vermeers camera ( was first-ever Photo in the world)
Bob Walken wrote: In some ways photography has been around since at least the Middle Ages. There's a fascinating book by Philip Steadman called Vermeer's Camera in which the author argues that Vermeer used a camera obscura to paint his most famous works. He makes a very good case. Yes, maybe or probably, Vermeer did. Absolutly sure is that his collegue, a painter called Johan Fabritius, living like Vermeer in Delft, used such a camera. There's a painting left in which he has painted the new church in Delft with a kind of fish-eye wideangle lens. The picture can be seen at http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/f/fabritiu/view_del.html The exact spot in Delft, the church, the houses, all still exist, and it has been one of my plans for a long time to try and make a similar real photograph, apporaching the original as much as possible (maybe with a Pentax and a fish-eye, maybe with a Horizont panoramic camera - just have to see what matches best. Fabritius became only 32, was killed in the big gunpowder explosion in Delft. Probably not many paintings were made by him, or at least did survive. Regards, John - 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 .
28-70 problem ?
A week ago, I shot a few slide-films (Fuji 200) with my old SF1n and a few different lenses. I used to make many slides in the past, but changed to printfilm some years ago. All slides made last week look fine, perfectly exposed - except those made with the Pentax SMC 4/28-70 which all look overexposed at least one stop. I've checked the 28-70, but it looks perfect: aperture goes smoothly, automatic stop-down mechanisms works fine. I've compared the 28-70 with another similar model, both made in Japan-versions, and upon visual inspection only one seems to have, at identical focal length and aparture settings, a somewhat larger diameter in the selected aperture than the other. To my view, not enough to make for the one stop overexposure. But again, both lenses seem to work perfectly. Is this just a matter of tolerances, and have tolerances in modern zoom-lenses become that large that they are just too big for slide film ? Does anybody have similar experiences with the 4/28-70 ? - 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 .
question about the new ZX6
Hi, has anyone seen the new ZX6 already ? From the description in the magazines, it looks like a nice camera. Does it have the mechanical aperture-simulator, in other words can all old K-mount lenses still be used ? Does anyone have experience with this new 28-90 zoom that comes wityh the ZX6 ? Regards, John - 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 .
Forget about this one.......????
Hi, I just read the new Chasseur DÍmages. They tested the pentax 1.8/31, the FA4/200 and the new 28-105. They find them to be okay, though all ( and especially the first two) to be expensive. This is becoming typical for Pentax, they write. They also test teleconverters, and their verdict on the Pentax-converters is pretty strong...the autofocus 1.7 converter they call hopelessly bad and forget about this one, while they call the Pentax A 1.4 converter of anecdotical interest only. Strange, especially with the 1.7 AF converter I have made photographs that were sharp and contrasty, and I was, in fact, quite pleased with it. - 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 .
Re: zx-m focussing screen in zx5n
John, Alan, did you do some additional testing ? I have called Pentax here in Holland for a ZX-M screen, and they quoted a price of USD 25,-- excluding shipping and handling. Wuld it be better ( and possible ) by installing an ever better screen like the one of an MX or LX. Guess an optician could do some small alterations to the size of the screen, if necessary. Regards John Alan Chan wrote I did the same thing to my Z-1p and some quick test. I discovered everything worked okay, except the spot metering which would be way off. The reason is that the split image would affect the spot meter accuracy significantly. Exposure compensation did not seem to work because it seemed to be situation dependency. Another thing I have discovered is that you can use any newer Pentax screens in older Pentax bodies with correct focus. The reason is they are all flat on both sides so there should not be any focus shift. The only concern is exposure compensation. For instance, I can use the C74 (MZ-M/ZX-M) screen in MX without problem. However, older screens are phyically bigger (if not thicker) so they might not fit in Pentax AF bodies. Of course, if you called Pentax, they would tell you those screens were not designed for other cameras so would not work. regards, Alan Chan DISCLAIMER!!! If you attempt anything I mention in this post you do so at your own risk! Neither I, nor Pentax accept any liability if you wreck your camera! I do not know if this voids the warranty. Some of you may vaguely recall many months ago I posted a question about whether or not a ZX-5n can have a different focusing screen installed. I'm proud and pleased to report the answer is a resounding YES! After waiting on a 6 month (!!!) backorder of focusing screens I received in the mail a screen for a ZX-M camera. This screen is a drop-in replacement for the factory screen in the ZX-5n. By changing out the screen you add one very important feature to what IMHO is one of the BEST cameras Pentax has made since they discontinued the K1000 (which I have one of)... MANUAL FOCUSING AID! It took me almost 9 months of phone calls to get this screen. Why? Because when I first began my quest I made the foolish choice to call Pentax's tech support to see if they knew of a screen for this camera. Needless to say the very unhelpful and rude tech I talked to (I should have written his name down) said it was impossible and I was an idiot for wanting to do this. Needless to say I was a bit demoralized after my conversation with him (way to go Pentax Tech.) I had long suspected that the screen from a ZX-M would probably work... after all they're nearly identical cameras in terms of their physical size and layouts. So on a lark I called the parts department and asked what a screen for a ZX-M costs $3.36 for the screen... $5.00 shipping/handling. DOH!!! for $10 I can try this out?!? If I had known that I wouldn't have even BOTHERED calling Pentax Tech. I'd spent more than that in terms of time and effort. So I ordered the screen... waited 6 months for the back-order to clear out, and got it in the mail. A quick flick of the screw driver and out comes the original screen! I popped in the ZX-M screen and was delighted to have manual focusing aid! My initial cursory tests have not shown any negative effects on the in-pentaprism metering mechanism. I'll be doing more rigorous testing in a couple weeks. So for those of you who have some really nice OLD manual focus glass and a ZX-5n camera, rejoice in the knowledge that you can give this camera the one thing it truly needs to be perfect... a split-image range finder with micro-prism collar. Take care! -- John P.S. Yes... I bashed Pentax Tech a bit in here. Does it mean I don't like Pentax? No. Does it mean I was less than satisfied with the quality of aid I received on my phone call. Yes. Will I continue to buy Pentax equipment. Yes. If this ruffles anyone's feathers please feel free to ignore me. That's all. omeone can recommend an excellent sh - 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 .
