Re: get a grip eh! Ist (film) and Isd
It's the BG-20. Greg - Original Message - From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 7:09 PM Subject: FS: get a grip eh! Ist (film) and Isd Is the *ist grip the BG-10? Certainly $25 is pretty cheap for that. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://www.brendemuehl.net http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net __ NOD32 1.1743 (20060907) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Where to buy and develope infrared film in Frankfurt Germany?
Hi everyone. Does anyone know any photo stores and or labs in Frankfurt am Main (or Heidelberg) that will sell and develope kodak infrared? I am visiting some friends who live near Heidelberg and would like to shoot some infrared pics of old castles etc. I don't want to gamble bringing the film with me from Canada, shooting, then bringing it back-what with the xrays and trying to keep the film cool. Thanks, Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Where to buy and develope infrared film in Frankfurt Germany?
Sorry, I also should have said I'm referring to the Kodak highspeed bw infrared, not the colour infrared film. Thanks Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta Canada
FS: FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 IF AL Silver serial # 6634010
Hi everyone. I would like to sell this my 28-105 as I use my 24-90 more often. It is in perfect condition with no scratches or marks. I bought it from Mcbain camera in Edmonton 2 years ago. Comes with the hood and front and back caps. I do not have the box. $160 U.S. plus shipping from Canada to wherever you are. Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta
Sand hills Saskatchwan photo op question
Hi everyone, has anyone ever been to the great sand hills in southwest Saskatchewan? I'm wondering about any especially good locations in that area for photos. I'm taking a few days to go there and Moose Jaw next month Thanks, Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta
AF 360FGZ question
Hi everyone. I recently purchased an AF360 FGZ and although I have read the manual, I can't find a proper explanation of the wireless mode switch (lowest switch on the bottom. There are 3 positions - M, C, and S). Does anyone know what those letters stand for? I have also found that the manual is incorrect in places, as it says to slide the switch to S, but the diagram has the switch on C. Arrgh. Thanks Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Re: IR with *istDS
Here is an infrared page with the Ds mentioned in comparison with other cameras and he also has some samples from the ds and tips. http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index.html?Pentax_ist_DS_ir_sensitivity.html Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta Canada
Re: OT:TOPDML assistance
If you live in western canada there is a drug store chain called london drugs that sells Konica. I have seen the disposable C41 Bw there.In their stores. I could mail you one but you probably wouldn't get it by Wednesday. Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta
Re: Pentax Rebates
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:24:33 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Pentax Rebates I've been waiting for a Pentax rebate since June of 04. As most of you know, our favorite camera manufacturer promised a $200 rebate if one purchased the *istD in combinastion with the DA 16-45/4. To date, it seems that most who have received their rebate did so only after complaining vociferously. I haven't said a word yet and haven't received a single dollar. I e-mailed Pentax today. Let's see what happens. However, the business practices of the mother ship are somewhat disheartneing. I will report back. paul Mine took about 2 1/2 months or a little less. No contact from me to them after sending in for the rebate. That was a bit earlier than yours; I recieved the kit at the end of March '04, and probably sent in for the rebate in early April. My records show that I deposited the check on June 17th, so I probably recieved it a few days or a week before that. In addition to email, you might want to write a snail-mail letter to the address shown on the back of the *ist D manual. Good Luck, Greg
K85/1.8 -- US$570.00??
A K85/1.8 just sold on eBay for US$570.00. Does it usually sell for that much?? If so, I guess I'll forget about ever having one... Greg
A* 200/4 Macro
How often does the A* 200/4 Macro show up on eBay or KEH? About what does it sell for typically? What about the FA* 200/4 Macro? Are either of these related to the 645 and 67 200/4 lenses? Thanks, Greg
K/M/A 100/4 Macro vs. F/FA 100/2.8 Macro vs. 3rd-Party
How does the old K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro compare optically to the F/FA 100/2.8 Macro? From http://www.pbase.com/steephill/image/38667710, it looks like the 2.8 resolves more detail. What about other factors? I've read either here or on DPReview or both that Pentax macros are better than the best 3rd-party macros, including the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105. What about the K/M/A 100/4.0 Macro -- is it also better than the Tamron 90 and the Sigma 105? Also, I'm surprised at how much smaller and lighter the new D FA 100/2.8 is compared to its FA predecessor. Does it sacrifice image quality compared to the FA? Thanks, Greg
Re: *ist ds review
I've taken thousands of shots this way and it works fine. The only way I could see it being a problem would be in a situation where the lighting was changing so rapidly that the half a second between pressing the green button and pressing the shutter button was enough time for the lighting to change too much. Pentax could fix even that by adding a custom function to make it meter again and set the shutter speed again when you press the shutter button, right before the exposure. BTW, another poster mentioned being limited to center-weighted and spot metering. Note that M and earlier lenses always have that limitation anyway on any body, unless you modify them as Mark Roberts describes on his web site, in which case I believe you'd get matrix metering with them on the D and DS too. Greg Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:54:31 -0800 From: Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist ds review For some reason, this strikes me as hellishly awkward. I'm familiar with the Green Button on my MZ-S, and it's nothing like this with M series lenses. Do any of you D or DS owners find this workflow to be so troubling that it interferes with your photography? Perhaps I just need to get rid of the old lenses anyway. Tim On 1/19/05 10:56, Billy Abbott wrote: As Kostas said, you set a custom function to allow the shutter to be released on older lenses, put the camera in manual mode, stop down as you would normally and then hit the AE-L button (I think the DoF preview works as well) to stop down momentarily and meter. It then sets the shutter speed to the correct speed for the exposure it determines.
Re: *istD storage
See this thread at DPReview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=9235983 In a nutshell, no matter how fast the card is, the D won't write to it any faster than about 6 seconds for a RAW file. That's why Rob Galbraith doesn't bother testing it anymore. So you could either save your money getting a cheaper card for the D now, or buy a faster card in anticipation of using it in a faster, future D replacement -- assuming that future D replacement uses CF. Greg Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:03:22 +0100 From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *istD storage I have: 1GB Lexmark 80x with WA 1GB Sandisk Extreme 1GB Sandisk Ultra II The two first have approximately the same speed (9s per RAW image), while the Ultra II is slightly slower. DagT På 19. jan. 2005 kl. 18.38 skrev Ken Hauck: I remember seeing *istD benchmarks of compact flash card read performance a while back but I didn't save the reference. I'm thinking of getting either a Lexmark 80x card with Write Acceleration or a SanDisk Ultra or Extreme. I would like suggestions on what will give the best performance. I'm using a SanDisk standard 1GB card now and tired of waiting for the buffer to flush after a several shots in quick succession. Thanks in Advance! Ken
Re: Sigma 18/3.5 - anyone familiar with this lens?
I've had a Sigma 18/3.5 for about a year. I'm happy with it, though I assume a Pentax equivalent would be better. It replaced my old Kiron-made, screwmount Vivitar 20/3.5. In my non-scientific tests, sharpness was about the same between those two lenses, given the same aperture. A little soft wide open, but fine at f5.6 or smaller. Of course, the Sigma's FOV is a bit wider. With similar sharpness, I was happy to have the Sigma's modern conveniences (it's an 'A'), wider FOV, and tulip hood. I only use the Sigma 18/3.5 for film. On my *ist D, I believe my DA 16-45 is better at 18, though I haven't tested that. Mine was US$100 new-in-box on eBay, and I've seen a used one sell there for a little less. I wasn't able to find any tests, reviews, recommendations, or any other information on it before buying. I'm glad I took a chance on it. Greg Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:42:36 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Sigma 18/3.5 - anyone familiar with this lens? Hi! I am enabled myself with Sigma 18/3.5 which is to arrive soon. I wanted to know what fellow list members have to say about it. I realize it is not Pentax 18/3.5 but still, I want to ask my question :). Thanks. Boris
Re: istD price change
I'm thinking of buying one and missed the announcement. Was it on a web site? Greg Cooper CRB wrote: Since the price drop has been announced ... Does anyone yet know what it will be? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl - 'Every one of us is, even from his mother's womb, a master craftsman of idols.' -- John Calvin (1509-64) ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
model above the *ISD ?
Hi Everyone. I've heard of the lower priced Pentax digital SLR coming out next year, has anybody heard if Pentax is planning to release a digital SLR that would be above the ISD ? Thanks, Greg Cooper Edmonton, Alberta Canada
RE: MZ6
I went from a Super Program to a ZX-L (MZ-6). I put a ZX-M's focusing screen (which has a split-image and microprism) in the ZX-L to make focusing with manual-focus lenses easier, and have been very happy with it. The ZX-M's focusing screen only cost about US $3, direct from Pentax USA. Now if only I could do the same with my *ist D (which has a smaller focusing screen). Greg Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:10:36 +0800 From: Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MZ6 Hi James, When I only had a Program A I thought I needed AF. This was shortly after the MZ-6 was released, so I bought it sight unseen. It's a very capable and (at least in my case) reliable camera. What I have realised is that I'd sacrifice all manner of it's gee-wizzbangery for a decent viewfinder. I picked up an ME Super about a year ago for a song, and have found myself only using the MZ-6 when I need to carry more than one type of film, think that I need AF, or use the remote control. Focusing with an MF lens is a pain, and for shots that require any sort of thoughtful composition the ME Super (or even the program A) are s much easier and therefore more enjoyable. Havagoodweekend, Simon -Original Message- From: James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 7 July 2004 8:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MZ6 Hi guys. Whats everyones opinion on the MZ6 - MZL camera? I have to up grade cause my Super program meter doesn't work any more :( and I cannot get it repaired. (the guy who looked at it totally %%#$$#%$ the meter cause it did mostly work) Grilfriend has given me her spare MZ60 but it won't work with my lenses. only my AF280T flash will. James Startes with a pentax spotmatic, upgrades to ME super till whole system was stolen ^^$^$^$^$^$^$[EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#!!*@[EMAIL PROTECTED] insurance got me a superprogram.
Max weight of tele lens on *ist D
I've just picked up an old (but looks as good as new) Tamron SP 300mm f5.6 (Adaptall 2 mount), for use on my *ist D. I'm surprised at how small and light this lens is, and I'm thinking of adding it to my general walking-around kit. But that would be easier without its relatively large, removeable tripod mount. The lens is too heavy to weigh with our kitchen scale, but using our digital bathroom scale (weighing myself both with and without the lens, and subtracting one from the other to get the weight of the lens), it seems to weigh about 21 ounces (~595g) (including the Adaptall 2 mount, but not including the tripod mount), give or take about 2 ounces (~56g). The length is about 169mm including the Adaptall 2 mount. Is that too much weight and length to put on the *ist D, with the *ist D mounted on a tripod? This lens seems barely heavier than my Tamron 90/2.5 macro (also too heavy for our kitchen scale), which doesn't have a tripod mount, but then the 300 is more than twice as long as the 90, which I realize would make a difference in stressing the camera's lens mount. Thanks, Greg
Re: Af speed of the *ist D
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:04:29 -0700 From: Tim Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Af speed of the *ist D Just out of curiosity, does the *istD have a matte focusing screen? Yes. Has anyone tried to add the ZX-M split screen to it? It's too big; it would have to be cut down to size first. And I have no idea if it's the same thickness. I'd be happy to try it if anyone can show me how to cut it down to size. I have a ZX-M split-image focusing screen in my ZX-L and I'm happy with it, including spot metering. Since I use my *ist D a lot more now than my ZX-L, but still have some manual-focus lenses, I've gotten a little better at focusing with just a matte screen -- I look for the smallest detail I can make out and try to make it as small as possible. But it's slower than using a split-image and I'm never really very confident. Greg
Re: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0
Hi Herb, The only other lens I have in the DA 16-45's range is a Sigma P/KA 18/3.5, which I haven't found to be super sharp. My sharpest pictures have been taken with my Pentax-F 50/1.7 and my Tamron 90/2.5. I'm not sure how meaningful it would be to compare them (especially the 90) to the DA 16-45, but I could give it a try. I don't have another zoom to compare it to. I had avoided zooms until trying the DA 16-45. Greg Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 06:35:34 -0400 From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0 Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit what other lenses do you have to compare sharpness with? FWIW, i find my FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 that many people here rave about for sharpness is just adequate, and i am sure that it is not a lot different from other instances of this same lens. my opinion on the DA 16-45/4 is that it is sharper than the 24-90 by a small amount. i haven't compared my FA* 24/2 yet. Herb - Original Message - From: Greg Lovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0 I was surprised to find that the DA 16-45 was sharper than the Kiron 28/2.0 at all aperatures -- a lot sharper. The DA 16-45 is so much better, I'm no longer interested in using the Kiron, especially since I can also use the DA 16-45 on my film camera, without vignetting, at the Kiron's focal length. I now plan to sell the Kiron on eBay whenever I can find the time.
DA 16-45 vs. Kiron 28/2.0
I finally got around to testing my DA 16-45 against my Kiron 28/2.0, on my *ist D. I assumed the Kiron would do better, since its sharpness is legendary and it is not a zoom, but I wanted to have a good idea of just how much better before heading out on a vacation in a few weeks. I've been very happy with both lenses, but haven't had time to run the DA 16-45 through my usual test. On a previous film test of the Kiron, I'd found that it was very soft in the corners when wide open, but otherwise very pleasing, and best overall at f8. My test chart is our kitchen wall-mounted spice rack. It certainly isn't as precise as a real test chart, but it has the (for me) important advantage of giving me a better idea of what real-world pictures from a given lens will really look like. For all shots, the *ist D was mounted on a tripod, was set to use mirror lockup on the self-timer, and was triggered with the electronic cable release. I used aperature priority and matrix metering. Since the Kiron is a manual focus lens, I used manual focus on both lenses. I started with the Kiron, then mounted the DA 16-45 and zoomed to precisely the same field of view (and made sure to not budge the tripod). At the same field of view as the Kiron, the DA 16-45 reported 26mm, rather than 28mm. I decided that getting the same field of view was more important than getting the DA 16-45 to report the same focal length as the Kiron. With both lenses, I took a shot at every available f-stop and half-stop. I only tested for subjective sharpness. I didn't notice any distortion or any other problems in either lens. I don't really have the knowledge to test for anything else, except any problems that jump out at me when viewing the pictures. I was surprised to find that the DA 16-45 was sharper than the Kiron 28/2.0 at all aperatures -- a lot sharper. The DA 16-45 is so much better, I'm no longer interested in using the Kiron, especially since I can also use the DA 16-45 on my film camera, without vignetting, at the Kiron's focal length. I now plan to sell the Kiron on eBay whenever I can find the time. The DA 16-45 was really amazing. The first time I went through the pictures, I thought it was just as sharp wide open at f4 as at any other aperature. Then, on closer inspection, I saw that it was very slightly sharper at f8. It softened up noticeably (though not a lot) at f22. I was amazed at how sharp it was in the corners, even wide open. I didn't know a zoom could be this good, especially in this lens' price range. Has anyone here compared the DA 16-45 to one of the better Pentax 28mm primes? Thanks, Greg
Re: Any compact digitals with wide-angle lenses?
My wife had me look for one several months ago. I was surprised to find that the last compact/pocket digital that went as wide as 28mm was the 1.3MP Canon PowerShot A50, which was introduced 5 or 6 years ago. The Ricoh G4 Wide had also recently been annnounced at the time, but with no plans to sell it here in the USA. The press release for the G4 Wide mentioned a predecessor model that was just as wide, but all I ever found on that earlier model was variations on the press release. I found an A50 on eBay for about $50. The shutter response is glacial by today's standards (even after pressing the shutter button halfway), and 4x6 prints were just okay. My wife is okay with it, but maybe she'll try the Ricoh G4 Wide sometime. Looks like it's available from Australia for AU $466 (US $321): http://www.sydneyshopping.com.au/product_detail.php?pID=472 Also there are two G4 Wides on eBay right now for US $259.99. Greg Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 09:57:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Chaso DeChaso [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Any compact digitals with wide-angle lenses? Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Are there any compact digital point-and-shoots that have a wide-angle lens? It seems most are around 35-to-something or 38-to-something, equivalent. I use film for my hobby but I need a camera for job sites because my boss wants immediate turn-around. (I need to have stuff on a drive immediately...so that he can look at it a week later - it's the usual false perception that speed is oh-so important. I have to draw the line somewhere, so I'll get a digital compact for work but I am refusing to buy a cell phone. Geeze, I'm grumpy today.) Chaso
F28/2.8 vs. FA28/2.8
I'm confused about the difference in image quality between the F28/2.8 and the FA28/2.8. I understand that the FA has a new optical formula that uses an aspherical element. But some sources seem to indicate that the F is better than the FA, while others seem to indicate that the FA is an improvement over the F. Can those of you who have used both shed any light on this for me? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of the F28/2.8 and the FA28/2.8? I would be using it mainly as a normal lens on my *ist D, so I'm only interested in the middle ~43% of the images they make on film negatives. I understand the FA has some light falloff in the corners at wide aperatures, but I don't care about that. Thanks, Greg
Best Zing case for *ist D w/ Grip
What would be the best size Zing camera case for an *ist D with the D-BG1 Battery Grip and the DA 16-45? Would the Pro Zoom model be too big? The Pro and Pro Zoom are described as being designed for SLRs with a bottom-mounted winder, and so would probably fit around the D-BG1 Battery Grip, but maybe the *ist D is smaller than the cameras the cases are designed to fit? Any thoughts? I'm mainly interested in protecting the *ist D from intermittent, very light rain -- I certainly don't expect the Zing to protect it during a torrential downpour. I've actually been using a (clean) cloth diaper draped over it! And when no diaper has been available, I've put it inside my shirt. Thanks, Greg
Normal Prime for *ist D
I have the DA 16-45mm and I like it, but I get sharper photos on my *ist D when I use my F 50/1.7 and my Tamron 90/2.5 Macro (which I use more for portrait than for macro). I use the F 50 and the Tamron 90 on the *ist D for portraits, but I'd like a sharp prime that's wider than them while sharper than the DA 16-45. The three lenses I'm thinking about are: -- FA 35/2.0 -- FA 28/2.8 -- FA 24/2.0 The 35 sounds like a great lens, but I'd like something a little wider. The 28's angle of view on the *ist D is probably about what I'd like, and I like its smaller size and weight compared to the 35 and the 24, and on the *ist D, f2.8 is plenty fast enough for me. But it sounds like it isn't as sharp as the 35 and the 24. Is that true? Is it very noticeably less sharp than the 35 and the 24? Of course, on the *ist D I only really care about the middle ~43% of the image that the lenses would create on film. Also, I hardly ever shoot wide open, so I'm more interested in how they compare at f8 or whatever their sharpest aperature is. The 24 sounds like a great lens, and its angle of view on the *ist D, though at the wide end of the range I'd like, is okay. But it's much bigger and heavier than the 28, and on the *ist D I don't really need the extra f-stop. It's also the most expensive. I would choose the 24 if it's noticeably sharper than the 28 (middle ~43% of the image that would appear on film; and at f8 or sharpest aperature, not wide open); otherwise I'd prefer the smaller size and weight of the 28. Any suggestions or other thoughts? Thanks, Greg
Re: Word on New Digitals?
Does she know she'll have to buy a CF card too? If she doesn't want to spend more than $1K, maybe she'd be better off getting a used Canon D30 used lens. Greg - Original Message - From: William M Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Word on New Digitals? Alex, You're right about it being the better choice, but this is difficult for me to explain to her. The Canon comes with a lens for 999, while the Pentax is 1300 with the lens counting the rebates. IL Bill On May 17, 2004, at 9:27 PM, alex wetmore wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2004, William M Kane wrote: A friend of mine is looking at digital SLR's, but doesn't want to spend more than $1000 USD on such a beast. Canon has a model that fits these specs, but I'd like her to buy a Pentax, so that we can trade lenses around . . . and so I can help her learn to operate it without learning a new camera. The *ist D is $1050 with the $200 rebate when you purchase it from BH or any other retailer that sells it for $1250. For that $50 you get a real pentaprism viewfinder instead of a pentamirror one, a larger viewfinder, a better build construction, and a smaller camera. Seems like a deal to me. It sounds like your friend doesn't own any lenses yet, and this rebate does assume that they purchase the 16-45/4 lens. It is a great primary lens for the *ist D though. alex
Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's I doubt that, for two reasons: 1) I emailed the Image Resource reviewer a few weeks ago asking if he was ever going to review the *ist D. He replied that he'd started an *ist D review a long time ago but had been unable to find the time to finish it. So, if there had been a recent slipstream to USB 2.0, he probably wouldn't have it. 2) My *ist D arrived from Adorama just 6 days ago, so if there had been a recent slipstream that any customers had yet, I'd probably have it too. But here are my numbers, using a Lexar WA 40X 1GB card: *ist D on a USB 1.1 port (built onto motherboard): 0.834 MB/Second (No message from Windows XP suggesting I use a USB 2.0 port for it) *ist D on a USB 2.0 port (on an add-on card): 0.824 MB/Second Lexar USB 2.0 Card Reader on the USB 2.0 port: 3.147 MB/Second That's consistent with what others here have reported. The reviewer's time seems to be at least twice as fast as any of ours. Greg Maybe it's a stealth upgrade to newer *ist-D's - my *ist-D hooked directly to the PC and my USB 1.1 card reader both take about 20 minutes to download 1 gig of data. My X-Drive II takes only ~5 minutes for the same transfer using USB 2. The card in the X-Drive reader is somewhat faster than USB 1.1 at ~15 minutes - don't know what conectivity is in the X-Drive. - MCC At 07:40 AM 3/31/2004 -0500, you wrote: Greg Lovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New review of the *ist D at Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ISTD/ISTDA.HTM Very positive; maybe the most positive I've read. Now *here's* an interesting excerpt from that review: While the manual claims that the *ist D only supports the USB v1.1 interface standard, my own tests seemed to show that it's actually running at USB v2.0 speeds. I clocked its download speed at 1963 KB/second with a Lexar 24x memory card, connected to my Sony VAIO Windows XP workstation. (2.4 GHz Pentium IV processor, 512 MB of RAM.) This is quite fast: Cameras with USB v1.1 interfaces top out at a little over 600 KB/second. I've seen USB 2.0-equipped cameras move data as quickly as several MB/second, but the *ist D's download speed is faster than average, even among cameras with USB 2.0 interfaces. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
New review of the *ist D at Imaging Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/ISTD/ISTDA.HTM Very positive; maybe the most positive I've read. Greg
Re: Screw mount lens to K-mount body
Hi Jim, If you're shooting many different compositions and focusing points at the same aperature, as for example in aperature-priority mode, what you describe is the easiest way I've heard of. But if you're reconsidering and resetting the aperature for each shot, as for example in manual-exposure mode during slow-paced, non-action shooting, I find it a little more convenient to leave the A/M switch on M, and: -- compose and focus at the widest aperature -- stop down to the desired aperature for metering and shooting. For that kind of shooting, I think using the A/M switch is just an extra step that doesn't really buy you anything. Using the A/M switch with the lens mounted on a K-mount camera essentially uses it as a preset lens. But they weren't designed to be used as preset lenses, and the A/M switch is not as convenient as how a preset lens works. You asked for comments, so here goes: Are you using that 50mm screwmount as your normal lens for general shooting? If so, it seems like an inconvenient, frankly painful choice for such a modern, convenient camera, and I wonder if you'd be happier with an old screwmount, auto-diaphram camera. Certainly, there are people who enjoy such pain and consider it macho, and more power to them, but most of them do not choose a modern, convenient camera such as the ZX-5n. On the other hand, if you use a K-mount lens for general normal-range shooting, and picked up the SMC Takumar to get sharper shots for a small percentage of your shooting, or for slow-paced, non-action shooting situations, now that I could understand. I buy old screwmount lenses when I can't or won't pay for similar optical quality in a K-mount lens. But if I wanted to use a SMC Takumar 50mm for general shooting, I'd want to avoid unnecessary pain by matching it with an old screwmount, auto-diaphram camera. In that case, I'd probably have to keep the cost down by choosing an obscure old Fuji body, rather than a legendary, collectible old Pentax body. Greg I recently bought a late model SMC Takumar 50mm lens and adapter and mounted it to my ZX-5n. It seems for focussing you move the switch to open the lens and for metering and shooting you have move the switch on the lens to the stop down mode? It seems very akward and slow. Anyone care to comment or share some advice? Jim
*ist D arrived - First Impressions
at histograms for the shots I did tonight. And I've had digital PS cameras for years (currenly an Olympus C-3000, which I'll soon be selling) and never looked at a histogram or even knew what one was. I think I'll be fine with only looking at histograms for more important shots when there's time to do so in review mode. Or just bracketing, when there isn't time to review the histogram but the shot is important. Overall, I'm very pleased and excited, especially with image quality. I feel the opposite of buyer's remorse -- I'm more pleased with the *ist D than I had thought possible. Greg
ZX-L (MZ-6) - Cancelling long exposure
I have a ZX-L (MZ-6). When shooting flash (AF-280T) snapshots of my infant son, especially with relatives, sometimes I pay so much attention to capturing his fleeting smiles and other cute expressions that I forget to wait long enough for the flash to recycle. Then, if the light is dim enough it goes into a very long exposure and I miss other opportunities waiting for the exposure to end. Tonight, some of them were 20 seconds long and I missed a few really adorable moments. Of course, the frame it's exposing is ruined anyway. Would it hurt to turn the camera off and back on to cancel the long exposure? If not, is there a good way to cancel it? Thanks, Greg
Re: dorkily enabled
mirror lock-up (of a sort) I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). All other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do. Also, I recall reading that when you lock up the mirror on the KX, the aperature is also stopped down in advance, eliminating that much more vibration. Am I confused about the KX? Greg Do NOT knock the KX until you've tried. it. KX can be had with a range-finder split image screen, but the small microprism is very useful. Pulling out the wind lever to meter is a GOOD thing. Smack it back, push that cute little shutter button almost all the way down, and wait for the moment without wasting batteries. The KX is a very, very very good camera. MXs are goofy in comparison. There. Comments welcome. grin. I'd give up everything else I own to keep my KX's running. Except lenses. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My vacation camera solution, a KX, showed up today from KEH. On the whole it's just about right. My only gripes are the lack of a split image focusing screen (which MIGHT be rectifyable) and the need to stand-off the wind lever to turn the meter on. Otherwise it has all the right controls in the right places. The KX seems to be EXACTLY the same size as the F (noticeably smaller than the K2--electronics are smaller than gears) and even the screws on the top and bottom covers are in the same place. I'd suspect there is at least 50% commonality of parts or tooling. Everything is subtly different cosmetically but it really looks like the KX is basically a reworked F, with a few new bits like center-weighted metering and mirror lock-up (of a sort). Presumably the KM is even more spotF-like. The K2 is clearly the more evolved camera, with a number of relocated controls and a different shutter-speed-dial design.
*ist D sensor and 35mm lens resolution
The *ist D's sensor has about 43% of the area of a 35mm film frame (369 square mm compared to 864 square mm). Lenses don't have infinite resolution; instead they have resolution limits for each aperature. Does it follow that a 35mm film lens' resolution, when used on the *ist D, will be 43% of its resolution on a 35mm film camera? (And conversely, that its resolution on a 35mm film camera would be 234% of its resolution on the *ist D?) If a given DA lens were to be as similar as reasonably possible to a given 35mm lens, with the sole exception that it's image projected the same resolution onto the smaller area of the *ist D's sensor, would the sensor be able to capture 234% as much resolution as it would with the 35mm film lens? If a very sharp lens, such as Pentax's sharpest 50mm lenses (past or present), loses 57% of its resolution when used on the *ist D, is it still a very sharp lens? I plan to get an *ist D soon no matter what answers I get to these questions. I'm just wondering what the potential is for DA lenses, all else being equal, to be sharper on the *ist D than 35mm film lenses. Thanks, Greg
DA 16-45/4 - Where are the kits?
I'd like to buy an *ist D and a DA 16-45/4 as a kit, and get the $200 rebate from Pentax. But the only place I see selling them as a kit is Adorama, which is over $200 more expensive than some other sellers I see at Pricegrabber.com. Are the less expensive sellers likely to start offering them as a kit soon? Since the least expensive sellers are under $1,200 for the *ist D body, and Adorama sells it as a kit with the DA 16-45/4 for $226.75 more than their price for just the *ist D body, is it likely that someone will soon be selling the kit for around $1,425? Thanks, Greg
*ist D - What Version of PhotoShop?
What version of Photoshop would I need to work with *ist D images, and whatever plugins etc. people are using in Photoshop to work with *ist D images? I think I still have Photoshop 4.0 somewhere that came with a scanner. I hope I don't have to buy 8.0 -- I'd probably just go without instead. If 4.0 is too old, I hope to buy a used copy of whatever version I would need on eBay. Thanks, Greg
*ist D, Compared to Reala with a Sharp Prime
How does the *ist D's overall image quality compare to Fuji Reala 100 shot with a sharp prime, such as: -- Pentax-F 50/1.7 -- Tamron 90/2.5 Macro -- Pentax-M 135/3.5 -- Kiron 28/2.0 -- Kiron-made Vivitar 20/3.8 (screwmount) Most film/digital comparisons I've seen compare scanned film to digital, but I'm more interested in how printouts of digital (at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive) compare to film prints (also at Costco, on Fuji Crystal Archive). I'm not a pro; I shoot mostly family, and some landscapes and other nature shots when camping etc. I have a ZX-L (with ZX-M focusing screen -- , split-image) and a Super Program. After comparing several films I settled on Fuji Reala 100 because I like the sharpness, fine grain, and colors. But looking at how much I'm spending on film and processing, it wouldn't take all that long for an *ist D to pay for itself. If I put the 50F/1.7 on the ZX-L and shoot a frame with Fuji Reala 100, then put the 50F/1.7 on the *ist D, set it on ISO 200 (its lowest setting) 3008 x 2008 (its highest resolution), and RAW, back up so that the subject is about the same size as it was with the ZX-L, shoot a frame, sharpen the image in software, then have Costco print both (film and digital) on Fuji Crystal Archive at 4x6, 5x7, 8x12, and 12x18, how would you estimate they would compare? Also, will the ZX-M's focusing screen fit in the *ist D? If not, is there any other way to get a split-image focusing screen into the *ist D? Thanks, Greg
RE: *ist D, Compared to Reala with a Sharp Prime
Hi Rob, Have you tried rating your reala at ISO 80 for landscapes - it is fantastic if you do. Process as normal 100 though - don't even tell the lab you did it. Thanks, I'll try it. Don't kid yourself that digital will pay for itself. Unless you shoot hundreds or possibly thousands of rolls of film per year, or unless you have a massive number of wasters which you wouldn't bother printing. I probably average around 5 - 10 keepers in a 36-exposure roll. Often only 2 or 3. I try to shoot a lot of frames to capture my newborn's cutest fleeting expressions, and my wife's best smiles. I've picked up a few books on taking better pictures of babies and children, and I'm getting better but have a long way to go. Printing from digital is more expensive than when you get your film developed and if you print most of your family shots could actually be more expensive on an ongoing basis - never mind recouping the initial outlay. Hm. Reala is $2.69 per 36-exposure roll, and Costco's in-house processing is $6.99 for 4x6 prints, for a total of $9.68 not counting shipping for the film. That's 27 cents per shot, or $1.29 for my average keeper. Costco charges 19 cents to print a 4x6 print from digital, on the same paper. Even if every frame of film I ever shot was a keeper, printing digital would still be cheaper. Costco's send-out processing is cheaper, but the results are inferior. I had been trying to keep costs to a minimum by using the cheaper send-out processing and having Costco's in-house service reprint all the keepers, but I finally decided that it was too much time and hassle for too little savings to do it that way. Also, you will take between 2 and 10 times as many shots on digital just because you can - this could mean even more printing! I consider that a moot point. To the extent that the *ist D enables me to get more keepers, I'm very happy to pay for that many more prints. Even if you eventually recoup you costs anyway, by then you will either need or be lusting after a new camera, so you will never really get there. Not likely. I prefer to buy old and used. My inclination would be to wait until the *ist D is eventually replaced with something significantly better, and wait for people to start selling off their *ist D's. But it looks like that would cost more (in film and processing) than buying the *ist D now. I would be very unlikely to be among the first to replace my *ist D with the *ist D's eventual replacement. I'm only considering buying new because I don't see a good used option. I've looked at the Minolta RD-175, which is selling for around $300 and takes Minolta AF lenses, which are selling cheaply. But that's a 1.75 MP camera that was introduced in 1995, and I would guess there's been a lot of progress in CCD image quality since then. There is also the Fuji DS505/DS515, but that's even lower resolution, and about as old, and takes Nikon lenses, which would not be as cheap. Among the older Kodak DCS models, only the 1.x MP resolution models are selling cheaply enough to seriously consider as an alternative to a new *ist D, and besides their age and relatively expensive Nikon lenses, they look so ungainly I don't want to try to use them. Right, back to your real question: how will it compare to reala. If you work with your files, you should be able to get equivalent pics at 6*4 or 7*5 by by 8*10 you will see a difference. The digital images will likely be smoother and appear less griny but this is just because there is no 'space' in between the grains, and resoltution will be lower. However this really depends on how you do your sharpening. If you sharpen and add contrast to the digital image it can (at a glance) appear to have more resoltuion, but will in reality have less fine detail. At 12*18 the digital will look better from a distance because of the smoothness and contrast but reala would look better close up. Thanks, this is very helpful. The biggest win win for the *istD is not actually at low ISOs but once you get to ISO 800 and above. It has waaay less grain/noise than any films of that speed I have found and makes low light shooting so much better. That's very interesting. I've been trying to get natural-light shots of my newborn, but when he's in a happy mood he moves too fast for slow shutter speeds and shallow DOF, so it's been frustrating. Hope that helps... It does, thanks! Does anyone know if the ZX-M's focusing screen will fit in the *ist D? If not, is there any way to get a split-image focusing screen into the *ist D? Thanks, Greg
Split-Image Focusing Screen in *ist D?
Will the ZX-M's focusing screen fit in an *ist D? If not, is there any way to get a split-image focusing screen into an *ist D? Thanks, Greg
RE: Replacing the Focusing Screen in ZX-L
What about matrix metering -- any expected problem with that? Thanks, Greg Yes, that's what my ZX-L looks like. If I focus first, and then spot-meter, will that make spot-metering more reliable? No. The reason is that the meter is located above the screen. It reads off the surface of the screen and the split image simply fools the meter. The reading is simply unpredictable so there is no way to compensate. You can however, use centre-weighted w/o problem. Another bonus is that you can double check the AF accuracy with split image. Any idea where I can find out more about how spot-metering is affecting by the focusing screen? I don't think you can because this type of metering system wasn't designed to work with split image. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Replacing the Focusing Screen in ZX-L
I heard that someone was able to put the ZX-M's focusing screen (which has split-image and microprism) in an AF ZX-series body (who's focusing screen does not have split-image or microprism), and it worked fine and didn't affect metering. I'd like to do the same with my ZX-L. Yes, I understand that I'll lose the AF and spot meter marks, but that's a small price to pay to get a split-image. So, I ordered the ZX-M's focusing screen from Pentax (it was only $3.36 + $5.00 shipping). But, I've never taken a camera apart before. Should I go in from the top, starting by unscrewing the top cover, or from the front, starting by unscrewing the part that the lens mount is attached to? Is there anything I should watch out for to avoid damaging the ZX-L, or is common sense an adequate guide? Am I unwise to try this myself? Should I not even consider it and instead take it into a shop and pay them to do it? I'd prefer to save the money if possible. Is there any information on the web or elsewhere that can help me in this project? Thanks, Greg
AF-280T vs. AF-500FTZ
How does the AF-500FTZ's power compare to the AF-280T? I had thought that the AF-500FTZ was much more powerful since it has a guide number of 164'/50m compared to 91'/27.4m for the AF-280T. But I see on BH's web site that the AF-500FTZ's 164'/50m guide number applies to its 85mm telephoto coverage, while at 50mm coverage its guide number is 138'/42m. Since the AF-280T is not a zoom and has a fixed angle of coverage of 28mm, I would guess its guide number of 91'/27.4m applies to 28mm, even though wide angle and telephoto adapters are available separately for it. Correct? Any idea what the AF-500FTZ's guide number is at 28mm? I usually use a Stofen filter on my AF-280T, and I'm not really interested in how powerful the AF-500FTZ is at 85mm coverage. Instead, I'm interested in how much more total light it would put into the Stofen than the AF-280T does -- I'd like to be able to bounce more often and use smaller aperatures. Thanks, Greg
AF-Assist and AF Flashes
This may be a naive question. I recently started using my first AF 35mm SLR, a ZX-L. Before that I'd been using a Super Program. I don't have any AF lenses yet, and even when I do, I'll still be using other MF lenses for a long time. Since the ZX-L's focusing screen doesn't have a split-image, I often find the camera's focus-assist feature helpful. But it doesn't work well in low light, and of course on slower lenses. So, I'm considering switching to a flash with infrared AF illumination. I'm clear on how that helps with an AF lens. My question is -- does it also help with the camera's focus-assist feature? BTW, has anyone found a way to swap out the ZX-L's focusing screen with one that has a split-image? Thanks, Greg
Re: AF-Assist and AF Flashes
Sorry, the subject line should have been Focus-Assist and AF Flashes. Greg This may be a naive question. I recently started using my first AF 35mm SLR, a ZX-L. Before that I'd been using a Super Program. I don't have any AF lenses yet, and even when I do, I'll still be using other MF lenses for a long time. Since the ZX-L's focusing screen doesn't have a split-image, I often find the camera's focus-assist feature helpful. But it doesn't work well in low light, and of course on slower lenses. So, I'm considering switching to a flash with infrared AF illumination. I'm clear on how that helps with an AF lens. My question is -- does it also help with the camera's focus-assist feature? BTW, has anyone found a way to swap out the ZX-L's focusing screen with one that has a split-image? Thanks, Greg
Re: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
Hi Boris, It is optically identical to A 50/2.0 I'm not sure if this means you'd also be interested in hearing about the A 50/2.0, but just in case it does, here's one non-pro's experience: I started with the A 50/2.0, then went to an A 50/1.7. I did a roll of (informal, non-chart) test shots at all aperatures with the A 50/2.0, but with the birth of our child I haven't had time to do the same with the A 50/1.7. However, I've taken hundreds of pictures with it. The main difference between the two in my experience is that the 2.0 is quite soft wide open, while the 1.7 is quite sharp wide open. Since I haven't done my test shots with the 1.7, it's hard for me to compare sharpness between wide open and medium aperatures. But the 1.7 does seem sharper even at f8 f11 than the 2.0, where the 2.0 is at it's best. The 2.0 is so soft at 2.0 that on my first roll, before doing the test shots, I thought I had been careless in focusing. Then, my tests showed that it starts very soft at 2.0, then sharpens up gradually to 8.0. After doing those tests, and before upgrading to the 1.7, I tried to avoid shooting at f2.0 and f2.8 (unless I wanted a soft look, which I usually didn't), and really tried to get to f5.6 when I could. I don't have the knowledge to compare other optical aspects of the lenses, except to say that I'm 100% pleased with the 1.7, and that the sharpness issue is the only thing I dislike about the 2.0. The comments on Stan's site make the M 2.0 sound great. But my experience is that the A 2.0 is inferior to the A 1.7, and simply unusable if you want relatively sharp shots wide open. I'm very pleased with the A 1.7, though, at all aperatures. Hope this helps, Greg Hi! I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one line on Alex's site I couldn't find anything in regular PDML annals g... Especially of course I would be interested in opinions of people who have (had) and/or use (used) this lens. Thanks in advance. Boris
RE: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good?
It sounds like my A 50/2.0 is at best a bad sample, and more likely defective or damaged. There is no sign of damage on the body, and the glass looks great. Maybe a previous owner opened it up and put it back together wrong. My ignorant, wild guess is that maybe it just doesn't focus right, and the gradual improvement I see up to f8 is really just depth of field? FWIW, my test shots were on a tripod, using the self-timer. No mirror lockup, though, as I don't yet have a body that will do that. Unusable was a poor choice of word on my part. Unacceptable for my purposes would have been better, my purposes being mostly family snapshots and landscapes. I love to see lots of sharp detail in both. Other purposes = other requirements. Maybe I should try to sell my soft A 50/2.0 for lots of money as a specially customized soft portrait lens. ;-) Greg Hi, Boris, I have one, and use it often. It's the only 50mm prime k-mount that I have, and I tend to throw it in my pocket when I'm walking around with a slow zoom on a body, just in case I need it for lower light shots. It's fine stopped down: http://pug.komkon.org/03mar/filter.html I know that Greg didn't like his opened up. I think the word he used was unusable or something like that. My experience has been quite the opposite, especially since I use it wide open quite often: http://urbancaravan.com/latte2.jpg I've had that one blown up to 11x14, and the lip of the glass is still quite sharp. And, that shot's not cropped at all, so the relatively sharp part of the lip on the right hand side is right at the edge of the neg. That one was taken at f2.0, with the lens set to minimum focusing distance; I just moved the body back and forth until I got the focus I wanted. I have another one taken at 2.0 that I think is quite acceptable (well, I have many, but most are only contacts, and you can't tell sharpness from those), but I don't want to post it now, as it's my next month's PUG entry. Maybe I'll send it to you off list, Boris - send it to others at risk of your personal safety! vbg Now, maybe Greg and I have widely divergent standards (very possible), but I wonder if maybe he had a bad sample? Unusable wide open just doesn't come close to my experience. These lenses are a dime a dozen. Normally go for $20US or less on eBay. As someone already said, it's because there are so many of them out there, and, likely, because who wants a prime these days, right? g I got mine for $20US - with an MV attached as a rear lens cap! The MV is dead now, but I only wanted the package for the lens to put on my MX, so I'm happy! Mechanically, these are nice lenses, with a positive feel to the focus and aperture rings. Not as buttery smooth as my m42 Taks, but what is? g I'd say that if you have a chance to pick one up at the going price, you can't go wrong. Can't hurt to have a good performing cheap lens, can it? cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Questions: M 50/2.0 - any good? Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:45:24 +0300 Hi! I am about to be enabled with the above lens (SMC M 50/2.0). It is optically identical to A 50/2.0 and very similar (AFAICT) to 50/1.7. I wonder how come Stan's site has nothing to say about it and except one line on Alex's site I couldn't find anything in regular PDML annals g... Especially of course I would be interested in opinions of people who have (had) and/or use (used) this lens. Thanks in advance. Boris _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Where can I get a grip strap for PZ1p?
KEH has one. They list a base without a strap and also a grip strap, which to my knowlege should mean the base and the strap (the strap won't work without the base). Hopefully the link here will work, if not go to www.keh.com an then used then 35 mm pentax then accesories, then grips. Hope this helps Greg Cooper - Original Message - From: Mark Stringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML - Pentax (E-mail) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 5:05 AM Subject: Where can I get a grip strap for PZ1p? Where can I get a grip strap for PZ1p? Mark Stringer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pentax K/M/A 200/4 vs. Tamron KA 200/3.5
Has anyone had a chance to compare the Pentax K, M, or A 200/4 (non-macro) to the old Tamron (KA-mount) 200/3.5? Any opinions? Thanks, Greg
Re: grip for PZ-1P
To the best of my knowlege, there is no AA battery grip for the z-1p. There is only a grip strap. It looks like a battery grip, but it isn't. I wish there was one for every model of Pentax, as I find it has made shooting much easier and convenient. The only downside I've found is on the extremely rare (at least for me)occasions when you want to hang the camera from my neck I can't because you have to take off the neck strap in order to use the grip strap. Or at least I haven't found a way to use both. Maybe someone else knows a way. Bye Greg Cooper - Original Message - From: Hal Sandra Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:09 PM Subject: Re: grip for PZ-1P Did Pentax make a AA battery grip for Z1P? You are talking about the grip-strap attachment?? - Original Message - From: greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 3:03 PM Subject: Re: grip for PZ-1P I have one and I love it. Greg Cooper - Original Message - From: Ian bromehead [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:36 AM Subject: FILM: grip for PZ-1P Anyone heard of a grip accessory for PZ-1P ? It was mentioned in a short thread in a older user club pdml, but I never heard of this. T'would be good to know if one exists since the trusty beast gets a little unwieldy in some cases. Thanks Ian
Missing Clear Plastic Piece on Pentax FA Lens
If the clear plastic piece that covers the numbers on a Pentax FA lens is missing, is that an indication that it was probably dropped hard enough that it might be optically compromised, or do those clear plastic pieces sometimes fall off on their own? Or...? Should I be concerned about a Pentax FA lens that is missing that piece? Thanks, Greg
ZX-L - No Flash Confirmation w/ AF-280T
I've been using a Super Program, and recently got a ZX-L. When I use my Pentax AF-280T flash in TTL mode on the Super Program, the lightning bolt in the viewfinder flashes to confirm that there was enough light for the exposure (or doesn't flash, if there wasn't enough light). On the ZX-L, it doesn't flash, ever, and the specs show that it isn't expected to, though it does with certain other flashes. Any idea why that feature doesn't work on the ZX-L with the AF-280T? Thanks, Greg
How to Tighten Super-Takumar 200mm/f4
I picked up a very worn Super-Takumar 200mm f4 (for pocket change) on which the glass looks good but the barrel seems to need tightening somewhere inside. The barrel moves up and down a millimeter or so relative to the mount, and also moves in and out a millimeter or so, again relative to the mount. I see three tiny screws on the focusing ring, and three more on the depth-of-field ring. I have a screwdriver for that size of screw. If I remove the three screws on the focusing ring, and then (I guess?) slide the focusing ring off, will I find more screws, either the ones that need tightening, or ones that, once removed, lead further to the ones that need tightening? BTW, the depth-of-field ring is loose, and spins all the way around the lens freely. I suppose if I got the focusing ring off, then slid the depth-of-field ring off, I'd see what needs to be done to secure it in place? Are there any FAQs, web sites, etc. that may help me get through this? Any other suggestions? I've never taken apart any lens before. Also: Maybe I should ask this in another thread, but -- why does the front section screw off? Were there interchangable front sections or something? Many Thanks, Greg
Sharpest Normal AF Zoom
What's the sharpest normal-range, autofocus, consumer, used zoom I can put on my ZX-L? From what I've read, it might be the FA 28-70 f4. Are there others I should consider instead? What about 3rd-party lenses? I would be looking for a used one and I don't mind patiently monitoring the used market for months. I would not seriously consider paying for a new one. All of my current lenses (all primes) were bought used on eBay and I'm happy with them. I'm a beginner with little money; every dollar spent needs to count. I like sharp pictures (my favorite subjects are landscapes and my family), and I'm not especially concerned about moderate distortion at the edges and corners. I've stayed away from zooms so far because my understanding has been that zooms, especially in my price range, aren't as sharp as good primes. But yesterday I read a web page that seemed to indicate that since I am not a great expert photographer with great technical skills as a photographer, I might not see the difference in sharpness between a good zoom and a good prime: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharp.shtml If I'm not going to see the difference anyway, then it would certainly be convenient to have a zoom. If I get a used one for a reasonable price on eBay, then change my mind, I can resell it there without losing a lot of money on it. The primes I would be comparing it to are: -- Pentax-A 50/1.7 (I hope to replace this with a used Pentax-F 50/1.7 sometime in the next few months or so) -- Pentax-M 135/3.5 -- Tamron (A) 28/2.5 -- Vivitar (screwmount) 20/3.8 (a very old, big lens; not the current cheap, tiny 19/3.8) When I'm trying to take my best pictures, I: -- Use a tripod and self-timer to avoid camera shake (I use the self-timer because I haven't bought a cable release or remote control yet). -- Use a lens hood (except with the 20mm; I don't have one for it). -- Outdoors, I use a Pentax UV filter shared between the 50mm, 135mm, and 28mm (I don't yet have an 82mm UV to fit the 20mm). -- Use Fuji Reala 100 or Kodak Gold 100 (I'm not sure yet which I like better). -- In the quest for mirror lockup, I've lost several auctions for an old KX. I hope to have one in the next few months. The main reason I want the KX is because when locking up the mirror, it also stops down the shutter, thereby at least theoretically reducing camera shake further. As far as I know, the only other model that does that is the LX, which is beyond my price range. Oh -- one other thing. Since the ZX-L can control the aperature from the camera body, I wouldn't mind saving money on an FAJ. An FAJ would be all but useless on the KX, but I probably wouldn't ever need to use it on the KX anyway. Many thanks for any suggestions. Greg
ZX-L and old lenses
I've been using a Super Program, and I'm considering getting a ZX-L. I see on Pentax's web site for the ZX-L specifications that it only takes FA, F, A lenses. I have some old screwmount lenses and an M, as well as two A's. Does the ZX-L really not work with M, K, screwmount lenses at all, or does this just mean that you can't set the aperature with the selector thing on the camera body? And/or, that you don't see the aperature setting indicated in the viewfinder? Or other limitations? Of course, I'm aware that I won't get autofocus with screwmount, K, M, A lenses. But if it will mount them, meter through them, stop down the selected aperature automatically for the shot (with K, M, A lenses), that's all I would hope for or need. Thanks, Greg
Re: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Thanks, but this isn't for use in a studio. I would need to be able to walk around and not have to set up a lighting stand. Thanks, Greg On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 05:28 America/New_York, Greg Lovern wrote: I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I like some of the brackets I see at http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_E/-E07_flashbrk.html You may want to consider putting one of the flash units off-camera on a lighting stand with one of these adaptors: http://www.camerastore.com/dl_cat_F/-F07a_lsa.html I use one that looks like DL-0316. As for TTL operation, I don't know if it's possible with your Vivitar and then it depends on what lighting ratios you want to achieve between the master and slave flash(es). I think even with a TTL setup and Pentax flashes, the contrast-control feature doesn't let you specify the lighting ratio. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. It helps very much to have a handheld flash meter. --jc
RE: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Hi Tom, Thanks for the link. Both flashes to pump out equal power? -- Yes. Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? -- Doesn't matter, but that would be fine. You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? -- Yes. Thanks, Greg -Original Message- From: Greg Lovern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi folks, I'm new to the list; hope you don't mind if I jump right in with a question.. Hi Greg, that's what we're here for. More or less. Sort of. Well, not really, but I'll jump in anyway. This is a slave flash newbie question, and if it is answered in a faq or primer somewhere I'd be grateful for any links to them. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ Click on flashes, then off-camera flash setups. I'd like to be able to use smaller aperatures with slow film while using TTL bounce flash, with a Stofen diffuser. Ideally, I'd like to mount a second flash on a simple bracket, link the two flashes with a short cord, and have the second flash both fire and stop when the primary flash (either in TTL mode, or in one of its auto modes) fires and stops. I'm not following you 100%are you saying you want both flashes to pump out equal power? Basically you want one flash above the lens and the other a bit out to the side? You want 2 flashes so you can pump out more light? tv
Re: TTL Slave Flash, corded and on bracket?
Hi Bob, Thanks, that's exactly what I had in mind. Too bad they don't seem to make them anymore. I'll monitor eBay for one. Thanks, Greg Greg, I do like the Super Program and TTL flash. I have used two AF280T flashes on it. I found a simple connecting cord by Altrex (?). (Two blocks connected by a black spiral telephone handset cord) You see them on ebay from time to time for $10-$15US. One block is a pick-up and both serve as a flash shoes. You put one on the camera and the other into your brackets. Then, mount a flash on top of both. You would need a 2nd cord to put both flashes off camera. This works but can get a bit fiddley. Pentax also makes flash shoes and distributor cords, but you are talking $100+ to get all the parts for 2 flashes off camera. As to doing this with any flash in auto mode on a KX, good luck. I don't know how that could be accomplished. Regards, Bob S, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I forgot to mention what flash unit I have, in case that makes a difference. I have a Vivitar Auto Thyristor 550FD, M/P/O edition. I've also been losing several eBay auctions for a Pentax AF-280T, trying to get one relatively cheaply, but eventually I'll pay whatever I have to to get one.
Mystery Photo
Hi Everyone. It looks cool, but I have no idea what happend to cause the light streaks in this photo www3.telus.net/public/gregpics/ I finally developed a roll of film that had been in my MZ-3 since summer (don't use it much since I got a Z-1P). This photo is from July 1st - Canada Day. I was on my balcony trying in vain as I do every year to get a decent fireworks picture. Maybe I accidently hit the shutter as I was stepping past the glass balcony doors and got some reflection in them. It doesn't look like any fireworks are occurring, so I don't think they are playing any role in this. Weird Greg
Follow up to lens loses focus (SMCA 200 macro)
This message is a follow up to a posting I made last fall. I am telling my story as a point of information for the group and in case someone might have a helpful suggestion. In my original post, I reported that my SMCP-A* 200mm macro had a problem with the focus ring rotating on its own due to the pull of gravity when the lens was pointed down. The lens was under warranty, but I was hesitant to send the lens in for repair. The problem got it the way of my shooting a couple of more times, so I went ahead and sent the lens to Pentax. They sent the lens back with the packing slip stating that they packed the helicoid with heavier grease. The problem seems to be gone, but now there is a new problem. After the diaphragm is stopped down, it does not spring back open unless I wiggle the aperture ring. This happens with the lens either on or off the camera body. I doubt that there is a simple fix for this, so I will probably have to send the lens back again. Greg Johnson New Brighton, MN - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
PASSED JCII stickers
Just curious: Do current Pentax lenses made in Japan still have the JCII sticker on them? I only have two Pentax lenses. The lens I purchased new last November has no JCII sticker put has a sticker "made in Japan". A used lens I purchased from a PDML member has the JCII sticker. Greg - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO MF lens for Pentax Ka mount
I am looking for a lens (fixed or zoom) which reaches 400mm. I see Ebay has a Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO manual focus lens for Pentax ( I have ZX-5N) on item # 1209610088. Do any of you have this lens or at least an opinion of its value and quality. I have not been able to find any info on the www. about it. Somewhere on the web I ran across a lens performance survey which favored the Sigma AF 135-400mm F/4-5.6 APO Asph. This is rather pricey (for me) at around $500 U.S. new. Any thoughts on this lens? My wife and I will be using the lens to shoot birds and other wildlife. I earlier purchased a Pentax SMC F 70-210 f/4-5.6 from a fellow list member. We are Very happy with this lens but need a longer focal length for shooting the small critters. Greg Polly - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Pentax Flash Problem
I own a Pentax PX-10. We all know that the built in flash causes red eye. I purchased a Pentax Flash AF200SA and no red eye ever. I dropped this flash and purchased a Pentax Flash AF3300FTZ as a replacement. Problem is that I sporadically get red eye again. Any solutions out there. Thanks This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
