Re: Pentax 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF
Graywolf wrote: I tend to disagree with you both. I find the narrower view of something like a 100mm lens nice for picking out details. I readily admit that landscape photography is not really my thing, but I think there is more to it then sweeping panoramics. Agree 100%. I do a lot of landscape work and would not wish to be working without a telephoto lens or two. My landscapes are most often shot with wide angle lenses, the Pentax K 35mm f/2 being my favourite, and the K 24mm f/3.5 a very close second, but I always take at least one telephoto with me. My favourites are the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and the Pentax K 200mm f/4. John
Re: *ist D pricing, UK
Rob Brigham wrote: Have you any experience with this company? I was thinking about ordering a TV from them. Hi Rob, I've not had any personal dealings with them (yet) but know two people who have purchased domestic electrical items and have been very satisfied with price and delivery. After-sales service is not such an issue with these domestic items as the manufacturers have well-established warranty schemes, but that may not apply equally to cameras. If I was buying an EOS 300D I would use Park Cameras of Burgess Hill. They are quoting £749.99. Hope this is useful, Tony
Re: *ist D pricing, UK
Cotty wrote: For UK buyers, the *ist D (body only) is available at Cameraworld for £1199! ... and the Canon EOS 300D body is available for a mere £708.00 at: http://www.qed-uk.com/?i=vp=6bg=265bp=300dsbi=0ird=1407 :-( John
Re: My own little *ist D review (fwd)
Chris Brogden wrote: So if the Nikon D100 will stop down an MF lens in manual mode (no meter), then it's actually a step ahead of the *istD, which won't even stop down an MF Pentax K-mount lens. That's sad. Yes, it is sad. In each case, the necessary engineering would have cost only a nominal amount of money. However, the whole point of its deliberate omission is to maximise sales of new lenses. Cynical, but now that the caring, sharing 1990s have gone, a new commercial reality means that screwing your existing customers is the way to go ... I was scared of this happening when Pentax first started messing with their entry-level bodies. First the MZ-50, which would only meter at full aperture but would still stop down a K/M series lens properly. Then the MZ-30 and 60, which won't even work with non-A lenses or with A-series lenses taken off the A setting. Then the FAJ lenses, which don't even have aperture rings. And now we have their first, and flagship, DSLR, which essentially works like a digital MZ-60. This completely and totally hoovers. Very well put, Chris. Canon users must be feeling some rumblings of unease, considering that Canon's new 18-35mm lens for the Digital Rebel won't fit on their 35mm bodies, but Pentax has a history of excellent body/lens compatibility, which they now seem to be doing their best to throw away. Pentax can't hope to compete with N/C in many ways, but they've still been able to carve out a niche for themselves by offering inexpensive entry-level bodies, high-quality lenses, and excellent compatibility. Once their compatibility decreases, and the lenses they produce (like Nikon's G-series) stop working on MF bodies, then they've just alientated a lot of people. They'll still make money selling cheap SLRs and ps cameras, but they'll simply be a lesser company than C/N instead of a different one. Exactly so. That's why the *ist and *ist D make me slightly sadder than I already was. ;-) John
Re: My own little *ist D review
Alan Chan wrote: whickersworld wrote: That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have done it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have nowhere to go! You can always go LEICA, the final destination... Well, I do use Leica M as well as Pentax ... but I still need an SLR system for those shots that are difficult or impracticable with a rangefinder camera - basically anything needing a telephoto 90mm, macro and architectural shooting and anything where I need to see the depth of field in the viewfinder. I do like the Carl Zeiss manual focus lenses for Contax but even that brand is offering two separate, totally incompatible 35mm film SLR systems! ;-) John
Re: My own little *ist D review
William Robb wrote: Nikon was doing this sort of thing long before the F80. I don't recall which model, it may have been the N601 from the late 1980s which would not work at all with non AI lenses, though they would mount with no problem. The F401 (N4004) had this problem, but I didn't (and don't) see it as a major issue on entry-level cameras. The F80 (N80) is a different matter, because of its wider appeal to both new and existing Nikon customers, including advanced amateurs and pros looking for a second body to their F100 or F5. Heck, I really wanted to buy an F80 until I realised it would not meter with my AIS lenses! It was a big reason for my abandoning Nikon. If I am totally honest with myself, it was the final reason and the one that tipped the balance. I also wanted to return to using a rangefinder outfit so I sold all my Nikon gear, bought a small Leica M outfit and started to build a manual focus Pentax outfit. The problem is, I find that the market for my 35mm work is shrinking rapidly unless I supply scanned images, and that takes me time. It's far easier to shoot digital and my Olympus E-10 is now my main source of income. Nice camera, but not exactlyin the LX mould! If only the *ist D would meter with my K and M lenses I would buy one in an instant, and the knowledge that less than $20 has been saved on an $1800 camera by the omission of that feature causes me dyspepsia. Large format. Always 100% compatability. I use Nikkors, Schneiders and Fujinons on my 4x5. Large format is NICE! ;-) John
Re: OT: Pentax Image in Outdoor Photographer
Boris Liberman wrote: Here's the correct URL: http://pug.komkon.org/01jul/IceFlwer.html Congratulations. Seconded. Wonderful image. Well done Kenneth! John
Re: My own little *ist D review
Cotty wrote: You're kidding. dawning realisation Now I see why folk are upset. Now Pentax users know *exactly* how Nikon users felt when the F80 (N80) was introduced, with its deliberately designed inability to meter with pre-autofocus Nikkors. That wasn't the reason why I abandoned Nikon for Pentax, but it was probably *one* of the reasons. Now Pentax have done it, and Canon and Minolta did it a long time ago, I have nowhere to go! :-( John
Re: Pentax A28-135/4 --- SMC 135/2.5
Alan Chan wrote: I have never used the zooms you mentioned, but the issue assoicated with the SMC-A 28-135/4 is weight. Hi Alan, Long ago I resolved that I would bear the weight of any lens that helped me produce the results I wanted. big grin The SMC-A 28-135/4 did not last long in my outfit, because I had to draw the line at holding a heavy lens that had such severe rectilinear distortion. heavy frown Other lenses you might consider included SMC-A 35-105/3.5 Tamron SP 28-75/2.8. I have no experience of the Tamron but the SMC-A 35-105/3.5 is definitely my favourite zoom. Sharp, with very low distortion and excellent bokeh, it is (to me) the zoom lens that every Pentax user should own and use, use, use ... this is a *very happy* lens!! John
Re: UK *istD Price
T Rittenhouse wrote: WRONG! No, what I wrote is RIGHT! Yes, the istD will take K and M mount lenses. The maintain auto-aperture, but do not have meter coupling, so only work in full manual mode. You do have to set a custom function to allow the shutter to release with non-A lenses. Yes, all that is true of the *ist D. However, a simple perusal of my post to which you replied would have revealed that I was writing about fitting M42 mount lenses to the EOS 300D. Pay Attention Graywolf! I do recommend reading people's posts before replying, as problems such as the above can easily be avoided. ;-) John
Re: way OT: Voigtlander Bessa lenses
Amita Guha wrote: I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them out a while back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around for lenses and it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no matter where I look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay tons of money for each lens if I start building a rangefinder system? Sorry for the OT post but I'd rather not deal with Leica-only snobs online. ;) Hi Amita, The Voigtländer lenses are not nearly as expensive as Leica but they do cost money. Here in the UK, most of the lenses sell for the dollar equivalent of $250 to $400, the exceptions being the 12mm and the 35mm f/1.2 which cost rather more. I am aware of two sources for Voigtländer in the USA; Cameraquest and Photo Village. Their prices seem reasonable but I have no experience of either as a source for equipment. The fact that Voigt
Re: way OT: Voigtlander Bessa lenses
Amita Guha wrote: I would love to buy a Bessa T or R, because I tried them out a while back and liked them a lot, but I've been looking around for lenses and it looks like the lenses are several hundred $ each no matter where I look. Am I missing something or will I really have to pay tons of money for each lens if I start building a rangefinder system? Sorry for the OT post but I'd rather not deal with Leica-only snobs online. ;) Hi Amita, The Voigtländer lenses are not nearly as expensive as Leica but they do cost money. Here in the UK, most of the lenses sell for the dollar equivalent of $250 to $400, the exceptions being the 12mm and the 35mm f/1.2 which cost rather more. I am aware of two sources for Voigtländer in the USA; Cameraquest and Photo Village. Their prices seem reasonable but I have no experience of either as a source for equipment as I buy and sell in the UK. The fact that Voigtländer cameras and lenses use the L39 Leica screw mount or the Leica M bayonet means that you can buy other brand lenses to fit your Voigtländer camera. The former Soviet lenses for the Zorki series of L39-mount cameras are surprisingly good and are often offered on eBay for very reasonable prices. You may also find older Canon rangefinder lenses offered but they tend to cost more. If you buy the Bessa T or R2 you will need a bayonet to screw mount adapter to mount L39 lenses to the camera; all other Voigtländer rangefinder bodies use the L39 mount. Try the former Soviet lenses; you might be surprised just how good they are, and how well made. Best regards, John
Re: UK *istD Price
Cotty wrote: whickersworld wrote: In future years, when photographers reminisce about the year 2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital SLRs that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and full marks to Canon for making the first true consumer DSLR. I don't think this will be the case at all. Sure the Canon will be hailed as a landmark in consumer DSLRs, but at what level of features, and at what price? Perhaps, in your rarified world, you don't realise that the consumer electronics market is driven by gimmickry and the availability of new technology at a price consumers can afford. Given the maturity of the PC market, the consumer electronic buyers have their Christmas 2003 cash available for whatever's HOT, and the EOS 300D is it. It's still too expensive for most. Nonsense. It's cheaper than the average PC. In other words, it's affordable. It will sell in huge numbers. Anyway, the *ist D is a peg up the ladder from the 300D. ( When Ms. 300D shoots 4 frames and then has to wait while 'it does somethin with the memory, I dunno, somethin technical' she'll assume they all do that and won't care anyway.) The D100 / 10D / *ist D shooter will know a bit more about what's going on with his/her camera, and will care. The *ist D will be hailed as the 'smallest / lightest / cutest' DSLR with good feature levels - you watch, I'll bet the ads play on this heavily. Commentators will, however, mock the name,as they already have: AP couldn't figure it out at all, but gave the *ist film SLR a big thumbs-up. They'll do the same with the *ist D, mark my words. Yes, the Canon will be recalled in years to come, but as with the LX, I think so too the *ist D will be remembered also, not buried like the Sigma SD-9.. Well, nothing will ever be buried like the Sigma SD-9 except maybe the latest M42 mount Zenit SLR. But the *ist D will only be of any significance to Pentax users; its influence on the wider world of imaging will be approximately nil. The average consumer DSLR buyer won't be impressed by the *ist D's additional features over the EOS 300D but will be highly impressed by the Canon's price, and rightly so. 6 megapixels for GBP 899.00 is a remarkable coup. The extra features the *ist D offers over the EOS 300D are available for less in the Canon EOS 10D, so the *ist D's 6 megapixel ability for GBP 1400.00 is just a bore, except for those who want a camera that accepts Pentax lenses. As members of this mailing list, we should not over-estimate our self-importance in the world of photography as Pentax owners, users, enthusiasts and (some) obsessives. The *ist D is a nice camera, but it won't change anything much. It's a bit like the MZ-S, or the Minolta Dynax (Maxxum) 7 ... nice products, but no significant market penetration, ultimately forgettable despite their undoubted virtues. We should not let our loyalty towards, or love for, the Pentax brand, or our sour grapes, cloud our judgement. The EOS 300D is HOT, and it is a massive technical and marketing coup for Canon. Photography will never be the same again. The *ist D changes nothing, except for Pentax users. Best regards, John
Re: UK *istD Price
zoomshot wrote: See http://www.dpreview.com/ It's official from Pentax UK: The *ist D will list at GBP 1400.00 (body only) or GBP 1529.99 with an 18-35mm f/4-5.6 FA-J lens. Meanwhile, Canon lists the EOS 300D at GBP 899.00 (body only) or GBP 999.00 with a very interesting zoom lens, and will of course clean up. In future years, when photographers reminisce about the year 2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital SLRs that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and full marks to Canon for making the first true consumer DSLR. John
Re: The MX
Feroze Kistan wrote: Could someone please explain why so many on the list have MX's. It seems to be a very popular model, what gives? It's fully manual, small, light, simple, robust, reliable, has excellent handling and is cheap to buy and own. I can't think of any other reasons right now grin ... but the MX is one of a family of simple, fully manual cameras that don't take any control away from the photographer. I use my MX alongside a Leica M6 TTL and have previously used a Nikon FM2. These are similar cameras in that they have good built in light meters but are otherwise totally mechanical. People are attracted to the Leica R6 and R6.2 for the same reason, plus the Nikon F, F2, Canon F-1 ... Manual is good. John
Re: Future DSLR's
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Well, I would say, that 200mm lens on APS-sized DSLR will have the same DOF as the same piece of glass on 35mm camera. One condition - the same camera to subject distance. At equal magnification, DSLR will have greater DOF - just because you have to stand at longer distance than you would with 35mm camera to obtain the same magnification level. Hi Sylwek, The above is true only if you assume the same diameter of the Circle of Confusion for 35mm film and the APS- size CCD. That is a pretty gross assumption, and not one I would support ... From long experience of 35mm versus medium format comparisons I think we should take the very greatest care when relating different DOFs for different formats. When comparing digital to film we should be even more careful about drawing what appear to be finely-balanced conclusions made on the basis of gross assumptions. John
Re: UK *istD Price
Kevin Waterson wrote: whickersworld wrote: In future years, when photographers reminisce about the year 2003, the EOS 300D is the only one of these two digital SLRs that anyone will remember. A truly remarkable coup, and full marks to Canon for making the first true consumer DSLR. Will it take a K mount? No, but with the correct adapter, it will take an M42 screw mount lens and even offers stop-down metering! ;-) John
Re: UK pricing for *istD!
Harold Owen wrote: It would appear that the Pentax *istD body only is going to cost £1,400 here in the UK. See this link:- http://www.ephotozine.com/news/fullnews.cfm?NewsID=1327 The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Long live Rip-Off Britain.:-( John
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
Steve Desjardins wrote: For me, $1000 is still too much for a low end camera. We need the equivalent of the *ist body with a 6 MP senor in it for about $600. Steve, All you need to do is wait a while. It will surely come. Maybe by end of 2004? John
Re: An Outsider's view of the *istD
Christian Skofteland wrote: Pål; Now I know why you don't think the ist-D is a nice looking camera. You obviously have much different tastes than a lot of people I know. The Leica R8 and R9 are two of the most beautifully designed SLRs. The ist-D is an average looking modern SLR; there is nothing pretty about it or ugly about it. It's just a camera whereas the R8 and R9 are bold and interesting (if not massive; not a good or bad point, just a point) Christian, The Leica R8 and R9 look ugly to most photographers I know. They even look ugly to me, and I like and admire Leica gear, although I have only ever used Leica M gear, some of which looks very beat up (and it is!). But pick up an R8 or R9, instead of just looking at them, and everything changes. They fit the hands beautifully, and all the controls seem to be optimally placed. As a working tool I can think of few cameras that will handle as well, and none better. Unfortunately I will probably never earn enough to justify the cost of a Leica R outfit for my work. But I can dream of my two-body R9 outfit with fifteen lenses and a digital back ... plus the Lottery winning ticket that bought it for me! ;-) John
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
My name is John and I am a cameraholic. grin I shoot in the broad genre that is usually called travel photography and use a Leica rangefinder outfit most of the time. The 24mm, 35mm and 90mm focal lengths would be fine for 90% of my shots but I resort to my Pentax SLR gear when I need an SLR. As I don't carry two outfits at the same time, they each share the work about equally. My SLR outfit consists of LX, MX and Super A bodies plus 20mm Carl Zeiss Jena, 24mm f/3.5 Pentax K, 28mm f/2.8 Pentax A, 35mm f/2 K, 50mm f/1.4 Pentax A and f/1.7A, 90mm f/2.8 Tamron SP Macro, 135mm f/3.5 Pentax M and 200mm f/4 Pentax K plus a Schneider 28mm PC lens which is on loan pending a decision as to whether I should buy it. A shift lens is essential for shooting buildings - if I can't find a good Pentax shift at a reasonable price, which was no easy task last time I tried, I will have to keep the Schneider and pay the price. Ouch! I also have several zooms (including the 35-105mm A, 70-200 A and a 24-70 Vivitar) that I rarely use. However, the 35-105mm A is a joy for taking shots of my family - something of a busman's holiday perhaps, but something I really enjoy. All my other shooting is paid work for other people and I try to keep my work completely separate from family life. I also shoot digital with an Olympus E-10, which I have found to be a very fine camera in spite of several major weaknesses, notably speed of use. It will be more than good enough for me until I decide which digital SLR outfit to buy, probably about 12-15 months from now after the Olympus E1 has either established itself, or not. My shooting is a mixture of landscape/street photography for picture postcards and calendars, general travel photography to illustrate articles by myself and others, landscape and miscellaneous photography (basically whatever catches my eye) for two stock agencies and the occasional formal wedding shoot using borrowed or hired Hasselblad gear. My health is not so good so I now tend to steer clear of the stress of wedding photography, although it pays very well. I formerly used Nikon SLR gear and have found the change to Pentax a mixed blessing. I adore the Pentax bokeh, but have concerns about the excessive linear distortion that so many Pentax lenses seem to have, including many fixed focal lengths. I am assuming the 28mm Pentax shift won't suffer from this, otherwise the Schneider will be the one to buy. John
Re: What cameras do you use; why and for what?
Lon Williamson wrote: snip I own 2 SuperPrograms, 3 MXen, and 3 KXen. In the market for more good KXen. No desire to own an LX. Lon, I had no particular desire to own an LX (I was happy with my Super A) until I picked up a cheap Pentax outfit at a camera fair. It included an LX body, an LX winder, plus several lenses and a lot of accessories I didn't want grin. When I sold off what I didn't want, including the winder (I have a thumb for doing that!), I found I had a Pentax LX that cost me nothing. OK, it had a bad case of 'sticky mirror syndrome', probably through an extreme lack of use for 15 years or more, but for no more than the price of a CLA I had a near mint LX in perfect working order. I had no intention of keeping it. As a former Nikon user, I had always regarded the LX as a bit of an oddball design, and frankly couldn't see the appeal. I tried it out before advertising it on eBay, just to make sure it all worked, and after a couple of films, I began to see why so many Pentax fans adore this camera. Now, almost a year later, I am *hooked*, and the LX has replaced the Nikon F3HP in my affections. If I had to restrict myself to one Pentax body, this would be it. The moral of the story is Try one.You may find you get hooked too. ;-) John
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial
Cotty wrote: LOL. Now there's a Freudian slip! Now if I was a Pentax, what model would I be? I don't know about you, but I could easily identify with most Pentax models released since the LX ... Full of promise, but never quite delivered! ;-) John
Re: *istD and the future (WAS: Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses)
Bill Owens wrote: I disagree about a pro model. Firstly Pentax is not going to spend the money to give freebies and unlimited free service to so called pros. Secondly, it seems to me that Pentax is quite happy in the advanced amateur/enthusiast market Bill, You're 100% right. Whenever I hear Pentax are going to release a pro 35mm or digital model, my brain automatically assumes that it will be yet another product aimed directly at the prosumer market that pro shooters only dip into to purchase back-up equipment. John
Re: More serious competition for *ist-D - Kiss Digital/300D
Graywolf wrote: Should Pentax drop the price on the MZ-S because the Rebel is cheaper? No, they should drop the price anyway! ;-) John
Re: *ist-D photos
Anders Hultman wrote: One thing I've wondered for some time now, what does Limited mean here? In what way are these lenses limited? It means that they have Limited Appeal. (They certainly don't appeal to me!) ;-) John
Re: *ist D figures
Graywolf wrote: snip The new Olympus E1 is aparently going to be a mid-line camera with no upgrade potential. I don't know where you got that from, Tom. The E1 will be one of several DSLRs in the Olympus range. It is a prosumer camera and there will be at least one model below it and one above. The obvious comparison might appear to be the Pentax *ist D, which apparently will also have at least one model below and one above. However the E1 is pitched rather higher in the market than the *ist D. Of course Olympus' and Pentax's future plans will depend on how their cameras sell, and right now that is a moot point. I'm waiting to see how the market develops in the next 12 months before deciding which system to invest in. It will take at least that long to see whether the Olympus gamble (the 4/3 die size chip) will have paid off. In the meantime, my Olympus E-10 is proving to be a marvellous working tool. It is probably the best investment I ever made in photo gear. John
Re: *ist D figures
T Rittenhouse wrote: IIRC Pentax out sold (units) all other SLR makers in the late 60's early 70's. Then the plastic cameras came out and Pentax was late getting into that (cheap camera) market. Surely the problem was more related to Pentax's extreme tardiness in adopting a bayonet mount? Photojournalists, who had previously used Spotmatics, got fed up with dropping their screw mount lenses and missing shots and deserted 'en masse' to Nikon - and the rest is history. Despite the brave LX (a fine effort), Pentax has never seriously addressed the 35mm pro market since then, and are unlikely ever to again. John
Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: I bet Pentax will sell every *istD they can make, even maybe if they price it slightly higher. The main concern is if they can recover the RD costs (and make some profit) before replacing it (100D and 10D are older and sells in higher volume). I'd really like to know how an *istD-like camera costs (RD+manufacturing)... I am suggesting that much of the Pentax RD may already have been done and paid for ... by Nikon. John
Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses
Graywolf wrote: Intersesting, the D100 doesn't sell, they are pilling up on the dealers shelves? Where did I write that the D100 doesn't sell? Where did I write that they are piling up on the dealers' shelves? What I actually wrote was: The deal seems to be that Nikon get to sell surplus components (the sales of the D100 are disappointing), Pentax gets a DSLR without investing a lot of money, in return for lagging behind the state of the art technology by at least one year. Don't forget that manufacturers order component quantities on the basis of *projected* sales. I suggested that the D100 was selling some way below its projections, not that it didn't sell. How can sales as fast as you can make something be disappointing. As fast as they can make? Not according to my information. And Nikon won't make more cameras than they can sell, so they need an outlet for the CCDs and other electronic components that they pre-ordered but aren't using. Step up Pentax, who can soak up all the excess (and probably lots more!). Makes good business sense. Best regards, John
Re: Digital Formats and Partial Coverage Lenses
Jonathan Donald It seeems that Nikon (and now Pentax) have cast the die for the emergent digital format size. It is curious to note how much these companies have in common, especially regarding their support of the 1.5X multiplier sensor size with their reduced coverage lenses. That's hardly surprising, when the Pentax *ist D and Nikon D100 share the same sensor and much of the same electronics, including near-identical AF systems. The deal seems to be that Nikon get to sell surplus components (the sales of the D100 are disappointing), Pentax gets a DSLR without investing a lot of money, in return for lagging behind the state of the art technology by at least one year. I predict that the *ist D will be distinctly underwhelming, just like the D100. Canon rules. :-( John
Re: Fad (was: Re: Just printed the test pictures from the *ist D...)
Bob S wrote: Digital is not a fad, but the conjunction of photography and the computer craze. To me, that sounds like a *definition* of a fad! Digital *is* a fad, except for those professionals (and some advanced amateurs) who need the workflow advantages of digital. Digital is here to stay, but right now, in the consumer market the *ist D is squarely aimed at, it's as much of a fad as any that ever existed in photography. I'm with Graywolf here. ;-) John
Re: where's the *istD?
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Havent heard anything on this for a while. whats the latest news on release? Pentax have probably been waiting for the discussion on this list to come to a close, so that they can finalise which features to incorporate and which ones to drop. vbg John
Re: Vs: OT - Brit and proud
Lon Williamson wrote: I feel DAMNED sorry for what my ancestors did. They stole sheep. They wore cheap shoes. They spit wads of tobacco. I'm still cleaning up, and I'm pissed. lol. Some of my ancestors (Vikings) raped and pillaged the people of the country in which I live (England) and helped conquer much of it. Others sailed with the Spanish Armada who tried to conquer the British Isles. Yet more died in the Potato famine in Ireland, and the descendants of some of those who survived fought for Irish independence (and maybe still do). Others built horse drawn coaches for rich English Lords who lived in their country (Scotland). I'm more than slightly confused and try not to think too much about my ancestors! John ;-)
Re: OT - comments requested
frank theriault wrote: I can't ever put this into PUG, as it weren't taken with a Pentax. But, I kind of like it, so I put in a request for critique on Photo.net. So far, I don't think they get it: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1639375size=lg Either that, or I'm really off-base with this one. It's not the low ratings that bother me, I'm just wondering if I'm completely wet. So, feel free to let me know what you think of this one. Be as brutal as you please. g Great composition, good execution. You captured the Decisive Moment. Much as I like the shot, I feel the background bokeh is brutal, and I think it detracts significantly from what is otherwise a very fine example of candid photography. If you believe in using Photoshop, you could soften the background while leaving the subject sharp. Possibly the subject would benefit from sharpening as there is some motion blur that could usefully be reduced. As the shot is on Ilford HP5, you could perhaps make a huge difference to this shot in a traditional dark room, possibly by burning in the subject while holding back the darker parts of the background leaving a dark subject against a high key background. None of the above comments are in any way intended as derogatory. I like the shot. John
Re: WOOOHOOO again
Brendan wrote: Now the english version http://www.torphoto.net/images/tearsheet4s.jpg tho it sucks in BW NICE SHOT! I like it in B+W. John
Re: Website upgrade
Chris Stoddart wrote: :- let's hope Casey Ryback isn't going to be necessary in Don's particular case :-) I must admit I would sometimes welcome Ryback at my side when I'm doing street photography! ;-)
It looks like ... or does it?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=294103125 2 Enjoy! John
Re: FAJ 18-35 pics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18351.jpg http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18352.jpg http://members.aol.com/camdir/faj18353.jpg Goodness me!! It's TINY!! ;-)
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
frank theriault wrote: Why Amsterdam? I mean, Amsterdam sounds great, but why there? It's an exceptionally photogenic city, with colourful opportunities for Street and Urban Landscape photography around every corner. The Flowermarket, the Leidseplein, the museums of Modern Art, Van Gogh and the Rijksmuseeum, the Concertgeboouw ... the canals, the docks (Amsterdam is a deep water port connected to the ocean via the Nordsee Canal ... plus draught Amstel beer, Dutch pancakes, the rijstaafel, the widest selection of international cuisine in any European city except London, the art nouveau/art deco cafe at the American Hotel ... the trams, the canals (again), the bridges, the trams (again) No, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go there! ;-)
Re: Survey: Whose PDML posts have helped you?
Dave Brooks wrote: For fear of missing someone,here are the folk that have been helpfull to me.No particular order: -Tom V -Graywolf -Bill Casselberry -Sid Barras(both are my IR guys) -Herb -Alan -Bruce Dayton -ex Aaron Reynolds -The good fol;k at the TOPDMLFrank,Jeff,David,Brendan -BR(After all i do own some Nikon gearg) -Cotty -Both Marks(Roberts and Cassino) -Pal -BOZ I think I've learned something from *everyone* on the list, whether in response to my queries about gear or in general discussions. I would not wish to single out anyone in particular, nor a small group of people. Why? For the simple reason that it is usually *the discussion* that informs, not the individual replies of individuals or of a clique (such things appear not to exist on PDML, thank goodness!). So thanks to y'all! John P. S. I found when assembling a Pentax outfit was that there are several resources, set up by PDML members, displaying shots that supported the views posted on here. Now that's *particularly* useful !
Re: 2 LXs, MDs, Lenses, etc. on ebay- Wow.
John Dallman wrote: Yes, my credit card bill did arrive today. Why do you ask? I didn't.
Re: *ist is TIPA 35mm SLR of the year...
Kristian Walsh wrote: From the TIPA website (www.tipa.com) Pentax *ist: Best 35mm SLR Camera With it's ultra-compact and radical styling coupled to a newly developed multi-point autofocus system, the *ist demonstrates that Pentax is still a leading light in the autofocus SLR field. Easy to understand controls allow access to a full range of creative options which will enable photographers of all genres to realise their full potential. TIPA awards give absolutely no indication of competent performance. They are purely marketing awards, and are usually only given to products that are likely to sell well. John
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Hans Imglueck wrote: The wounds of WWII were not healed by removing Hitler - of course it was necessary to do this first - but by the friendship between American, French, British, German and all the others. Wise, wise words. Thank you, Hans.
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Bob S wrote: I'd swap you Slick Willie for Tony, but then you'd have to hide all your daughters. :-) A price worth paying, maybe? ;-)
Re: OT: BLIAR, was Re: I'm Back
frank theriault wrote: For the record, I didn't say that. I believe that it was a response to a post of mine. Please accept my apology, Frank. Best regards, John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Cameron Hood wrote: Must not have tried the FA* series zooms. Hi Cameron, Yes, you're absolutely right. I am now hesitating about buying any more Pentax gear, so it is also unlikely I ever will. John
OT: BLIAR, was Re: I'm Back
frank theriault wrote: Tony Blair made some big speech today. Don't trust a word Blair says. He's Britain's Clinton. John (who normally avoids politics but was physically sick after hearing Bliar's speech to Congress)
Re: LENS it is, LENSE it is not
Rob Brigham wrote: Eh? But I had already drunk half of it (the bottom half)! LOL!!! I was only kidding ... ;-)
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Cotty wrote: Tony Blair for President :-) Yes please! Any job for him is welcome, just as long as he has to leave the UK!! His speech to Congress was totally insincere and frankly sick-making. Yes, I was sick. John
Re: OT - Brit and proud
frank theriault wrote: What happened? Did someone find a WMD in Iraq? Frank, Don't be silly! Bliar just happened to mention that, even if no WMD were ever found (as looks increasingly likely), history would judge Bliar kindly for taking Britain into an illegal war. (the Iraq would be defined as illegal under UK law if no WMD were found, as they were Bliar's justification for the war - the SOLE justification) John
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Sid Barras wrote: I found Bush to be tongue-tied, hesitant, and generally ill-at-ease while Tony Blair was simply brilliant and oh-so-in-command of the english language. That's because Blair is a highly intelligent, highly educated glib lawyer who is also an accomplished liar. Remind you of anyone? I'd vote for Blair. If the prime minister somehow loses his position in England, and (I'm being half-serious here) miraculously became a citizen of the USA, he'd get elected on any ballot he put his name. Just as Clinton was (and is) extremely popular in the UK, and would win any UK election by a huge majority. They are like two peas from the same pod. You are welcome to Bliar - please give him US citizenship and a job just as soon as you possibly can.
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Herb Chong wrote: they have had their share of less than competent too. Absolutely right. Bliar is absolutely the worst Prime Minister we have had since ... the last Labour Prime Minister. Don't be fooled: Britain loves Clinton - because we only saw the persona he chose to present to Britain, and were too far removed to see what he was really like at home. If Americans knew what Bliar was really like, they would not allow him ever to enter their borders. I wish he could be prevented from re-entering *our* borders too!
Re: OT - Brit and proud
Shaun Canning wrote: Hmmm...vengeance is always a positive step toward world peace isn't it? Especially when that vengeance is directed at a country which had *not even the slightest involvement* in what was being avenged ...
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't bring the camera to your eye until you are ready to take a picture. You are not ready to take a picture until you know what you want. Assuming that I'm not taking a picture of some fleeting moment event, that I can't position myself for, I look at the subject and light and figure out how I want that 3D scene projected onto a 2D plane. Then I go to the spot to get that, while setting things like focal length and aperture, look through the finder, tweak and shoot. Bruce, That's also exactly what I do when using a zoom. I carefully choose the view I want to capture, raise the camera to my eye and zoom to include what I want and crop out what I don't. You cannot do this with a prime lens; you have to change your viewpoint to suit the only focal length that lens offers, and usually end up with a shot that is compromised. I genuinely used to believe that zooming with your feet with a good prime lens would always give the best results. Several years of experience using high quality Nikon zooms cured that, once and for all! With my Pentax outfit, I am using mainly primes. If I could find a selection of Pentax zooms that were optically as good as my Zoom Nikkors (20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D, 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D and 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D) I would change to them in an instant. My SMC Pentax 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is an optical gem, despite several scratches on the front element and a loose barrel, but I haven't yet found any other Pentax zoom that comes up to Nikon standards. John
Re: Photography Monthly reviews the *ist
Harold Owen wrote: The UK magazine 'Photography Monthly' reviews the Pentax *ist in the August issue. Overall it is a favourable review for the new camera snip So the UK's most incompetent photo magazine gives the *ist a good review? The only positive thing about such a review is that the magazine is likely to keep the Pentax UK advertising account. We should wait and see what a competent and reputable magazine (such as Amateur Photographer) says about the *ist. Maybe then we can begin to draw conclusions.
Re: OT: Street Photography
Paul Stenquist wrote: Thanks John. Yeah, I think a flash would have gotten her attention:-). That's not always a bad thing; you could even turn a very good candid shot into an excellent candid portrait ... (did I really type that?!). I never use a flash with the Leica. Just doesn't seem like it belongs. There we agree. The 1/50 sec max synch speed kind of rules out TTL fill flash in daylight ... however a good flash such as my Metz 45 CL-4 works well enough with its built-in sensor. Problem is, it simply *dwarfs* the M6, and is extremely obtrusive in use! ;-) John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: It's very simple. Everything in photography is a trade-off. Everything: film format (size), film type, camera bodies, lenses, whether or not to carry a tripod, what one spends, etc. Provided that we have some experience with gear or film, we each make our own decisions about which trade-offs we accept and which we don't. Zooms vs. primes are just another trade-off. There's no right or wrong answer. EXACTLY RIGHT!! The debate is a non-issue. There can be no reason why we should not discuss these trade-offs. If we stopped, PDML would not need to exist and our lives would be greatly the poorer for its loss. I greatly value the informed opinions of the members of this list as *the best possible way* for me rapidly to assimilate a lot of genuinely useful information. After changing from Nikon AF to a Pentax K/M/A outfit earlier this year, I cannot imagine finding a better expert system for guiding me through the Pentax jungle. Just my $0.02. John
Re: Zooms vs. primes: the final word and ultimate wisdom
Joseph Tainter wrote: I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? Good point, Joseph. I think a serious photographer should be defined as someone who takes photography seriously *as a whole*. People who obsess about equipment are often not serious photographers. The serious photographer who *does* obsess about equipment is probably not someone who rejects all zooms, but appreciates the virtues of some and the weaknesses of others - as he/she does with zooms. Needless to say, I would put myself into that category! I have used both primes and zooms for the last 17 years - before that I used only primes because the affordable zooms of that time were so very bad. Since then, I have used some superb primes, and some superb zooms, and I recognise the virtues and weaknesses of both. In theory, primes are nearly always optically superior, but the best zooms are so very close that it hardly matters any more. But to suggest this on any photo forum is to invite derision from the prime loyalists and support from that proportion of zoom fans who couldn't recognise a bad lens if they saw a poster-sized print from it. This only confirms the worst prejudices of the prime loyalists and war breaks out. Better not to mention it really. I'm glad I didn't! ;-) Seriously though, in my case, some of my best ever lenses have been primes, but others have been zooms. I'm glad to say that one of the best zooms I have ever used is my first choice lens at this time and it is on my first choice camera body. That's the Pentax A 35-105mm on the Super A (Super Program in the USA). I also *love* my K 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.7 and my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro, but the results from the 35-105mm are so good that I need only carry the zoom except in poor light. Let no-one tell me that the A 35-105mm is a poor lens because it's a zoom. It is a fine lens, and one I am delighted to be able to use. But don't tell anyone I said that! John ;-))
Re: Manual focus and proud of it
Cotty wrote: Is shite pronounced with a long or short i? Long 'I', as in flying a 'kite'. British slang. Actually, its derivation is *Irish*, although it has now been accepted into English so-called culture. ;-)
Re: *ist-D = digital MX
Andre Langevin wrote: About the MX shutter, a repairman once told me that while it gained in precision over the Spotmatic shutter (and, I guess, the following KM and KX, which must have shared the same shutter technology), it lost its precision faster, so needed more frequent adjustment. You gain some, you loose some. Personnally, I love the MX. But the one that has seen a lot of use in my hands (a first generation MX) needed high speed adjustment every year. That's interesting, thanks!
Re: Camera Clubs - worrth it?
Lon Williamson wrote: A few of you have mentioned recently that you belong to or once belonged to camera clubs. What's it like? Hi Lon, What a camera club is like depends entirely on the wishes of the existing - and previous - members. I have learnt far more from a few hours of formal tuition, or a few days working with an expert shooter, than I would ever learn in a *lifetime* of going to camera clubs. In the UK, there are only very few good clubs, a great many mediocre clubs and some truly appalling clubs. Mediocrity is the norm, with inept competition judges the main culprits. I don't know whether these comments would apply to the area where you live, but I have probably been a member of more camera clubs than most people because my work has always involved travel. I suggest that, if your intention is to learn, you would probably learn a lot more from the correspondence course offered by the New York Institute of Photography. Best regards, John (my more than usually opinionated $0.02)
Re: *ist-D = digital MX
Paul Ewins wrote: 1. The *ist-D is the digital equivalent of the MX. The Australian Distributor of Pentax (http://www.crkennedy.com.au ) lists four major features of the *ist-D, and one of them is The world's smallest, lightest body which was one of the major features of the MX ME. The MX was no match for the Nikon F2/F3 series in terms of features, but it was the best combination of features vs. size. The MX wasn't a pro body and neither is the *ist-D, Whoah! Paul, stop there! The MX was made to withstand very high rates of frames/second when used with a motor drive. It also had a particularly robust, reliable and long-lasting shutter. Those are the reasons I bought one - my gear gets very hard use. Given its features and construction, I find it very difficult to regard the MX as anything other than a pro camera. Regards, John
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
William Robb wrote: What a hilarious pile of crap. William, It might appear hilarious, but he's right. Annoying, isn't it! ;-) John
Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!!
jerome wrote: As for J-Lo, the truth is, beauty-wise you can find a dozen of her per square mile of Brooklyn / Bronx terrain. She just happens to be the one that made it. Can anyone please recommend a good, cheap, safe hotel within strolling distance of Brooklyn/Bronx?? John vbg
Re: No J-Lo, Pampita rules!!!
Bob S wrote: J-lo is a media phenomena. I didn't pay any attention to her until a couple of years ago. She appeared as a presenter on the Oscar Awards ceremony on TV. Her dress was cut down to her navel and she used double sided sticky tape to make sure it stayed covering her breasts. It was daring, and folks were talking about it and her for the next 3 months. In short, she is more 'Hollywood Star' than pure beauty. You're far too picky. Bob! John (in a swoon after you mentioned THAT DRESS!!!) ;-)
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Heiko Hamann wrote: No, there are no different layers of material but one composite material (as far a I have understood that). My Super As appear to have a plastic top plate/prism cover that has been vacuum plated then painted black. John
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
Pål Jensen wrote: John wrote: No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again. REPLY: Why should I say that? I've said the same thing since I forst heard about the 4/3 system. The Olympus makes more sense than the *ist D (or D10 for that matter) to me. The way I see it is that the Olympus offer advantages beyond the fact that it doesn't use film. Good grief! We agree. Hugs, John ;-)
Re: Goods things to see/do in Alicante and Gibraltar
- Original Message - From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:03 AM Subject: Goods things to see/do in Alicante and Gibraltar Hi, Just wondering if any one has any must see's or do's for traveling to = Alicante and Gibraltar? Paul, Although I visit Spain several times a year, I've never been to either ... ... but I was planning to take a trip to the Alicante area a few years ago and remember that there is a narrow gauge railway that serves the coast. It is modern and has a frequent service, so would be a good way of visiting many places along the coast without having to battle along the congested and dangerous main coast road - the N340, which is said to be one of the longest accident black spots in Europe. Take care! John
Re: Happy Birthday Canada
frank theriault wrote: Happy Birthday, Canada! Seconded (from the UK!), John
Re: OT - DPReview reports UK pricing for Olympus E1
Cotty wrote: This from DPReview on the UK pricing of the E-1 DSLR from Olympus: Olympus UK has today confirmed that the body only list price of the E- 1 digital SLR (including 17.5% VAT) will be £1699.99. This means that at least initially the E-1 will be approximately £200 more than a Nikon D100 and £450 more than a Canon EOS-10D. Assuming the E-1's street price drops once the immediate rush is over we could see it matching the D100 at £1499 (inc. VAT). In my opinion this price is simply too high for a new SLR system. We still don't have official pricing for lenses or accessories. Full story: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03070101e1ukprice.asp I agree that it is too high. Time will tell. That *ist D has to be well into D10 territory. Has to be. I disagree. The E1 was never aimed to compete with the consumer Nikon D100 and Canon EOS 10D. It's very much a pro camera and is positioned nearer to the Nikon D1 range and Canon EOS 1D. It is said to be built like a tank and that alone positions it a lot higher than the D100 and EOS D10. When prices settle down, the E1 will be seen as very good value for money. With Fuji and Olympus both making lenses for this system, competition will develop and drive prices down. It seems likely that the lens mount and interface will be licensed to independent manufacturers and this will bring prices down further. It will be at that point, and not before, that we should judge the success (or otherwise) of the 4/3 system. Personally, I think the 4/3 system could be the future of digital, and that we will see the 'Holy Grail' of a 24x36mm sensor as more of a 'blind alley'. No doubt Paal will tell me I'm wrong again. ;-) John
Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
Dario Bonazza wrote: Even the 645N II housings are magnesium-like plastic, with the same look of the MZ-S, so why the *ist D should be magnesium? Only for fighting against the EOS 10D? If it's magnesium, do you really believe that Pentax could miss to point out that in their press release? It's possible, but not very likely. I'm afraid it's plastic. The EOS 10D is a bit of a con trick, with a plastic body that is concealed by a magnesium alloy outer casing. John
Re: Got the MZ-S afterall
Jan van Wijk wrote: After more than two years lusting for the MZ-S, and all the time thinking yes I like it, but no I do not need it, I finally bit the bullet and got one. If I would wait any longer they might get extinct :-) Just got it today, so I have only been playing and studying a bit, but if you always wondered what an MZ-S with the grip and a nice 77mm Limited in BLACK looks like, see: snip Jan, It looks nice, but I expect it *feels* (handles) even nicer! I also will be buying my MZ-S this month (July 2003). John
Re: UNSUBSCRIBE
Cotty wrote: Philippe, I admire your use of caps to reinforce a command line, but if you really want to unsubscribe, you could try creating a Photoshop document of a white background, size about 20 metres by about 350m metres at 12,600 ppi and use the type tool to fill it with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in Times New Roman (bold) in deepest red with a black drop- shadow, save it, send it as an attachment back here. Not sure if it will work, but were a friendly lot, you could give it a try... Hi Cotty, I'm still trying to work out what I (or Marnie) said to provoke such a reaction! ;-) John
Re: The Pentax Lens Look
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: The Nikkor is also supposed to have some vignetting issues wide open. Bruce, All versions of the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 have severe light fall-off. At worst it is about 1.7 stops but it never falls below 0.7 stops. It's otherwise a fine lens, but such high figures for light fall-off were a surprise to me. There are reasons why I have the 180/2.8 (good wide open and much smaller and lighter). Now that is a very nice lens in all versions. It has the nearest to a Pentax look of any Nikon fixed focal length medium telephoto. John
Re: The Pentax Lens Look
Marnie aka Doe wrote: I was really intrigued by these comments. I wonder if you (or someone) could clarify that. What IS the Pentax look? Meaning the result -- the pictures. And I don't mean flare or lack of it, and/or specifically bokeh, because bokeh discussion is another thread and been there, done that. I mean the contrast, sharpness, and the look. ;-) Marnie, This is a very subjective thing. To me, the Pentax look means that the lens has been optimised in a range of ways, not just for sharpness and distortion like Nikon or Canon lenses appear to be. I suspect Nikon and Canon pay far more attention to MTF (a measure of sharpness) than Pentax does. So, in my opinion, Pentax lenses have more rounded qualities, and generally don't sacrifice good bokeh and three-dimensional qualities for higher MTF that I neither require nor desire! ;-) And do you have examples on the Internet to illustrate what you said about only a few number of Nikors looking as good as Pentax? No, ever since Paal Jensen told me that judging optical quality from scanned images posted to a web site was a waste of time, I have duly obeyed! But the Nikkors I referred to include the 85mm f/1.4, the 105mm f/2.5, the 180mm f/2.8 and the 75-150mm Nikon Series E, which never got the Nikkor badge. In my opinion, those are the Nikkors to buy if you want the same look as you can more easily get with a wide range of Pentax glass. That is purely my personal opinion, and others will disagree. But my opinion is very strongly held, and it was enough to persuade me to abandon Nikon and buy only Pentax for my SLR outfit. Well, I do have one Carl Zeiss (20mm) and one Tamron (90mm) lens, but all the rest are SMC Pentax! John
Re: Pro talk (was Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
mishka wrote: don't know about f4, but f3 is not sealed, afaik. there's a good reason why lx has a lens between the screen anf the finder. i suspect it's a lot more difficult to make interchangeable screens f3-style, that would also keep the camera sealed. Mishka, The F4 has better sealing than the F3, as you would expect, but it still uses the exact same system for changing the focusing screens. John
Re: Pro talk (was Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
mishka wrote: you want it sealed against element , have interchangeable finders, interchangeable screens and have easy access to insides? Of course! My Nikon F3 and F4 both did, so why so you suggest it is not reasonable to expect that of the Pentax? In fact, the LX does well in all respects except the last. John
Re: Gear happiness (WAS: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Marnie aka Doe wrote: Yes, that's quite different. And agreed. Thanks! John
Re: Gear happiness (WAS: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Graywolf wrote: The problem with interchangeable backs on 35mm cameras is not patents, but technology. It is simply that digital sensors have not been on the surface of the chip but buried behind a protective surface and then maybe an antialiasing filter over that. What does that mean? Well, look into the back of your camera. See the shiney rails the film rides on? Now look at the shutter curtain see how close it is to those rails? Now the film has to ride on those rails for the image to be in focus. If the surface of the chip is placed on the rails the actual sensor is too far back to bring the image into focus. If you use a smaller chip and push it down into the film aperture between the rails it interferes with the shutter. So neither option will work. The reason they don't have that problem with medium format magazine back cameras is that the film rails are in the magazine a few millimeters behind the physical back of the camera body which allows enough clearance to place the sensors exactly at the focus point. Now, what seems to be the difference with the sensor for the proposed Leica back is they have managed to place the sensors right at the surface of the chip (actually, inset less than 7 microns). That is a major breakthrough. However, you may have read in the article that there is no antialiasing filter. That is simply because there is no room between the chip and the shutter. Silicon film has an even more difficult problem because it has to fit between the film rails and the pressure plate of the existing back. I would imagine that the problem they have found insurmountable so far is making a sensor that thin that is not also so fragile that it is useless in the real world. I have explained this before, but it was probably back when we were talking about the MZ-D which was quite a while ago. Thanks, Graywolf, for that very informative posting. Best regards, John
Re: Sharpness and contrast needed
Alan Chan wrote: I have always thought Pentax lenses have not-so-high contrast and not-so-vivid colour in general. At least that is the case when compared to Nikkors, or Pentax 67 lenses against Mamiya 7 lenses. Hi Alan, No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I have always admired the Pentax look which comes from the use of the superb SMC coating. I always thought that SMC Takumar and SMC Pentax lenses had generally *higher* contrast than Nikkors but they appeared slightly less sharp because Nikon lenses tend to have over-corrected spherical aberration. This gave Nikkors great apparent sharpness but lousy bokeh. I like the Pentax 'look' better, however there are a small number of Nikkors that also 'look' good. I hope that doesn't make what I meant less clear than before. ;-) John
Re: Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs?
frank theriault wrote: I guess Mark Cassino's an amateur? I guess he is one of the very, very few exceptions that prove the rule! ;-)
Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back
Pål Jensen wrote: John wrote: This so-called enormous cost is an illusion put about by people who think they cannot afford Leica. Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time when similarly specced digital solution will likely cost $1000 or less. Pål, Quoting a projected price of $4500 now will make buyers very pleased when it sells for a much lower price. On thing is the case for expensive Leica lenses and bodies, another is the point in buying a Leica branded CCD at several magnitudes the cost of competitive products. I profoundly disagree that Leica is expensive. The whole life cost of owning Leica gear is probably the lowest of any camera brand. Of course, applying a consumer-grade mindset to such finely engineered gear does make it *appear* expensive, but Leica owners don't need to change their gear every year and a half. That depends what you mean by better. To suggest that the R9 lacks features compared with a Canon EOS something-or-other does not happily sit with the same person defending the Pentax MZ-S to the death against the features and better performance of the Nikon F100. (Such inconsistency greatly devalues your often excellent contributions to this List.) It is no inconsistency. Maybe not in your eyes. ;-) John
Re: Pro talk (was Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Not with the LX, you still have to change screens through the lens mount throat. Uh Oh. Bad news. :-( (With the Nikon F cameras, after the finder is removed then the screen can be lifted out. No need to play dentist.) Same with the F2, F3 and F4. I sometimes wonder why I ever changed from Nikon to Pentax! (actually, it was because I released enough cash to buy a Leica M6 and a couple of Leica lenses!) John
Re: Pro talk (was Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Peter Alling wrote: Not on the LX unfortunatly. Thanks. (FX: sound of quiet sobbing ...)
Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, 450 now in the shops
Pål Jensen wrote: So somebody has finally figured out that the *ist is perhaps the best buy in entry level sector. Pål, The TIPA award has nothing to do with which is the best camera to buy. It has all to do with which camera is likely to be the most profitable to **SELL**. The same comment applies to the competing EISA award. John
Re: Gear happiness (WAS: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Pål Jensen wrote: This was not about dissing Leica but about the concept of a digital back for an old camera model. The R9 is a *brand new* model, unless of course one of your many talents is time travel. I would not, though, spend about 55 post on it on the Leica list. Neither would I! But I like the concept. If Leica can somehow break the strangle- hold that Silicon Film seems to have on this market, I would expect other camera manufacturers to follow suit. John
Re: Gear happiness (WAS: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.)
Marnie aka Doe wrote: Any camera designed from the ground up to be digital will be a much bettter digital camera than a film camera with a digital back. Hi Marnie, It is quite clear that the Leica R8 and R9 were designed from the ground up to be BOTH film AND digital cameras. This back is not some half-baked add-on accessory, it is an intrinsic part of the Leica R8/R9 system. That seems to me like good design *and* good engineering. John
Re: Is the MZ-S only fo amateurs?
Henk Terhell wrote: it's now close to 4 months since I have ordered an eye-cup and one of the rubber strips for the contacts protection on the bottom plate of my MZ-S. Both are easily lost by sliding in and out a camera bag. No response from Pentax NL received. Fortunately I can use the eye-cup of my MZ-5 on it so I am switching this now all the time. But this signals to me that the MZ-S is not aimed for professional use if Pentax do not keep such simple spare parts around for a current model. Hi Henk, In order to remove unnecessary doubt, 35mm PENTAX is only for amateurs. John
Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back
Alin Flaider wrote: Very likely the camera won't keep up with the digital back. Supposing the number of megapixel increases, so it should the processing power in the camera itself to deal with the increased and faster output of the digital back. I doubt very much that there is anything in the camera-to-digital back telemetry that will need to be changed. These things should be seen as a whole. You're welcome to that opinion. I disagree. The Silicon Film concept was excellent, and generated tremendous interest, but that company never found a partner who could make it work. The Leica idea is slightly different but equally attractive. I hope it succeeds, because I believe that other camera manufacturers would be keen to offer it at a more attractive price point. John
Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back.
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: Canon Nikon provide Professional Service plans for free for qualifying (i.e. pro) photographers. It doesn't help amateurs. Bruce, The Nikon Professional Service in the UK is a joke. I cannot speak about any other country, but here NPS is almost a byword for slow and inefficient service. No way is it faster than what the consumer gets. I quickly learnt that I had to choose an independent Nikon-approved repairer to have any chance of getting my gear back quickly and competently repaired. The one I chose was Fixation, of London SE1, and I was very happy with their service. I am told that Pentax service here in the UK is very much better than Nikon's. I will soon find out, as I have decided to have *all* my Pentax gear serviced ... John
Re: Sharpness and contrast needed
Dr E D F Williams wrote: Is it true that Superia Reala is the sharpest, most contrasty and saturated film compared to other 35 mm colour negative material? Is there a sharper, more contrasty and more saturated film available in 35 mm? Don, I apologise for not answering your question, but if you use sharp and contrasty lenses (such as those made by Pentax!), why would you need a contrasty film? High contrast films are designed for people who have low contrast lenses; that's because the film provides the contrast that their lenses cannot. John
Re: Olympus 4/3 premiere
David Chang-Sang wrote: Giving a pre production model to a Pentaxian vs giving a pre production model to a Web or Magazine reviewer are two different things. David, Exactly right! Pentaxians would not respond quite so obediently if they were told what to write, or even given the copy that one of the Web site's sponsors expected them to publish almost verbatim. John
Re: Film recommendation, please
Joseph Tainter wrote: I am shifting my color negative shooting from ISO 400 to ISO 100. I am looking for a film with good color saturation, low contrast, and fine grain. Recommendations? BTW, there seems to be little point in trying Portra 160VC. It has the same grain as Portra 400 UC. Joseph, I like Fuji NPH. It is slightly over- saturated but still produces natural portraits. But I'm biased, because I have a fridge half full of unexposed NPH and am unlikely to try anything else in the next few months. ;-) John
Re: Vs: Vs: Lens Mount Progress
Artur Ledóchowski wrote: What the hell?! All I said was the MZ-S is overpriced! Nothing more! Artur, I agree. Pentax UK appear to agree with you too; the best street price of the MZ-S is now almost exactly half the Pentax UK list price. It was overpriced at GBP 1099.99, but I will probably be happy to pay GBP 549.00. Regards, John
Re: Sigma 15-30mm (was: Lens Mount Progress)
Herb Chong wrote: i have to point out that my standard of comparison is the FA* 80-200 f2.8. Thanks Herb, understood. John
Sigma 15-30mm (was: Lens Mount Progress)
Herb Chong wrote: mine has been OK optically. it is not as sharp as i would like in the corners, but it is not bad. Thanks Herb, That seems to be the consensus among users of this lens. OK optically. I remember reading at least two magazine reviews where it appeared to be a stellar performer. Regards, John
Re: Definition of photography - a serious question
Caveman wrote: It seems to me that a large number of people is not happy with the current dictionary definition of the word photography. It appears that they would like it to include more than the traditional prints obtained on sensitized surfaces by the chemical action of light. So, here is a serious question. If *you* had to write a contemporary dictionary definition for photography, what would it be ? There's only one rule to it (as for any definition): it has to be at the same time inclusive (i.e. include everything that should be called photograph) and exclusive (i.e. exclude everything that should not be called so). Any takes ? I would not try to define photography. I would suggest defining still imaging. Why? Although I mostly use film, every slide I sell is digitally scanned for reproduction. Very little of my work is ever printed using traditional methods, which is what I think the definition of photography still gets hung up on. Whether it is photography or still imaging, the important part of the definition must include recognition that the photographer or still imager must make careful use of light (whether ambient or artificial) to create the result. John
Re: Lens Mount Progress
Caveman wrote: Just marketing talk (that also inspired Paal with the 100% accurate metering claim). Exactly. I've learnt a lot from many people on here, including Pål. But what sets Pål apart from others here is that he seems constantly to confuse his opinions with fact. When Pål is reporting fact, he is clear and concise and almost always right. But he would do well to realise that his opinions are just that; his opinions. I must admit to envy; I do wish I possessed his ability to expose film with 100% accuracy, all of the time. Bracketing costs me money. John
Re: MZ-S discount UK price
Cotty wrote: Also, in this week's AP there is: PENTAX MZS BODY mint £430, It was in last week as well so maybe long gone Thanks again Cotty. I find AP classifieds a bit of a waste of time as the stuff is normally long before sold to subscribers, who must get their issue a day earlier. I just buy a copy now and then at the supermarket. John
