Re: Pentax *ist-DL on USA website!
It comes with a lens!!! DA 18-55mm Lens. Pentax is so smart. This well sell great. Its a good entry level camera to get new users to buy into the Pentax brand. Derek Christian wrote: Just so it is clear now, Penta mirror is confirmed: Optical Viewfinder - Penta mirror with Natural-Bright-Matte II focusing screen Same size as the *istDS; 1.2oz lighter (mostly due to the pentamirror, presumably...) *with* DOF preview. From the detailed specs, I can only see three changes wrt the *istDS - pentamirror, larger LCD, fewer focussing points. Although they do claim an auto ISO mode. Dunno if that's just the low-light ISO boost that the DS offers via a custom function or not. S
Re: Predictable Pentax
I have to complete agree with Pål on this. Pentax had a shrinking SLR base prior to the DS, so expanding the SLR customer base makes a lot of sense. I know the hard core Pentaxians want a pro DSLR, but expanding the customer base is a smart thing to do, especially while they are working on (hopefully) a pro version. I know my first camera was an ME Super, but that led to buy an LX later. I think the release of the DL is an important move for Pentax, especially including a lens (see the What's in The Box section). This will make it easy for people buy into the Pentax line and increase the demand for higher end DSLR's in the future. Derek - Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Predictable Pentax Remember MZ/ZX series? They started with MZ-5 and then came along no less than five inferior models (10,50,7,60,30), together with two other spin offs (5n and 3). It took Pentax 7 years to come up with a top of the line (MZ-S). So what do we have now, let's see: a base *ist D and two downgrades: DS and DL. We should expect 3 to 4 more 6 MP derivatives together with two other *ist D variations before we get a real flagship that finally crosses the 6 MP barrier and maybe the APS size too. Of course, this is assuming they can do the old flip again. And stay in business. I don't think you can make these kind of generalizations. In the late 80's Pentax shifted their focus from slr's to PS's. The MZ series was simply a way to make profitable slr PS's. The MZ-S existence was probably due to whining from Pentax loyalists. The main struggle for DSLR's at present is lower price. Lower prices means higher volumes particularly for Pentax. As Pentax are about to increase their customer base for DSLR such a move is hardly surprising. In fact, all manufacturers most important arena are in the lower price segments. A difference from the last 15 years for Pentax is that they now intend SLR's to become their main target area making comparisons to the 90's not very relevant. Pål
Re: Pentax *ist-DL on USA website!
I guess you could have always asked that. Why did anyone ever buy a Pentax over Nikon or Canon as an entry level SLR camera? I think that features, feel, and price were always big factors. It could be that lens price and quality were factors as well. On the other hand, if you are going to buy an entry level SLR, then you may not know a lot about the line you are buying into. IMHO, when the Pentax SLR was most successful in the past, it had feature rich lower end models (like the ME Super). Of course, back then, I don't think Pentax had an online cadre of loyal users who encouraged potential customers to buy another brand camera. Derek Just a hypothetical question: If you did NOT own any Pentax or k-mount lenses, why would you choose this body over the Nikon D50 or Canon 350D (RebelXT)? (price being equal or near-enough; I believe the D50 is supposed to be much less than the 350D, but let's ignore that right now) Christian - Original Message - From: Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Pentax *ist-DL on USA website! It comes with a lens!!! DA 18-55mm Lens. Pentax is so smart. This well sell great. Its a good entry level camera to get new users to buy into the Pentax brand.
Re: Newbie
Yeah and do not beleive anything you read about bodies and lenses if you don't want to end with 5 bodies and 20 lenses in 3 months ... I know I do ... Its not just the bodies and lenses. This group will sign you up for the camera bag 12 step program if you are not careful. BTW, how did you end up with *ONLY* 5 bodies? Derek Yeah and do not beleive anything you read about bodies and lenses if you don't want to end with 5 bodies and 20 lenses in 3 months ... I know I do ... 2005/4/20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: donal husni [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/20 Wed PM 12:30:48 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Newbie hello introduce my selfDonal Husni from jakarta. Greetings from sunny Sunderland, UK. Hemmm delighted to be surrounded by great photographer in this miling list after I saw the gallery : Miling list is right 8-) Don't believe anything you read here. If you get too many posts, try the digest version. And don't try to unsubscribe by sending a mail here. No doubt someone will soon post the URL of the unofficial FAQ. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com virus-checked using mcAfee(R) Software visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- -- Thibouille -- Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Macro Extension Tubes
Wow. Thank you for the information Mark, it helps a lot. I am definitely going to get myself of extension tubes now. Thanks again for the help and the enablement, Derek I use extension tubes all the time - a few basics: 1. A lens's focal length is that distance at which that lens will focus at infinity. Multiple element lenses complicate this a bit, but in the most simple terms a 100mm lens, for example, will focus at infinity 100mm from the film plane. That's why it is called a 100mm lens. :-) 2. As you move the lens further from this point, you move the plane of focus closer. A lot of lenses focus by just moving the a bit further out from the film. This moves the lens off infinity focus, and lets you focus closer. 3. The point at which the extension of the lens equals the lens's focal length results in a magnification of 1:1 - i.e. the image on the film is the same size as the object itself. So - with a theoretically simple 100mm, that is focused at infinity when it is 100mm from the film, if you add 100mm of extension, the lens will now focus very close, and the image on the film will be the same size as the object photographed. 4. When you focus closer, you magnify the image. Understanding the optical effects of magnification is they key to understanding macro and close up photography. Everything else is just derivative from the impact of magnification. 5. Every lens has aberrations and distortions. When you add extension and magnify the image, those aberrations and distortions are also magnified. In theory, macro lenses have been designed to overcome these problems. I have yet to see a situation where a non-macro lens matched a macro lens in performance at high magnification (greater than 1:1). That said, some lenses - like the Pentax 50mm f1.7 M, A, F, or FA, (all the same optical formula) do work very well with extension. 6. There's no problem using tubes with Digital SLRs. I use Vivitar tubes that have the full contacts, and with A or later lenses I loose only autofocus. I also use tubes and bellows for snowcrystal photos - lots of tubes. In that case I rely on the TTL flash to control the exposure. Pentax does not make tubes with contacts needed for auto exposure / aperture control, but third parties do. The thing with tubes - you can buy just plain tubes with no contacts and no mechanical connector to stop down the lens, you can get them with just the mechanical connectors to control the aperture but no electronic contacts, or you can get them with both mechanical and electronic contacts. The latter will result in an A or better lens working fine with a digital SLR, except that you will have to manually focus. 7. A less noted use of tubes is to allow you focus more closely with telephotos, where the minimum focusing distance may not be close enough. I'd see buying a set of extension tubes as a good first step into macro / close up photography. You can always use them later, even if you buy a dedicated macro lens. But a _good_ macro is worlds better than a regular lens on tubes, especially as you move away from the center of the image. I have used an M 200 f4 on tubes, and an A* 200 f4 macro without tubes. Guess what? The $1000 macro outperforms the $75 regular lens! Similarly, a $200 100mm macro will outperform a zoom or even a regular 100mm lens on tubes. If you have only zoom lenses, I'd recommend getting close up filters for macro work - but there again, good ones are not cheap. HTH - - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Macro Extension Tubes I have questions about macro extension tubes. Does anyone use extension tubes? On what on what lenses do you usually use them? What is the difference between using extension tubes and using a macro lens? Also, why do extension tubes not work on DSLRs? I have always been curious about extension tubes and was thinking of purchasing some (maybe on eekbay). I thought I might try them out on flowers and bugs. Thanks in advance for your help, Derek W
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Or maybe it's just because I'm a middle aged fat/bald guy.. William Robb Thanks for that image. And here I just told my sister you were young, good looking, and a talented photographer. Derek
Macro Extension Tubes
I have questions about macro extension tubes. Does anyone use extension tubes? On what on what lenses do you usually use them? What is the difference between using extension tubes and using a macro lens? Also, why do extension tubes not work on DSLRs? I have always been curious about extension tubes and was thinking of purchasing some (maybe on eekbay). I thought I might try them out on flowers and bugs. Thanks in advance for your help, Derek
Re: Macro Extension Tubes
Thanks for your help Godfrey. What do you mean, extension tubes not work on DSLRs? Of course they work on DSLRs. I miss read the Pentax Japan website. It actually reads This accessory is not compatible with the *ist. http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/accessory/index35_closeup.html Which begs the question, why are most tubes incompatible with the *ist? Thanks again for your help. Derek On Apr 5, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Village Idiot wrote: I have questions about macro extension tubes. Does anyone use extension tubes? On what on what lenses do you usually use them? What is the difference between using extension tubes and using a macro lens? Also, why do extension tubes not work on DSLRs? I use them, usually with a 50-135mm lens. I have the Pentax Automatic set, which supports the lens' autodiaphragm operation but does not transfer A exposure settings nor support auto focus. It essentially makes any A, F, FA, DA or D-FA lens into an M lens. This is not particularly convenient if the lens you're using doesn't have an aperture ring, but the lenses I use with mine all have aperture rings. Using an extension tube is virtually the same as using a macro lens, except that the latter usually support A mode and auto focus with the current series macro lenses like the FA and D-FA models. Of course, with an extension tube, the distances you can focus too are limited by the lens' focusing helicoid in conjunction with the amount of tube extension you've fitted. Dedicated macro lenses usually run from infinity to 1:2 or 1:1 magnification steplessly. What do you mean, extension tubes not work on DSLRs? Of course they work on DSLRs. I have always been curious about extension tubes and was thinking of purchasing some (maybe on eekbay). I thought I might try them out on flowers and bugs. I obtained a brand new set from an Ebay vendor for $75 or so. Pick up a copy of John Shaw's Close Ups in Nature for a good introduction to macro work before spending money on extension tubes or any other gizmos. Godfrey
Re: Macro Extension Tubes
Thanks for replying Christian! Derek Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 4/5/2005, 1:57 PM: On Apr 5, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Village Idiot wrote: I have questions about macro extension tubes. Does anyone use extension tubes? On what on what lenses do you usually use them? What is the difference between using extension tubes and using a macro lens? Also, why do extension tubes not work on DSLRs? hmmm missed the original post Anyway, Macro lenses have built-in extension and focus from very close to infinity. If you use extension tubes on any lens, you lose infinity focus. The one good thing about tubes is that you really don't need to worry about what brand you buy. Since there is no glass in them (they are just hollow tubes) you don't need to worry about them affecting image quality the same way a lens does (just make sure they are light-tight!). I use them a lot on my ist D. I have the Vivitar AF set which supports ALL functions necessary for automatic aperture control and autofocus just like the A lenses. I've used them on my 300/4 Sigma Macro to get just a little closer. I've used them on a vivitar 105mm macro for more than life-size images and I've used them with a 50mm both regular and reverse mounted. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Macro Extension Tubes
Thanks for you insight Don Derek Ooo, if JCO were here he'd tell you buddy! ;-) Seriously, I used tubes for a long time. It was inexpensive, with some very good results. Now that I have some true macro lenses I get some outstanding results, rather than just very good. Tubes are a great way to get into the world of the tiny and they have the added benefit (unlike 2x converters) of not adding any distortion of their own. Just be aware of 2 things: 1. True macro lenses are designed for the purpose and will generally yield superior results, hence their higher cost. 2. You will lose some light when going macro, this is true of even dedicated macro lenses. In other words an already slow f/4-5.6 lens can get pretty dark when extended. Focus is critical at high magnification, dark = difficult. My favorite lens to use with tubes was the M50/1.4, it did a great job. Happy bug hunting! ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:58 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Extension Tubes Using an extension tube is virtually the same as using a macro lens, Godfrey
Re: Enablement, The best 35mm camera ever!!!!
We all have that dream . . . Village Idiot Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I like the MZ-S body design pretty much as it stands, for ergonomics, although a D/DS style aperture/shutter control on the body would be a pretty nice upgrade. I've grown very accustomed to controlling exposure exclusively with my right hand this way. As a film camera, the MZ-S as it sits is good enough for me ... If I was still shooting any film, I'd buy one tomorrow. And I'd hope it was as reliable/durable as a Nikon FM2n or FE2. I like the look and feel of my MZ-S a lot, but there are some points that really would need imrovement. I can't figure out why I have to learn the individual functions by heart or carry around a little manual al the time. A camera to work with should be self-explaining. So it should be possible with moderate effort to make the digital display more talkative. I would LOVE the next Pentax digital SLR body to be based on the MZ-S body design but with the advancements of the *ist D/DS. That is what I would consider to be an ideal camera for the moment. Godfrey Me too. What I don't understand is why matrix metering sholdn't be possible with pre-A lenses, that's a feature I'd like to see. The most advanced camera Pentax Germany lists on their website is actually the *ist, which I would never buy due to its crippled KAF mount, besides its plasticky look. Why must that thing feature 12-point matrix metering? It's a waste... Also, as above mentioned, OTF metering and interchangeable viewfinders would be cool. And what really should be improved is the viewfinder image. Each time I change from my LX to my MZ-S it's like looking into a tunnel. Although the image is nice a higher magnification really would be great. And the removable _motor_ makes a sense to me. Actually, the MZ-S isn't that much faster in winding than the LX with the winder, which isn't really necessary when weight is an issue, like on mountain hikes. OTOH, as I'm also a left eye viewer, automatic film transport is something I like when shooting people or action so I neednt't take the camera off the eye each time to advance the film. Sometimes I dream of Pentax building an LX 2005, or so... pancho
Re: Future of DA lenses
Herb, Please help me out. What do you mean you want Pentax to be like Leica. look what happened to them. ? I actually don't know what you mean. What happened to Leica? Can you please fill me in? Thanks, Village Idiot you want Pentax to be like Leica. look what happened to them. in 2 years, when the DSLR market has stabilized, and if Pentax is still in the DSLR camera business, then it can afford to take it slow. Herb - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:40 PM Subject: Re: Future of DA lenses Because we haven't all been caught/potentially caught in the vicious upgrade cycle.
Re: Lens Cleaning
I think that is exactly what it is, a flake of black paint. Thanks you for the advice. Village Idiot - Original Message - From: Village Idiot Subject: Lens Cleaning My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Leave it alone. Keep taking pictures and forget about it. If you really want to save your lens, you won't bother with a spec that is barely visible, especially near the edge of the glass. It is probably is fleck of black paint that has fallen off the inside of the lens barrel. William Robb
Re: Lens Cleaning
Thank you for responding Godfrey. You are right, although the spec is not dust. I think it is a paint chip. It is black, it is near the edge of the lens, and it is just big enough to see that the chip is in the shape of a triangle. I have not seen any degradation in my results using this lens, but then I have not enlarged any photos from this lens either. I guess my real issue is I now have a lack of confidence in the lens. I was actually thinking of using the lens to photograph an out of focus light table and see if I can get the defect to show up. Again, thank you for your insight. Village Idiot A speck of dust won't hurt anything. I am much more bothered by the thought of taking a lens apart to clean a speck of dust and then reassembling it without having a collimator handy to be certain that all the elements are properly centered than I am by a speck of dust. Godfrey On Mar 24, 2005, at 8:23 AM, Village Idiot wrote: My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: Lens Cleaning
PS: Do Village Idiots have names these days, or are they just referred to as the Village Idiot? I am curious why you choose to call yourself that. I use Village Idiot both because I find it a little humorous (and it should be taken as such), and so that no one makes the mistake of assuming that I know anything about photography. Thanks for everyones input on the lens cleaning (or not cleaning)! Derek
Re: Lens Cleaning
PS: Do Village Idiots have names these days, or are they just referred to as the Village Idiot? I am curious why you choose to call yourself that. I use Village Idiot both because I find it a little humorous (and it should be taken as such), and so that no one makes the mistake of assuming that I know anything about photography. Thanks for everyones input on the lens cleaning (or not cleaning)! Derek
Lens Cleaning
My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: D645 musings
I was actully looking at ebay and it occured to me that maybe Pentax is too late coming out with a digital 645. For instance: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3353item=7503024825rd=1 Could Pentax have retained more customers by coming out with the D645 earlier? Village Idiot - Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: D645 musings at what price? Rob asked and you weren't one of the ones that answered. if it streets for $6K as Paal hopes, there could be lots. at $12K, there's going to be a lot fewer. if those 645 lenses are just sitting around right now not being used, that's not a great justification for spending $10K to get some use out of them. if you have the spare cash to do this just because you feel like it, you're welcome to do it. i'm sure there are going to be lots of people willing to grant you bragging rights. I'm not interested in 645. Hence, no answer. I found it pretty easy to justify almost 3 grand for an istD when it hit the Canadian market, as I had a bunch of K mount lenses to use with it. For me, it was far easier to justify an expensive body than a slightly less expensive body (Canon digital Rebel) and a complete lens line replacement. Maybe for you, bragging rights mean something, for me, it's about using the equipment I already own, including my lenses. William Robb
Re: ebay prices
Is it really the DS that is driving the Pentax 35mm lenses to crazy prices on Ebay? Village Idiot Just missed it :) It lived only 45 minutes. :) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7503381250
Re: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2)
I'm sorry to see you're waiting. However, the upside is that maybe BH will start stocking more Pentax lenses in the future (well, we can hope anyways). Village Idiot I got an email response telling me it's still on back order. Too bad there was no indication of this when I ordered it. I wonder if I'll get one at all. Dave Jon Paul Schelter (R* Toronto) wrote: I ordered one shortly after they emailed me about the new stock. My order is still listed as Processing, so I called them. The response I got on the phone yesterday was that they definitely had some in stock, and that it was just taking them some time to process my order. Haven't charged my credit card yet. There's a big flap over at dpreview's forum. I'm beginning to suspect that it may be a couple weeks before I see mine, during which time I'll sit here wondering if I shouldn't have ordered the 31 limited instead. :( JP Anxious, but patient.. -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 6:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: On order (Pentax SMC FA 35mm f/2) Yesterday I placed my order for the SMC Pentax-FA 35mm f/2 AL within minutes of seeing mention on here that it was avalaible at BH. The BH website, at the time, and for the first time in weeks, said In stock for this item. Today, 24 hours later, it still hasn't shipped, and the status as of a few minutes ago was still Processing. I began to get concerned when I viewed the item's listing on BH, and now instead of saying Backordered (as it said for weeks), or In stock (as it said yesterday), it now states something to the effect of Not an in-stock item. Please allow 7-14 days for special order from manufacturer (paraphrasing). I quickly shot off an email to BH to inquire as to the status of my order. No response yet, but minutes later when I looked at the order tracking page, it is now listed as On order. I guess I missed out on getting one from their most recent shipment. It would have been nice to discover that when I placed the order, rather than a day later, especially after requesting 3-day shipping. I'm sure it's worth the wait, but it's getting a little frustrating.
Re: Lens Cleaning
I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the lense, and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look really close when the lens is dismounted. OTOH, just knowing it is there kind of bothers me. Village Idiot Village Idiot wrote: My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. let me clear something up - did you say it is big enough to show up on your pictures? If not, why bother? Bedo.
RE: Lens Cleaning
Thanks for your response. I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it is the cheapest lens to replace. As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that are on the mount end of the lens? Village Idiot The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is probably the only reason to take the lens apart for cleaning. One thing I've learned from taking a couple of lenses apart (those that allow the front element group to be removed easily) is that those specks of dust and dirt are often a LOT smaller than they look when viewed through the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: eekbay - speaking of crazy prices...
It sounds like about the price BH would charge new, if they carried it. Village Idiot http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7500658176 It's a good lens... but $1200 good? -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: D645 musings
Sorry, especially since I could have easily posted a closed one to demonstrate the same point. I didn't know or think of that. Village Idiot. On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Village Idiot wrote: I was actully looking at ebay and it occured to me that maybe Pentax is too late coming out with a digital 645. For instance: I understand where you are cominmg from, but please don't post ongoing auctions. Thanks, Kostas
Re: Lens Cleaning
Thanks Mike. I haven't started yet, so I appreciate the tip! Village Idiot Village Idiot wrote: Thanks for your response. I was thinking that cleaning a 50mm F2 lens would not be that risky because it is the cheapest lens to replace. As far as instructions, is it just intuitive once you take off the screws that are on the mount end of the lens? You're starting at the wrong end. If you can work out how to get into the other end without causing any damage, you will probably make a decent job of it. If you can't work it out, I recommend that you put the tools back in the box 8-) mike Village Idiot The speck won't have any effect on picture quality, and, IMO, it's just not worth the time, trouble, or expense to take it apart and clean it. Since it's an inexpensive and quite common optic, it would certainly be a good choice to take apart in order to learn how to do your own repair, which is probably the only reason to take the lens apart for cleaning. One thing I've learned from taking a couple of lenses apart (those that allow the front element group to be removed easily) is that those specks of dust and dirt are often a LOT smaller than they look when viewed through the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) My very first lens, a Pentax 50mm F2 that came with my new ME Super some 23 years ago, has a black spec inside that is just big enough to see that it is triangularly shaped. I have never had anything in any of my lenses before, so I am at a loss as to how to save my lens. In this regard, I have a couple of questions. How much does it cost to have a lens taken apart and cleaned by a repair professional? Is it possible for an amateur, like me, to take apart a lens, clean it, and put it back together in working order? What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Thank you in advance for your help. Village Idiot
Re: Lens Cleaning
LOL Now that's comedy! I can relate all too well. Village Idiot Village Idiot wrote: Thanks Mike. I haven't started yet, so I appreciate the tip! Village Idiot Sorry I can't help more but I'm sneaking away from packing to do this and sooner or later you are going to hear an almighty thud as I get discovered... m
Re: Lens Cleaning
Yes, I suspected as much. Thanks, Village Idiot On 24 Mar 2005 at 17:06, Village Idiot wrote: I haven't seen it show up in any pictures. It is near the edge of the lense, and I can't see it looking through the viewfinder either. You have too look really close when the lens is dismounted. OTOH, just knowing it is there kind of bothers me. You're allowed to be bothered by its presence, however it's probably not causing too much optical degradation and it won't be cost effective to remove unless you do it yourself :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Lens Cleaning
Thanks Alan. This is great. It is exactly the information I was looking for! Thanks for your help. Village Idiot --- Village Idiot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the tools and steps needed for me to clean this lens properly? Usually dust gets inside between the front and the rear element group, the space where the aperture blades is. You can get there from the front or from the rear. From the front, you need to unscrew the retaining ring (#1), 3 screws (#2) and then the front element group itself (#3). Use a rubber blower to blow off the dust and job done. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41193715.jpg 2 things you need are low strength threadlock (threebond 1401) for the 3 screws (#2) and the proper lens wrench. The retaining ring itself doesn't require threadlock or you won't be able to get it off again in the future. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41194481.jpg To work from the rear, you only need the wrench to remove the rear element group. However, due to the tight working space, it requires more skill to work properly w/o leaving tool marks. A piece of rubber be used instead of the wrench depends on the situation in both cases. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: storing photos in the field: OTG device
Speaking of CompactDrive PD7X, I thought this was interesting: http://www.compactdrive.us/ Village Idiot Fra, Like several others here I chose a PD7X. I went with a 40GB drive. Its powered by 4 AA batteries, has a built in dual voltage battery recharger, and is very simple to operate. To copy the memory card to the drive you insert the card, place the power switch to the 'Card' position and press the 'Ok' button. That's it. To download to your PC you connect the supplied USB cable, put the power switch to 'Disk' and it shows up as a removable drive. Then just drag and drop the files. Each time you copy a card it creates a new directory on its internal drive which is helpful for organising. Here are two reviews of it. http://fhoude34.free.fr/PD7x%20Review.htm http://www.jaldigital.com.au/pd7xreview.html Mine cost me CAD$300 (inclusive of shipping and taxes). -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: Focusing Screens for the D Cameras
I have to say, Pentax would really have to work to make their online store less friendly. I find it somewhat clunky, slow, and many of their products lack pictures. I wonder if they would sell more with a slick website . . . Village Idiot A couple of weeks ago I called Pentax to purchase some LL60 screens. I was quoted a price of $60 each, so I told them no thanks. I recently discovered that they can be purchased on line -- from Pentax USA -- for $44 each. Go figure. That's Pentax. US shoppers can find them here. Look under SLR Accessories/Viewfinder Accessories. https://pc-wweb.pentax.com/scripts/wgate/zw20_pc/!?~language=en~Okcode=startite mostore=premiumsselected_area=01
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
William, You are correct about C having a classic Pentax look. That must be why I like that body the best. Village Idiot - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here Alin Flaider wrote: Citroens follow the shape of a falling blob, the B (and the thing that inspired it) look like inflated frogs. Now we know what you do during those long, cold, lonely Romanian winters. Hope Valentin hasn't exported the pastime to Canada 8-) Oh Man!! I had forgoten the childhood games of Frog Bowling. I like C, FWIW. It looks like a Pentax. William Robb
Re: 645D - more pictures
An interchangeable viewfinder would be very sweet indeed, but maybe they are saving that for the 67D. Village Idiot interchangeable finder, or just hasty preparation. Herb - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 1:14 AM Subject: RE: 645D - more pictures It looks like three different dummies made out of polystyrene, wood or whatever. The C-model has a prisma housing (baseball cap) not unlike the *ist D. Perhaps with a built-in falsh?
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
I thought that they already made a Pentax 67 Lens to Pentax 645 Body Adapter? Village Idiot In that case they could intend to sell a big circular lens converter for 67 lenses where you just pop that ring off and add the converter. John Francis wrote: Village Idiot mused: My biggest complaint aesthetically about B is the curved Pentax nameplate on the front of the viewfinder. I like the classic straight name. I think the curved nameplate has a cheap look to it, as if Pentax was unable to fit it on a straight line. If you look at the B again, there's a big circular ring all around the lens mount, and the name follows this. I don't see any reason for that to be there - while it's large enough for a 67 lens mount by the looks of things, that wouldn't work; the register distance of the 67 is greater than that of the 645. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
Silly me. Village Idiot Don't you want Pentax to sell new products, (besides you could maintain full available automation, something you lose with the current converter). Village Idiot wrote: I thought that they already made a Pentax 67 Lens to Pentax 645 Body Adapter? Village Idiot In that case they could intend to sell a big circular lens converter for 67 lenses where you just pop that ring off and add the converter. John Francis wrote: Village Idiot mused: My biggest complaint aesthetically about B is the curved Pentax nameplate on the front of the viewfinder. I like the classic straight name. I think the curved nameplate has a cheap look to it, as if Pentax was unable to fit it on a straight line. If you look at the B again, there's a big circular ring all around the lens mount, and the name follows this. I don't see any reason for that to be there - while it's large enough for a 67 lens mount by the looks of things, that wouldn't work; the register distance of the 67 is greater than that of the 645. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Holding Out for the 67D
I'm with you Tom. I figure I'll own a 67D in 2008, or maybe 2012, but probably more like 2018 with my budget (they'll be some used 67D's on ebay by 2018, right?). Village Idiot Yep, that's what I'm doin. Takin a couple a pitchers, and holdin out for the 67D Tom C.
Re: Holding Out for the 67D
Tom, Exactly what are you trying to say about me? Village Idiot I'm with you Tom. I figure I'll own a 67D in 2008, or maybe 2012, but probably more like 2018 with my budget (they'll be some used 67D's on ebay by 2018, right?). Village Idiot Great! Just look at the kind of people I attract. ;)
Re: Holding Out for the 67D
What!!! They called again? I told them to stop calling me. Village Idiot Nothing in particular... I always liked the Your village called... Their idiot is missing T-shirts. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Holding Out for the 67D Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:45:59 + Tom, Exactly what are you trying to say about me? Village Idiot I'm with you Tom. I figure I'll own a 67D in 2008, or maybe 2012, but probably more like 2018 with my budget (they'll be some used 67D's on ebay by 2018, right?). Village Idiot Great! Just look at the kind of people I attract. ;)
Re: Holding Out for the 67D
I think that Pentax's long-term strategy (if you can call it that) is becoming clear. Overall, they did their development in order of low-end to high-end format. First they did the point and shoot cameras. The 35mm came next (but reversing their low-to-high strategy by releasing the D first). Now the 645 MF is on the way (hopefully). Last is clearly the 67's, which I always thought was Pentax's crown jewel. Village Idiot Nothing in particular... I always liked the Your village called... Their idiot is missing T-shirts. Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Holding Out for the 67D Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:45:59 + Tom, Exactly what are you trying to say about me? Village Idiot I'm with you Tom. I figure I'll own a 67D in 2008, or maybe 2012, but probably more like 2018 with my budget (they'll be some used 67D's on ebay by 2018, right?). Village Idiot Great! Just look at the kind of people I attract. ;)
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
My biggest complaint aesthetically about B is the curved Pentax nameplate on the front of the viewfinder. I like the classic straight name. I think the curved nameplate has a cheap look to it, as if Pentax was unable to fit it on a straight line. Having said that, there is a dollar amount at which I would be tempted to buy the 645D regardless as to which body Pentax chooses. Village Idiot Rob Studdert opined: I think the B camera is short for Butt-ugly q-: I actually like it. I think they all look awesome, but do lean towards B. I wonder though whether deciding which exterior is to be produced should really be based on a poll of under-glass models. Anything like handling, functionality, ease of manufacture, strength, durability etcetera shouldn't really have a bearing on this decision should it? BTW, model B appears to have the slanted top control plate that was so loved in the MZ-S. I don't think A or C do. Cheers, David Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: 645D Photos (under glass) here
IMHO C is by far the best looking and A is definitely the ugliest. Then again, what do I know? Village Idiot OK, so it's settled. C it is. Who wants to tell Pentax? -Marco On Mar 16, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Alan Chan wrote: --- John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, I prefer design C. So do I. I think the body shape of B looks really stupid, but it's just me. G Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Camera bags/backpacks
I am looking at my camera bag and it needs to be retired. I would like to replace it with a backpack, but I have not figured out where to put my LX viewfinders. Where do you put the viewfinders in a camera backpack? Any suggestions? Village Idiot
Re: Camera bags/backpacks
Thanks for the suggestion. I am sure that my wife will be very pleased to hear that. Village Idiot - Original Message - From: Village Idiot Subject: Camera bags/backpacks I am looking at my camera bag and it needs to be retired. I would like to replace it with a backpack, but I have not figured out where to put my LX viewfinders. Where do you put the viewfinders in a camera backpack? Any suggestions? Best I've found so far is to have one LX per viewfinder. William Robb
