Re: Odd request
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:02:32 +0100 (BST) Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I read some time ago that there were made emperical tests with > > groups that were compared. One group of patients got the prayers > > of a group of people, the other not. All that for a certain time. > > And the result was that the recovery was better in the first > > group. > > Well as someone who did postdoctoral work in a university > pharmaceutical dept, I can assure you that there are loads of > pitfalls for the unwary researcher into matters of health and > 'cures'. Repeatability is a keyword, otherwise it's not a lot of > use to the human race in general no matter how it works. If it just > worked for one group on one day - well maybe they just got lucky > and put most of the naturally quick healers in one group and the > poor healers in the other? Not being in medical- or pharmaceutical research, the principles apply across the board for any kind of scientific research. Hence, my original inquery as to what exactly was implied by "scienticically proven". > > You might like to subscribe to the Skeptical Enquirer for a year or > so :-) > > http://www.csicop.org/si/ > > The only downside is that after having results such as yours > carefully tested and explained (debunked!) you'll have trouble > having faith in anything for a while. Working with science of any sort, not having faith in anything (least of all ones own results) is a very good attribute to acquire :) Makes a carefull researcher --thomas
Re: Odd request
Not questioning your seriousity here, Bernd, but...when you write "scientifically proved", then what *exactly* do you mean? Inquiring scientist wanting to know. --thomas On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:39:14 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (U+B Scheffler) wrote: > It is scientifically proved that the prayer of lot's of people for > a certain person - even if they know it personally - will > accelarate the recovery. So I call all the list members that are > ready for a good deed to do so. If Bill will accept this. Will you, > Bill? > > Best wishes, > Bernd > > postscript: It should be necessary to know the date of your birth, > Bill, to target our action. > postscript 2: I mean all this seriously! > >
Re: *ist pronounced i-s-t in french
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:11:39 -0400 Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the last C d'I (some of you just stopped reading the post...) YeahC d'I is not terribly interresting. RP is, though, and is responsible for pretty much all my skills in reading french :) > they > report the *ist is being pronounced i-s-t. I guess in french. I went out buying an *ist in France a while ago for a family member. Granted, while I do speak French, it's my fourth language, so some misunderstandig were expected I tried every single pronouncation of *ist that I could think of, including various french, anglo-saxan and scandinavian ones, including spelling the namein english and french...no luck.until I thought of saying "that new reflex camera from Pentax", at which point the *ist came off the shelf :) > Will the anglo-saxons do the same once the camera in on the > shelves and in the hands of many? I-s-t a bit longer than ist, but > it sounds better to my ear. > Well, whichever way I pronounce it, it seems that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever :) I am worried as to what the future models of this series (beyond the *istD) will bring of pronouncation troubles --thomas > Andre > -- > > -- ---- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://voop.free.fr/
Re: Pentax goes to war
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:18 +0100 (BST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Dallman) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mike wilson) wrote: > > > I don't know the OM series well at all but I think all of the > > shutters are electromechanical. I know them quite well :) > > The OM-1 shutter is pure mechanical; the only electronics are the > match-needle metering. Don't know about the OM-3; All mechanical. As a matter of fact, I think that there are two seperate mechanical shutter mechanisms, one working for "lower" shutter speeds, one for "higher" shutter speeds. The OM3 is quite a neat camera, actually. > the OM-2 and OM-4 are > electromechanical, and the OM-10 series are far too cheap and nasty > for the taste of the USN. Yup. Not to say that the double-digit OM series (OM-10/20/30/40) are bad cameras, they are just made for a more occational-use market than the single-digit series. --thomas
Re: *ist and BG-20 8-)
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:10:29 +0100 mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > > I think that the big LCD on the back is superflorus > > I'm not buying one, then. My hayfever and the thought of having to > stand it in water when you are not using it.. > Hehehe...ohh...ehhh... Hey! Until you speak fluently Danish, then cut me a tad of slack on my (sad?) english-skills :) Ohh, an *istD will be perfectly acceptable as an "excuse" for exposing my bad engrish (http://www.engrish.com) to the pdml. Mail me for a shipping address :) --thomas (who, btw., knows that Mikes post was humorous)
Re: *ist and BG-20
Actually, I just popped into my local camera pusher's shop and demanded to borrow and *ist with an FA-J lens. I played around with it for a while before returning it, and my observations were generally positive. For an entry-level camera, it seems quite good: packed with features (which I found fairly intuitive to use without reading the manual) and reasonably robust. Sure, it is not MZ-S (and definitely no F5) robustness-wise, but it seems better build than the F-entry-level counterparts. It took getting used to to set apeture and shutter speed with the (thumb-?)wheel, and I think that the big LCD on the back is superflorus and just adds to the things that can possibly break (a smaller display positioned in a less scratch-prone place would be better). But, as I said, overall a more than decent camera. Give me a digital version of that, priced as an entry-level, and I'll be happy. I am not ready to shell out for a "flagship" digital anyways (my use doesn't by far justify it, and I do not plan on exchanging my MZ-S), but I would like to use my Pentax lenses on a digital body. Of course, my oldest pentax lens is the 24-90 and the 3 limited, so I don't worry too much for backwards compatibility. The camera pusher told me, that in his shop, the *ist's were flying off the shelves, so it seems that the *ist could be a winner. I surely was impressed, and may even get one just because... --thomas On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:06:48 +0300 Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, there's not much disagreement over here about *ist being > entry level, as it is about digital ist falling into this area. > Not judging Pentax future by the *ist D specifications is too > much to ask from most of us, common mortals with normally sized > pockets. At this price tag we expect more common sense in the > package. However, even if Pentax plans do *not* include full > mount compatibility and aperture ring operation on higher bodies, > they should state so after all this whining here and particularly > in Japan. They owe that much to their traditional customers. Not > doing that so far only points to their deceptive intentions. > > Bah, I'm too disgusted to speak of this anymore. I think I'll > stick with the off-topic threads for this summer. :o< > > Servus, Alin > > Roland wrote: > > RM> To those who complains about cheap build quality etc. - the > RM> *ist is entry level. Not pro-level nor mid-market. It's not > RM> more plastic, not more cheaply built, than Nikon F/N 75, > RM> Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 or Canon EOS 300 V. > > RM> And to those who judge Pentax future cameras and lenses by the > RM> entry level *ist and FAJ - it's not fair to Pentax. Different > RM> market segments needs different products. I see no reason to > RM> fear that the upcoming high-end versions of the *ist lacks > RM> support for aperture ring. > >
Re: Airports Again
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:34:54 +1000 "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I travelled by Eurostar in 1999 there were scanner points to > pass through at Gare du Nord. Departing from Waterloo might be a > different story. Yeah, but my assumption/hope is just that they are slightly more willing to hand-check carry-ons when asked nicely. I'll try it out (probably within a few months), and let you all know how it turns out. Btw., I have taken the Eurostar in both direction in the past (although with no films of any important speed) and there are x-rays when departing in both the Paris and Waterloo ends. --thomas > > regards, > Anthony Farr > > - Original Message - > From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > (snip) > > > > Well, in London, I actually asked to see a security supervisor, > > who just handed me a pamphlet (essentially saying "our machines > > are safe, and if you say otherwise, you're a dork!"). I've sent > > that pamphlet plus one of the ruined films to the british airport > > authorities and am awaiting response. I am expecting a reply > > along the lines of"yeah, you are indeed a dork". I'll take the > > Eurostar service next time, I think... > > > (snip) > > > > --thomas > > > > > > -- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://byzantium.inria.fr:8080/~voop
Re: Airports Again
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:20:12 -0400 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IIRC the _checked_baggage_ X-ray machines can vary the intensity. > (Not that this contradicts anything folks have said about the > carry-on X-rays, even if I'm right.) I didn't think the carry-on > scanners could be turned up. > > -- Glenn Not contradicting anything either, but just a word of warning. I went through London Gatwick with Provia 400 exposed at 800 in the carry-on a few weeks back. 4 rolls went through the carry-on x-ray, and were ruined, the one roll I kept in my pant-pocket (which then didn't get x-ray) was fine. The film came out of the same pack and had been stored and exposed identically. So whatever they say, don't assume that the x-ray will not damage your film on carry-on. It's not a first-time experience either, so I had asked (and was refused) a hand-check by the quite rude security staff --thomas
Re: Digital vs. film cave test
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 02:09:15 +1000 "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the resolution of the Canon projector? Can it utilise the > full resolution of the digital files, or are they resized, perhaps > downwards, to fit the projectors LCD? Also, if LCD monitors can't > be calibrated like a CRT can be, it may be that the LCDs in these > projectors are equally 'wild'. > > Side by side comparisons of the best possible prints might be more > illustrative. > > Just playing the Devil's Advocate };-)> > Actually, I think caveman's test is reasonably fair. I did something similar, and came to the same conclusion. Since I like to project my work "wall-size", it's either slides+slide-projector or digital+digital-projector. Slides wins hands-down for that, at least if I am to stay within a reasonable budget of projectors. Notice, that the test is specifically for the whole production chain towards one specific "output media". Comparing "best possible prints" is not useful if the desired output media is projection :) If the output media is "prints" then comparing projected images makes no sense either. Digital has other merits, to be sure, which I wouldn't be without. --thomas
Re: Technical Pan OT
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:41:15 -0500 Nick Zentena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On March 25, 2003 05:08 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Any thoughts or comments before i possible waste some developing > > time. BTW it's rated it at 50 with just a standard uv filter for > > the test. > > > I forget but isn't that way too fast for Techpan? > I think you can get prints when rating it at 50, but I guess they are rather contrasty. I usually rate it about 20, develop with something so dilluted that it makes water look concentrated for something that feels like a week.but it's worth the effort, by far the smoothest bw I've seen :)
Re: Complaints
I feel a counter-opinion is required :) Actually, I appreciate the date back on the MZ-S. I use it rarely, however it is quite handy at times. Since my work involves lots of travelling, and since I always bring a camera along, I usually use the date-function to keep track on where I was when: taking the first shot(s) of the day of easilly recognizeable landmark and imprinting the date makes organizing slides so much easier. Similarly for recalling memories when viewing the slides years later :) I don't use the date stuff much, but it is definitely something I'd not like to be without. If I had the choise, I would still pick the MZ-S with date back. --thomas On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 17:35:08 -0500 "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had no choice when I picked up my MZ-S, AFAIK there is no other > back for that camera. IMHO, the date backs, recently available > from, Pentax are really useless on camera of this level (PZ1, PZ1P, > MZ-S etc.) If you want to date stamp a photo buy a good point and > shoot. An excellent data back was available for the SF1, it has > several modes of date and time imprinting along with sequential > imprinting - A- 00 through something like G -99. Kenneth Waller > - Original Message - > From: "Roland Mabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:13 PM > Subject: Re: Complaints > snip, snip, snip > > > and they're making money on them because some people actually > > finds it useful. If not, why did they buy it? > -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Yipee....ehh.....yeah, yipeee...
Guys, Remember when I joined the list, I complained that the optics for my MZ-S had this flimsy plastic feel, and that I missed the sturdyness of my zuikos? It was followed by an interresting thread about if the "feel" had any significance on the pictures - or if I was just being superficial and gear-oriented, and that as such it was really me being "flimsy" :) I had a Pentax 28-80 (or some such beast), where I was not quite happy with neither the optical nor mechanical or tactile qualities. So I acquired the 24-90, which satisfied my expectation for optically good - but did little for the "flimsyness" :( Well, folks, I've found the solution to my problem. A while ago I acquired the 77mm limited. With the Zuikos, the 85mm f2 was always my favorite, however that has found its rival in the 77mm limited. I'm impressed by the optics, and it feels even more sturdy than the zuikos :) So I went ahead and recently got myself the 43mm and 31mm limited as well:) Those two gems are still working on getting on comfortable in the camera bag, however they seem to like their new home, and I am sure that they feel welcome. I'm brought them all along to a trip to San Francisco, and thus just shot a roll of Portra 160VC with each and had 1h processed at Walgreen. Thus far, I've learned that (i) the "bokkeh" of the 43mm indeed is interresting but the lens is tack-sharp, (ii) that the 31mm is amazing even fully open - ohh, and (iii) that Walgreen's 1h processing really takes 3h (and they do not apologize!), that (iv) they have a hard time getting the prints even close to acceptable quality (what stain? We don't care about stains on prints, that's normal for prints...) and (v) that Portra VC colors are really wasted on Walgreen. I discovered that the 31mm is very usefull for taking pictures when wading through the crowds to get from my hotel to the convention center. It's been very different to visit SF this time as compared to previously, and various unexpected photo-opportunities presented themself On the topic of the 31mm, I cannot help to think that this lens is smartly designed: the way the lenscap fits on over the hood is just the right way for a wide-angle. It allows a "slim" pol-filter to stay on and still permit the hood to be mounted. Most "slim" filters work very badly with the snap-on lens caps - this lens is just smart :) Now, I just need to use the lenses some more to learn about their strengths and (if any) shortcommings. I've got a weekend off, and am planning a small trip up north-east CA (Clear Lake etc..) It's nice to get some time for photography. Other than a few test-shots, the two newcommers have been laying idle at home since I got them. This is their first trip, and I aim at giving them a good workout. Question, though: how the heck do you guys mount Cokin P-filters (or Lee or whatever square filter format you guys use) on the 31mm? It seems to be "mission impossible". --thomas ps: I managed to get the limited in black - looks much cooler on a black body :) psps: A colleague has bought the Pentax Optio S, and he was kind enough to bring it along to AND let me fonde it. Wow, that's a small gem too, I could almost be tempted to get a digital by that S. pspsps: Yeah, with reference to the first section of this mail, I am probably just being flimsy :)
Re: OT: Olympus OM77AF (Was: Olympus going pro)
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:02:36 -0500 Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the info! > > BTW, was the Olympus's built-in flash actually part of some kind of > > slide-on grip for the camera? I know it was located over on the > side (above the grip?) Actually, you do have a point there. There were two grips - grip100 and grip 300 - available for the OM77. The batteries were for sure in the grip (a grip is required for the OM77, it doesn't work without). Let me see, grip 100 had no flash (100M was an odd macro-derivative of the 100) and power grip 300 came with a flash. So yes, the flash was in the gripOlympus catch-phrase was something like "With the Power Flash Grip 300 mounted, the OM 77 AF is the worlds first SLR with build-in flash". > > And I think Pentax's SF1 was not only the first RTF flash on a 35mm > > SLR, but the first built-in TTL flash as well. Does that mean the > Olympus OM77AF's flash was just auto? Manual? > Uhmm...If I recall correctly, the apeture is set according to the distance as seen by the AF system, and then the camera fires the flash if the shutter speed goes below 1/100. No TTL with the internal flash. Thinking about flash-stuff, actually the OM77 does also do full-synchro flash with the Olympus F280 flash Never had a Pentax SF1, though With many more apologies for being more OTmaybe we should move this to the olympus-list? --thomas > Joe > > > > > >Well, several things, I assume. Olympus released the OM77 in 1986, > >targeted as an amateur camera. Olympus hessitated to make anything > >that came even close to "professional grade", having the attitude > >of"Bah - AF is just for amateurs, pros know how to focus manually > >better than any AF system". And so, they were quickly taken over > >by C*n*n and N*k*n, who took both pros and AF seriously. I always > >maintain, that an AF version of the OM4 would have kicked some > >serious ass, however that never happened. > > > >Nevertheless, the OM77 was so underspeced that many amateurs (such > >as myself) found it to be too lacking to be usefull. It came, for > >instance, without DX film speed override or exposure compensation, > >without a fully-manuel mode etc. > > > >The hessitation to consider the pro marked a target area for AF > >also caused Olympus to never release any serious AF lenses (IIRC, > >no primes longer than 50mm were released as Zuiko AFs and only > >moderately bad zooms could get to about 200mm). So to use good > >glass, I would have to still do manual focus. By the way, with non > >AF lenses, no viewfinder info available and only apeture priority > >exposure available. In that context, an OM10 would be a better > >camera:) > > > >So Olympus released their AF camera targed at amateurs, never > >released any good glass for it and furthermore ensured that when > >using it with MF-glass, it would be on par with (but more > >cumbersome) their lowest-level body, the OM10. > > > >The biggest innovation from Olympus with the OM77 was, that it was > >the first body to come with a build-in flash > > > > > >Sorry 'bout the long OT post. I am still a zuikoholic, although I > >have added a healthy amount of pentaxianism to my medical > >journal > > > >--thomas > -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Re: Olympus is ready with the 4/3 at PMA
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:12:36 +0100 "Rüdiger Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > there was so much discussion about "How sexy is the *istD" that an > important news was not comented. > > >From Mike: > Oly will show the 4/3 system on PMA (see below) > > It seems very important, that the *istD is that small, so that the > main argument for the 4/3 system in not valid for Pentax. > I also think, that there are more old Pentax lenses (MF+AF) than > Olympus lenses and you can start your pentax system without buying > new lenses (of cours, if you are already pentax user) > Ahmmfrom what I have been reeding, the Olympus 4/3 system will *not* support the old OM mount lenses. That was one very big reason why I decided to start migrating from Olympus to another system: Olympus officially announced total abandonment of the OM system (effectively, they started abandonning us Zuikoholics back in the late 80'es, but we were - of course - too stubborn to admit that). I am happy that my decission to go Pentax as "another system" seems to carry over in the digital domain. In my humble opinion, the ist-D from Pentax looks interresting and is arriving at a reasonable point in time - whereas no matter what Olympus may come out with, it will be too late, and there will be no real reason to buy into it since there is no backwards compatibility. No, I have not pre-ordered an ist-D, and I am not going to. When they get to my neck of the woods, I will go to my local photo-pusher to borrow one for a few days. If I like it, then I'll keep it. I'll not put money down for a camera I have never had the ability to run a film through firstehh...uhmmyou know what I mean :) --thomas
Re: Pentax 67II limited edition!
For those who do not read Japanese, babelfish can actually make reasonable english: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pentax.co.jp%2Fjapan%2Fnews%2F2003%2F200302.html&lp=ja_en&tt=url (sorry 'bout the long URL...) On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:34:45 -0800 Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > KT, > > 20+ years ago I spent 2 years in Japan on a mission. Got quite > good at the language and kanji GA, daibun wasureta ne. 20 years of > little use takes it out of you. > > > Bruce > > > > Thursday, January 16, 2003, 6:22:58 PM, you wrote: > > KT> On 1/16/03 9:17 PM, "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> My Nihongo is totemo warui! > > KT> Hey, where did you learn that! :-)) > > KT> Cheers, Ken > -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Re: The Brotherhood
Ahh, wellOZ7AFP, class A/1 licence (i.e. HF) - however lost most of my rig in a fire (no cameras got hurt) and currently living where I cannot put up anything more than 144MHz antennas :( Gotta hope for serious scatter to reach all the way over the pond with that --thomas On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 21:52:32 -0500 "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How many of us hams have HF privileges? Maybe we could set up a > sked and meet via radio? Probably 40 or 20 meters? > > Bill > > - Original Message - > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:40 PM > Subject: Re: The Brotherhood > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:27:51 -0500, Bill Owens wrote: > > > > > Bill, KG4LOV > > > > > > > > -Mat, N2NJZ > > > > > > > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > > > > -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:56:55 -0500 "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh, > > I ordered extra ones, rubber eye cap and findercap, because I knew > I'd lose them. Of course, now that I have them, I probably will > never lose one :) > > Brad. heh... Mine fell off at the most inconvenient moment: I was on Sardegnea (an island in Italy), had arrived at midnight - my suitcase hadn't (thanks Alitalia!). I was there for a conference. The suitcase still hadn't surfaced the next morning, so I went off to the nearest city (Pula - 45min from the conf. center by bus) for replacement cloths and stuff - only to find that everything was closed until 16:00 due to "siesta". The only thing not in the suitcase was my laptop and the MZ-S, and so since I had brought the camera along, I thought I would take some shots of the city under the hard mid-day sun. Guess what? That was exactly when I discovered that on the trip from the conf. center to the city, the little eyecap had disappeared. Strong mediteranian sunlight made me realize that the eyecap was actually usefull. Thus, upon my return, I acquired a pile of replacement caps to have in spare, should such happen againcaps which now have been sitting around unused in the camera bag and the drawer. I guess the lesson to learn is, that when you have a spare, you don't need it. When you don't, you do :) --thomas
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:03:55 -0500 "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:39:11 +0100, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > > > > > they'd rather make a lover profit than no profit atall. > > >^ > > > You sure have a closer relationship with your "photo pusher" > > > than I have! :-) > > Hehewell cought, Doug. That's what us non-native english > > speakers get from speaking up. > > Boy, I hope that didn't come across as a shot at you! We all make > typos. I just like pointing them out when they're funny. Nahh, not atall. Besides, just take all the verbal shots at me you like :) > > > Paris France.the city of romance and decadence. Worse things > > are know to happen here, I'll have you know. > > Please ... I think I'd rather not know. :-) > *gg*
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:55:08 -0500 "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:54:10 +0100, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > > > they'd rather make a lover profit than no profit atall. >^ > > You sure have a closer relationship with your "photo pusher" than I > have! :-) Hehewell cought, Doug. That's what us non-native english speakers get from speaking up. Then again, although not French, I do live in Paris France.the city of romance and decadence. Worse things are know to happen here, I'll have you know. But no, I am not in a that close relationship with my photo-pusher :)
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:48:11 +0100 Jean-Baptiste Fargier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Danke, Merci all of you > > i think i'll go for the MZ-S + its grip (it reminds me of my former > > beloved Contax RTS-III , but lighter) and a zoom : the rest will be > > 2nd-hand manual lenses... Ohhyeah, the grip. That is one of the best non-optical things I've ever bought for any camera :) I have rather big hands, and the MZ-S almost was too small without it. > > Now the only thing i shall miss will be the Zeiss Distagon > 1,4/35mm There is good Pentax glass. I am sure the list will flood you with suggestions for alternatives :)
Re: Build quality of lenses (was: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?)
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:04:58 -0500 Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >why this obsession with feel? > > Good question. Focus feel has never been visible in any photograph > I've ever taken. It's probably two things: something that "feels good" inspires more confidentiality in the gears abilities to last and, secondly, it makes it a more pleasureable experience using it. Obsession...hmm...a strong word to use, I think
Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:58:45 -0500 Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For me, Pentax was a no-brainer. My wife shot a K-1000 as a > reporter for half a decade, so when I got the bug, I studied a > little bit, and the PDML more than anything put me in K-mount. My > first camera was a KM, and I was hooked. > > Those of you who have dabbled in the NCMO world, why are you here > now? > > "Hi, my name is Farmina Manahesh Robertson, and I shoot Pentax > because__" > > -Lon > "Hi, my name is Thomas, and I shoot Pentax because Olympus gave up on film-SLRs a long time ago" ...did that make any sense to you? :)
Re: Is it possible to "pull" C41 film
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:21:59 -0500 "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Made a bonehead mistake today. Shot 4 rolls of > film at ISO 100 (mostly flash), Problem was the > last roll was ISO 400 film ( Fuji NPH). Should > I be okay with the 2 stop overexposure on the last > roll or is the a way to have that roll "pulled" > during deveolpment. Theyre pretty important > shots so I'd like to salvage if possible. > JCO > I've done this with BW, and just corrected in development. Thus far I have not tried pulling C41, so I have no first-hand experience there. If the images are significant enough to you, then I'd suggest that you take the film to a trustworthy and experienced pro-lab and explain the mistake. They should be able to do some pulling, and that's probably the best bet. As to which effect you should expect, I have no idea On a related note, how much is the max adviceable pushing of a velvia? I am comming from a Kodak background, so I am all blank on Fuji's...
Re: MS-S special ??
Len, you are so right. I just had a japanese friend of mine look over the site, and he noted that it was just the MZ-S...adding humorously that "perhaps they need to pin out to the japanese that the 's' is for 'special'". According to him, it is just the regular MZ-S being described. Man, I should pick up on the japanese.it's a tuff, but beautifully written language. --thomas (who's just gotten his 77mm limited, in black, and hence has no more time for computers this week...) On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:09:36 -0600 "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps that is the meaning of the letter "S" in MZ-S, "Special". > It makes a certain amount of sense. At least to me. > > Len > --- > > > -Original Message- > > From: Michel Carrère-Gée [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:00 AM > > To: PentaxList; pdml > > Subject: MS-S special ?? > > > > > > > > http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/camera/mzs-sp/ > > > > > -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
IR remote for MZ-S
Hey, I've tried googeling, but with very limited success...so I try to ask here. I hope it is not one of those "asked a million times" questions. I've got the BG-10 for the MZ-S, which has the option of using an IR remote. Everywhere, I see the reference to "Optional infrared remote", but I have not managed to find any exact references to this remote. Anyone who can point me to something? As in: what should I ask the shop to order for me? Also, anyone who can comment on the functionality of such? I would need it instead of a traditional "cable release" - would I be better off acquireing one of Pentax's cable releases instead? Thanks. --thomas
Re: So?
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:12:58 -0700 Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's all this about a "flagship" camera? Isn't the > MZ-S the flagship of the line? It's the dream camera > that appears to have been designed with most of the hopes > of the PDMLers in mind. What's it missing, a removable > finder? 10fps winder? The only thing that I personally miss in the MZ-S, is multi-spot metering (as in the Olympus OM3, OM4 and their Ti cousins). However seeing how much (or rather little) I use this particular feature in my OM4, I can easilly live without it. I'd guess that I do about 95% of my shots in full-manual exposure and with a single spot metering, the rest in either "point-and-shoot" mode (auto-everything) or with multi-spot metering. However if you press me really hard for a shortcomming, I'd say it would be the lack of multi-spot capability. I'm thus far happy with the MZ-S, which - indeed - seems to have been designed with me and my needs very mucy in mind. However needs may vary Notice, that what I do does not require a lightening snappy AF or a double-digit fps winder. I imagine that if you do motorsports, for example, such might come handy. And I do not know how well the MZ-S would fare in that field > Does anyone really want Pentax to > make an F5 equivalent, that costs twice the price of an > MZ-S and takes 8 AA batteries? For that money, just grab > a 67II and be done. I do not care that much about the money - photography is, over the years, an expensive hobby anyways. What I do care about is size and weight. I had an F5 a while back when I was looking for supplements to the dying OM system I use as my primary kit. While I am a pretty big guy (190 cm tall), I found the F5 to be uncomfortably heavy and big - both for use and for carrying. I do lots of travelling, where I bring 3-4 cameras along, so size is really important to me. The F5 is an excellent camera, but my priorities went in favour of small and light. The MZ-S fit that bill, even with the BG-10 attached. Again, this being my preferences - to others, the power of the F5 may be the priority, weight and size being secondary or of no concern. If you want really big, then take a 4x5" :) -- --- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop ---
Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:10:27 -0400 "Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term > use of? Or is this just another of Pal's "I'll make up > anything to defend Pentax". > > From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nikon is no better than Pentax > except being quiter. > Assuming this to be a seriously meant question, not an element of a starting flamewar, I will add my 2 cents... I had a Nikon F5 a long while back, when I was first looking at alternatives to the dying OM system. It's a nice camera, but I returned it, for one reason: it's bulky. It was too obtrusive and too heavy for my taste, although it had good features and a good feel. Did it have a better or faster AF than the MZ-S, that eventually became my choise? I dunno. I do not have the F5 any more nor have I done any side by side comparisons, but I assume that it is likely that it is faster. If the price for speedy AF is weight and size, then it really boils down to priorities. To me, the more compact MZ-S is more important than the "power" of the F5 - to others, the priorities may be different (obviously they are, since the F5 is a very popular model around here). I cannot speak for the other Nikon's, however, since I have had limited exposure to those. --thomas
Re: another round - OT
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:16:25 -0400 "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:39:35 +0200, Thomas Heide Clausen > wrote: > > > I'm not sure that it is to do with that seminar. The > > laptops-scan-seperately has been procedure since, at > > least, last fall on most flights going to and from the > > US. > > Even in the mid-1990s, my laptop was "nitrate sniffed" in > Frankfurt every time I departed from there. > On the topic of Frankfurt...I have not yet managed to get through that airport without being subject to a complete strip-search. Never happens elsewhere, but always there. not that they are rude about it or anything, it is just annoying. I wonder if their way of trying to reduce their air-space congestion is to annoy off passengers? It's also the only airport, where I have had the security guy take off the front and rear cover of *all* my lenses, to look through the glass. Either he is a photo-geek like us, or he's the most carefull of them all. But now I'll stop. I am waaay too OT for someone who's just been posting for a few days here. Sorry guys... --thomas
Re: another round - OT
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Francis Alviar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to ask those who have recently concluded > travel I have done way too much travel, so I can answer this :) > if there have been changes to airport security > since this summer? Are the screeners using more > powerful xray machines? Is it safe to have film pass > through the xray or should I ask for a handcheck? It's probably your only option - other than buy and process film on your destination, that is. > More importantly do they still do handchecks with a > smile? In my experience, they do not offer handchecks - not even with a frown. I was bluntly told to either feed my films through the xray or be escorted off the airport. Whatever the legal pretext may be is largely irrelevant: regulations are just a piece of paper - the person in the uniform determines the implementation... Airport security personal can, if nothing else, make so much troubles for you that it is, imho, not worth standing too firmly on your rights while on site. (Write a letter of complaint afterwards, though.) Just my experiences... --thomas
Ehh...hello...a kinda introduction :)
Hello all, I've been lurking the list for a while, but thought I would break my silence and introduce myself...so... I'm really a zuikoholic, i.e. someone who's 'addicted' to the mighty fine glass in the Olympus Zuiko lenses. For years and years I've been shooting with Olympus manual focus equipment and been very happy doing so. Supplemented with some Mamiya MF gear and some Minox submini gear, it has satisfied my photographic needs nicely. Recently, however, I have started getting into Pentax. With Olympus abandonning the 35mm SLR marked for good, I started looking around, ending up acquireing a new MZ-5n with a couple of std. zoom lenses - I think about 1 1/2 years ago. Intended for my significant other (who does not like manual focus), it was the start of a slippery slope also for me. So recently, about a month ago, I acquired an MZ-S with some std. zoom (28-70/4). While I am happy with the body (especially with the BG-10 mounted, it has a nice feel), I am not too satisfied with the lens - so the 24-90 and the 50/1.7 are ordered and should be arriving at some point in the not too distant future. Sidenote: it is hard to find a good selection of the more interresting Pentax lenses around here - even harder to be allowed to mount them on a body and take for a test drive outside the shop. So lens purchases will be a slow process, I am afraid, and I will be reading comments and reviews on the list and elsewhere very carefully. I am probably not abandonning the Olympus OM line. That would require replacing perfectly functioning equipment. However I am thus far happy with the Pentax stuff, and I suppose that I will satisfy future photographic needs through adding to the Pentax system. So slow growth is expected... Anyways, gear is just gadgets - the important part is the photos. I am fortunate enough to have a job that allows me to travel often to interresting places, and with enough flexibility to get time to see and experience the places I visit. So a large part of my photography is travel-photos (imposing "reasonable compact" and "light" as a requirement to my gear). I have an ongoing photographic project called "twilight skylines". The ultimate goal heareof is to decorate my entre with twillight skylines from the cities I visit. Another thing I enjoy to do is landscapes / nature, in pretty much any and all forms and shapes. Finally, I am doing some macro work in the nature. However that will probably be done with the OMs in the future, since the investment in equipment for that is quite substantial. I'm a heavy filter-user also, not atall subscribing to the "exact reproduction of the scene" dogma: when I go to Hawaii, e.g., I want the photos I bring home to show the sunset exactly as saturated and read as my mind wants to remember it - which may be far from reality, whatever that is :) Ohh...just a mention: my origins are Danish (hence my native language is Danish), I went to colleage in Illinous, USA, and I currently call Paris, France, for home - I even speak a bit of the local language here :) Sorry for the long introduction. I'd like to thank you all for the many interresting postings I have read on the list, and all the interresting information I have gotten thus far. I will be following the list carefully in the future, although with my limited experience with Pentax probably not contribute a whole lot. So, with your permission, I'd like to be the parasite, sucking up all the good info that you guys share, hoping to - at some point - be able to contribute something back. Best wishes to y'all --thomas
