Re: B&H's weird ordering blackouts
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: > I think you're allowed to spell God, since it's a title not a name... Dunno, ever practicing Jew I've known on the Internet has gone with G-d. I jsut repeat what they say. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: B&H's weird ordering blackouts
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Tom Lesser wrote: > I don't know the specific rationale, but it's related to their > orthodoxy in some manner. If you order from them frequently, you > should get on their e-mailing list I think they're very good about > sending out notices when they'll be down in observance of their > religious holidays. I'm gonna mispell it, but its OK, coz I'm not Jewish and don't speak Hebrew. Ever see the Big Lebowski? When Walter is ranting about on the seventh day, G-d (y'know, since we're talking Jewish points, might as well not spell out G-d's name, either!) rested, and as such he doesn't roll, he doesn't cook, and he certainly doesn't drive? Same thing. Shomer Shabbas means they don't use computers. I guess its easier to shut the system down than to worry about it and possibly violate their rules, than to leave it running. Not to mention, if its doing work in the background, it may count as work in some roundabout theoretical way. As it is, you learn to deal with it. Honestly, I don't think I've ever had a Jewish holiday really affect me much, although it was a bit much to wrap my head around at first. As to B&H being an interesting sight, you're right. When I first went there, it reminded me of what the North Pole might look like if the elves were all Orthodox Jews. A constant train of little baskets moving on lines overhead, loaded with camera bits. Its pretty intense to watch, and I believe that I've never seen a non-Orthdox Jew workign anywhere in the store. Beards, yamulkas, and the sideburns as far as they eye can see. Its a good time. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Mirror sticking on ZX-5n (was Re: FS - ZX-5n
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: > I know this is stupid but did you try replacing the batteries? Yes, and no. It had a set of the CR2 or whatever the little buggers are in it, which don't register as low on the LCD. I didn't replae those because I don't have another set. I did, however, put the battery grip back on with a fresh set of AA's. It looks like the shutter is stuck in mid-movement. I let it sit under a light for a bit to warm up, just incase it was non-greasy-grease that caused it. After letting it sit, sans-batteries, I put 'em back in, tapped the button and watched the mirror go down, and then promptly go right back up and lock into place again. There's also a lovely whining noise from a motor every so often. Its been sitting sans-batteries on a shelf now for a week or two. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Mirror sticking on ZX-5n (was Re: FS - ZX-5n
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > a few months and it worked just fine. A couple of weeks ago the mirror > locked up just as I was about to sell it. So, there you have it - the > mirror is still stuck. If interested, make an offer. Off list please. > Thanks! Mine did this last week as I was playing around with it, so is there some sort of failure that's known, and an easy way to correct it, or does it mean that its due to be checked up by the folks at the repair center? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: FS: A35/2 and A50/2.8 Macro
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Paul wrote: > A35/2 - Good cosmetics and optics I'm curious to know what you're asking or this lens, which is probably more than I can afford (the CC is still warm from being used on teh K100, but now I realize it needs some lenses...) :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Your first camera
My first camera? Some sort of little 110 thing. Then a disc camera of some type. My first 35mm camera was some sort of rangefinder, I swear it was a Ricoh, but I might be making that up. It was a heavy, shiny affair. It stopped working once, on a trip, and I took it apart. To this day, I regret that decision. I often wonder what kind of camera it was, too. I borrowed my uncle's Minolta SRT-something through m highschool photo classes, til I gave it back to him 4 years later. About 8 cameraless yearrs went by, til I bought a Pentax ZX-50 with a stack of rebate coupons from some Internet retailer that went under shortly thereafter. That's how I ended up here -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On static subjects a combination of image combining (can secure (1.21 jigawatts, etc, much deleted crunchy bits) > to do manually but there are some really nice automation kits out > there for serious work. Yow, am I the only one who finds all the digital bits of New Photography boring? I look for reasons to NOT do "work" at a computer, not seek them out. Sure, points and clicks can leave my LF gear "in the shade," but I'd much rather be out in the shade, taking a photograph with a lovingly crafed view camera than indoors waving a mouse. Hell, the reason I bought a DSLR finally is so I could spend more time TAKING pictures and less time wasting on things like darkrooms, scanning, futzing in PS, etc. -shrug- I guess my priorities are all off. Maybe I shouldn't have given this digital revolution a shot, hey, is there room by JCO for another luddite? I want back in... ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Ideas for Pics - Need Models, Locations
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Unfortunately, my friends either don't look the part or refuse to be > photographed. Clearly new friends are in order! -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT iMac question
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, David J Brooks wrote: > Maybe i'll just hang tight untill Leopard is released, unless it already is. Don't wait, join us! JOIN US! If/when they lump Boot Camp into the OS release, you'd still use it the same way, so waiting won't make that much of a difference from that aspect. See what the refurbed iMacs are going for at Apple, and make your choice there. I have a friend who has both an iMac G5 and a new Core Duo Mini. He told me that there's no comparision, speed wise, and the Mini stomps the iMac for video encoding. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT iMac question
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Mat Maessen wrote: > And as an added bonus, you can drive a second LCD or CRT display with > it, if you don't have enough screen space on the built-in LCD. :-) You may want to double check, that might be available with an Open Firmware hack only. The consumer line usually only does display mirroring, not spanning. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT iMac question
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Dave Brooks wrote: > Am i to believe that the imac has all of its hardware in the screen, no > tower to worry about kicking it with feet and knee's.?? Well, there's a power cord between the wall and the computer. ;) I bought an iMac G5 the day they announced the Core Duo version because I wanted to own one a G5 before they disappeared. Its a fantastic design, although I've still managed to clutter my desk with crap. > Also the dual core 2 intel. Is there anything special you need to > do/load to work between Mac and Winblows, or do you need to get boot > camp or such. Boot Camp is free, and should be rolled into the next MacOS X release. You'll have to download it, but I don't know if/how partitioning works with regards to it. There's also Parallels, which works differently, and lets you run Windows natively under MacOS X, not unlike Virtual PC, but again.. native. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 645D estimated street price - unbeleivable it must be a mistake!
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Don't they have phones or email in Rochester? Kodak never believed in modernization before, why start now?? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: YouTube - The Pentax K10D (shake reduction)
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Roman wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hjKijLOj9s With absolutely nothing to do with SR, aperature rings, or JCO... Anyone know what kinda camera bag that is? :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D Anti-shake
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, graywolf wrote: > Maybe it reads the focal length from the lens to set the antishake > profile, but with a K/M lens it just uses a generic setting? When I use an A50, I'm required to choose the SR from a menu. When I use an FA28 or the DA18-55, it selects it automatically. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D- anybody bought one?
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Doug Franklin wrote: > > Antishake is pretty clever. I'm hand holding below my old cutoff, 1/45. > Awesome! I can't wait to try it. I was playing around last night, and while I didn't pull the images off the camera, using an FA28, I was able to handhold to non-blurriness for a 1sec exposure. Now, I couldn't repeat that more than twice out of probably 10 exposures, but I'm not exactly the most stable camera platform out there. :) > Really? Even when the camera is in sequential exposure mode? (Or > whatever they call it) On the *ist D, single exposure mode is shown as > a rectangle in the LCD. Sequential exposure mode is shown as what's to > look like a stack of rectangles, sort of like Yep, although that was the first night I had it. I had to go through a menu to turn on both sequential and the wireless remote, so in hindsight maybe I turned off the ability to use anything but the wireless. I apologize, I haven't gone back down that route since the first night when I was disappointed to find out the wireless didn't work how I wanted it to. > No, but having my 300/4.5 "turn into" a 450/4.5 is pretty handy and > pretty cool. And having my 400/5.6 "turn into" a 600/5.6 is even better > sometimes. Not to mention that since you're only using the center of > the lens' coverage, you typically get better sharpness out to the edges > of the digital image. Then again, I use long lenses far more than short > ones. Different strokes, I preferred shorter over longer. Mater of fact, the only long lens I ever owned was a Sigma 70-300. > I really wish the *ist D showed the ASA/ISO in the viewfinder or on the > top LCD panel. I keep forgetting to reset the darned thing. :-) I just > noticed a minute ago that the photos I added to the "Stuck Filter" > thread a couple of days ago were shot at ASA 1600, a leftover from the > night shots at the Petit le Mans a week ago. I have the ISO set to automagic mode so I don' thave to be bothered learning another thing at this point. > Not for me. When I'm panning fast moving racecars, I've found that the > AF is usually "behind" what I'm seeing in the viewfinder. I think it I think at this point, its mostly a feature that I'm completely out of my element with. I'm used to how my ZX-5n worked, and I've grown to be happy with it. As time moves on, I may find the AF thing to be desireable, or I may just turn it off and lock it to a single AF point in the middle. > They can go into newer Photoshop versions (CS1 and above?) that have > Adobe Camera Raw installed. Oh. Err, free download? I have a copy of CS2 I've been evaluating on my Mac... > That's "technically" known as "chimping". It can cause you to miss > shots and cause you to be ridiculed by your photographic compatriots. > If you do it in the wrong place, like on the Jersey barrier beside a > race track, it can get you killed. :-) I've spent the last three years or so using view cameras almost exclusivly, so my concept of "rapid action" is way different than yours. Heh. > "Hyper" mode is awesome. ...Er.. wait, wozzthat? > The major bummer from my perspective is a buffer small enough to fill > the way I use the camera. On the MZ-S, I've shot as many as fifteen in > quick succession as a big incident on the track unfolded. For me, the > five/six shot buffer on the *ist D is OK 90% of the time, but that other > 10% it's really a pain in the neck waiting on the camera to write the > buffer. Shooting in raw, at the highest res, I notice that I can fill the buffer after like 3 shots, if that. Then again, I didn't realize that the speed of the SD card also functioned into all this, so when I bought memory, I bought on price not performance. Whoops. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Sorry for my error, isnt this a APS only format lens? He zigs, he zags! Wasn't that the topic of discussion here? Refusal to buy a Pentax DSLR because you can't use your K mount lenses the way that God intended them to be? That Pentax "professional" DSLRs should include this option (and for the record, I'm not disagreeing with you, no sir, I agree completely on this, but even I relented and am attempting to move on)? And then, to back it up, you offered us the inability to use the M40/2.8, only to be stymied when you realized there wasn't just an updated 40/2.8, but additional pancake lenses in the line? Maybe your argument gets easier to follow upon subsequent readings, but on our maiden voyage here, I'm not sure I can figure out the destination we're piloting to. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: ebay woes
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Gonz wrote: > I might just do that for any hope of avoiding a negative. I might still > get one because of the discrepancy between the refunded amount and the > purchase price + shipping. Buyer's problem, not yours. You asked how much he wanted to insure it for and he responded $500. You followed his requirement, and he should get burned for it. I'd argue that negative feedback to the end. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > The pankcake 40mm F2.8 M lens is just another example > Of a lens where there is NO NEW EQUIV. > These lenses should be fully supported as you cant > Even buy a new one like it if you wanted to. What do you mean, he just told you what they are, see below: > On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > > DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the > > 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the > > other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. Sounds like there's a new equivlent and furthermore, an expansion of the pancake line... -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > > Some c'mon Pentax, where are the DA* or DA-Limited lenses? ;) And, since > > you're omitting aperature rings, make 'em cheap for us thrifty types, I > > can't afford the 31 Limited. On the other hand, there's a Sigma 30/1.4! Now, that's what I'm talking about.. I gotta go find me some review of this guy.. Anyone here with first hand experience? I'd hate to give up Pentax SMC, but you can't win 'em all... -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > DA Limiteds are already here. 21 f3.2 Pancake, 40 f2.8 Pancake and the > 70 f2.4 Pancake due any moment. The 40 is quite cheap ($300CDN), the > other two are more money, but still a lot cheaper than FA limiteds. The downside is I don't want "pancake" lenses, I want larger units with some holding space on 'em. And I want that 21mm faster than 3.2. I'd trade off the "pancake" ability for another 1.5 or 2 stops of speed at the same price point, but what do I know? I mostly make this up as I go along... As for a 70/2.4? Eh, whatever. An FA50/1.4 will probably be under cost and 1.33 stops faster. Again, maybe the little pancake thing appeals to someone, somewhere, but it ain't me. Its the right direction, but not what I'm looking for exactly (then again, what I'm mostly looking for is something to complain about). -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D- anybody bought one?
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Anybody bought the K100D and how do you > Like it so far? Is the anti-shake working > As well as touted? What are the pros/cons > If any (other than K/M lens issues)??? I did, it came in Friday morning. I haven't had much of a chance to use it, yet, but I've learned: #1 Lesson: Not caring about film cost kicks ass! I need to read the manual. Antishake is pretty clever. I'm hand holding below my old cutoff, 1/45. That it looks like using K/M lenses isn't so bad with the AE button. My old flash, an AF280T, no longer works with this body. The wireless remote doesn't let you utilize the autowinder, or whatever we'd call it. Multiple shot feature. Eh. Whatever. I need to read the manual. The digital preview version of DoF is actually pretty useful. That having a 50/1.4 turn into a 75/1.4 isn't desirable. That I wish they made and I owned a 35/1.4. I'll settle for teh 35/2.0. The lack of short focal length lenses bites. I've re-learned how nice Pentax lenses are. I wish I had camera movements. :) There's too many damned buttons. I need to read the manual. Wait, I have to set ISO? It does for me? Huh? What? Eh? Multiple AF points seems to be useless. Evidently, raw images from the camera don't go into Photoshop? I wish I knew what I was doing. I need to read the manual. I need to learn that I have a preview screen right on teh camera, and I don't need to go home, download the photos into the PC and then see what I got. I haven't really tried full manual mode, so I haven't had to get used to using wheels and buttons in combinations, although I rarely used anything but Av mode, anyways. Its a brave new world. I'm not sure I'm ready for it. I realized that after I came home and decided to look at the images, only to realize I oculd've proofed in the field and corrected for shoddy composition. Then, to muddle my way around a bit, and try to figure out how to get things into various programs left me befuddled. I really did forget that I can look at the preview screen in the field, and I truly regret the lack of camera movements.. You don't know how often you use them or how useful they are until they're gone. I know your beef is with the use of pre-A lenses. I haven't given it much work, but when I read from someone how to use the AE lock button to stop down, meter, and then display it in the view finder I became much more placated by it. Its still probably not idea for people who need to quickly function with their pre-A lenses, but for me, it works just fine. I'm somewhat confused, though, in reading that the newest lens lines forthcoming I'm going to lose the ability to autofocus, though. While I probably won't be able to afford anything with an asterik in its name, it bothers me none the less. I'd also like to see Pentax release a line of value priced, fast prime lenses for these things. If they're going to make 'em for a little CCD and omit the aperature ring, I'd hope they were within the price range of a non-pro. Alas, the days of the prime lens are probably as over as the days of film flagship bodies. Oh, and the last thing I learned from buying a K100D: I need to read the manual. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Well, that's it, I cracked.
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, David Savage wrote: > On 10/8/06, gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I feel so...dirty. > (Re: DSLR purchase) > Mark! Que? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Well, that's it, I cracked.
Its been a rough year... I've finally given up on Mini Disc and bought an iPod. I've gone ahead and actually gotten a driver's lisence, and a car. I'm no longer able to colaim that I've got exclusively Mac, I had to buy a Windows laptop for car diag software. I realized by the end of the year I'll own an Xbox over a PS3 due to pricing. Oh, but the worst of it all? I bougght myself a DSLR. Oh, I tried and wanted to stay away.. but I just don't have time to develop and contact print/scan 35mm film anymore. With lots of new little hobbies nickle and diming my free time away, I realized I just don't have time to take photographs anymore the old way. Film piles up, and I barely have the time to even develop the sheet film, much less the little stuff. I feel so...dirty. Anyhoo, a K100D. The shake reduction was what finally did me in. Its a good idea. It seems to work, although I haven't really learned how to use anything yet, I got the body and the kit lens in yesterday. Its kinda daunting, even for a camera and technology snob to jump into this. I will say that the body seems nice and solid, not cheap at all.. and the lens is surprisingly solid feeling, except it seems to be missing an aperature ring. I like tht I can manually correct teh focus even when its in AF mode. The pixelmonkeys at workseemed to mostly be impressed with the size and clarity of the LCD on the back of the unit, and while I found the LCD preview feature to be kinda weird instead of a proper DoF preview, I think that's kinda grown on me (I know it can be switched, I actually put it back to LCD preview mode oever using it the "right" way). Now, however, I can start clamouring for Pentax to release a DA 28/1.4, though, coz I'm not sure if I can handle my normal lens being either a 28/2.8 or an equivilent 75/1.4, although those pictures sure do look smooth and creamy at f1.4, I can imagine how good the A*85/1.4 must look. I'm off to prowl eBay for a FA35/2.0... Some c'mon Pentax, where are the DA* or DA-Limited lenses? ;) And, since you're omitting aperature rings, make 'em cheap for us thrifty types, I can't afford the 31 Limited. gfen, who'd like it known his DSLR order did come with a box of 4x5 film. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax medium formats
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: > I thought the 645 users were the junior brothers of the brotherhood, Ahem, that was the "Little Brotherhood." ;) We were better than those Brotherhood types, if for no other reason than our backs were unbowed from lack of weight 'round our necks. I went through this a few years back, 6x7 versus 645. I opted for 645 as I had 4x5 cameras to cover the larger end of things, so the 645 was a nice compromise for weight and hand hold-ability, and more exposures per roll. I feel I made the right choice, at the time, although it wasn't much longer 'til DSLRs were infringing on the picture quality turf. I still use my 645 from time to time, with the 645-K adapter its a nice addition to a film kit. If I didn't have a view camera, or if I didn't love to use it, I'd probably have, and would, buy a 67. I can't think of any pitfalls with the 645 cameras, at least not model I had. I seem to remember something about the rollers or film curvature in the 645n when you enabled 16 exposures per 120 roll. There was a Tom who used to do wedding photography around here who had a handy list of differences between the two systems. He was a proponent of the 645nII, until he was lured away by the full frame Canon DSLRs. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A caution about aging technology
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > The monitors are nothing special anymore. At the time they were > pretty high-resolution ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or so), but now you'd just need an > adapter to physically connect to a VGA monitor. That's how I got mine up > and running... soldered up an adapter cable. Its not the same without the total package, though. At least, that's how I fel about it. I have a stack of other obsolete workstations in the closet, but only the NeXT gets to live on my desk and work. > MacOSX so that my mac was obsolete, I would be using one now. I skipped > the whole Winders BS and went from Mac to Linux. I could be persuaded to > go back with OSX, but the hardware is too expensive for my cheap bastard > self. I did Linux, and I don't care to do it anymore. It was my job to play Unix sysadmin, and it became tiresome to fight with things. Windows was convient, and offered me the ability to just have things work, but was trashy. MacOS X was the right combination of Unix power, stability, and Windows packaging. The price of an Apple, new or refurbished, isn't nearly as out of line as I thought they were. On the othe rhand, I also no longer have the paitence or inclination to assemble my own whiteboxes. > Played with one of those around the same time as getting my slab. > Dreadfully slow, huge, and monochrome. The optical drive was a beast! If nothing else, the Cube is a gorgeous computer. It wasn't just a utilitarian machine, it was a design so perfectly executed. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A caution about aging technology
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > You too, eh? I got a TurboColor Slab awhile back and put a virgin > OpenStep 4.2 install on it. Wish I had the correct cables to connect to > the sound boxes and monitor. Really was a purdy machine. I have two complete units at my desk, including one I still use on a regular basis and I ended up giving about 4 away to friends and family. No room to store the massive 21" monitors. Matter of fact, the one I use at home is the one I used at my desk at work until about 2 years ago when I was moved to a smaller desk and no longer had room for it. It was NeXTSTeP that made me finally take a look at MacOS X. Haven't gone back since. Although, as John (?) pointed out in the start, they're still not worth much more than scrap. Especially when you consider the original price these things sold at, they've got a long, long way to apprechiate in value. On the other hand, between Sun buying 'em wholesale and melting them down 10 years ago and snotnosed PC mod kids gutting them and polishing the magnesium cases to a mirror shine, the numbers are definatly going to continue dwindling. I need a cube, though. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > it with the thing I love most about 6x7, which is not resolution. A giant wooden handle?!? First I've paid attention to this thread, but is it removable prisms? That' dbe kinda clever, eh? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: FA 28-70 f4 AL
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > Tell me why I'd want to keep it. Its smaller and lighter than your other three lenses combined, ergo its convienent when you are packing for size and weight considerations. Also, sometimes its just more convienent to have an all-in-one answer. That's why I keep mine, which hasn't fallen apart on me...yet? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My two cents on monopods
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > While a head on a monopod certainly can be useful in a number of > situations, I've never seen one in the camera bay at a ball game. I > personally don't have one. It would take some real convincing to get > me to use one, especially with a long lens. After using it, you'll be hooked. Its kinda self-fulfilling like that. The benefits are exceptionally useful with a long lens, where shutter speeds need to be shorter to minimize shake, in addition to the weight and space savings when hauling a monopod is easier than the tripod. There's always going to be places where the tripod is better, but when you need to cut corners for whatever reason, the monopod surely wins out versus well, nothing. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: My two cents on monopods
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Ed Maruyama wrote: > Of course it's not enough for slow shutter speeds... but I think it's more > stable than my jello > tripod (at least with the 500mm lens) I love my monopod, and its easily as good as a tripod in some cases.. Where you can jam it into the ground, lean it against trees and rocks, and all that good stuff. > There's no head on it... but for now, seems like I won't need one... > seems to be "easy" to lean back and forth in order to adjust the > camera/lens up and down... The "proper" way to use a monopod is to angle it forward, and then lean into it. Thus, you form a tripod with the monopod being the front leg and your own two legs being the rear. Putting the camera on the top of the unit precludes you from being able to lean into it on anything except upward facing shots. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film recommendations?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > Yep, that's almost velvia-ish saturation from the Ultra Color. I don't > touch the stuff, if I want ungodly saturation, I shoot E100VS or Velvia > chromes. I'm lazy, and chromes require extra work for my little amatuer self. I'm gonna have to pick me up a roll of Ultra Colour, I guess. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film recommendations?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > Plus-X is still available, but can be hard to find. Tri-X will likely > outlast every other Kodak B&W film. Tri-X is my do-everything film, I > shoot it from EI 200-6400 on a regular basis. I knew they killed it in sheet format a few years back, I assumed roll and 135 was shortly thereafter. At least somethings remain teh same, except I still don't wanna give Kodak my money. I'm a bitter old coot like that. :) > I think you mean FP4 and HP5. I've never liked either, they just don't You are correct, I'm easily confused. > Superia is actually Fuji, not Kodak. Again correct, I meant Supra. I took a look at big yellow's website before I sent this, and Supra is infact gone, like Royal Gold before it. What's this "Ultra Colour" stuff, though. I see it comes in 100iso. Is it clowny levels of colour saturation? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Film recommendations?
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Adam Maas wrote: > Fuji Acros, Kodak Tri-X, Ilford PanF+. I'm a little out of touch, as I've been living off of frozen stockpiles in 35mm film and don't really shoot it often anymore. In B&W, from Kodak, I used Tri X for high speed and Plus X for low speed film. I'm unsure if Plus X is still available, its probably not as it was always my favourite. As Kodak began to abandon the product lines I care about, I decided I wasn't going to continue to line their pockets and I began to give my money to Ilford. HP4 and FP5 were the highspeed/low speed match I opted for there. I have never used Fuji in B&W. No reason, jsut never bothered. I've heard plenty of good things about Acros, though. For colour film, I've been going through Kodak Superia and Gold both in 100. I'm pretty sure they're both dead end products, too. When it comes time to buy more, I'll probably switch from Kodak to Fuji, but I am unfamilar with their colour selection. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, William Robb wrote: > Do they put Tiptronics into Porsches? TipTronic was patented by Porsche. They also put TipTronic into Volkswagen and Audi (I think those are the only lisncees of TipTronic proper), though the shift times are a little slower than in the Porsches by factory default. You can change the trans ECU to allow for Porsche-like shifting times, though. gfen, tiptronic VW owner. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, John Francis wrote: > Get some "new" lenses (that's anything made in the last 25+ years) Sometimes they really don't make 'em like they used to, y'know...A moot argument for me, but not for everyone here. > Pentax. Oh, wait - there aren't any. Still, switch anyway - that > will show them! Or I can continue functioning along like I always have, but drop the broad support I've always given Pentax in the past for producing excellent optics and cameras and the right price. If there's no DSLR that provides me the proper usage of the aperature ring, well then so be it. I didn't need a DSLR anyways. I'm not sure why there's a chip on your shoulder because some people have a preference for doing things they way they always have, and because some people don't like to give up features and methods that have worked across teh board so we can fidget with wee little buttons and menus. > You're right, too, that you're just rehashing old arguments that > have been played out here, in excruciating detail, too many times. Ain't the Internet grand? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, John Francis wrote: > as it is on the MZ bodies. But, instead, we got cameras with the > control interface of the PZ bodies, where the lens is left set to > the "A" setting, and everything is controlled by the finger/thumb > control wheels on the body. My *ist-D is, operationally, almost > identical to my PZ-1p. Woah, evidently I misread what was originally said.. I didn't grasp this at all. So... I have to set the aperature from the camera body? I don't have the privlege of doing it the right way, with the ring on the lens itself? My interest just waned that much more. I'm evidently going to continue being a bitter hold out, and to think, I was close to wafflign when I saw the prices at B&H (I didn't realize they had gone so low, down to $420 for some variation, the DL*ist I suppose). Sigh, I guess it was a sign of the times when the FAJ without the aperature rings came out. I presume the "DA" lenses are specifically designed to not cover full frame and are also FAJ mount? Maybe its time I buy that Leica after all and ascend to snobbery the proper way. :) Gah, next thing someone'll tell me they've gone all funny, too... -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, William Robb wrote: > Some people want the machine to do all the work for them. Damn skippy. Robocamera better do it all, otherwise its not much of a convienence. Look, maybe I'm just rehashing 4 year old arguments that no one right cares abotu anymore, I can acknowledge thate veryone else has probably moved on and accepted this "feature," but I'm not. I retain the right to live in the past, and as such I prefer to think that their new fangled digital camera is gonna do what I want it to do when I want it to do it, not require me to remember to flip this switch here when I need to this feature here, but only once in awhile when I'm using some particular lenses. I'm not a complete bastard about it, though. Fine, so in order for SR to work, you need to tell it the focal length. Makes sense to me. It can't do any automatic features with a M42 lens attached to it through an adapter. This I can accept. But I don't want to accept that its not smart enough to replicate a feature thats been on every one of the camera bodies since the mid '70s, including the MZ-S from which I think all the rest of this descends. Fine, eventually I'll have to crack one way or another, I suppose, and just give in. But I can assure you that I can hold on for as long as I need to and will be happy to buy one on the used market in a year or two rather than a brand new one for want of something as simple as not having to press the DoF preview to meter. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Not sure why you are saying alas. You haven't tried it. I have used I'm lazy, that's why. Incredibly lazy. And forgetful. Incredibly forgetful. Its something I don't desire to have to do, I ratehr apprechaite that the camera is smart enough that I don't have to stop down to meter. Now, its easier having to press the DoF button to meter rather than stopping down, but I still choose to avoid it as much as possible. Its another headache I don't need to worry about. I've already got a camera that requires me jump through hoops, setting, doublechecking, and resetting a series of dials, widgets, and bits. I kinda considered the move from the ZX5n (which I use more than the MX, I should really sell that) to a digital body to be streamlining things, I don't want to have to remember to do that every time I might happent o use one of the two or so lenses that don't have an "A" setting. Two? Crap, maybe only one.. but its the point of it. Bugs me. Incredibly lazy, forgetful, and a total whiner. That's me. All the electric bells and whistles don't mean squat if I have to remember to fidget them into working right. A 645d sounds delightful, though, coz I know all of my 645 lenses have "A"utomatic settings, except I know I can't afford one o' them. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Jostein wrote: > Sisterhood, if you please. :-) Wait for it...No, I do not approve this namechange. :) I'll be sticking with "Little Brother," thank you very much. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, P. J. Alling wrote: > We'll have to see about the K10D but the K100D seems to have the same > mount as the D/DS/DL/2... Pentax has released this many digital cameras? Yow, I have been gone a long time...Although, I see most of the same names on the list as the last two times I've popped back to read it. What became of the film line? Dead? The Brotherhood? DIsbanded? The Little Brotherhood, also dead I assume.. or did they actually put out some sort of MF/645 based digital thingy as rumoured last time I was 'round here? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, John Francis wrote: > automatically during exposure. And while metering has to be done > stopped down, rather than at full aperture, a single push of a button > will stop the lens down, take a meter reading, select an appropriate > shutter speed, and open the aperture again. This all happens faster > than it just took you to read about it. Alas, its just one more thing I'm stuck having to do, and it annoys me. Looks like I'm not quite ready to retire the MX or ZX5n yet. :) What's the difference between the K100D and the K10D, and where are they pricing these things at? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Thibouille wrote: > It will because the camera allows you to manually select the focal > length of the lens you put on it. Can someone fill me in? Its been more than a few years since I've paid attention to anything that didn't require a tripod. :) I don't even know anything about the ist D. So, it needs to know the focal length? But, it'll stop down for me automatically, I don't have to manually stop down to do everything? I assume its not a full frame sensor, either, is it? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K100D SR
What sort of mount does it use? Are M and A series lenses going to work properly? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Mat sizes in the US (Texas)
> > Simon > > me, but then again they had automatic weapons and BFO weapons with them. I know the first two letters, but O? Big Freaking Ordinance? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: ok, now I'm cool
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Peter J. Alling wrote: > Wouldn't that be down his crack? Somethings are better left unexplored, CottyCrack rates very high on my personal list of such items. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Disgusting things that Autralians eat
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Cotty wrote: > Tom, can we have a goody box full of Twinkies and things for the journey? > I can't get that junk in the UK and I'll have to have a little splurge > while I'm there. Oh yeah, Cap'n Crunch too - several boxes :-) And while > we're on the subject, Tootsie Roll, Oreos, Crackerjack, Shasta Root Beer. Make sure you eat ALL of it on the car ride down to maximize the excitement of all the highway signs you'll be seeing.. "Tom..To! TOO! Did you see! Didja, didja, we passed mile marker 115! Wow! TOOOMMM! I said MILE MARKER ONE ONE FIVE! WW! Are we there yet? Are we there yet? How soon? Tmm!" > Is there a defibrillator at GFM ? Heh. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: ok, now I'm cool
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > Digital wins hands down - read: "instant gratification" (I said INSTANT and > not SELF before the rude jokes start thanks! ) You vaslty underestimate Cotty if you think that's gonna stop him.. (ok, and now I got my first Cotty-crack in, I can safely retire for another year..bwahaha) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Ode to Lacrosse-was:: ok, now I'm cool
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, William Robb wrote: > I photographed some curling one time on a Pentax. The kind with a moustache or the kind with a broom? :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Whew.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Jostein wrote: > According to production figures for MedF, the future looks very dark indeed. If the 700 bodies figure thrown out earlier by Frank is correct, sound slike al lthe MF folks might as well close up shop and go home. That's just dismal, I mean, I always figured that the numbers weren't as big as I'd think, but I always figured something like 700 annual units would be reserved for serious niche items like those 6x17 folders and the like. Guess the Japanese love affair with 645 also ended. Oh well, guess we all knew digital was gonna shake things up. Is 4x5 and larger also in such a dismal state of affairs? I know this ins't really the place for the question, but plenty of the folks here are knowledable on many different topics.. I sort of figured that 4x5 and135 would be the film formats to live on, and 120 and 8x10 wound stay on in film for awhile.. but these numbers are making me concerned. Heh. I'm gonna have to learn how to tintype now, hehe. > The best bet we have is a rather outdated press release about cooperation > between Kodak and Pentax, alledgedly over a digital 645. So, in the year since I left we're at teh same place: No where. That's sort of what I expected. Did the Hasselblah 645 wondercamera actaully make an mark on sales? Not even the Mamiya 645D, huh? Sigh. > > How about the film bodies? Is there an *Ist successor yet? Do they still > > manufacture the MZ-S? > The *ist is current. Dunno about the MZ-S... After I posted this, I blew teh dust off my bookmark to Boz's KMP page and was sad to learn there was never another Ist body released at adifferent market than the current Ist. I sort of thought they planned on a three-way approach to 35mm bodies, a "consumer," a "prosumer," and a digital model. Tsk. > One made it to me, and I'm happy. It's a good tool. Marnie made mention they evne released a firmware patch to support M and K mount lenses. I'm still not ready to give up film, though. I've been doing well with letting my girlfriend take the snaps with her Optio 330, which is alos probably considered long in the tooth now. Heh. > There's an Optio 4s now. More pixels per altoid...:-) I haven't even seen a Optio S in the flesh, yet. Trying to minimize the temptation.. > Picture A Week. Post a pic to a web-location near you, and provide PDML with > the link for scrutiny and comments. Shel Belinkoff brought the idea along > from a Leica list, and it has really caught on. I was happy to see his name on the list again, actually. However, I noticed no apparant posts from Bruce Rubenstein or Pal/Pil (who's last name I can't recall). > Another thing you might have missed is that the PUG server at komkon has > passed out of service. We are now set up with a interim solution at > Adelheid's private webspace, while working to establish something permanent > elsewhere. It's looking good, though, thanks to John Francis. My workplace was supposed to give me a free colo server for the time I work there. If there's still issues, feel free to contact me off list and I'll give details as to what's waiting to be installed when I can make it live, and the like. I'll gladly give an account on teh machine to whomever wants to handle it, though, if the other possibilites don't come through. > Btw, welcome back! Hope you get a scanner going soon. I should really just stop being a twit and spend the $40 on VueScan. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
RE: Whew.
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, frank theriault wrote: > Pentax can't keep up with the demand for 67II's and 645N's Last year alone, > all Japanese manufacurers combined sold around 700 medium format bodies, > worldwide. No, I didn't forget a zero. I really did mean seven hundred. If they can't keep up with the demand, it sound slike they have one lone guy screwing together hand-made 67's. :) Only 700? Wow. That's actually really depressing, makes me wonder if I should try and unload my 645 stuff now or pray for some sort of re-kindled interest as the "fine art" crew decides that the new chacet is "silver print" and I can start calling myslef an artiste! > Hard to believe that Medium Format (at least new stuff) will be around for > much longer - except maybe Hassy, just 'cause they are who they are. I still don't fear film disappearing, there's too much of a worldwide market for that sort of thing, I'll just be forced to buy Arista and Maco and other odd brands from the Ukraine or Samoa or somewhere.. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Whew.
About a week ago I opened this folder up, today I just deleted 43,341 messages dating back to 8/8/03. I think I'm going to go ahead and begin partcipating, again. I realized in the 20 minutes of holding down the D key (yes, ys, I could've deleted the whole mail folder and saved a significant portion of my time, but that would've been like _cheating_ myself of the experience, would you believe for a minute I planned on actually looking at the titles of everything?!)... Where was I? Oh, yes, back. I think. I'd like to be. I'd like to focus on photography (har, har) again. I remember when I stopped taking photographs (uh, about the 8th of August, 2003...) because I had just moved to a Mac from a fifteen years of PC life (that OSX operates just like NeXTSTeP was too inticing), which in turn rendered my scanners useless (no drivers), which was hampered by the fact that my girlfriend was moving in which took up every available weekend to be used in cleaning up and fixing up the house. Yep. One thing to another, and in the end I haven't picked up a Pentax camera since.. Oh, sometime around August 8, 2003. :) Although, I hadn't left photography behind completely, I've ditched 4x5 in favour of 8x10 (work bonus+ebay=enablement in the shape of a B&J Commercial View) which, in turn, is going to make me start using my little Pentax cameras again.. First, there's nothing like picking up 40# bag filled with field camera, lenses, and film holders then having to find a place to lug another 8# of tripod to put that whole 645 kit into perspective. And an MX might as well be a subminature camera. Heh. Not to mention the talking to you get when you mention trying to bring it all on an airplane for vacation. :) So, hoping that with some coming free time I'll have some nice weather and maybe I'll actually get back around to taking photos again... So, looking forward to re-aqquainting with those who are still here, and meeting the new folks. Have there been any serious changes that I should be aware of in the last year? Where's the Pentax state-of-the-art these days? What's the future of the 645 and 67 platforms, were there ever digital products announced for them? How about the film bodies? Is there an *Ist successor yet? Do they still manufacture the MZ-S? Has the *Ist D lived up to what people hoped it would? When I left, it was just starting to make it to people for use. Is the Altoids-sized Optio still the darling of the Pentax crowd? And what's all this PAW stuff? gfen, settling back in. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye.
Re: new toy
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sigma 70-300MM F4-5.6 APO Macro Super I recevied the Quantaray-branded version of this about two years ago. Its does its job remarkably well, although when in macro, even stopped down to f19 or thereabouts, its still soft. I also don't know if mine was the exact, it was a 70-300 f4-5.6 APO Macro, but no "Super." -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Hand held meters was: Cripple your K & M lenses for the CrippleMount
I own a very cheap, simple Sekonic model. It was the cheapest thing I could find when I wanted a meter for starting with 4x5, and supplemented my YM124G's not-quite-right internal meter. Eventually, I'll replace it with a spot meter, when I have money to spare. Which isn't likely anytime soon. -sigh- > on 16/8/03 12:58 pm, Jim Apilado at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > How many PDMLers own a hand held meter? > > > > Jim A. > > > > -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT Virus warning (no hoax believe me)
> CH> Macs are fabulous, and as a former Windoze user who has switched, I Myself as well... > CH> Do yourself a favour - get one - they are not just better for > CH> graphics, or video, or music, they are just better machines for > CH> everything, they really are. What sold me was the beauty of having a real, open-source unix underlying a fancypants GUI, provided by a major manufacturer or personal computers. I'm a unix admin by day, and I don't want to go home and futz with unix at home, I want a computer that works. Windows is pleasant in that it requires no intelligence to operate, but it lacks the underpinnings that I prefer. OSX gives me the best of both worlds, I can compile software to my heart's content, and live in a shell like I prefer, while still being able to download simple, well designed major apps for the front end. No muss, no fuss. They aren't cheap, though. And the fact that I have to find Mac supported hardware kind of bites (I could go into details about my problems with video cards, U2W SCSI cards, and CD-Rs, but I won't). -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Wide Angle Lens Recommendations?
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Patrick Wunsch wrote: > I am looking for a decent wide angle lens, perhaps something in the 18mm to > 20mm range, and would like to hear your recommendations. Money is major Awhile ago, I was going to purchase one of the Russian lenses for use with my Pentax. I want to say it was the Mir 47K, but it may have had a different model number. It was most assuredly a Mir, and it was most assuredly 20mm and cheap.. But that's all I'm "assure" of. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Fad (was: Re: Just printed the test pictures from the *istD...)
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, T Rittenhouse wrote: > Film may actually be with us for another 25, or more, years though any real > need for it may disappear in the not too distant future (5 years or so). Most film will dissapear, as you say.. but I am willing to bet that B&W film in major sizes (135, 120, 4x5) will be around for a long, long time. It may be pressed by little companies at a premium, but it will be here. Take a look at Maco who now provides a 4x5 infrared film where Kodak has moved on. As the bigger companies leave film behind for more lucrative pastures, smaller players will step in and keep people who produce "fine art" in film, because no matter how prevelant film is, people will pay more for "traditional" processes.. even if that's banging out a print on RC paper on a cold-light enlarger. To a future of inkjet and lasers, that's still fancy stuff.. and stuff that people will pay extra for. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: any PDMLers in... the USA? (travel plans)
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, jerome wrote: > Tomorrow, I load up all of my earthly belongings into a 20' truck (with car in > tow) and start the trek to my folks' house in East Stroudsburg, PA. The house > is just recently built, with the keys being handed over last friday... You're moving to the Stroudsburg area when your trip is done? I'm from Bethlehem, about 45 minutes south of there. OK, so this should be privately sent.. but well, whatever. :) > to live. Oh, I'll be moving to Norfolk, VA, by January btw. Yeah, if I actually READ the whole message, I'd have noticed this. Oh well, so much for encouraging the Greater Lehigh Valley PDML meets. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Photo of new 16-45
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: > Well, if Pentax indeed market KAF3 with USM, and I think they wil > along with the pro DSLR, theres no reason really to keep the aperture > ring as such lenses won't make much sense on older cameras anyway. I > fear the aperture ring is on its way out...or maybe not?... Is this a change in your tactic, I thought you were a big believer in some source that speaks of new "high end" lenses with aperature rings? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Photo of new 16-45
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > Appeared on dpreview. Nothing special - I thought it will have broader > manual focusing ring... instead it has nice green ring near mount :-) But > it's just first look. That's optical performance that will be most important > to me :-) Adter all it is equiv. of 24-70 in 35mm - very good and wide > standard lens for *istD... Is this where I point out that the DA is apparantly also a child of the FAJ... no aperature ring, kids. Let the complaints begin..now! -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: ist-D preview and DA 16-45mm F4 digital lens
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Brendan wrote: > I have a feeling that the "PRO" Dslr will be 645 > sized, meaning the DA lenses are for the aps Dslr. So, who knows enough about film planes, distance-to-film, etc to say if that K mount compatability would theoretically live on in a K->645 adapter to use those full-frame K mount lenses on a 35mm sized sensor living in a 645 body..somewhere, I hear a machinist firing up his lathe.. har. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: semi OT : I got a CD burner but, but, but.... Help!
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Anyway, today is spoken for with other chores. I does appear that I can't > just treat a > CD like a floppy on the A drive though. The really bad thing is my friend > unhooked my > D drive so I cant backup stuff to the zip nor can I get at what Ive already > backed up... > A big misunderstainding on my part was the idea that I could use a cd as a way > to backup > directories, as well as making discs to send out. Ignore the naysayers, you can do all that. It may not work as efficently as youw ish, but you can do it anyway. In order to write to the drive as if it were a froppy, you need to install a packetwriting program (I think that's the term for it, its been awhile since I paid attention). The one I can name off the top of my head is DirectCD, but judging from the price you paid, I bet you just bought a CenDyne drive last weekend, which as you mentioned comes with Nero. One of the programs that was optional in teh setup was a packetwriting program which works like DirectCD. I can't tell you how that one works, but I can tell you that DirectCD used to wait for you to put a CD in, and it would just mount it up as a regular drive. You copy, it writes. I don't think it was really all that efficent, but that's how it did its job. Of course, with a once-writable, you filled the disk and moved on. With re-writes, you'd have to erase teh whole thing. ITs not nice and selective, like a froppy or a zip drive. Now, you can just put a CD in, start Nero Express and launch the wizard to create a data CD. Copy your stuff over (again, I can't speak for Nero Express, I used to use EZ CD Creator from Adaptec, or Toast for the Mac), which will probably be a matter of drag and drop. That bar on the bottom? It tells you how much space you have left on your disc. When you fill it up, you just hit the record button. When you write a disc, you can: Write a session, leave disc open: You can keep writing stuff to the disc, but yes, some drives won't like an open disc. Some won't mind, either. Write a session, close disc: WEll, like teh above, but it closes the disc. Just about all drives have no problem with that. Disc at once: Writes the data, closes the disc, never turns the laser off teh whole way. More or less like writing a session, closing the disc, but there's no gaps between tracks...which really only becomes an issue when you're recording music (or, perhaps, dealing with antique cd readers). When you're backing up your files, just write sessions and leave the disc open. If you're sending a CD to a friend, just disc-at-once or close the disc when done. Unless, again, they have an ancient CD-rom drive, there should be no problems. Finally, giant directory structures, etc? Yeah, no doubt CDRW drives vomit on that sort of thing, but I wouldn't be concerned with it..unless you have incredibly nested directories, which probably does violate some sort of iso9660 rule. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: digital single use camera
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Butch Black wrote: > Ritz camera announced it will soon be selling a digital single use camera. > Digital Photography Review report: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03073101dakotadigital.asp The geeks will be all over this, in a month they'll be re-selling 2mp cameras with cables on ebay for $30. In six, Ritz will pull them because no one will really care about them over a cheap disposable film, and the massive profits lost because of how many of them never come back from the kids going nuts on them. Kinda like those stupid barcode scanners Radioshack used to give away. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
> frank theriault wrote: > > I wasn't trying to say that Amsterdam is a bad place, or that we > > shouldn't go there. I was just wondering why Doug chose Amsterdam over > > all the other cities in the world, that's all. Drugs and hookers, of course. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Upgrading the digital darkroom
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > Wheww! Thanks. I thought I'd missed one! > keith <== due for a new CPU soon... Have a G3 300, like Paul. Looking > at G4 towers. Used. My $72 G3 became a modern, useful computer with the addition of a $100 used G4/500 CPU. Browse ebay for a cheap CPU module, the G4 400-500 modules seem to be pretty abundant, and their not too expensive, either for the ZIF versions. Now..if only I could find a cheap video card for it. -sigh- -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: MZ-5n vs MZ-6
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > What do you mean by better viewfinder? I don't really care about the > technical superiority, the effect is what I am after. I cannot really > understand the numbers on the technical spec, and, from the search I > made on the archive, it does not look like the MZ-5n has a great > viefinder either; people don't look happy to me. Unfortunately my > local camera stores don't stock an MZ-5n so as to compare them > side-by-side. The -5n uses an actual pentaprism inside, I think the -6/L uses a pentamirror. This will make the viewfinder a little dimmer. I may be wrong on that. No one seems to be a real big fan of the viewfinders of any MZ/ZX camera, except the MZ-S. I've compared an MZ-S to a ZX-5n and an LX, and the LX blows both away. I purchased an MX to be a "backup" 35mm body, and for extensive use of adapted 645 lenses. Using them on the -5n was kind of painful. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: MZ-5n vs MZ-6
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > According to Boz's site and also Pentax UK's, they both have > DOF preview, but according to Pentax US, the MZ-6 (OK, MZ-L) > does not. Can someone (preferably from the UK) clarify this > for me please? Its been awhile since these discussions, but I am pretty postiive that DOF preview is in a Custom Function of the -6/L. > Other than that, I cannot understand why the MZ-5n is so much > more expensive than the MZ-6. If anything, the 6 has faster > flash sync speed, and faster maximum shutter speed. Would anybody > care to justify to me why they think the MZ-5n with the 28-80FA > is £150 better than the MZ-6 with the 28-90? Because if you want a camera like the -5n, you have no other option. There's not another reasonably priced (cause for all I know Contax makes one) camera with the classic layout and autofocus. Everything on the -5n is in the right spot, and its easy to take in everything in by glancing at the camera's front or top. The -6/L is more like your -50. Its got a more modern layout. I played with a friend's -6 once, and its a pretty neat camera. My favourite feature is teh way the display changes colour when you go to a slower shutter speed. Then, I'm easily amused by gadgets. However, when I wanted to replace my own -50 a couple years back, I bought the -5n. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Kodak Gold 100 still lives
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, William Robb wrote: > Kodak Wedding Film, but it's actally 160 iso. Well, there's Kodak Weddings Under Dismal Weather Film, formerly known as Portra 400UC. Kodak Weddings Under Dim Weather Film, formerly known as Potra 400VC. Then of course there's Kodak Weddings Under Partly Cloudy Film (160VC), and Kodak Wedding Film as you mentioned. That still leaves a gaping hole for Kodak Non-Wedding-or-Not-Quite-Snapshops Under Party Sunny Film! -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Dumb question about the 645
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ed Matthew wrote: > Did the original 645 have a removable finder so it could be used as a waist > level camera? Nope. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: monopod advice
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Amita Guha wrote: > So what constitutes a "good" monopod? I might be heading to Adorama this > week to look at their Podmatic and others. I'm mainly looking for > something portable and the Podmatic's the shortest one I've heard of > (14" folded). Anything else in particular I should look for? I mainly > want an extra bit of steadiness for shooting events and nature with long > lenses. I might be doing a bit of sports shooting but not much. I have some model by Bogen (3011B? 3021B?, perhaps? I could check, but, oh the effort!).. The one thing I wish I had for it is the spiked foot. IE, this weekend I went out and about and didn't feel like hauling the tripod.. The monopod works, but it would've worked infinitly better if I had been able to drive it into the ground (plus, fending off the other tourists!). I also saw a pretty swanky looking tripod retrofit thingy for it which I'd consider investing it. Oh, look, part numbers! Tripod adapter: 3422. Feet: 3246S or 3257. I also need to invest in a different head for it, since the 3055S I'm using seems to outweigh the monopod. Oh, I guess its the 3006B (or its discontinued, cause this doesn't look right). Its not quite as short as the podmatic (19"), but it does the job. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: scanner for 645 film
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Gasha wrote: > What is the best way to scan these negs? I can use some kind of flatbed > scanner with transparency adapter. HP ?? Epson ?? I had a Umax Astra 4450, a flatbed scanner with a light up lid. You had to lay the negs onto the glass, which lead to newton rings. It also was slow, and wasn't the finest DPI in the world. However, it was cheap and it worked. Since I've started to try out a macintosh and OS 10, I no longer could use my Astra. I bought a refurbed Epson 2450. Faster, even on USB (no firewire cable, yet). No newton rings, as it comes with a glassless carrier, and it works under OS10. Now, I do have a question for others about this: Anyone using a 2450 on a Mac, OS10 and Epson TWAIN5 to scan 645 negs? Using the supplied 120 adapter, it seems to cut off the top and/or bottom edge and give me weird little panoramics.. Am I the only person with a problem like this, and what am I missing? > Minolta film scanner is too expensive... :( I thought about buying one of the cheap, refurbished Minolta 120 scanners. I don't remember them being that expensive, and the convienence of a negative scanner.. oh, dreamy sigh! :) -g. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Lon Williamson wrote: > What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where > everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax > equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and > you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would > you take with you? You get only one. 645 A75/2.8 or KA50/1.4. Same reasons you said, really, plus they're fast. I only used a normal lens for quite some time, and I've noticed I've sort of developed tunnel vision in how I see things now. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: NYC PDML
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, gfen wrote: > Count me as interested, but I have no idea where this is, and am too busy > to really look into it, now. I also think that the fact I have to bus into > NYC and from there move on will probably make this an impossibility. But, > feel free to keep me posted, regardless. -sigh- I can't operate an email program. This was SUPPOSED to go offlist, and I see not only did it not, but I actually deleted Herb's address from it, entirely. I'm going back to bed. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: Barebones Darkroom
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Christopher Comer wrote: > I ordered a film scanner on the cheap and I would like > to put together a pseudo darkroom. I'd like to be able to > develop b&w film and then scan the neg. into the computer for > manipulation. I think all I need is a developing tank and This is what I've been doing for some time. You need: A tank and reel(s). A measuring cup. A kitchen thermometer. A kitchen timer. A bottle of developer, stop, fixer, and if you're feeling saucy some drying agent (or is it wetting agent? whatever). Some string. Some plastic clothespins. A few extra jugs for pre-mixed chemicals is useful, I keep premade stop, fixer, and the drying (or was that wetting?) agent. I use Sprint Systems Developer (a liquid varient of D76 1:1), Sprint Systems Stop, Sprint Systems Fix (without the hardening agent), and Kodak Photoflo. The chemicals should be available from any mail order outlet or local shop, I've bought them from Adorama before. I prefer stainless steel reels, the single Hewes reel I have is fabulous, and steel tanks over the plastic ones. The jugs I use are now just recycled chemical jugs, but for a time I used simple half gallon jugs which I purchsed from K Mart, along with all the rest of the kitchen items I use. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
RE: How's Adorama For Used Equip?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Thomas Haller wrote: > Unfortunately I haven't bought anything from Adorama myself, and the group > here doesn't seem to respond to questions like this. I've jsut been ignoring the list, lately. > a) no one on the list has bought used equipment from Adorama, so they cannot > say... I've bought much of my gear from Adorama, used and new. > b) the performance of used equipment dealers is so inconsistent that any > comment is useless... Adorama has been consistently good to me. > d) it's way more fun to argue endlessly about the *ist lens mount than help > another Pentax user acquire equipment... Explains why I haven't paid attention. > e) folks don't want the "responsibility" of saying a vendor is good or > bad... That, too. Everyone's expectations are going to be different. > Overall the "big three" in the used market seem to be KEH, Adorama and B&H > Photo. They seem to be ranked by most in that order. I think Adorama gets a > lot of credit for helping host photo.net, but I don't know if that makes > them better. Adorama tends to be the cheapest of the three, and have things that KEH and B&H don't have because I think less people patrol the Adorama stocks. I will not buy from KEH unless its a darn good offer, I was very unhappy with how they treated me a few years ago. B&H is where I often buy new stuff if I split orders with people, they're more familar with it. When I'm buying for me, and me alone, I always goto Adorama first. > I hope this helps, and I hope some others respond as well! Shoosh, you. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Change Bags
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Any one use change bags to transfer film to > developing tank(s) or is a dark room the way most home developers go. I use a changing bag to load and unload IR film in 35 and to load and unload 4x5s. I've never tried to load a reel with one, although it shouldn't be too hard (I prefer to let teh film hang down, though, I suppose it depends on how you do it). -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
entirely and completely OT. Well, it _is_ kind of about photography..
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&ncid=816&e=3&u=/ap/20030621/ap_on_en_ot/lithuania_shooting_blind (I deleted alot of PDML messages yesterday, I apologize if this made the rounds) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax announced development of digital medium format
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Caveman wrote: > >>What is the base of your assumption that it will take existing lenses ? > > 645 lenses are all A or FA.. ;) > What about a new FAJ 645 series ? ;-) No way, the 645 is all black.. that means its PRO! -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax announced development of digital medium format
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Caveman wrote: > What is the base of your assumption that it will take existing lenses ? 645 lenses are all A or FA.. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Paypal?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Paul Eriksson wrote: > Let's say I win an auction for $10, I pay $10 for a item, do I have to pay > 3% or does the seller pay it (out of the $10)? Seller eats the cost. (currently very hateful of paypal for having to endure verifying my account, and now i see either the vendor, ebay, or paypal is charging me 7% tax when my state is only 6%...wonder who i get to eyell at) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Which macro lens would you buy
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Brendan wrote: > Get a revesal ring and a 28mm F2.8 and enjoy ( Aaron > where is my reversal ring!!!) Reversing an FA28/2.8 onto my bodies yields teh worst possible results I've ever had. There's massive flare in the middle of each and every image. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Pentax proudly presents a new lens mount, the KAF3
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: > Yep. And that probably explains why the can't afford an expensive lens > mount and a more expensive metering system. I totally ignore all the threads about this, so I have no idea of someone threw this out yet..but is it possible there's to be four 35mm style cameras in the line up? Cheap: Ist, Ist D and a higher scaled version of each? Perhaps in an LX style system, interchangable stuff, higher sync for film, etc, and a full frame or just larger pixel count for the digital? Eh, whatever. I'll just hold out for the digital 645 insert and the day they unleash those USM/IS 645 mount and lenses (I mean, hey, if I'm day dreaming...). -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Stupid question: medfo WA lenses, angle of view and hoods.
I need to purchase a hood for my 645 45mm lens. Now, I'm just happy enough purchasing a generic rubber hood for it, however, do I need to buy the "wide angle" version, or would a regular hood be sufficent? I wonder only because I'm sure on a 135 45mm lens, it wouldn't vignette, but is the angle of view any different since it is a wide angle lens in its intended format? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Extending into medium format.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I'll be curious to hear your reactions. I'm looking at (maybe) buying > another 645 lens and was trying to decide between a wide (45) or a tele > (150 or 200). The key to deciding what lens to buy for your 645 is what you already use for your 35. Which length do you already tend to prefer? The focal length changes, but the angle of view is the same. No reason to not match it. (maybe we'll get some sun in this weekend so I can actually go out and USE it) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Bug Hints?
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Uh, anybody got advice for slowing them down enough to shoot? > The one that starved to death curled up in a rather un-lifelike > posture. Do I need to get ahold of some ether somehow, or are > there more accessible tricks? Put them in the freezer which should slow them down for you. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Extending into medium format.
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Cesar Matamoros II wrote: > I have just added an FA-45/2.8, FA Macro 120/4, and an A* 300/4. I actually purchased an A45/2.8 over a month ago.. I have yet to use it once, its been absolutely miserable weather every day I've had off, I think. -sigh- -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
RE: New Scanner
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Butch Black wrote: > A friend of mine gave me some MF and LF scans done on an Epson 2450. The > files were 20-30MB PSD files (Photoshop) I was amazed at the quality. It's > still not ideal for 35mm although it may compare favorably with the S20. All this talk finally inspired me to buy a 2450 off of ebay (plus my Astra 4450 won't work under MacOS 10). The 2450 doesn't have a newton ring problem as the neg isn't on the glass, correct? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Moving on!
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003, William Robb wrote: > Bruce, it was the Germans who were doing that. > The French were putting ox blood in theirs. One more reason to stick to gin martinis. Well, two more reasons... -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
For Sale: 70mm backs for Pentax 645 + viewfinder (fwd)
>From the IR list, in case anyone is interested... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:13:19 +0200 From: Willem-Jan Markerink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: For Sale: 70mm backs for Pentax 645 + viewfinder For Sale: - 2x 70mm back for Pentax 645-series cameras; accepts standard 70mm cartridges, filled with 15ft long rolls of 70mm perforated film. 90 exposures on one roll without changinga gift from heaven for all winter/skiing photographers[*];)) - 1 Viewfinder extension (designed for the 70mm back) Outside cosmetical condition of all items is mint, one back even appears mint/unused inside, the other shows very minor wear, probably not more than a dozen rolls. You won't find a better set on the used market. Backs are US$500 each, viewfinder US$150, buy all for US$900. Prices each are about 3/5 of B&H's listings, combination is less than 1/2. Offers are welcome, but the first US$500/900 takes it;)) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [*] especially those involved with Kodak infrared filmeven though it can be cut down to 120/220, it still requires a darkload bagand that's no fun on a steep skislope:)) Also interesting, for those already owning Pentax 6x7 gear/lenses: there is an adapter to mount 6x7 lenses on 645 bodiesa nice solution to use the 6x7 (ED) tele lenses with 70mm and/or infrared -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] * *** ** * To remove yourself from this list, send: * * UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED * * to * * [EMAIL PROTECTED]* ** * For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links: * * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm * **
Re: Help , my Optio S is missing!!!
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote: > This is definitely the "constant companion" camera. Trivial to carry, > fairly full featured, and fully PUGable. I am looking for a car > adaptor, however, so I don't have a "cotty". A generation from now, people will being having cotties all the time and will never know exactly WHY they call it a cotty. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Aprl PUG is open
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Adelheid v. K. wrote: > the April PUG is ready to go. > Another month with great pics. -sigh- Y'know, its sobering when you see others' "cliche" shots are not only the same things you've taken and really liked on your own, but are better than yours, too. (haven't submitted to the last three pugs, am I even allowed to comment, even if its jealously? ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Jostein wrote: > After having had a look at Grepstad's book, and some other resources > around, I'd say it's probably not that difficult to do. There are only You've, obviously, never seen me with a tool. :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Nick Zentena wrote: > Building smaller cameras like 4x5 doesn't make sense to save money. I think it has less to do with money and more to do with the fact that you can design and build your own camera with your own hands. How many people do you know who can say they've built their own camera? If I had the skills to do something like that, cost be damned, I would. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, T Rittenhouse wrote: > I don't know about that. My Graphic weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. > Film holders are bulky and heavy I admit. But the real problem in this day > and age is finding ashtrays to pop the used flashbulbs into . An F5 weighs as much as a Speed or a Crown? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, collinb wrote: > I must say, too, that JCO spent a lot to start with 4x5. > One can get a nice outfit for less than $1000US. This is where I'll pop in and say I got a Speed Graphic with a 135/4.7 press lens and a 111/8 WA Dagor, four film holders, for $60 (or was it $75?). Deals happen, especially if you look. I've since added only some more holders, an additional lens, and a cheap meter and I'm still well under $500 total. Unfortuantly, it sold me on quality..and its not the most portable, which is how I ended up spending much more on a used 645 kit, because big negatives will absolutely spoil you. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: OT:IR at home.What went wrong
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -The first comment was in regards to trying to tear off the smaller bit of > leader to so the film can be loaded.When i tear Tmax, Delta 100, etc it > splits fine.This stuff was like trying to tear a phone book(not really but > you see what i'm getting at.) Ahhh...I've never bothered to do that, actually. When I use a plastic tank, I just load with the taped end in first, so that leader isn't an issue that way. > -Could be right on the tank here Gary.I did not have the baffler in,just > the film and the lid.May have fogged it then. I'm gonna say that's your answer. I learned that the hardway. :) I also learned that a little bit of light past the film can's felt really seems to go a long way to ruining the film. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Got to fondle an Optio S and *ist today
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > No, it's convenience VS. better results. Not MORE convenience. > Well, I guess there might really be no distinction there, come to > think of it... Nope, there's distinction there, and you've stated which way you feel you want to go.. You see no more convienece in teh tiny S. > The Optio 550 is still pocketable, however. > Yes,. it's bulkier than the S, indeed, but much more capable. I forgot to mention earlier that one of my big things is tht something that's small to someone is STILL too big for me..like Palm Pilots. I bought a Palm 3 over a Palm 5 when they were both the hot thing, I rarely carried the 3 after the novelty wore off because even those it was small and light, it was still too big to easily fit into a shirt pocket and not hang way down. A 5 probably owuld've fit right in there, and would've been my better choice. Now, sure the 3 had many advantages in pure specs on the 5, however, I wouldn't gladly traded the extra memory and AAA batteries for something I'd actually carry. > Hah, hah... Thanks for your words! I do appreciate all argument, to > help solidify my intentions. > You've helped. Hey, as long as I get to freely rant... ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Got to fondle an Optio S and *ist today
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > Okay, the old stuff-it-in-an-Altoids box gets old in a hurry, I'd guess... You think? If I had money to spend on stuff like that, I'd own one so I really could have a camera with me always and everywhere.. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Good-bye Pentax (2)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Feroze Kistan wrote: > For the life of me Boz I cannot see any reason for you to leave the PDML, I > for one would never ask you too just because you using canon gear, and I > don't think anyone else here would either. Hey, we let Cotty hang around... (why does it seem like all my input of late have been Cotty jokes? :) -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Tilt/shift.............Russian lenses
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Bill Owens wrote: > I have the 30mm and it's really a fine lens, especially for the money. One > heck of a big piece of glass though. I think you were one of the reasons I decided I wanted one, you're a big fan of yours, and I'm quite satisfied with the Zenitar. I'm still up in the air on the mirror lenses, but it would be particularly convienet to have a feather light 500mm lens for both 35 and 645. I'll probably wait until they start to pop up on ebay for $100 instead of the $200. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Tilt/shift.............Russian lenses
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Clive evans wrote: > that appear on ebay. or ibdeed the 16mm fisheye zenitar kmount? I own the Zenitar 16/2.8. I like it, quite alot. I'm actually thinking of adding the Arsat 30mm medfo fisheye, and perhaps even one of their mirror lenses as well. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
