkness.
RE: Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
Its called sharpening, and you can do it Photoshop... Thats also, JPEG quality... If you're talking about RAW I can assure the istD records as much detail as the 10D, and with better color balance. So yeah, hands down, the istD is better... -That Guy -Original Message- From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander --- That Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Faster AF maybe, better image quality NO. -That Guy When you compare the same shot in a controlled situation, the 10D has image quality that is hands down better. See for yourself: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page16.asp Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: *istD vs. 10D via DPReview, was RE: Selling Pentax 35mm gear
QUALITY?? SHOOT RAW Stop comparing JPEGS and bitching about quality -That Guy -Original Message- From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *istD vs. 10D via DPReview, was RE: Selling Pentax 35mm gear --- Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm really interested in why such subtleties seem to carry such weight. Firstly the differences seem really minimal to me and are noted by the reviewer as such. Secondly in both comparative cases I prefer the Pentax image, I see more accurate colour, less noise in the areas of low detail and less sharpening artifacts. The only thing that really bothers me is the stepping visible in the blow-up of the crayons. I'm not trying to stick-up for the Pentax I'm just calling it as I see it purely from an image quality perspective. In what image quality areas do you see the other cameras being superior to the *ist D? The crayons bothers me as well. Just above, the Saturday on the watch is much more clearly rendered by the 10D. The metallic object shows harder clipping with the *istD. The third picture down from the top, the flowers and coins show more detail. These points are more than an issue of sharpening. The details are there and are simply clearer. Talking about noise, this is at ISO 200. The 10D can go lower. To answer someone else's post, I really don't care what Phil has to say. I'm evaluating the pictures with my own eyes. That's what counts to me. Period. As to why the subtleties carry such weight? Quality. I'm surprised that you would ask such a question Rob. I KNOW that you know the subtleties are what make a quality picture/print/enlargement. Otherwise, you wouldn't own the quality glass that you do. If you don't care about the subleties, send me those prime lenses you own and I'm get you a nice collection of Sigma consumer zooms. ; ) Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions
So when a lens is rebadged, is it that Nikon manufactures the lens using Tamrons specs, or that Nikon gets a bunch of blanks and writes Nikon on them?? -That Guy -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 7:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a $500 used Sigma 14/3.5 because I couldn't scrape together $1300 for a new Nikkor 14/2.8. That 14/2.8 Nikkor is actually a rebadged Tamron. Hmmm. Based on the specs it COULD be Actually, based on what I've heard from people at Nikon and Tamron... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Af speed of the *ist D
Multi point AF is better in low light. I have experienced the same, if you use center point you will get poor results in low light. -That GUy -Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 8:31 PM To: pdml Subject: RE: Af speed of the *ist D Low light autofocus on the *ist D sucks. It just sucks. For me, this is perhaps its most disappointing quality. I say this based on extensive use of the supposedly antiquated autofocus on the PZ-1p, which is far superior in low light. With the *ist D, I will just focus manually if the light is low. I use only the central autofocus point so I can control what the camera focuses on. The flash assist is only marginally useful. There are too many places where flash cannot be used. If I used it to focus when I am trying to get a portrait of one of our cats, the cat would be gone long before the shutter trips. The slowest cat is faster than Pentax autofocus. Joe
RE: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions
The viewfinder could be replaced by a tiny LCD viewfinder... Might not be the greatest thing to manual focus with but it would be better than using it like range-finder IMO. -That Guy -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions - Original Message - From: John Mustarde Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions Double Feh! I sure won't be ponying up my hard-earned bucks for any expensive new lens with this nice CA feature. As far as I'm concerned, the DA 14 is crapola just because of the color fringing. I thought the purpose of making a digital-specific lens would be to correct for the needs of digital sensors, which of course are known to be subject to chromatic aberrations. Or maybe I'm way off base, and the lens is fine but the sensor is crapola. In any event, I'm not buying a DA 14; even though I'm as entrenched in digital as anyone, and haven't got a fresh roll of film in the house and my film scanner is disconnected, even I would rather haul out the old PZ1p and M20/4 rather than take photos that look that bad. Maybe we will have to compromise and give up our reflex viewfinders to free up some design parameters to get rid of the problem too. William Robb
RE: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions
They could have gotten rid of it, if they had used ED elements. It's that simple, typically lenses with that type of glass cost a bit more though. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions Here's a question since not everyone has PS CS or other programs: Why can't these lenses be made so there's no or minimal CA? Seems to me that all the digi folks have gotta put up with this crap, and the solution offered is to go buy a $600.00 program to remove it in the editing process. Regular lenses pretty well dispensed with that years ago. Feh! Shel [Original Message] From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/27/2004 3:06:11 PM Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions have you tried a tool to remove the chromatic abberation. there is one in the Photoshop CS converter and there are other programs that have it as a built-in function like Picture Window Pro. Herb - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:29 PM Subject: Re: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions I do see some CA in the corners,
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
The only lens I said I had used in the first place was the SMC-F 50 1.7, and IMO it has superb bokeh. The best of all the lenses I own. Better even than my Tamron 90mm Macro. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 2:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? I guess I should lecture you a little more. Always nice to attend leatures when there is something to learn. First off, the bokeh on the 24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity. Completely disagree. There are time I like to shoot very chose to the subject for some interesting effect. The background will appear very out-of-focus. In situation like this, the bokeh shows, and ugly with the FA*24/2. I have seen many wide angle shots with similar style in Japanese magazines too so don't tell me it is a non-issue. Second, the 3 limited lenses are known for having relatively harsh bokeh even by Pentax standards due to the other areas they excel in, such as 3 dimensionality. It is unknown to me. FA31 FA77 have good bokeh though still have very slight bright-ring effect. Third, 3 of those lenses are telephotos, with the 100 being a Macro lens. Presumably it has at least decent bokeh. The only lens there that I would expect to have superb bokeh is the FA* 85 1.4. So you tell me, does it suck in this regard, or is it excellent??? To surprise you, I feel the FA*85/1.4 has the worst bokeh in this bunch. It excels on certain portrait, but I like the bokeh of FA77 better. From what I can see, the FA*85 has slightly stronger bright-ring bokeh than the FA77. Sometimes the backgrounds just appeared a little odd with the FA*85, but not with the FA77. But you are correct that the FA100/2.8 macro does have very nice bokeh. It is a nice lens for both macro portrait imho. Thanks for the extra lecture. It teaches me that you have never used most of these low quality Pentax lenses. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon and Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. -That Guy Alan Chan wrote: That raises another question. Are the bokeh and contrast of Pentax lenses really that good as some might suggested in general? I personally feel the bokeh of most Pentax lenses that I have used are okay, but not that great except maybe a few. Many have the bright-ring bokeh chatacteristics. Contax Zeiss lenses, in general, have better colour, contrast and bokeh imho. But then this is not a Contax list. :-)
RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
I guess I should lecture you a little more. First off, the bokeh on the 24mm is probably of little consequence since wide angle lenses are rarely used in situations where superb bokeh is a necessity. Second, the 3 limited lenses are known for having relatively harsh bokeh even by Pentax standards due to the other areas they excel in, such as 3 dimensionality. Third, 3 of those lenses are telephotos, with the 100 being a Macro lens. Presumably it has at least decent bokeh. The only lens there that I would expect to have superb bokeh is the FA* 85 1.4. So you tell me, does it suck in this regard, or is it excellent??? -That Guy -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued? Canon Sigma have more crappy bokeh do not make Pentax good, but relatively better only. But thanks for lecture. I feel sorry for myself that I can only afford so few and so low end non-finest Pentax lenses like FA*24/2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, FA*85/1.4, FA100/2.8, FA*200/2.8, F*300/4.5. I should be ashame of myself. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan I have a Tamron 90mm SP AF lens that is widely regarded as having some of the best bokeh ever, some have said better than comparable Leica primes. On close comparisons I found that my Pentax SMC-F 50 1.7 has equal bokeh, seems to be slightly finer even. We can talk all day, but I've seen the goods. Sure my old Takumar 200 lens occasionally rendered out of focus highlights with hard edges, but in general that didn't happen. That lens is also 40 years old and a telephoto. I've seen plenty of crappy Bokehs from Canon and Sigma, which is more along the lines of whom Pentax competes with. If you haven't actually used Pentax's finest, then there is no sense in comparing Pentax to a fine quality manufacturer like Zeiss. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: *ist D survey
5688*** Early January 2004. -Original Message- From: Jan van Wijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 12:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D survey Hi Dario, On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:40:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00), Christian wrote: In my effort of understanding (guessing?) something better about the *ist D, I'll ask all *ist D owners to post the main part of the serial No. of the camera they own, together with date of purchase. The two cameras I used and tested are both 5646*** (tested October 2003). Mine is 5512*** (bought April 2004), Mine is 5688* bought in Januari 2004 Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
RE: IS in *istD
It's rather amazing how much you CAN'T do to correct flaws in a photographic image by computer. Unsharp mask, for example, does not in fact correct for bad focus--it just compensates for it by increasing local contrast. If an image is out of focus, data is lost, and cannot be recovered by any sort of math...If in an image is sharp, yet distorted mildly by pincushion or the like, there is enough data in the image to correct the image and suffer little or no quality loss. -That Guy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IS in *istD From: Nick Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any reason IS couldn't be implemented in software? You could produce a 5MP image from a 6MP sensor by using the extra pixels to shift the image. You'd need to measure the movement of the camera, which could be done using a sensor of some sort in the body, or could conceivably be done by measuring the movement of the image on the CCD. This could mean that IS could be added to the *istD by a firmware upgrade. This is all speculation, and I could be talking rubbish. Any comments? I doubt you could get fast enough response from the computerized parts of current DSLRs. You could more reasonably implement panorama-tools-like mathematical correction of lens flaws in firmware too, but apparently that is still too difficult an operation to get the cameras to do on the fly. My limited understanding of IS suggests that you will get much better results by implementing the stabilizing in the optical path rather than at the film plane whether you are moving the film plane mechanically or electronically. It's rather amazing how much you CAN'T do to correct flaws in a photographic image by computer. Unsharp mask, for example, does not in fact correct for bad focus--it just compensates for it by increasing local contrast. DJE
RE: IS in *istD
It only works to a point Alan. If something is too far out of focus, the details are quite simply GONE, you may return the shape of some objects, but surface details that would make it a printable photograph will be completely and utterly lost... You can return some larger details in slightly out of focus imagery, but even then, if too much data is lost due to poor focus, IT CANNOT BE MAGICALLY RECONSTITUTED... Even if you know exactly how a lens blurs an image, and the subject distance, you cannot take a picture that is out of focus beyond a certain point and get any details back You just can't. I am familiar with deconvolution, I've heard of it being used to enhance video on security tapes... In slightly blurred images, deconvolution works very well, it is much better than unsharpen mask for recovering slightly blurred photos. But like I said, you aren't going to magically reconstitute lost data no matter what. If you can take a severely blurred photo and reconstitute the shapes and details I will eat my words, but until then I stand by my original statement. When things are out of focus, light rays overlap, the first things to overlap are details, once the details overlap, they're essentially gone. In a badly blurred image at any pixel site you've got light from neighboring details intersecting with light from other neighboring details and the end result is a color totally different from what should be there, and only god knows what combination of scattered light rays created that color. -That Guy -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 7:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IS in *istD shows how much you know about deconvolution. Herb - Original Message - From: That Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: RE: IS in *istD If an image is out of focus, data is lost, and cannot be recovered by any sort of math...If in an image is sharp, yet distorted mildly by pincushion or the like, there is enough data in the image to correct the image and suffer little or no quality loss.
RE: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn
You should be, I already called my lawyer about William Robbs little threats to do bodily harm for advice, I might as well send him these emails you keep harassing me with. -Shawn -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn Oooo. Now I'm ~really~ scared... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! -frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: That Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:21:32 -0400 Frank, False accusations are also a criminal act Frank, the more you talk the more the scales tilt. -That Guy _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Trolls how-to
Of course it was a rude, thoughtless act designed solely to ruffle feathers and create a stir. I mean clearly, this is the case, it was not simply a mistake on the part of the author, no way, no how. Simply not the case at all. In fact, you can clearly see in the following example that the two names Frantisek, and Frank, bear absolutely no similarities, this is true despite the fact that these name are actually feminine and masculine forms of each other... DESPITE that, it is clear they bear no resemblance, physically, or in terms of pronunciation. The chances of miss-writing one as the other are slim to none, bordering on infinitesimally small, tiny, percentages well below 1, and in fact quite close to 0. Hence I presume that no way on this earth did our dear fellow Antonio make a simple mistake of language, in fact, this is quite clearly a rip on BOTH Frank AND Frantisek, as it seeks to call Frantisek a man, and Frank a woman, a scenario that is wholly untrue, being without proof or basis in reality... In conclusion, I must support Frank in his assertions, however, I must stress, that the previous paragraph written by my, was largely tongue in cheek, and hence open to the interpretations that implies... -That Guy -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 10:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Trolls how-to Perhaps if Antonio showed enough respect to actually get the ~name right~ of the person he is responding to, folks around here might show him a bit of respect, too. Just to set the record straight, Frantisek wrote the intial post, not me. By referring to him as Frank, I don't know if Antonio thought I was the initial author, or if he's just being humourous or simply rude or thoughtless in mis-naming Frantisek. regards, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Trolls how-to Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:09:31 -0400 Antonio, If you had been around longer you would know how wrong you are. There's no old boy network here. But there is a group of friends who have learned to treat each other with respect. We value that highly and do our best to convince others that it's the best way. Paul On Jun 13, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Antonio Aparicio wrote: Frank, withh respect If you killfield Shawn some time ago and have not followed the thread, you cannot realistically have any idea of what you are talking about. My view on all of this is that there seems to be some form of old boy network on this list, and if you disagree with one of the oldies you get attacked by the others. Things may have got out of hand, and I certainly do not condone hi-jacking peoples ID's, but I think that all those who have participated in the various exchanges need to take responsability for their role - to single out one individual and ban them just seems very wrong. Anyway, thats my .02 pence. Antonio On 14 Jun 2004, at 00:33, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: I have not been following the thread, having that individual killfiled already, long time ago. Thus I cannot much tell if the abuse reports are real, extreme or exagerrated even a little. I am seeing just the replies and his quoted text, somtimes. But if anybody feels there is net abuse going on, here is what you can do: 00) do not reply to the stupid messages. It just fuels the flame war. See Godwin's law. Ignoring idiots is the best way to make them shut up. 0) contact the list owner. I do not know if anybody has been ever blacklisted from the PDML, as we were lucky we haven't got our share of trolls. 1) contact him personally. Just look on his website (strip the string before @ and add www), there is contact information. 2) complain to his ISP. You can use WHOIS to find out all sort of things about him. By this form of abuse, he is certainly breaching both his ISP and mailservice useragreements, by abusive behaviour on the net. He could get his account suspended for this. Just enter the domain name into the below form: One of the many online whois forms is here http://centralops.net/samples/AutoWhois.vbs.asp You can see his webhosting service, which might or might not provide his email address as well. And you can see the other contact mailaddress. I do not know which one he used to post to PDML. You can of course do the above points in any order deemed fit. There are members more knowledgable in using ways of the web than me who can correct me probably if I got something wrong here. fra _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn
Frank, False accusations are also a criminal act Frank, the more you talk the more the scales tilt. -That Guy -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 11:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn Paul, It seems that at least 1/2 of my posts aren't making it to the list (but I suspect it's hotmail's fault, not the lists). Anyway, I posted a very similar idea to yours. If it's not illegal to assume someone else's identity, it should be. I know it's illegal if it's done for personal gain (ie: fraud). In this case it doesn't appear to be personal gain, but it must be defamatory in some way. After all, it's being done to besmirch the real DagT's character. If that's not libelous, I don't know what is. And, certainly, it's not a matter of censorship. Censorship is about suppressing ideas. This is about preventing someone from harming the reputation of another. This is about an innocent person being intimidated and not being able to enjoy the freedom to post on this list due to the inconsiderate and possibly criminal actions of another. The perpetrator should be shut down. I'm sure that Doug's working on it as we speak. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAW: Venus - of course - and Shawn Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:17:51 -0400 I have never advocated censorship of the list, but I believe that misrepresenting yourself as someone else should be grounds for banishment. In fact, it may be criminal behavior. It is simply a matter of going too far. Paul On Jun 13, 2004, at 5:13 PM, Dag T wrote: Thanks, to you and all the rest of you who have taken the time to comment. Because of Shawns use of my email address I will be quite for a while. With the kids I don´t have much time anyway. But to those who are uncertain of what was me, I never use a space between the g and the T in the signature. DagT PS: Yes, I´m sorry, I do have a problem with Neanderthal brutes using height and weight to support the arguments, so I guess it is partially my own fault. På 11. jun. 2004 kl. 22.06 skrev Steve Desjardins: Cleverly done. That aside, it's actually a pretty striking photo. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that happening! Actually, Brad, I still love you down inside, I just wish you'd stop being so purposely obnoxious. That is hardly something I'm doing at all gfen. That said, I'll be glad to add prime lens to the list of phrases I added into the FAQ awhile back. However, I'm afraid you'll forever have to deal with camera people of all brands referring to fixed-focal-length lenses as prime lenses. For years, I tried to paitently explain to people that what they called industrial music was not, in fact, industrial music because it wasn't released on a given record label. It was a losing fight, eventually I gave up, referred to it by a more correct pigeon hole when I said something, and moved on. Eventually, your prime-versus-fixed-focal-length crusade will reach this point, as well. And, finally, I don't care how advanced the world becomes, a prime lens (thhpt!) will always be marginally better than a zoom lens based on the sheer physics of it.. Less glass which can be specifically corrected for a given length that doesn't need to be optimized for a range of lengths. Will the difference be noticiable by mortal humans? Probably not, though. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Brad, That is really the problem. You have nothing to compare it with. Unless your techs have shooting experience with the lens, they have the same problem. If they give you any answer other than I don't know (assuming they don't use the lens in question), that should give you a lot of pause in accepting their credibility on other issues as well. Same goes for your Instructor. Well, as I said later, I have a zoom to shoot at ~77mm. You don't necessarily have to shoot the lens to have a good informed opinion of it. Techs of different types know all sorts of tidbit of information that can be made into an informed opinion. Being an authority/expert can be intoxicating, and a common sign of this intoxication is the willingness to act as an authority/expert even when straying into unfamiliar territory. It's no sin, it's just human nature. No kidding, that is a epidemic here. My own experience with the 77/1.8 is that it is different than my other good lenses (and I have good lenses). http://pug.komkon.org/02jan/dad.html is one shot taken with the 77/1.8, even if no one else can tell a difference between that an another lens, I can. I use most of my lenses quite regularly and in similar circumstances. I don't get that result from them when I use them the same way. Looking through the viewfinder with the 77/1.8 is also a slightly different experience from doing that with my other good lenses. I hope this doesn't sound like I worship the 77/1.8, because I don't--its focal length isn't a great one for me. If I could get the same results from my M135/3.5 or my FA 35/2 I'd ecstatic, but I don't---and I still love them. Doesn't keep me from recognizing a difference, though. Well, you can look back, but I'm pretty sure I never said it didn't take good pictures, in fact, I think I said it probably took good or superb pictures (that's when I was talking optics, not build quality) Guess I'm starting to ramble. Rambling is always good! Hope that makes sense, It did. Dan Scott Brad
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
As well, you drive around in a Jag enough and it'll become as dull as a Chevy. If many Russians were to try out a Chevy instead of an old beat up Lada, they'd have the same feelings you did with the Jag. Brad. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 You are mixing up the joy of using it, the feel the fine tuning and the beauty with the end result— getting from point A to point B. I doubt anyone at point B could tell if you arrived in a Jag vs a Chevy. In a message dated 11/21/02 11:27:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If something is truly high quality, or really special, the difference between it, and the plebian is painfully obvious. William Robb
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Well, I haven't read the posts that have flooded in the past 30-60mins or so, but am I good at motivating the list, even with disagreements and all that, or what? I'll take Cdn money orders as 'gifts' for stimulating conversation on the list, feel free to contact me off-list (as some have) and I can give you the mailing address vbg Anyhow, hope there isn't too much mail to handle, as I'm going out to see some friends (one is to practice interior decorating shots), watch some varsity hockey, maybe a major-junior A game later and have some brews, and I'll have my camera gear, so while you all discuss equipment and such, I'll be out using mine! Ok, check back in with you all later on, don't give me too much to respond to! ;-) How about those Mazda commercials? 'zoom zoom' :) (For the record, I'll take an old perfect condition Corvette or a brand new one over any Porsche or Jag :)) Almost all in good fun and discussion (even though some of you can be darned stubborn!!! (forgivable) Regards, Brad!
Re: flash cord F5P or F5PL
Hey Alan, Don't forget you need the Hot Shoe Adaptor FG too. The problem is, F5P is rather short while F5PL is very very long and not suitable for outdoor IMO. A tough choice. Rather like the cable releases for the MZ-S. The 1.5ft CS-105 or the 10 foot CS-130. Middle of the road would be perfect. Brad regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: No Subject
Well, it's too bad I wouldn't find Limited stocked in the city or else I could at the very least go try one out, see what all the fuss is aboot! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: No Subject Brad, Imagine how expensive they would be if they were made of steel. You're seeing all these expensive plastic lenses because that's what they are making these days. I don't think it's the plastic that is expensive, it's the lenses and the little motors and stuff in them that make them autofocus... Vic PS. The limiteds are actually a good comparison. They are outrageously expensive because they combine the mechanics of autofocus lenses (which is not cheap) with the build quality of the classic manual focus lenses. That comes at a dear price and one that few of us choose to pay. So, instead, they build less expensive plastic autofocus lenses. Don't get me wrong, I like my plastic autofocus lenses but I love my steel, brass manual focus lenses... In a message dated 11/19/02 7:27:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. I happened to see an add in a flyer by Henry's (Toronto boys shall know of) of a 'pro' Canon USM this that the other 16-36mm f-something, and for a cheap plastic as you say, it was $2700Cdn. Maybe you're made of money William Robb raising goats on the flatlands, but that seemed to be pretty pricey to me. It was plastic, definitely not cheap! I been seeing a lot of very pricey and 'supposedly' very good lenses from other brands, and a lot of them are plastic too. Oh and please do not mention Limiteds, that's getting old on me.
OT: Re: Lens manufacturers
Hey Kevin, Suddenly and investment of this magnitude lessens somewhat. Certainly a new outfit of another make would be cheaper. But if I applied that theory to my car, I would be driving a cheap Japanese import. It would still get me from A to B. But I prefer the added reliability, familiarity and comfort of something a little more expensive. My Toyota RAV4 is anything but cheap! Indoor fabrics are ugly, but the problems stop there ;-) Here they are a pricey car brand. Better than American? (I'm not) After experience in a lot of these cars, I say import is far more reliable than any (well, strict GM cars) American I/we have had. I'm a devote fundamentalistic GM/American car fan turned completely around and saw past the fundamentalist haze and noticed how darned nice some other cars were! Kind regards Kevin Brad
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
Yup, indeed I did. Meant what I said, did what I meant. I had my reasons. I don't see the need to explain them to you however. You had to reply, it was on the list, that's fine, that's why it was there. It was public but related to him only. The rest of your comments are subjective and repetitive, I have another view. To each his own and so forth. I have my mysteries, and you have yours 'gfen'. Thanks for the email, Brad - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas And one posted out to the list when you event MEANT it to be private (first line, to william robb and no one else). However, you couldn't either take it off list or bite it back, but you had to do it openly for some reason?
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
And here I was thinking I was the only vain person. Beauty marks are vanity! I thought it was 'who cares how it looks, it's how it works and the person behind it' So 'brassing' aka plain old wear. Or marking up plastic, doing whatever, doesn't matter. Anyhow, I don't keep the cameras long enough anyhow to care how they look used. Another email from the other side, who cares little of the minor vocal list tow the line or we'll insult ya group, but represents the view of 80% of list ppl ;-) I'm a crusader, like the guys who ran around and got killed because the earth moved around the sun, not the other way around. Folks get so mad, you upset me, I kill you for radical and non-conforming. Of course we are talking Japanese products here. Whoa Nelly!?! Who let the 's**t' fly?! Brad g - Original Message - From: Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas -- -Original Message- -- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:32 AM -- -- Maybe the guys who make this stuff know something we don't? -- -- Sure they do, we just don't know what. :) -- -- Plastic cameras don't get beauty marks. They start out ugly, and -- as time goes by, they get uglier. -- -- I too think plastic bodies (lenses or cameras) tend to look -- ugly as they -- aged. But that's rather subjective. -- -- regards, -- Alan Chan -- -- Alan, My MZ-5, purchased used, has some wear marks that are hard to describe. I would think it would be hard for someone to comment that the 'brassing' looks good. Definitely not as nice looking as the wear (brassing) on my metal cameras. And yes, even my MZ-S has wear marks on it - definitely not as noticeable just slightly lighter coloration. Trying not to displace TV's standard on this list, César Panama City, Florida in Dayton, Ohio
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Rob, a good fair email. No attacks or insults. You disagreed a lot. Well that's all fine with me, I don't expect everyone to say 'Ya, you're right'. If someone can post in a friendly adversarial manner (that make sense?) I like that. It's only the emails that some send that tell you how bad you are and how good they are and toss in little insults or similar, those are bad. I wish I had the time to address your email more on a point by point basis. Maybe later tonight, little busy now. I have been told that the Ltds. are more expensive, not because they are so superior in build and optics (but not saying they aren't) but that they are for a select few, like some here, and thus command a far higher price, as they are a 'different' lens, so to speak. Just this quickly: No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. I meant the reasons why they are what they are, you'd point to this and that with build, and this and that with optics. That's the 'couple dozen' things. Hope that clears that up. If I get a chance to try a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found in the bottom of a box). Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its cover? This part I'm lost on. I have not a clue as to whether that camera is good or bad in it's day or now, just that the limited lens looks very similar to the lens on it. Does this help? If not, explain further please! Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Can I get into this without any trouble? non cut and paste area Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. No trouble from me (hopefully). Don't worry about my toes, but I have to say, the difference between the 24-90 and the 77 ltd as I said is clearly visible under even small enlargements. Heck I can see it on 6*4s! You can see every eyelash and hair on someone's face. Its not being extreme critical, it hits you like a truck its so obvious. Likewise with the 24, when you can see rocks in the sea below some cliffs with that, but with another lens its just a blur on the sealine its pretty obvious. The first time you see it REALLY awakens you, and you re-evaluate all your kit. I dont care about what terminology you wish to use, and pride doesn't come into it. I have always loved zooms and to this day they are still my most used lenses. Since the 24-90 first came out in the UK it has been my number 1 lens and takes between half and 2/3rds of my photos. Until may(ish) of this year the only prime I had was an old Centon 500mm mirror which hardly holds any pride for me. When I got the 77ltd I was absolutely gobsmacked. That's not to say I now look down on my zooms, and I still use the 24-90 and my Sigma 17-35 for much of my shooting as it means I don't have to keep changing lenses. However when I get the chance and can cope with the discipline, I will use the 24 and 77 as much as possible as they REALLY are in another league. Now this may be partly due to the fact that the primes I have chosen are top of the league and I have no doubt that many of the standard primes wouldn't hold as much appeal for me. Have I used all of these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. Know what I mean? If/when you use the 77 you will change your view - guaranteed. As I said above its not a question of being critical - when you see the difference you will be hit by it. So there is that point and then the Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I have never owned one or tried one. For myself, it not blind love or ego love or status love. I don't have and am not interested in the 31 or 43 as I don't shoot much at those lengths. They are not wide enough for most of my landscapes and not long enough for my portraits. When I used a zoom, I found I wanted my portaits around 70-90, so I don't care about the
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Despite the remarks against the post, it was a very good common sense post *and* a nice fresh approach in an email that none of us has come up with to date. Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:16 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 I fear that some new photographer is going to read this discussion and think that if they don't have a ltd lens, a prime lens of every focal length, FA* lenses ... they can never hope to get good pictures. I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... 1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? 2) You, I and 90 per cent of the people on this list could not tell the difference between a picture taken with the worst Pentax lens and the best when viewing a 4X6 inch print. That figure goes to 95 percent if the picture is viewed on the Web and 100 per cent if proper technique is not used. Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best Pentax lens with 4x6 prints? Have you actually tried it? 3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and sometimes better than Pentax lenses. Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. 4) People who own a particular lens will rarely speak poorly about it. The amount of praise is directly related to how much they paid for it. I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. Horrible flare control and materials. I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has nothing special optically. I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in no time. I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this conclusion? 6) People who talk ad-nauseum about lenses (And we all fall into this at times) are more likely to be collectors rather than shooters. Proof? 7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. Photographers collectors have different objectives. Better? What do you mean exactly? 8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much as shooters. Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you don't know many list members here. 9) The best lenses are the ones you use. That could means many things. 10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . I doubt it. 11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very expensive lenses. Sharpness is not everything. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Bwhahaha! Love the email. You know, children tend to be cruel, and I got all sorts of variations on my name as a kid, now, my friends call me all sorts of even worse ones. You picked one used before here, not very original and not the best one if you want to act like a child. Hey Dodo Prime also means: YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness So where did you look that up William? I myself used a rather heavy Oxford Thesaurus, larger than most big dictionaries. We know Oxford is where it's at if you using real English English. I wonder, what did you leave out of yours? I did not edit mine at all, it was there, word for word, thesaurus to mail. Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. Uhh...right, so because of that, it must be true. So during WWII the major of German people were correct in their support and action towards other minority or disabled people? Retarded people are now referred to as challenged, though they used to get the label dodo. William, really, look at the FAQ, go to a government website, or the UN site, or any civil and human rights website. You should know better, but perhaps you don't, but the disabled persons you mentioned, officially (for the Canada 2001 Summer Games) are wrong. As a volunteer for the event, she was given words not to use when addressing disabled persons, and both were not to be said or tolerated. I bet I know what you call African-Americans to your buddies. Herb was an angel compared to you. In photography, try and be a little more open-minded and less rigid. In life, please seek to reform your poor attitude, and try and be a little more sensitive to others, and practice toleration. I really hope no one on this list that has a child with developmental difficulties, that's something they shouldn't see or hear at any time or place. Brad. Hey Robb, Hey Dodo Prime also means: YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness I see you in there somewhere, after adolescence, but before puberty. Just an observation from someone who knows goats. Like I said, it's just a word that got applied to a specific lens type. Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. A prime lens will meet the narrow minded criteria you have selected as the one true meaning of the word far more often than any other lens type (I guess that would be zoom, but could also be varifocal, or even convertable). Why would the term get changed? Its just a word. Perhaps you are right, sometimes we arbitrarily start to use new words to describe the same old thing. Retarded people are now referred to as challenged, though they used to get the label dodo. Cheers William Robb
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
- Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:38 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas Brad Dobo schrieb: BTW: The optics of the FA*24/f2 gets verdict of 8.8 for optics and 9.0 (out of 10) for mechanics, whereas the FA20-35 gets 9.6 for optics and 9.0 for mechanics. *I think it is ridiculous to put these two lenses in the same league meachnically. My conclusion is that Fotomagazin verdicts and supers (the FA20-35 got one, the FA*24/f2 did not) are very questionable.** The curves themselves tell more.. * are mine. Mechanically? Explain this? One will break the other won't? High-tech plastics and metal components on one are worst than another? I'm lost. Perhaps I don't know what 'mechanics' means in respect to a lens. Mechanics here means build quality, play, robustness, smoothness of focusing etc While the (mostly metal, heavy) FA*24/f2 may not have the very best build quality, I consider it to be much more solid than the FA20-35/f4 which features no high tech material but just just cheap and lightweight platic. When in the shop I had the opportunity to buy one or the other, the better build quality of the 24 convinced me. Arnold Ok, well, the FA20-35/f4 has solid mechanics then. It has 'high tech' materials. Everyone has said similar, and I've used it. Cheap and lightweight plastic? HAR. Old-fashioned view. There is nothing cheap about the plastics used nowadays. There's more RD money in strong plastics than metal. Lightweight. I hope so, who wants a heavy lens when you can have the same thing lighter? No balance arguments, not at lenses this size. I guess carbon-tripods are cheap and lightweight too, it's only carbon, not metal, and it's light. No, that arguement doesn't work does it?
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Both lenses passed the looks test. 28-105 looks good on a MZ-5n, 24-90 looks good on an MZ-S. That's all there is to it! I found that. The SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] in silver, looked great on the MZ-5n and not great on my MZ-S. And the rest of what Wendy said was true about the 24-90. But back to the other... Terrible to focus manually, and it was easier to 'zoom' by just pushing or pulling out the barrel instead of the zoom ring, it was sloppy that way...heh...poor mechanics? g
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:02 PM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas Pentax Guy wrote: A disposable in the hands of a good professional beats everyone here with all the best paint, metal and glass in the world. There are some good professionals here. Thus your statement is incongruous. Pentax Professionals? I thought Pentax wasn't professional in anything? I've seen that posted many a time. I sell the odd photo here and there, by some definitions, I'm a professional? HAR! My photos are good, but I'm far from 'good' There is nothing out of place or absurd about that comment. I don't want to put down anyone that makes money or a living using Pentax, do so and more power to you, but they are few and far between. 'Good' is also a word that can be interpreted quite differently. You have taken a very narrow view of 'good professionals' Paul.
Re: Re[2]: we're back
Ok, time to show my ignorance. This 'Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weedend'. What is it? Something grand or an inside joke around here? I've been hearing about tours and such and am even thinking about looking to be a free assistant to any lowly professional photographer in the city. Why don't I type these things in for search on the internet, I don't know, lazy I guess, then again, typing all this to get the same information is rather silly. Brad - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:37 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: we're back You are welcome back. However, for penance, you must attend the Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weekend next June. Bill Okay, seems like a good time to come back. That is, if you'll have me... Cotty
Is there a Pentax Future?
I was in Dortmund last week. The two major department stores Karstadt and Saturn no longer sell Pentax. Also in two of three photo shops there was no more Pentax gear at stock. I talked to two shop assistants and they told me, that the SLR sales have dropped so dramatically that they have reduced their product range to the two big ones (Nikon and Canon). This seems to confirm the descent of conventional SLR cameras. On the other hand this makes niche products more promising. Hard to say... Lots of stores here don't handle Pentax at all (some never, some not anymore they just don't sell). For this to occur in what is supposed to be Pentax's market (Europe and such), makes me wonder. How many camera companies have come and gone since Pentax has been around? At Dave's Camera Repair shop is a beautiful museum of great cameras long gone. Dare we count the brands? Nothing lasts forever, is Pentax winding down? This new age is different from the past, small stores close to bigger ones, large once family owned businesses (Eaton's in Canada, to name just one of many) have gone. Whatever happened recently to all those little computer stores, or all those 'brand clone' computers? Big Box, mega companies. Does Pentax fit the model in the camera world? New models and a DSLR as death throws?sp? and last ditch efforts? We have rumours, little facts. What is Pentax's status in Japan? Won't change my stance on Pentax, love the stuff, and will use it until I can't buy a roll for less than $100 :) Then go digital, with, well, hopefully Pentax and K mount. All this is a valid question. Anyone here fear this? They seem like a 'loss leader' type in the industry and am I wrong with them being a still distant 4th? When will they publish some new material for lens, accessories, and such? Why aren't they? And what's with the lack of ads? Is Asahi Optical Co. on it's last leg? Could this be THE END? (sorry, dry humour there) They've had once heck of a run Or is North America a pain with trading, shipping, duties and taxes and laws? Will NA just be cut out? Please, this is real stuff, real questions. I've stated I love my stuff and will continue to use it. But no one has ever raised the question but loves to speculate on everything else. So I'm tossing it out. Be open minded. Since we've all gone through withdrawal when the board was down, this topic may light the fires. Brad
Used gear and stuff
You know, I hate having not enough money to spend freely on equipment, such interesting and great stuff here, at good prices too :(( I didn't know there was a SMCP-F Zoom 24-50mm f/4. I thought I knew most of the current or semi-current lenses, this one is new to me. Anyone want to donate their equipment to a good cause? (me :)) Now, not related exactly, but can anyone tell me, if I'm assuming correctly why the Pentax teleconverters (not the AF 1.7x) do not support AF? Is that true? Are there some around, or third-party ones? Brad. - Original Message - From: Lindamood, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:04 AM Subject: FS: Pentax SMC 24mm and SMC-F 24-50mm Excellent condition Pentax SMC-F 24-50 f4.0 Zoom Lens. Like my SMC 24mm f2.8 for sale now also, this is in terrific condition. Constant f4 aperture of this model is convenient for flash use. I have priced this to sell. Gotta move some gear. Pentax SMC 24mm f2.8. This is in unused perfect mint condition, no problems whatsoever, with hard case. Also priced to mve.
Pentax Posters
Hey folks, Anyone have a link or links of the poster? The bigger the better, wanna show it to someone without having to take mine out of the tube until it's mounted. Thanks, carry on, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: great body and performance, shame about the back cover
- Original Message - From: Andrea Rocca [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: MZ-S: great body and performance, shame about the back cover . The back cover of the MZ-S is of the same quality of those found on £ 200 entry-level slrs. Its completely made of lightweight plastic, including the hook of the lock. The corresponding hook on the body is also made of plastic, whereas the back plates of other upper range cameras have rock solid components, often with a double locking mechanism to prevent accidental opening and ensure that if the camera is dropped, the back will not open and fog the film - which is the worst that could happen to a working photographer. I suppose that for general use it does the job, allthough it still feels flimsy (it clicks and creeks slightly when squeezed) for a £700 camera. I wonder if Pentax have a Nikon or Canon saboteur in their design team :-), - and I reckon that they should address this issue by bringing out an alternative pro back, made of metal or and without the date function, because, again IMHO, the present back plate disqualifies the camera from the slr upper echelons - which, considering how good the rest is, is silly. Andrea London, UK. Ya, I love my to pieces, but the back cover was a disappoint the moment I saw it. My MZ-5n QD cover with an AF button. Weak, doesn't seem to fit the rest of the camera. As well, while it's a very rare time I use the date feature, but I thought perhaps they'd update it a bit, it's exactly the same as every other, would have liked to see something along the lines of what Nikon or Canon has. Brad
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but did you read the careful comments in the release, time for this, that, or read between the lines, 'It may not work out and we have discontinued further development [until cheap full-frame sensors are well established]' Don't laugh too hard, they made a big deal the last time toojust because it was an AP article doesn't mean it's a done deal. Just humour me, put those dying for this DSLR, what *if* it doesn't materialize? Brad - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Assuming I did not misunderstand what he was trying to hint at, I could see where the styling cues of the new DSLR could be derived from the Limited lenses so that they look JUST RIGHT on this body. Usual disclaimers and all that ... Michel wonder if that means a chrome body like the silver MZ-S. Herb
Re: Optio 330GS, slave flash, messing around
While I only have the lowly Optio 230, same goes, great value and fun! - Original Message - From: Tim S Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:41 PM Subject: Optio 330GS, slave flash, messing around Just messing around tonight with my 330GS and a cheap pocket slave flash, discovered that the trick to using it is to activate red-eye mode then pull the slave out of pocket after the first flash (assistant required if trying this on a distant subject). Had some reasonable results, shows the insufficiency of the built in unit. This is my fave shot though - MZ50 is on the kitchen countertop, Optio set to -2.0 comp, slave flash is dropped inside a red plastic drinks cup to the right of the MZ50. http://www.timkemp.karoo.net/mz50.jpg I like the 330GS, great value. And fun. ICQ 51280452 MSN Messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan
That's all quite interesting. Will have to see what Pentax does with it. The MZ-5n is/was a fine camera, got one myself. If they are keeping the MZ line to some degree, perhaps some added features but keep that classy looking MZ-5n style? Keep it affordable. Really, I think Pentax's larger problem is advertising, at least in North American. I'm disgusted about the pitiful display in a dirty counter beside the junk used they have Pentax placed. Without any knowledge, like they didn't know Nikon and Canon were leaders, and no sales person prodding them, they'd never pick up a Pentax even to look, it is that bad. Now, my shop is one isolated place, but there is still a lack of knowledge of Pentax in NA. I've spoken with Pentax Canada about my store, they *may* send in a Rep to shake things up. If so, they'll have a better display, or they'll say (*## you Pentax, you don't generate sales for us anyhow, we'll stick to the top three. Bad? From my viewpoint yes, it's my place, they are good. But with no Pentax, there's no me. As for everyone else, well, it probably won't hurt the stores sales a bit, and perhaps it better to have no display than a very crappy one that doesn't do Pentax any justice. Whoa, a bit side-tracked, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Artur Ledóchowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who decides these things, btw? Is this something the manufacturer sets up or what? These things are decided by the market or to be more precise - by two factors: first - something known as the public opinion, second - by the mass media (mostly the photo magazines). The market is all about the competition and it's obvious that the customer compare the cameras, that are of similar specifications. The magazines do the same. One can complain about how more or less objective various tests are but cannot deny the fact that they shape the customers' opinions. So no producer can ignore these factors unless wants to be out of the competition (which actually happened to Pentax to some degree:)). Mind that I wrote the MZ-5n/3 is CONSIDERED to be a rival:)) But don't you think the advanced amateurs need some fresh air from Pentax?:) MZ-S is not the least expensive beast and I know there is a need for a camera that would be as simple yet advanced and affordable - just as the MZ-5n/3 was for recent years. All above is of course IMHO:)) Regards Artur
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hey Dan, Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so). Spill yer guts Dan ;-) Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens, because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version. Putting a UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and with the SMC is not needed. In fact, you would just degrade the image, and what am image that lens can make! Use it as is and enjoy the view, so to speak ;-) Brad. They are wrong. It does need a hood. Dan Scott
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
heh...for those with the screw mount lenses and perhaps cameras to go with them, using your example, we could call them 'screwed' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. K-Mounters is even better. Debra Wilborn wrote: (snip) Hmm, I'm definately liking K-Mounties. I need to find a red coat and a horse.
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Yep, no doubt the same, no 31L. Where are you located Herb? Is this just Canada or everywhere? Brad - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I actually do remember us having this conversation. What a mind! Anyhow, I'm just looking now and I don't see a date at all. Since it's missing a Macro and the FA 24-90mm we know it isn't up to date. Nice to have one that was though eh? Brad. sounds like it is the same as the one i have. there is no 31mm Limited either, right? it's close to 2 years out of date. Herb...
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hey, that's ok Frank, I'll reply to your post, clear up anything, add, whatnot, but after this, it's just like the bokeh, I won't even open emails regarding, so just a heads up for people so you don't waste your time. Pass the word because everyone was going to jump on me while I just wrote an honest email. I knew it, but I had to tell Rob this guy makes us all look like peanuts. This guy sounds like an a-hole, Brad. He is actually a very nice nice man, I've even seen his gf, hot. Big house. Crazy astro-photography equipment (he lives outside the city, so little light pollution) He is so good with very new people, and he's got every answer for anyone more advanced, and he'll spend the extra time and be nice and explain to someone how f/5.6 at 1/60 is the same exposure as f/4 at 1/125 (I got that right?). He says anyone on the Net is a crap hobbyist, yet he's had no contact with anyone on this list, hasn't seen anyone's work, knows nothing about anyone on this list (except you). I could be wrong, frequently am. I don't think I said that, and if I did, it's partly wrong. There is a lot of information here, that's why I'm here, you're all ahead of me, and it's Pentax, so here I be. The thing is, the web and internet is not for everyone. He could care less about anything on here, he's too busy, and he knows most/all the stuff, besides the rare gem or two, that's here. Seems to me that there are a few pros here, and a few serious hobbyists whose opinions are worthy of consideration. But to him, everyone here is a crap hobbyist. Yup. I'd say he's a pretentious, pompous a-hole. He's not, and he'll laugh when I tell him about this. But I probably won't and drop it unless he says, 'Brad, how's the PDML going?!' You boys and girls already know what I think, the internet can be great, and it can also be a load of crap. Sure, ya gotta be smart to sort through it. What if you don't have to? They also have a store attached to the studio. They deal with reps., and he studies optical physics books. He knows what's on here already, without having to go on. And just to repeat myself, because he deserves it, he's a stand-up super guy. Really impressive. He's not going to quibble and debate issue here, he doesn't care and doesn't have time. Now, I told one person off-list about this. But you should hear his thoughts on 'bokeh'. You won't like it. So tell me: if, as you say If I had to listen to him or anyone here or anyone on the web you guys claim is a God, I'd pick him, then why do you even seek any opinions from this list? Why not just go to your instructor (but don't bother him while he's counting his piles of money) in the first place? It might save lots of time... Well, it's a person to person thing. It's hard to connect, so to speak. I got him during classes, and I've visited a bunch of times while he worked. There is only so much, PLUS, this group is Pentax, not Nikon (although he is actually just as well versed in other systems), I mean, he doesn't always use a Nikon in the studio or field, he's got his large and medium format Hassleblads and whatever (I really don't know that area) He also has all the neat Nikon digitals PS, DSLR, latest and greatest. He has a real life spy camera he showed us, James Bond crap, he had some laser sight stuff that I dunno what he did with it, besides what he said was measure exact distances. He hates Canon. Respects Pentax. Not bad. So anyhow, it wouldn't save time. I've already said in this post and in many others that most of you are beyond me and I have much to learn here, and I do, and (usually enjoy it). You're also Pentax, and that's a big help because you just can't go buy books and such on Pentax like you can with Nikon and Canon systems. For myself, this is a valuable place of information. So ya, he thinks anyone spending time being a tech. spec. wizard generally means they lack real creative talent. He also thinks that beginners or above that buy all the latest high end stuff. Extreme stuff, are also making up for a deficiency in talent. I guess he has his rights and reasons, just as you do about what you think of him. I have a need for the Web, and list, but I'm a small fish, he doesn't. In fact he tells me to get off this stuff and learn in the field. Forget about the internet. Well, I can't. I'm a computer nerd first actually. If given force-choiced between photos and computers, I'd dump my Pentax right off and upgrade like heck on this and my other systems. Sorry, but your post really ticked me off. Hey, don't be sorry. You have a right to your opinion, I'm not angry, because now I know how to handle the list. I won't get into debates that leads to insults, or if I do, I stop reading them and let people blast away at nothing. I think your mis-informed, but that could partly be my fault. I hope I made up some of that ground here. Maybe not. I tried. But I must say and defend someone who knows
Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away
William, Jeff I'm glad you brought it up, I missed the CV as well ;-/ Brad - Original Message - From: Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away HE HE HE. Now it's funny. Jeff - Original Message - From: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away Short for resume? curriculum vitae http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8q=curriculum+vitae spell=1 William Kane wrote: What's a CV? Dan Scott wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_699887.html Burglar leaves his CV at the scene of the crime See, optimism at its worst.
Re: MZ-S can you ...
Hey Leon, My bad, should have known about the TTL issue. But that is the old rule of thumb isn't it? I've read it in a few books I think, that the white handkerchiefs reduce one stop per layer? Brad - Original Message - From: Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:31 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... Brad, White hankerchiefs have no effect when using TTL. I
Re: Pentax Upgrade
Which model? Well, we shall see if I get it. ;-) Right now I don't want anyone from this list running over and bidding me up. Hehe. Just for that I went on ebay, pulled every 50mm lens and added $50US to each and every one ;-) Perhaps we shouldn't even be allowed to say 'ebay'? g But I did consult with Stan Halpin's Pentax site, reading the feedback about various ##-###mm lenses. Doe :-) aka Marnie
Re: MZ-S can you ...
Oh, not to be so...erm..cannot think of the term, but I knew it with flash, it was used in an example in a large text where the author was using a F4 I think and the SB-28 speedlite. He talked about that 'trick' when talking about that system. Brad. - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad is incorrect. The compensation dial does affect ttl flash output just as you described. I calculate that I've done it about 1500 times this year with AF500FTZ's. Now, does it work with this particular flash you're talking about? Hell if I know, but it *should* work with any TTL flash. What sort of modification did you make? Did you have data imprinting on? Not only that, but the white handkerchief technique *will* work when using TTL flash. The meter has no way of knowing that there's anything over the flash head cutting its output so the exposure it sets will be wrong for the amount of light that actually gets out of the flash. I've used this technique with the PZ-1p and the AF400FTZ. I've also used the manual compensation technique that Tom describes. tv -Original Message- From: Leon Altoff [mailto:leon;bluering.org.au] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... Brad, White hankerchiefs have no effect when using TTL. I know that on the Z1, MZ-3 and MZ-5n you can set the camera to manual and use the exposure compensation on the camera to affect the TTL flash output. On the MZ-S this does not appear to be the case. I have a custom built flash with 2 heads, that used to be an AF240FT which I use for macro work. It's far lighter and easier to carry than 2 of any sort of flash and I'd like to use it with the MZ-S. Without the capability to do flash compensation and auto bracketing it makes it a lot less useful. Leon On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 06:45:54 -0500, Brad Dobo wrote: Dare I weigh in? MZ-S can you ... do anything, yes! ;-) I may be wrong, I frequently am, but I do believe the EV dial on the camera only 'tricks' the camera's meter. Nothing to do with flash. So, IMO, the AF360FGZ is the only one capable of doing 'flash compensation'. Of course, you can use white handkerchiefs to cut the power (the old rule was one layer for every stop?). Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:04 AM Subject: MZ-S can you ... Hello all, I have a question for my fellow MZ-S owners out there. Is it possible to do flash compensation with older digital flashes like the AF-240FT? I did a few test shots using the camera set in manual mode and dialing in compensation on the camera compensation dial, but every picture came back with no change. So has anyone managed to do compensation on an older flash or can it only be done with the AF360FGZ? Thanks for all help. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Oh no, another one of these.Instead of playing by the rules, and actually proving something, another member chooses to argue and more so, put down another member, a favourite pastime here. I stopped reading after the first paragraph as I knew the rest was.. 'Bokeh' must be truly important to get such a long winded and opinionated response. For such a suble, minor, subjective thing, some of us are sure getting upset. I plan on visiting the art department at my local U, and specifically photography and see what who ever is around has to say on the subject. When I don't know, but I'll let everyone know what happened, anything from pulling out an article about it from saying 'Bokeh? What was that? I didn't understand.' From there perhaps I can look into the subject in more depth, or get a feeling from someone highly educated in the field thoughts on 'bokeh'. Amateur hobbyist photographers serious or not, cannot be of aid. Emails saying bokeh is real, I like it. Or it's meaningless lingo referring to a blotch of many colours that form no shape. Or, I found in so and so, this Are all perfectly fine. Then we all know where we stand on the issue. If someone points out something of value, not some hobbyist view or a online Shutterbug issue or a UK tabloid trash online mag. I can then verify and learn and say, ya, bokeh is something. I was wrong. All I said was I think it's nothing. No need for panty bunching...so, let's keep it civil eh? Bandwagon members are free to help defend the poor author of the email with insults and demeaning comments. We are unmoderated. And I'm a favourite target, but am hardened to such things by now. Of course, you could impress me by saying nothing...and others that don't want to see such muck slung all over and have to leave the list. Then the author and I can take this off-list for the benefit of all. Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect... is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not original works, you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or they) understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information. How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sig. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
Re: Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?!
- Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! colleagues. To argue that all information posted on the web is suspect, simply because it's posted on the web, and that information in books and periodicals has more legitimacy because you can pick it up and hold it in your hand (especially considering some of the books for sale in book stores) is a rather ridiculous notion, to say the least. Only part I really read and can respond to. It's not a matter of holding something in your hands. Material published in books or journals and such are written by someone that earned a right to speak on the topic. You may disagree of course. This is not a perfect world. But authors of serious material in journals and books are edited and regulated. They are backed up by facts that can be reproduced by others in that field. It's not a perfect world. I could choose and write a book on photography, would it get published? What company would want to put their label next to my name and opinions? Could I conduct a study on photography and submit it to a respectable journal? Yes. Would it ever see print? No. If you are in a post-grad position you are surely aware of the revisions some are forced to make before something is published. It's serious stuff. Can I make a website? Yes. Can I write my photography opinions on it? Yes. Can I post links all over the place to it? Yes. Will it come up in search engines? Yes. Can anyone read it? Yes. Is it informative? I'll be the first to say no, of course not. If you choose to publish an accepted version of the Bible on the Internet, it is The Bible. You can copy a book or article to the internet, and it is a book or article, just on the internet. But the problem is that anyone can write anything on the internet, it is generally unregulated and is not scrutinized beforehand, so what does that make it? Anything you want to make it. It is not reliable. Anyone can make up an identity and how often do we check their credentials? Not often enough if you answer fairly.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: bokeh, which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning blur, specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: What is 'Bokeh'? By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S. All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found online, not so? keith Ah-Ha! Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger. You have produced evidence. That is what I wanted!!! I can go and pull up bios on these people, check credentials, read published material. Of course, if I look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet. I'm not saying what you just posted is. But now I can use a better method to check it's authenticity and read more about him/her and their research. And perhaps learn more about bokeh.See?
Re: How much film do you need?
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:45 AM Subject: Re: How much film do you need? at home on a regular basis I like to have at least 5 rolls each Tri-X, Scala and Kodachrome 64, all of which I buy in 20s from 7dayshop.com. This has replaced the low-on-fags panic I used to get when I still smoked, over 10 years ago. I tend not to stock up on colour print film, but just pick it up as and when I need it. Hahaha! Love that term..won't mention which, seems, just odd ;-) I get that panic, with smokes, with novels (always need a second one in case I finish one at 1am) and to make this on-topic, I have a wack of Velvia and Provia 100F and 400F in the fridge, and here in a drawer, a huge glut of film I really need to clear out. Looks like a ton of Superia and Reala in various speeds, Delta 400s Delta 3200s, FP4s, and enough batteries to power a small city for a day. When I go away on a photo trip I plan my film budget by reckoning an average of about 5 rolls per shooting day, with 10 rolls for the first 2 or 3 days to get the over-shooting out of my system. Then I add 1 roll per non-shooting day, and a few for luck. This seems to work quite well. I don't get nervous about film. Sometimes I bring way to much, sometimes I don't bring enough. If I have way too much, I shoot too much and pay a fortune later. If I don't have enough, I tend to be careful and use it wisely. This seems the best and cheapest way. Brad
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
On 7 Nov 2002 at 1:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Put a high quality UV filter on and protect the lens, your investment and your fear of accidently scratching the lens... If the FA is like the A100/2.8 macro you'd really have to go out of your way to scratch the front element. Most of my fingerprints/marks end up on the rear elements, can you get rear UV filters? Ya, they are called sunglasses ;-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: FA*200/2.8 matter again...
I cannot believe such bad luck. I can easily see why you'd give up on them. Now I'm afraid to inspect my lenses that closely and worried about the new FA 20-35mm f/4 AL that is on it's way. Pardon my french Alan but I'd go and tear a Pentax a new a*e over this. FA*..bad Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:28 AM Subject: Re: FA*200/2.8 matter again... Hi Rob, There is some dust inside this 200mm, so to the 1st one I returned. However, what concerns me is the scratches present behind the 1st element (on 2nd or 3rd I think). There are many of them in all different directions actually, not circular. It definitely looks like cleaned by hand. When the light was pointed from different angle, cleaning marks were revealed too (but totally invisible if if the light was point directly). This is my only brand new lens with so many scratches and cleaning marks. My 2ndhand F*300/4.5 has cleaning marks too, but not scratch. My brand new FA100/2.8 has 1 hairline scratch inside, but this 200 has a lot. All my other Pentax lenses are fine even after years of use. Since this is the 4th lens that I have tried recently (and all 4 are faulty), I think I am ready to give up and ask for a full refund. I have known there are qc problem with Pentax products for years, but I have never expected to be so unlucky. Looks like I won't be buying any Pentax lenses in the near future. :( regards, Alan Chan I shone a halide desk-lamp through mine both ways, I'm now a little blind I think however I did spy with my working eye heaps of dust boulders and one small hair (which looked like a fungus filament but wasn't). However when I view it under normal light it looks fine (and so do the images that it makes on film). I don't believe that many photo enthusiast spec lenses are delivered completely free from dust even factory fresh (my new APO Leica lenses weren't) however finger prints and wipe marks shouldn't be tolerated. Are all your other lenses much cleaner than this 200? Cheers, Rob Studdert _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Hooray!!!! My lens comes in tomorrow!
I just got an email from Pentax confirming they had shipped the lens via Purolator to the dealer for me, so tomorrow I have a new toy! I feel like a little kid again :-) David Brooks, your gal is lovely indeed. She made the magic happen! Big thanks to all that helped and looked around, especially Vic, who found one. If I hadn't received the email today I was planning on making the drive to Burlington. Now, where did that camera go.uh oh.j/k g Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
My little poll on lens and what is happening
Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). So (well actually I had done this before the poll) I made the necessary calls and emails about getting it. To my dismay, I got a line from a couple different sources I know all too well. It's currently not in stock at Pentax Canada (What DO they STOCK? Really? Anyone know?) but it is expected in approximately 2 weeks (read 1 month) then get it to my retailer. Once again I'm left waiting for this lens. It's the same sad song. So, gonna try out Henrys, see if they stock it, and will perhaps buy from them (but they are pricey). Any other ideas? Just to note, no one else in London stocks this. Lack of patience ;-) ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
I will try those today Dave. As for third party -- no way! Support Pentax! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:23 AM Subject: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Brad. Try Vistek at 416 365 1777 or Dennis at Merkle Camera at 416 495 0456. I have been to Henrys downtown a few times this year when buying used equioment for the D1 but stopped to look at the Pentax displays aswell.They had several Prime and Zoom lenses last time but type eludes me at this time. 416 868 0872.Henry Downtown. What about a third party one.?? Dave Begin Original Message From: Pentax Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 05:44:04 -0500 To: PDML \(Pentax\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My little poll on lens and what is happening Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). So (well actually I had done this before the poll) I made the necessary calls and emails about getting it. To my dismay, I got a line from a couple different sources I know all too well. It's currently not in stock at Pentax Canada (What DO they STOCK? Really? Anyone know?) but it is expected in approximately 2 weeks (read 1 month) then get it to my retailer. Once again I'm left waiting for this lens. It's the same sad song. So, gonna try out Henrys, see if they stock it, and will perhaps buy from them (but they are pricey). Any other ideas? Just to note, no one else in London stocks this. Lack of patience ;-) ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658 End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: What do you carry with you
Heh, just had a funny thought, do we all have trucks or SUV-type vehicles? Seems many do, and fits with the gear we may carry or the places we may want to go 4WD :) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:46 AM Subject: Re: What do you carry with you Hi Kevin. I have 3 bags that carry equipment for different aspects of whats on the agenda todayg My s/f 500 has most of my film cameras/lenses/film for my horse work,and usually : Kodak 160VC Kodak 160NC Kodak RG 200/400 Agfa Optimma II 400 An SF-1,K1000 and several Primes and Zooms Kodak Tmax 400 or Delta 400 BW film 280T flash Tha s/f 300 houses my digital gear,D1 and two zooms and a flash,3 cf cards and spare nicad battery My old Blacks camera bag is my truck bag.It has my IR camera,(SP500)my BW camera,(SP) and my MF camera(Yashica-Mat). I keep several rools of BW film and 1-2 rolls of 120 film for what ever i come across.Occasionaly i carry all 3 bags.My SO stays home then,no room in the truckG Dave Begin Original Message From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whats in your carry all? Kind regards kevin End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
Ya, got that Dave. Well, not 'got that' as in 'bought that'. I ordered here and pressed the time issue with the store. You contact was very nice in telling me if I have any difficulties with the store, to let her know what store, and she would assure me a Pentax Rep would immediately fix the situation. I like that. I take back some of those Pentax Canada comments ;-) Thanks Dave! (Btw, how is that new highway 404 coming along? g) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Closest Henrys has is the SMCP-F 17-28 F 3.5 4.5 at $769.00 Dave Begin Original Message From: Pentax Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
Vic, oh no!!! I think I really just committed to a store here. I guess I could cancel, but I don't like that If only you sent 2 hours ago! I'll think on it. Maybe will cancel order and call your store and hold it and make the drive. Regards and thanks! Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Brad don't know if you got my earlier message I'm getting a lot of bounce back lately. Burlington Camera has the 20-35 in stock. I think it's about $800 Cdn. Vic In a message dated 11/6/02 10:24:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ya, got that Dave. Well, not 'got that' as in 'bought that'. I ordered here and pressed the time issue with the store. You contact was very nice in telling me if I have any difficulties with the store, to let her know what store, and she would assure me a Pentax Rep would immediately fix the situation. I like that. I take back some of those Pentax Canada comments ;-) Thanks Dave! (Btw, how is that new highway 404 coming along? g)
Re: What do you do when...
Well, that was different :) I was picturing the complete camera as silver, not the traditional top-area. Glad they didn't made it how I had imagined! Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: RE: What do you do when... See http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/camera/mzs-sp/index-spec.html -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 17:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What do you do when... I'm trying to picture my camera in silver.ew :) Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: RE: What do you do when... It does in Japan - you know the place where you get the black limited lenses! Makes sense doesn't it (NOT)! -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 17:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What do you do when... Does the MZ-S actually come in silver?? (no snickering!) Brad
OT: A simple question on the What do you carry thread
Just wondering folks, Do you all carry a camera EVERYWHERE? Like, you're out of milk, you run to the store and get some and drive back. Would you have a camera on you? (leaving gear in car doesn't count) Or, like in my neighbourhood, we have 'supermailboxes', it's about 4 houses down, if I (or you) went to get the mail, would you have a camera on you? I'm serious, and wondering how serious some of us are. I can say that most of the time I actually do have a camera on me. But it's just my little Optio 230 in a pocket that I forget is there half the time. ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: What do you carry with you
I have a Toyota 4x4. I sold the Porsche for it so I could get to more of the inaccessable places. Kind regards Kevin Heh, and used the extra money to buy some serious glass too I hope? On a scary noteI went up to the Bruce Peninsula on my way to Tobermory last summer, I was driving a Saturn 4dr. I decided I wanted to get to the water and some *possible* caves. The roads became smaller and smaller, and then fit perfect, expect the road wasn't a road but a series of deep puddles of mud, why I continued, I do not know, but I kept going. Finally I hit the Canadian Shield rock, and it was better, no road at all now, drove over what I thought were simple cracks, then arrived and did some exploring. I walked back to the 'cracks' only to find they were between 6 to 12 inches across and I couldn't see the bottom. How I got to the cliff safely and back again, I do not know. What topped it all off was the pictures were horrid ;-)
Personal Poll, opinions wanted
Hey folks, Ok, I have the money to buy a lens. I can only get one, I know the basic two I want. (Bruce Dayton, don't answer ;-)) I have: FA 50mm f/1.4 FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] Now, just in case in the future when I have to go digital, I'm 'hoping' I can still use k-mounts, but just in case, I'm only going to get these two lenses to have a nice range to work with. That's it for me and Pentax glass (unless I win the lottery) I'm looking at: FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or Used 300-600mm fixed focal manual focus. probably about 400mm I have leaning towards one, I won't say which, but I'm interested in what anyone has to say considering the lenses I have now. Thanks! ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted
Party-pooper Dave, Whoops! I was replying to all the comments to the individuals privately, must have let that one slip! There goes my secrets! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted I'm also the guy who votes no at all our staff meetings too :) Dave(more glass is better)Brooksg Begin Original Message From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:20:58 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted Hey Rob, Well, I'm going for new, and was leaning towards the wide, and so far everyone is for it but Dave. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
- Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. Actually, I wasn't joking. I would have put a smiley or a g after my comment if I was. I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put ettes after their name. The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female listers to mere accessories, and not full participants. Since there are far fewer females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to making sure such a perception isn't perpetuated. I know you were joking. As to whether it was funny, I leave that to others. I didn't find it particularly so. It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I was mildly offended by it, and pointed that out. My last words on this topic. regards, frank Brad Dobo wrote: I know you are joking Frank. It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders so it's not sexist. It's still funny. Bradley - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. sexist comment. not funny Pentax Guy wrote: That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
Wow, just back from never leaving and you're trying to start with me? My last words on this topic. To anyone. Brad - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. Actually, I wasn't joking. I would have put a smiley or a g after my comment if I was. I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put ettes after their name. The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female listers to mere accessories, and not full participants. Since there are far fewer females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to making sure such a perception isn't perpetuated. I know you were joking. As to whether it was funny, I leave that to others. I didn't find it particularly so. It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I was mildly offended by it, and pointed that out. My last words on this topic. regards, frank Brad Dobo wrote: I know you are joking Frank. It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders so it's not sexist. It's still funny. Bradley - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. sexist comment. not funny Pentax Guy wrote: That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
My friends call me an idiot when they learn how much I spend on camera stuff, so, I'm 'hey idiot' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Treena Harp wrote: I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... So do I... Oh, wait, that's not what you meant. Anyways, teh short answer is it doesn't matter what we call ourselves, however, my girlfriend has a name for me and everyone else on this list: You camera dorks. It works, and its descriptive! -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
DSLRlessians? ;-) - Original Message - From: Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: RE: OT: What we call ourselves. Takumarshians? Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:wlachan;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 12:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. SMCists? regards, Alan Chan I like Pentaxistes better than Pentaxians. I saw this in another thread. _ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
