Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Well, it was a Spotmatic. I wanted one as a kid, but they were too expensive, and over the years I used a series of rangefinders and point and shoot cameras of varying quality. A few years ago I was looking for a replacement for my wife's Canonet QL17 G-III (stuck shutter problem) and on a lark I bought a Spotmatic with a Super Takumar 50/1.4 from Cameta Camera off the web. The price of $59 was about 1/5 of what it cost new in 1968! It turned out to be a dud, but Cameta Camera was very good about exchanging it for one that worked. I remain amazed that a camera so good now costs less that a middling quality point and shoot. Aaron
FS: SMC-M 50/1.4, AF200T flash
The LX body is sold, so I have these items left. SMC-M 50/1.4 This is engraved (neatly), you can see the engaving when the focus is racked out. KEH Bargain $45 shipped CONUS. AF200T flashBought from KEH, in EX+ condition, $25 shipped CONUS. If my prices are out of line, feel free to make me an offer off-line. Prefer payment by money order and shipping within North America if possible, tho I will consider offers from elsewhere. Thanks, Aaron Bransky
FS: LX body, SMC-M 50/1.4, AF200T flash
LX body: some brassing around the strap lugs, also engraved name below advance lever and to the right of viewfinder (at least it is neatly done). Works well. Probably KEH Bargain. Also comes with grip, original manual. $225 shipped CONUS If I sell the LX, then I will sell the following too: SMC-M 50/1.4 Again, this is engraved (neatly), you can see the engaving when the focus is racked out. KEH Bargain $45 shipped CONUS. AF200T flashBought from KEH, in EX+ condition, $25 shipped CONUS. Thanks, Aaron Bransky
Re: my first Spotmatic
What Kostas says is correct, but there are 4 possible "advantages" to getting a Spotmatic as opposed to a KM. 1st, the Super-Takumars and the SMC Takumars tend to be less expensive than the K mount lenses. Second, in my view the build quality or feel of the old screw mount lenses is better than the (still very excellent) K, M, and A lenses. Third, Spotmatics are pretty cheap. Finally, you might like the aesthetics of the Spotmatics more than the KM, etc. I have a couple of Spotmatics and I continue to use them even though I have more recent Pentax SLRs (K1000, LX, and MX). Aaron Bransky >>>>>Can I make a suggestion? People who have had and cherished both, suggest that the early bayonet cameras are late Spotmatics with a different mount; the KM is I think is mentioned as a prime example. http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/K/ The advantage of these cameras is that they work with the vast majority of Pentax bayonet lenses produced even today. With an adapter they also accept screwmount lenses (in stop-down metering mode). Just a thought, Kostas<<<<<<
FS: One More Try -- LX with SMC-M 50/1.4 & FA-1 finder
This one does not have the sticky mirror problem. Brassing on corners by the strap lugs, and unfortunately someone neatly engraved their name on the body and the lens barrel, so it is a user. Everything functions properly. I put some new foam in the back rails a few months ago. Includes original manual, FA-1 finder, and grip as well as a good SMC-M 50/1.4 lens. Also have original LX manual. Hate to sell this one, but I am thinning out and I am not shooting enough to justify keeping it. I am going to try one more time on PDML before trying the auction route. My asking price last week of $325 shipped CONUS apparently was too high for PDMLers, so E-mail me off line to make an offer. Thanks. Aaron Bransky
Re: Experience with Cameta Camera?
My experience with Cameta Camera has been good. I bought a Spotmatic from them, it didn't work properly, and they completely honored the 6 months warranty, no monkey business at all. They also replaced it with another Spotmatic that cost more than what I paid for the bad one, and didn't charge for the shipping. Since then I have bought a couple of lenses from them and all have been fine. Their grading probably is less conservative than KEH, so keep that in mind. They also put a few pieces of candy with whatever they're shipping, which I like. Aaron Bransky
FS: User LX with SMC-M 50/1.4 & FA-1 finder
This one does not have the sticky mirror problem. Brassing on some corners, and unfortunately someone neatly engraved their name on the body and the lens barrel, so it is a user. Everything functions properly. I put some new foam in the back rails a few months ago. Includes original manual, FA-1 finder, and grip as well as a good SMC-M 50/1.4 lens. Also have original LX manual. Hate to sell this one, but I am thinning out and I am not shooting enough to justify keeping it. $325 shipped CONUS. Thanks for looking. Aaron Bransky
Re: An MX "Bargain"
>From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>It's an entire art and science to produce a photo like that
>
>Fred wrote:
>> Howzabowt "a Asahi Pentax Mx works well" for "US
$400.00 (Reserve
>> not met)" from an eBay seller with a rating of "0"
("Member since
>> Sep-09-04")?
Amazing...but at least a "photo" comes with the ad.
I recall that recently there was an eBay listing for something
like "Pentax Camera Works Good", $300 initial bid, no
photo, and no description of the camera whatsoever (not
even the model or type of camera!)...and once again, a
seller with a "0" rating.
I don't think it sold at the asking price.
Aaron Bransky
Sorry!
I'm sorry, I think I pushed the send button too quick, with a reply that copied the previous digest. Aaron Bransky
RE: OT: Canon GIII 17
From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Canon GIII 17 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >The biggest problem you see on old Canonets is that the shutter is >stuck, and the foam seals have turned into goo, but both are >repairable. >Aaron Bransky Stuck shutter may cost more to repair than buying a new used camera though. And it is not always repairable. I've had one that the repairman could not reach. Stuck ring on the way. Andre, you are correct, sometimes fixing the stuck shutter costs too much. I would not buy a chrome GIII QL17 with a stuck shutter, and I eventually dismantled my wife's old stuck Canonet. Given that this is a black one, however, buying it at $40 is a no brainer. Even better that the shutter works! Aaron
Re: FS: user KX, user ME, nice K50/1.4, SMC-T 35/3.5, adapter
The M42 adapter is sold. I wrote the post from work, and forgot to add that the KX has 2 translucent smudges at the bottom of the return mirror. It doesn't affect function as far as I am concerned, but it might be of concern to some. Sorry for not mentioning it earlier. Aaron
FS: user KX, user ME, nice K50/1.4, SMC-T 35/3.5, adapter
Hello all: This is surplus and gathering dust and I have some medical bills to pay (I recently had back surgery, glad to say it was successful). If anyone's interested: 1) User KX -- everything works fine except self-timer. $70 2) User ME -- everything works fine except frame counter reset and mirror foam isn't that great. $30 3) K50/1.4 -- a few smallish use marks on the aperture ring and on the filter ring, odd specks of dust, but really in nice condition, clean and good diaphragm (and if this were eBay I could say that it is "minty", whatever that is supposed to mean) -- $55 4) User SMC Takumar 35/3.5, somewhat sluggish diapghragm, slight fungus at very edge of front element, $15 5) Generic Japan-made M42 to K adapter $6 E-mail for further details; prefer money order. Add shipping to all prices. If my prices strike you as ridiculous, make an offer! Thanks, Aaron Bransky
Re: PAW -- Applying Makeup
>-- > >Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:54:22 +0200 >From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Hi! > >It is an old Jewish holiday known as Purim where among other things >parents dress their kids in carnival clothes and then kids celebrate. > >I wonder whether any of these two work. I wonder which is better. I >wonder what you might want to say... > Boris, for me the color one is far better. Childrens' makeup is colorful and the dabs of color on the child's face are what help this very nice shot stand out. I also like how the child is looking off in one direction while the adult is looking straight at the child. Aaron
Re: WOW: (Was: First PAW -- Boys watching their friend ....)
Lasse, thanks for the excellent example of how to improve the picture by cropping. I'm glad you did that. It really does help zero in on the essence of the shot, namely the boy's hands and his posture. If anyone on the list can direct me to a site or resource so I can figure out how to resize images from a CD and how to upload them, please let me know either via the list or offline. I have a Macintosh. Thanks a lot, Aaron >Hi Aaron, I think I can see what you saw. Unfortunately the small size of the uploaded poicture makes it a bit difficult getting close enough. The posture of the boy is a good example of how perceptive we humans (or any animal I guess) are to body language/postures, just as we are to (varioius sounds of) voices or facial expressions etc. I think you did a good job in catching that moment. However, I took the liberty to give your picture a WOW just to show one way of dealing with it. ..Hope you don't mind, Lasse<<
Re: First PAW -- Boys watching their friend.....
Frank, thank you for your thorough and helpful critique. I really appreciate it, and your points are well taken. I did take a picture showing the face of the middle boy after the 1st shot, see link below. I like the other one better, but you might see it differently. The boy with the bow is my son, he's used to me taking pictures, but the other two aren't, so I sort of slunk around and grabbed these shots, and that's probably exactly why these in the end are just backyard snapshots, albeit ones that bring a smile to my face. Again, great to hear your thoughts and suggestions, Aaron Bransky http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2191550&size=lg >>>> (from Frank T.) Unfortunately, it's due to that angle that things sort of fall apart for me. Other than the title, it's really hard to see what the bow and arrow boy is doing. Yes, I know we can see the target, but that's really not enough of a clue for people like me . I can't tell what he's up to. We also can't see anyone's face - not that that's always a bad thing, but in this case, I think that much of what's happening in the kids' minds could be reflected on their faces. I know you were trying to get all three of them in the shot, which idea has some merit, but in this case, it might have been nice to get tight into one or more of their faces, or at least much closer than you were. Even though I posted previously saying I hate it when people tell me "I would have taken the shot such-and-such a way", I'm going to come perilously close to doing just that. Next time, maybe forget about the target, and get beside the kids (like to the left of the shooter). Try to get all three of them in profile (it looks like they would have been nicely lined up for that). With a bit of moving around, you might have been able to capture much more emotion than you did. I think you saw a scene with lots of great elements, but didn't know what to do with it - that's the impression I get anyway. This isn't a bad shot, but to me (and this is just a personal opinion), you're really close to raising it from a backyard snapshot to a statement about boys and their toys. I think you wanted to, but for whatever reason didn't exactly know what to do. OTOH, you may have shots on your disk that are closer to what I'm thinking, and if so, it would be great to see them. And, again, I'm not saying what's ~bad~ about your shot, just thinking of looking at things differently if you're presented with an analagous situation in the future. Hope you don't mind the critique.<<<<<<<
First PAW -- Boys watching their friend use a bow and arrow
Hello all: OK, Stan, Frank and Boris encouraged me to post a photo, so I went over to Walgreens (a US drug store chain, chemist for our friends in the UK if I recall), and for $4 got some of my negatives scanned onto a CD, then used a freeware program called EasyPhoto for my Mac to reduce the file size. No cropping, etc. I really have no idea what I am doing with this digitizing stuff or if there are better ways to compress the original image. The original print looks better but so be it. Anyway, here's a picture I grabbed in the backyard last summer. I liked the way how the posture of one of my son's friends showed how he was interested in yet repelled by the bow and arrow. Here's the link, I think it should work. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2190917&size=lg Suggestions, critiques, help welcome. Thanks, Aaron Bransky
Re: PAW - Grey Day
>>>>Just another dreary day Both equally mundane? Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada<<<<<<<< No, Wendy, I like these pictures. Slight preference for the 1st one, I like the tiny splash of color in there. Both naturally remind me of taking trains in and out of Toronto -- great city, great station, great trains. Aaron Bransky Duluth, MN
Re: Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions?
Thanks, Joe. What do these AF160 flashes typically cost these days? What would be a choice for swivel and/or having the ability to reduce output, perhaps for outdoor fill-in flash? Aaron >From: Joe Wilensky >If you want something really small, made by Pentax, and >chronologically appropriate for the MX, the Pentax AF160 will do. Two >auto flash settings plus manual. No tilt, swivel, or anything, but >it's at least the closest thing to replacing the simplest functions >of a built-in RTF flash. AF on Pentax flashes in the '70s and early >'80s didn't mean autofocus, but auto flash. > >See: http://www.BDimitrov.de/kmp/flashes/non-TTL/index.html for specs. > >Joe > >
Smaller flash for MX -- suggestions?
Hello all: Any suggestions for a compact electronic flash unit for my MX? What do you use and why? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Intro from lurker and thanks for the help
Stan, Frank, and Boris, thanks for the welcome. I also appreciate your encouragement about posting pictures, or "Art" as Frank put it. Maybe I'll see who scans in negatives here in Duluth -- that aspect of photography is completely new to me and about all I now know is that it can be done. I don't know how one crops a digital image or anything, but perhaps my local camera store can fill me in on that. I read the recent critiques re the MX with interest. I can believe that the MX is harder to fix than the Spotmatic, and perhaps the Spotmatic is more robust, but (knock on wood) my MX bodies are doing fine thus far. Thanks again, Aaron
