Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Actually, it sounds like something Bill might say. But I left it vague on purpose. :) P. J. Alling wrote: > That would depend if you expect to meet him or not. > > Scott Loveless wrote: > >> Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> >>> "Boys start to imitate men at the age of 14 and continue to do so for >>> the rest of their lives" >>> - Mark Twain >>> >>> >>> >> Is it bad that I immediately thought of Bill Robb upon reading this? >> >> >> > > > -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I agree. It's childish. Take it elsewhere. Paul On May 29, 2007, at 7:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > AlexG > > You're spouting stupid, twisted, hate-filled nonsense like every > misogynist does. > > That kind of shit has no place and no business on a photographic > discussion forum, on THIS discussion forum. > > I fully support Marnie's comments to you. She's absolutely right. > > Godfrey > > On May 29, 2007, at 3:26 PM, AlexG wrote: > >> ... Which is it? If I have acted inappropriately, or inappropriately >> enough to warrant such a psychotic response, please tell me so. I >> haven't been on this list long but I respect your opinions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
It's a pity that you two have got so out of step. I suspect strongly that you would get on well together in real life and that, in fact, you are of similar beliefs. As you both seem to have (sadly and unfairly) adopted positions that rely on the other being somewhat less than worthy of arguing with, I can only ask you to drop the subject entirely. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Alright, so now I'm out of order... Alex posed a question to the group. I responded with my opinion. I reconsidered what I wrote, and I stand by it. There's nothing more to say on the subject! I'm a little confused as to who Bob Blakely is ranting about... If I read it correctly, I'm full of narcissism. I'm relieved that I saved the money on a Psychiatrist to find that out... Strangely, he didn't contact me in private regarding his opinion of me. Perhaps he should examine his own behaviours also. In private, of course! Back to slightly interesting and possibly relevant topics. Mike -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On 5/29/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take it that the complete non-reaction to Eactivist's post means either > a) This is normal behavior for her, and is to be ignored In the roughly 18 months I have lurked this list, I have not seen Marnie say anything like this to anyone. > b) You agree with her accusations of my being an utter scumbag I believe your original comment, inappropriate, was meant in good humor. But... you should know better than to make questionable jokes in a public forum. Also, you should have apologised when you realised your joke mis-fired, but you didn't. You talked down to Marnie, you laid the bait, you were flamed. > c) You've seen enough drama and bullshit, often involving Aperture > Simulators to not care enough to respond. I really wanted to stay out, but you were very rude, crude and disgusting towards Marnie, and she is such a nice lady... :) Russ -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Oh man, flames. Just as I'm about to head off to GFM. No matter - broadband card in the Powerbook, hope I can keep some connections on the coach to Heathrow. Go for it Olive Boy. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Actually Mike you should stay out of this argument, they're both out of line. (This is so out of character for me, just ask anyone, I'm seldom the voice of reason). Mike Hamilton wrote: > Alex, you're out of line. Marnie is not. > > Mike > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
That would depend if you expect to meet him or not. Scott Loveless wrote: > Mark Roberts wrote: > >> "Boys start to imitate men at the age of 14 and continue to do so for >> the rest of their lives" >> - Mark Twain >> >> > Is it bad that I immediately thought of Bill Robb upon reading this? > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited......Some thoughts?
They can't. Some folks are too caught up in being "correct" and desperately wanting to be perceived as "correct" that they will stop at nothing, including the destruction of other's egos that they have to do this. Oh, they'll argue otherwise and give all sorts of excuses for what they do. After all, they need to be correct. In the end, if they haven't spoken to the "offender" in private first, they're just full of their own narcissism. Regards, Bob Blakely - "A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy, and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes." - Robert Frost - Original Message - From: "Sandy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 5/30/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Alex, you're out of line. Marnie is not. >> >> Ditto > > Nonsense. Both are way out of line, slinging infantile insults in an > off-topic idiocy-fest. Can't everyone just shut up about it? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On 5/30/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alex, you're out of line. Marnie is not. > > > > Mike > > > > Ditto Nonsense. Both are way out of line, slinging infantile insults in an off-topic idiocy-fest. Can't everyone just shut up about it? -- Sandy Harris Quanzhou, Fujian, China -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Alex, You need to apologize. Such rude and boorish behavior has no place on our list. I reluctantly suggest that the first words which come to mind are Grow-Up. Regards, Bob S. On 5/29/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You accuse me of being a racist, wife beating rapist. Then you argue > for the intellectual value of the feminist movement and the virtue of > an open mind. You then decide to follow up with an assumption of me of > having a "tiny winy" hog and difficulty getting it into the game, and, > and make this a root cause of some fear of women. > > It pleases me to see that, upon having nothing to say (see previous > post) you fell back on raw, unfiltered emotion, allowed it to feed > upon itself, and released a volley of nonsensical, groundless > accusations, which, with slight differences in subject matter remind > one of schoolyard name calling. I never posted anything remotely > inappropriate. A couple of joking comments were enough to expose your > significant insecurities & trust issues. You identified with the > subservient role that was implied and, hating yourself for it > attempted to gain the moral high ground, using, in order, the race, > faith, nationality, and sexual orientation cards. These are parallels > used by weak minds because of the nearly universal sympathy they > garner. In so doing YOU are the racist, nazi homophobe. By using them > for your own purposes, you legitimize the hatred of each group, and > you condone the SEGREGATION of each into a distinct group in the first > place, as opposed to just other human beings. > > Allow me to expound upon the true nature of gender relations. Consider > yourself lucky because this is akin to Cliffnotes that never made it > to print. > > Feminists are feminists because they loathe the subservient role they > are expected to play in society. A fact they are aware of but > consciously ignore is that in the end, might wins out over ideals. > > -The average man can *destroy* the average woman with relatively > little effort because of physiological differences (musculature + bone > density). > -The average man has thought processes that tend to logic/reason vs emotion. > -Biologically, the man must WANT to mate. The woman can be forced to mate. > > Or, to bring it down to your level of understanding, man is the > f*ckER. Woman is the f*ckEE > > I mention these points because you yourself alluded to them.*** > > A woman knows these facts on a subconscious (and occasionally > conscious level) and can counteract them with one tool: emotion. > Emotion is a state of mind every human experiences but which males > suppress or ignore. It makes us uncomfortable because it is at odds > with our logical thoughts. (example, wanting a Limited lens when you > intellectually know the differences in image quality will be minor at > best) > > Women have used their emotional acuity to manipulate men since time > immemorial. This is not always done consciously or maliciously, but it > can take these forms. It is how women make a place for themselves in > the world. Playing on insecurities, manipulating attraction, > encouraging dissent, etc. > > This is not to say that there are no women who can stand on physical > merits or mental prowess, and this is not to imply that emotionalism > constitutes arrested mental development. However, I have met many > brilliant women who have experienced abusive relationships simply > because they are conscious of the above facts and are susceptible to > manipulation because of them. I have also met women who are incapable > of making the simplest logical decisions but can spot every last > nuance in a social setting. > > Militant feminists demand that both men and women be given the same > social rights. This is hypocrisy at its most odious because the same > social right would mean it's OK to hit women. It would mean that it's > OK to deny women maternity leave. Feminists believe in equal rights, > whenever it's convenient. > > On the subject of wife beating, any man secure in his sense of self > wants to be the dominant player in the relationship. The intelligent > man will be able to outmaneuver the woman and get her in a mental > state in which she couldn't IMAGINE going against his will, would do > anything for her man (hence, dominance) despite the man being an > emotional neophyte in comparison. The unintelligent man will dominate > in any possible way, and this is usually violence. > > As an aside, I would like to state that I would never hit a woman, > even one as heinous or as oblivious to common decency as you. > > Since you have brought us into the business of judging others with no > real basis, I will partake. You have been ravaged by stupidity and > years of superficial, meaningless thought. I can only hope you never > succeeded in tricking a man into impregnating you, for the damage to > his bloodline would be catastrophic. You offer precisely nothing, and > it disgusts me that I've t
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
AlexG You're spouting stupid, twisted, hate-filled nonsense like every misogynist does. That kind of shit has no place and no business on a photographic discussion forum, on THIS discussion forum. I fully support Marnie's comments to you. She's absolutely right. Godfrey On May 29, 2007, at 3:26 PM, AlexG wrote: > ... Which is it? If I have acted inappropriately, or inappropriately > enough to warrant such a psychotic response, please tell me so. I > haven't been on this list long but I respect your opinions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Mike Hamilton wrote: > Alex, you're out of line. Marnie is not. > > Mike > Ditto -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: Was Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Alex, you're out of line. Marnie is not. Mike -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
You accuse me of being a racist, wife beating rapist. Then you argue for the intellectual value of the feminist movement and the virtue of an open mind. You then decide to follow up with an assumption of me of having a "tiny winy" hog and difficulty getting it into the game, and, and make this a root cause of some fear of women. It pleases me to see that, upon having nothing to say (see previous post) you fell back on raw, unfiltered emotion, allowed it to feed upon itself, and released a volley of nonsensical, groundless accusations, which, with slight differences in subject matter remind one of schoolyard name calling. I never posted anything remotely inappropriate. A couple of joking comments were enough to expose your significant insecurities & trust issues. You identified with the subservient role that was implied and, hating yourself for it attempted to gain the moral high ground, using, in order, the race, faith, nationality, and sexual orientation cards. These are parallels used by weak minds because of the nearly universal sympathy they garner. In so doing YOU are the racist, nazi homophobe. By using them for your own purposes, you legitimize the hatred of each group, and you condone the SEGREGATION of each into a distinct group in the first place, as opposed to just other human beings. Allow me to expound upon the true nature of gender relations. Consider yourself lucky because this is akin to Cliffnotes that never made it to print. Feminists are feminists because they loathe the subservient role they are expected to play in society. A fact they are aware of but consciously ignore is that in the end, might wins out over ideals. -The average man can *destroy* the average woman with relatively little effort because of physiological differences (musculature + bone density). -The average man has thought processes that tend to logic/reason vs emotion. -Biologically, the man must WANT to mate. The woman can be forced to mate. Or, to bring it down to your level of understanding, man is the f*ckER. Woman is the f*ckEE I mention these points because you yourself alluded to them.*** A woman knows these facts on a subconscious (and occasionally conscious level) and can counteract them with one tool: emotion. Emotion is a state of mind every human experiences but which males suppress or ignore. It makes us uncomfortable because it is at odds with our logical thoughts. (example, wanting a Limited lens when you intellectually know the differences in image quality will be minor at best) Women have used their emotional acuity to manipulate men since time immemorial. This is not always done consciously or maliciously, but it can take these forms. It is how women make a place for themselves in the world. Playing on insecurities, manipulating attraction, encouraging dissent, etc. This is not to say that there are no women who can stand on physical merits or mental prowess, and this is not to imply that emotionalism constitutes arrested mental development. However, I have met many brilliant women who have experienced abusive relationships simply because they are conscious of the above facts and are susceptible to manipulation because of them. I have also met women who are incapable of making the simplest logical decisions but can spot every last nuance in a social setting. Militant feminists demand that both men and women be given the same social rights. This is hypocrisy at its most odious because the same social right would mean it's OK to hit women. It would mean that it's OK to deny women maternity leave. Feminists believe in equal rights, whenever it's convenient. On the subject of wife beating, any man secure in his sense of self wants to be the dominant player in the relationship. The intelligent man will be able to outmaneuver the woman and get her in a mental state in which she couldn't IMAGINE going against his will, would do anything for her man (hence, dominance) despite the man being an emotional neophyte in comparison. The unintelligent man will dominate in any possible way, and this is usually violence. As an aside, I would like to state that I would never hit a woman, even one as heinous or as oblivious to common decency as you. Since you have brought us into the business of judging others with no real basis, I will partake. You have been ravaged by stupidity and years of superficial, meaningless thought. I can only hope you never succeeded in tricking a man into impregnating you, for the damage to his bloodline would be catastrophic. You offer precisely nothing, and it disgusts me that I've taken the time to respond to you. Which leads me to my next point. To the Gents on this list: I take it that the complete non-reaction to Eactivist's post means either a) This is normal behavior for her, and is to be ignored b) You agree with her accusations of my being an utter scumbag c) You've seen enough drama and bullshit, often involving Aperture Simulators to not care enough
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Mark Roberts wrote: > "Boys start to imitate men at the age of 14 and continue to do so for > the rest of their lives" > - Mark Twain > Is it bad that I immediately thought of Bill Robb upon reading this? -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
to me it seems that 'lol' is often used liberally, but this one actually did have me chuckling (col?) Russ On 5/29/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Boys start to imitate men at the age of 14 and continue to do so for > the rest of their lives" > - Mark Twain -- Legacy Air, Inc. 11900 Airport Way Broomfield Colorado 80021 (303) 404-0277 fax (303) 404-0280 www.legacy-air.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Bob Blakely wrote: >Not if you realize that it's true for ment too. > >Regards, >Bob Blakely > - >"A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy, >and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes." > - Robert Frost "Boys start to imitate men at the age of 14 and continue to do so for the rest of their lives" - Mark Twain -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Not if you realize that it's true for ment too. Regards, Bob Blakely - "A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy, and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes." - Robert Frost - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > >> That's a rare find these days. >> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
In a message dated 5/29/2007 6:54:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >"I simply killfiled him" > The easy but undignified way out. Why try to defend a position that is > untenable when you can take your ball and go home? But then, I don't > do the forum drama thing anymore either so i'd have probably done the > same. = I see no reason to respond to ignorant prejudice. If you substituted Black, Jew, Pole, Gay or any other designation for women in your sentences it would be very clear to everyone how extremely prejudiced you are. Should I respond that you probably beat women in real life? Maybe rape them? That much misogynism in a man is always suspect. Feminists only argue about sexism with men when they think minds can be changed. With normal men who they are trying to get to see another, wider viewpoint. That has worked over the years because most men, when they act sexist and say sexist tings, are basically being sexist unconsciously without thinking things through. Because most men basically like women and when it is pointed out they are making assumptions that hurt women, they change or will try to change. You, sir, are way, way, way beyond that. Maybe I should say a man so threatened by women must have a tiny winy dick? Or can't get it up? I could say lots of nasty things in response, but why bother? Your head is obviously up your ass and anyone reading your comments about women can tell that. I won't respond anymore. You are killfiled. Right now I am only reading quotes. I won't respond to quotes in the future either. I am just making my stance extremely clear to others on this list who may read your shit. Prejudice this strong should have consequences, but also pointed out for what it is. Ignorant and blind and hurtful. Marnie aka Doe - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
whatever happen to "plant a tree, write a book and have a baby"? PS: I didn't even do that yet... On 5/28/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, > butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance > accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give > orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, > pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, > die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." > >-Lazarus Long > > -Adam > Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. > > > Bob W wrote: > > A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. > > > > -- > > Bob > > > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > >> Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 > >> Limited.. Some thoughts? > >> > >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > >> > >>> That's a rare find these days. > >>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > >> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > >> > >> G > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Most are buried deep in shoe boxes, but I have a couple early eighties drag pics on my photo.net page. Shirley at what looks like Englishtown, although it could be Indy: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2572049&size=lg And Yuill brothers at Englishtown: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2570527&size=lg Those are both starting line shots. Easy pickings. The only high speed shot on my page is the Tullius Jag at Lime Rock, in '84 or so: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2572077&size=lg -- Original message -- From: AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > LOL > > While I'm studying I'm doing the Cutomer Service game. I've heard it > all. And I'm a Greek boy. Anything a woman can throw at me I've had > 12.253 times worse, x3,because I grew up living with my ma, my sister, > and my grandma. Lengendary ballbreaking on an unprecedented scale, > these Mediterranean women. > > I'd love to have a conversation with a frothing at the mouth feminazi. > It's the extremists who are the most honest in their manifestations of > their opinion because never bound by political correctness and never > sugarcoat what they say. > > >"I simply killfiled him" > The easy but undignified way out. Why try to defend a position that is > untenable when you can take your ball and go home? But then, I don't > do the forum drama thing anymore either so i'd have probably done the > same. > > > Paul have you ever posted those Drag pics online? I'd really like to > see them. I love old iron. > > On 5/28/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ditto. Alex is lucky we don't have more ladies here. He would get > > more than an earful. > > Paul > > On May 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, AlexG wrote: > > > > > What can I say, I have a real 1950s mindset when it comes to gender > > > issues :) > > > > > > > > > Boris, it seems this will be the path I choose. > > > > > > Meantime, I will try to sell the 40, as it is not making me happy. > > > > > > > > > On 5/28/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > > >> > > >>> That's a rare find these days. > > >>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > >> > > >> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > > >> > > >> G > > >> > > >> -- > > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >> PDML@pdml.net > > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Wanna get in shape? > > > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > > > > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > > > > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > Wanna get in shape? > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
The invasion is easy, the fun part starts after the troops get there. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- P. J. Alling wrote: > I don't know, planning an invasion is harder than it sounds, (and it > sounds hard enough). > > Amateurs study tactics, professionals study Logistics >--Martin Van Creveld > > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I don't know if I can set a bone or conn a ship. The rest are no >> problem. >> Paul >> >> On May 28, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >> >>> "Everything to excess, moderation is for monks." >>>- same source >>> >>> G >>> >>> On May 28, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> >>> “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Lazarus Long -Adam Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
AlexG wrote: > Paul have you ever posted those Drag pics online? I'd really > like to see them. I love old iron. If you're anywhere "nearby" you should check out the spring or fall historics events at Road Atlanta. At the end of March or beginning of April each year, HSR puts on The Walter Mitty Challenge, which is the bigger of the two events. Usually around 400 cars. From Morgans to 21st century formula cars. In September the SVRA puts on the Atlanta Historics, also at Road Atlanta. It's usually 250-300 cars. Similar range of models. HSR is stricter about conformance to the original specs of the car. If you're really adventurous, come out and work corners. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
LOL While I'm studying I'm doing the Cutomer Service game. I've heard it all. And I'm a Greek boy. Anything a woman can throw at me I've had 12.253 times worse, x3,because I grew up living with my ma, my sister, and my grandma. Lengendary ballbreaking on an unprecedented scale, these Mediterranean women. I'd love to have a conversation with a frothing at the mouth feminazi. It's the extremists who are the most honest in their manifestations of their opinion because never bound by political correctness and never sugarcoat what they say. >"I simply killfiled him" The easy but undignified way out. Why try to defend a position that is untenable when you can take your ball and go home? But then, I don't do the forum drama thing anymore either so i'd have probably done the same. Paul have you ever posted those Drag pics online? I'd really like to see them. I love old iron. On 5/28/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ditto. Alex is lucky we don't have more ladies here. He would get > more than an earful. > Paul > On May 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, AlexG wrote: > > > What can I say, I have a real 1950s mindset when it comes to gender > > issues :) > > > > > > Boris, it seems this will be the path I choose. > > > > Meantime, I will try to sell the 40, as it is not making me happy. > > > > > > On 5/28/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > >> > >>> That's a rare find these days. > >>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > >> > >> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > >> > >> G > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > -- > > Wanna get in shape? > > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
In a message dated 5/28/2007 6:25:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ditto. Alex is lucky we don't have more ladies here. He would get more than an earful. Paul === I simply killfiled him. The rest of you should be appreciative. Marnie aka Doe :-) - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I don't know, planning an invasion is harder than it sounds, (and it sounds hard enough). Amateurs study tactics, professionals study Logistics --Martin Van Creveld Paul Stenquist wrote: > I don't know if I can set a bone or conn a ship. The rest are no > problem. > Paul > > On May 28, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > >> "Everything to excess, moderation is for monks." >>- same source >> >> G >> >> On May 28, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >>> “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, >>> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, >>> balance >>> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, >>> give >>> orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, >>> pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight >>> efficiently, >>> die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” >>> >>> -Lazarus Long >>> >>> -Adam >>> Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. >>> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Yeah, but I was young when I shot drag racing. No sense, no fear:-). Paul On May 28, 2007, at 9:36 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I shot motor sports for many years and nailed more than a few. >> Some at over 200 mph. Always with the left eye shut. One eye >> works just fine. > > For me, two eyes open when in the hot areas isn't about getting the > shot, it's about staying safe. I feel safe out there when I'm working > corners, in part because I've got at least one other person on the > station watching my back, and I've got eyes and ears open for danger. > > When I'm shooting in the hot zone, I'm usually pretty much alone, > and my > vision is restricted by the viewfinder. I'm nervous as a long tailed > cat in a room full of rockers when the camera is up to my face. No > place on the hot side is inherently safe ... it's amazing where > cars can > end up when they're out of control at high speed. :-) > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Paul Stenquist wrote: > I shot motor sports for many years and nailed more than a few. > Some at over 200 mph. Always with the left eye shut. One eye > works just fine. For me, two eyes open when in the hot areas isn't about getting the shot, it's about staying safe. I feel safe out there when I'm working corners, in part because I've got at least one other person on the station watching my back, and I've got eyes and ears open for danger. When I'm shooting in the hot zone, I'm usually pretty much alone, and my vision is restricted by the viewfinder. I'm nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rockers when the camera is up to my face. No place on the hot side is inherently safe ... it's amazing where cars can end up when they're out of control at high speed. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I shot motor sports for many years and nailed more than a few. Some at over 200 mph. Always with the left eye shut. One eye works just fine. Paul On May 28, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Fernando wrote: > I'm going to start practicing this, I always shut my left eye. > > On 5/28/07, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When i frame up a jump, i have both eyes open, so i can see the horse >> coming. When i know it is two strides away, i gently shut one of >> them, >> your guess:-), and then shoot. If i leave both open it screws up my >> timing >> >> Dave >> >> On 5/28/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is moving fast in a high magnification field of view. >>> >>> Well, I couldn't do it yet. May be I did not try it often enough... >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> Equine Photography >> www.caughtinmotion.com >> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ >> Ontario Canada >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Ditto. Alex is lucky we don't have more ladies here. He would get more than an earful. Paul On May 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, AlexG wrote: > What can I say, I have a real 1950s mindset when it comes to gender > issues :) > > > Boris, it seems this will be the path I choose. > > Meantime, I will try to sell the 40, as it is not making me happy. > > > On 5/28/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: >> >>> That's a rare find these days. >>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. >> >> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. >> >> G >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- > Wanna get in shape? > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I don't know if I can set a bone or conn a ship. The rest are no problem. Paul On May 28, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > "Everything to excess, moderation is for monks." >- same source > > G > > On May 28, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, >> butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, >> balance >> accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, >> give >> orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, >> pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight >> efficiently, >> die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” >> >> -Lazarus Long >> >> -Adam >> Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Well, I will go for his most self opinionated character . Greatest? Naw... -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Adam Maas wrote: > “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, > butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance > accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give > orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, > pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, > die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” > > -Lazarus Long > > -Adam > Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. > > > Bob W wrote: >> A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. >> >> -- >> Bob >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi >>> Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 >>> Limited.. Some thoughts? >>> >>> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: >>> >>>> That's a rare find these days. >>>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. >>> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. >>> >>> G >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
David J Brooks wrote: > When i frame up a jump, i have both eyes open, so i can see the horse > coming. When i know it is two strides away, i gently shut one of them, > your guess:-), and then shoot. If i leave both open it screws up my > timing I keep both eyes open when I'm shooting cars on the track, especially when I'm in the "hot zone" ... there's just too much danger out there to work with one eye closed. I never feel completely safe in the "hot zone" when I have a camera, though I rarely feel unsafe when I'm out there without a camera. Looking through the camera just cuts out too much of the visual field, and eats into the attention I have available to stay safe. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On 29/05/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. A man who can't cook in my world starves. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
"Everything to excess, moderation is for monks." - same source G On May 28, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, > butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance > accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, > give > orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, > pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight > efficiently, > die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” > > -Lazarus Long > > -Adam > Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” -Lazarus Long -Adam Who agrees with Heinlein and his greatest character on this. Bob W wrote: > A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. > > -- > Bob > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 >> Limited.. Some thoughts? >> >> On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: >> >>> That's a rare find these days. >>> A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. >> Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. >> >> G > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I'm going to start practicing this, I always shut my left eye. On 5/28/07, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When i frame up a jump, i have both eyes open, so i can see the horse > coming. When i know it is two strides away, i gently shut one of them, > your guess:-), and then shoot. If i leave both open it screws up my > timing > > Dave > > On 5/28/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. > > > Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: > > > it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is > > > moving fast in a high magnification field of view. > > > > Well, I couldn't do it yet. May be I did not try it often enough... > > > > Boris > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > Equine Photography > www.caughtinmotion.com > http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ > Ontario Canada > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
mac & cheese for me it's a canuck thing On 5/28/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can make hot dogs... > > On 5/28/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. > > > > -- > > Bob > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > > > Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 > > > Limited.. Some thoughts? > > > > > > On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > > > > > > > That's a rare find these days. > > > > A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > > > > > Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > > > > > > G > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I can make hot dogs... On 5/28/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. > > -- > Bob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > > Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 > > Limited.. Some thoughts? > > > > On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > > > > > That's a rare find these days. > > > A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > > > Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > > > > G > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
A man who can't cook is no kind of man either. -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 28 May 2007 19:50 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 > Limited.. Some thoughts? > > On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > > > That's a rare find these days. > > A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > > G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
What can I say, I have a real 1950s mindset when it comes to gender issues :) Boris, it seems this will be the path I choose. Meantime, I will try to sell the 40, as it is not making me happy. On 5/28/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > > > That's a rare find these days. > > A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. > > Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. > > G > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On May 28, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. >> Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: >> it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is >> moving fast in a high magnification field of view. > > Well, I couldn't do it yet. May be I did not try it often enough... It takes some practice. I had a hard time at first because I'm very 'right-eye dominant', but I found it a good exercise to strengthen and improve vision in my left eye as well as allowing me to keep track of stuff going on in a scene when I was using a long lens. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
When i frame up a jump, i have both eyes open, so i can see the horse coming. When i know it is two strides away, i gently shut one of them, your guess:-), and then shoot. If i leave both open it screws up my timing Dave On 5/28/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. > > Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: > > it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is > > moving fast in a high magnification field of view. > > Well, I couldn't do it yet. May be I did not try it often enough... > > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On May 28, 2007, at 7:55 AM, AlexG wrote: > That's a rare find these days. > A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. Ouch! Now that's a sexist comment if ever I heard one. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. > Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: > it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is > moving fast in a high magnification field of view. Well, I couldn't do it yet. May be I did not try it often enough... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Hi! > In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. Then perhaps you can have both FA 50/1.4 and eventually FA 43/1.9 Ltd like I am planning to do. ;-) Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
That's a rare find these days. A woman who can't cook isn't really a woman at all. On 5/28/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, she's a great cook too, I'm a lucky guy ;-) > > On 5/27/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HAR! Great shot. Pretty lady too, btw:-). > > Paul > > On May 27, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Fernando wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > > > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > > > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > > > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > > > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > > > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > > > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > > > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > > > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > > > for you, right? > > > > > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one > > > already ;-). > > > > > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > > > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > > > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > > > > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > > > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? > > > id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > > >> Rob and Bob ;) ) > > >> > > >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > > >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > > >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > >> > > >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will > > >> give me > > >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be > > >> slightly > > >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > > >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's > > >> more > > >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > > >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > >> > > >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > > >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > > >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > > >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > > >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > > >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > >> > > >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > > >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > > >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > > >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > > >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > > >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > >> > > >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are > > >> simply > > >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side > > >> of me > > >> too > > >> > > >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > > >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > > >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > > >> > > >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > >> > > >> Alex > > >> > > >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your > > >>> argument. > > >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one > > >>> better > > >>> photographer, no offense intended here. > > >>> > > >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, > > >>> I'd go > > >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > >>> > > >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > > >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 > > >>> ltd... > > >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > > >>> performed some more. > > >>> > > >>> Boris > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >>> PDML@pdml.net > > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Wanna get in shape? > > >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > >> > > >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > >> > > >> "Because only Nikon
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Thanks, she's a great cook too, I'm a lucky guy ;-) On 5/27/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > HAR! Great shot. Pretty lady too, btw:-). > Paul > On May 27, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Fernando wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > > for you, right? > > > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one > > already ;-). > > > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? > > id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > >> Rob and Bob ;) ) > >> > >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > >> > >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will > >> give me > >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be > >> slightly > >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's > >> more > >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. > >> > >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > >> > >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > >> > >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are > >> simply > >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side > >> of me > >> too > >> > >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > >> > >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your > >>> argument. > >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one > >>> better > >>> photographer, no offense intended here. > >>> > >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, > >>> I'd go > >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > >>> > >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 > >>> ltd... > >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > >>> performed some more. > >>> > >>> Boris > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Wanna get in shape? > >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > >> > >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > >> > >> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net >
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
HAR! Great shot. Pretty lady too, btw:-). Paul On May 27, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Fernando wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > for you, right? > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one > already ;-). > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? > id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, >> Rob and Bob ;) ) >> >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc >> >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will >> give me >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be >> slightly >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's >> more >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. >> >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. >> >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. >> >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are >> simply >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side >> of me >> too >> >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. >> >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? >> >> Alex >> >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your >>> argument. >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one >>> better >>> photographer, no offense intended here. >>> >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, >>> I'd go >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. >>> >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 >>> ltd... >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you >>> performed some more. >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> Wanna get in shape? >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! >> >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ >> >> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
How much do you want for your DA 40? I might buy if the price is right. Paul On May 27, 2007, at 12:54 PM, AlexG wrote: > Nice tripod action! (exif says 1/15 at wide open!) > > I indeed find it strange that I'm the only one who doesn't like the > DA40. Everyone else would never consider parting with it. > > Regardless, that's a very nice shot. What kind of post-processing > was involved? > > On 5/27/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Alex, >> >> Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the >> opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that >> lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, >> DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but >> at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size >> factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering >> qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. >> In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a >> lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better >> for you, right? >> >> Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one >> already ;-). >> >> The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying >> that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming >> from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). >> >> This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife >> expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne? >> id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, >>> Rob and Bob ;) ) >>> >>> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a >>> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because >>> the >>> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc >>> >>> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will >>> give me >>> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be >>> slightly >>> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), >>> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's >>> more >>> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my >>> technique doesn't change shot to shot. >>> >>> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal >>> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to >>> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion >>> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the >>> same in >>> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really >>> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. >>> >>> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the >>> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that >>> has >>> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I >>> don't >>> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The >>> lens >>> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be >>> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. >>> >>> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are >>> simply >>> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side >>> of me >>> too >>> >>> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear >>> before >>> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the >>> same >>> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. >>> >>> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better photographer, no offense intended here. I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you performed some more. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wanna get in shape? >>> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! >>> >>> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ >>> >>> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
LOL On 5/27/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > She looks thrilled. > > Fernando wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > > for you, right? > > > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). > > > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > >> Rob and Bob ;) ) > >> > >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > >> > >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more > >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. > >> > >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > >> > >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > >> > >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply > >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me > >> too > >> > >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > >> > >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > >> > >> Alex > >> > >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better > >>> photographer, no offense intended here. > >>> > >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go > >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > >>> > >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... > >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > >>> performed some more. > >>> > >>> Boris > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> Wanna get in shape? > >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > >> > >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > >> > >> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
She looks thrilled. Fernando wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > for you, right? > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, >> Rob and Bob ;) ) >> >> I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a >> better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the >> bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc >> >> What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me >> a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly >> off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), >> or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more >> aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my >> technique doesn't change shot to shot. >> >> In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal >> lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to >> them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion >> varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in >> the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really >> change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. >> >> The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the >> digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has >> allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't >> know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens >> was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be >> playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. >> >> The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply >> too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me >> too >> >> I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before >> taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same >> kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. >> >> Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? >> >> Alex >> >> On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. >>> More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better >>> photographer, no offense intended here. >>> >>> I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go >>> for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. >>> >>> Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with >>> *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... >>> You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you >>> performed some more. >>> >>> Boris >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> -- >> Wanna get in shape? >> Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! >> >> http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ >> >> "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Paul Sorenson wrote: >Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >> Gawds, I recall when an f/4.5 lens was considered "fast!". !!! >> >Back when Kodachrome was ASA 10...and Hi-speed Ektachrome was 160. ;>] In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice tripod action! (exif says 1/15 at wide open!) Was the K10D SR ;-) > > I indeed find it strange that I'm the only one who doesn't like the > DA40. Everyone else would never consider parting with it. I think it is perfectly acceptable, as I said, there is a subjective factor involved, I mean, you have experienced photographers like Godfrey and Rob ditching the 31 and the 49 respectivelly because they didn't justify the extra price, and some ppl would consider that a "heresy", I think that shows conviction in what they look in a lens and that's good. > > Regardless, that's a very nice shot. What kind of post-processing was > involved? IIRC it was a bright mode jpeg (I was shooting RAW+ in my testing period) and it probably has this sharpening action applied that is aimed to remove the softness of the Bayern algorithm. I'm just assuming so because that's part of my regular workflow but I'm not completely sure. Anyway, was just to show you that with my regular workflow I didn't feel it was a bad performer, on the contrary, it consistently delivered great results to me. The action is from this guy: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/SharpenoMatic---a-digital-sharpening-technique In summay, if I could get a 43 I wouldn't think it twice, so go for it and post some pics!!! Good Luck!! Fernando > > On 5/27/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > > for you, right? > > > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). > > > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > > > Rob and Bob ;) ) > > > > > > I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > > > better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > > > bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > > > > > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > > > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > > > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > > > or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more > > > aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > > > technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > > > > > In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > > > lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > > > them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > > > varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > > > the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > > > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > > > > > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > > > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > > > allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > > > know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > > > was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > > > playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > > > > > The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply > > > too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me > > > too > > > > > > I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > > > taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > > > kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > > > > > > Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > > > > More expensive and theoretically
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Nice tripod action! (exif says 1/15 at wide open!) I indeed find it strange that I'm the only one who doesn't like the DA40. Everyone else would never consider parting with it. Regardless, that's a very nice shot. What kind of post-processing was involved? On 5/27/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > for you, right? > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > > Rob and Bob ;) ) > > > > I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > > better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > > bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > > > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > > or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more > > aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > > technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > > > In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > > lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > > them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > > varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > > the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > > > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > > allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > > know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > > was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > > playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > > > The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply > > too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me > > too > > > > I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > > taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > > kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > > > > Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > > > Alex > > > > On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > > > More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better > > > photographer, no offense intended here. > > > > > > I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go > > > for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > > > > > Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > > > *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... > > > You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > > > performed some more. > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > -- > > Wanna get in shape? > > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Hi Alex, Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better for you, right? Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o Cheers On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > Rob and Bob ;) ) > > I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more > aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply > too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me > too > > I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. > > Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > Alex > > On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > > More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better > > photographer, no offense intended here. > > > > I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go > > for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > > > Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > > *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... > > You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > > performed some more. > > > > Boris > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > Wanna get in shape? > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On May 26, 2007, at 9:10 PM, AlexG wrote: > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the > 50) ... Um ... e ... AF isn't infallible. I've had AF errors happen with every and any lens, and every AF camera I've ever had. For best, most accurate focusing with an SLR, nothing beats a good focusing screen, good viewfinder optics, an eyepiece magnifier and manual focus. > ... An old photography book I have says you could really > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. LOL!!! You should look up Jerry Uelsmann ... He's been doing tricks with photography since the 1950s that would astound you. LONG before anyone even dreamed of Photoshop! And before him, Man Ray, Ansel Adams, virtually every great photographer and printer who ever learned how to make a print... > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. Huh? I am almost *always* "two eye open" with any camera and lens. Particularly with a long lens, and particularly at sports events: it's how you keep the camera on the subject when the subject is moving fast in a high magnification field of view. The FA43 is an exceptional lens. So is the FA50/1.4, but the 43 produces a sweeter rendering quality. There's no good metric for that, you either see it or you don't. But both are good enough for practical purposes to do anything you want ... I would choose between any of the Pentax prime lenses for FoV, nothing else is going to be that far different. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
LOL ... Yup, that's about the right time period. Early 1960's, just about when I was getting into photography ... although I think Kodachrome had already made the leap into ASA 25 by the time I was old enough to buy some. To this day I only infrequently find much need to use more than ISO 400 or lens openings greater than f/2.8. It's nice to have the option occasionally, however. ;-) G On May 26, 2007, at 10:13 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote: > Back when Kodachrome was ASA 10...and Hi-speed Ektachrome was > 160. ;>] > >> Gawds, I recall when an f/4.5 lens was considered "fast!". !!! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Back when Kodachrome was ASA 10...and Hi-speed Ektachrome was 160. ;>] -p Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > Gawds, I recall when an f/4.5 lens was considered "fast!". !!! > > G > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On May 26, 2007, at 8:42 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: > ... Personally, I am selling FA 50/1.7 > and buying FA 50/1.4 'cause I want to have at least one fast lens. ... Gawds, I recall when an f/4.5 lens was considered "fast!". !!! G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, Rob and Bob ;) ) I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my technique doesn't change shot to shot. In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me too I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far. meh. Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? Alex On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better > photographer, no offense intended here. > > I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go > for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... > You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > performed some more. > > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Alex, > I went back to the April where I asked a similar question. General > consensus was that the 43 produced some excellent results. Godfrey > dumped his 50 for it and had no regrets. I will never sell the 50. > It's RidicuFast(tm). Only thing better is that Zeiss Noctilux at > f/1.0, but that's just being silly. > > I was asking previously afout 70 vs 77 but I haven't spend enough time > in that focal range to know if I care about it enough to put a sucking > chest wound into my bank account. Especially when old super-taks in > that ballpark are plentiful. > > Bottom line: > I'd unloading the DA40... I'm 96% convinced it's the right move. > I'm keeping the FA50, 100% confidence I've both 43 Ltd and FA 50/1.7 and I used to have M 50/1.4 (had to sell it to get all three limiteds). I think that 43 Ltd is mighty good lens however it is, (OMG) slow ;-). No, seriously, it is f1.9. So if you have FA 50/1.4, you might as well keep it. Personally, I am selling FA 50/1.7 and buying FA 50/1.4 'cause I want to have at least one fast lens. Film limiteds being f1.9 and f1.8 are only moderately fast. For 77 it is just right, for 31 faster than 1.8 would mean way bigger, heavier and way way more expensive. However I'd like to have a lens for these dim situations. If you have FA 50/1.4 you might want to keep the money, 'cause 50/1.4 is truly excellent. As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better photographer, no offense intended here. I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you performed some more. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
On 27/05/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now given this situation, is the 43 worth the 500 bones? Is it... 2.2X > better than the 50? None of this stuff is magic, don't expect X times more keeepers from a 43 and don't be disillusioned if you don't see the much touted "3D effect" (one of the the most idiotic phrases coined here). With the right light, subject, plane of focus and aperture settings most primes will satisfy the most discerning photographer. I had the 43LTD for a couple of years but I ended up selling it as it was just too much cash for the return and in all reality the 50/1.4 does just as nice a job (though if you specifically need the wider FL it could be less useful). Without trying to sound like I'm taking the Mickey I really don't know whether the extra cost of the 43mm somehow encourages people to imagine it has magical photographic powers but I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to differentiate a well crafted image shot with either the 43 or the 50. Just my opinion of course, the decision is up to you but if you do go the 43LTD route I'd be interested to hear what you honestly think of it after the fact. Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
- Original Message - From: "AlexG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:23 AM Subject: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited.. Some thoughts? > Hi guys, > > Some more stupidnewbie questions, I hope you don't mind. > > When I bought the k100d, I also got an FA50/1.4 The FA50/1.4 is a good, decent lens. I like it, though I still use my A50/1.2 quite a bit out there in the middle of the night. > and DA40/2.8 ltd. Got > the DA40 because it had a good rep, was nice and compact and > relatively affordable aw hell, who am I kidding, it was a pure > impulse buy. > > A few weeks later and I am seriously dissatisfied with it. I love the > build and size, but for every 'wow' pic it makes, there are 3-5 blah > pics. It's to the point that I prefer the kit lens, I seemed to have > generated far more keepers with it. I am unfamiliar with the "D" series lenses. I will only buy lenses designed for full 24x36 format. > Focal length is useful. A bit more in the frame than the 50. But f/2.8 > and the "meh, whatever" shots it's produced have me wanting to unload > it. I remember posting here how the shots I had seen never really > wowed me, and they still don't. F/2.8 is the real killer though. > Anything shot past 6pm is a noisy, blurry mess, even with SR. I prefer fast glass. Anything for 35mm that's slower than f/2 and shorter than 85mm doesn't get my money. > ... However, almost every shot I've ever seen taken with the 43 really > pops. Color is RidicuNice(tm), it's decently fast - meaning I'll never > be SOL if I bring it only with me on an outing, and i've even seen the > elusive 3d effect on a few of the pics. I love this lens. In fact, I own and love all the limiteds. > At 500 canuckbucks, That's 'bout $400USD, eh? > it doesn't come cheap, and costs as much as the > K100d itself. Never compare the cost of the glass to the cost of the body. It's the glass that does the work. If you ever need more definition, you can always put the lens on an old film body, pop in a roll of Royal Gold 25... Ah, that's right, I'm probably the only guy that still has more than a 300 rolls of RG25 in air tight baggies in the fridge at 34 deg. F. > The question is... is it really that big a step up over > the FA50, which, at $220 US, was a steal? > Now, assuming I make some money back off the DA40, it would slightly > undo the financial damage. I am also going to sell some computer stuff > I have lying around, this will make for extra fundage too Like I said, the FA50/1.4 is a very good lens. I personally think the 43 limited is better, but is it worth the money? Well, If we were talking business, I'd say no. But we're not talking business are we. We're talkin' 'bout what makes your heart sing and that's a whole 'nother story. Only you can make that call. > I went back to the April where I asked a similar question. General > consensus was that the 43 produced some excellent results. Godfrey > dumped his 50 for it and had no regrets. I will never sell the 50. > It's RidicuFast(tm). Only thing better is that Zeiss Noctilux at > f/1.0, but that's just being silly. No it's not. > I was asking previously afout 70 vs 77 but I haven't spend enough time > in that focal range to know if I care about it enough to put a sucking > chest wound into my bank account. Especially when old super-taks in > that ballpark are plentiful. > Bottom line: > I'd unloading the DA40... I'm 96% convinced it's the right move. > I'm keeping the FA50, 100% confidence > > Now given this situation, is the 43 worth the 500 bones? Is it... 2.2X > better than the 50? As with all things, as you approach the cream of the crop, the cost goes up astronomically to obtain even a small improvement. I just drooped about $850USD on a 31/1.8 and the lens and I are currently on a honeymoon. I love it. You'll need it some day too. Welcome to the world of empty pockets. Regards, Bob Blakely -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
I like it. ;-) I used the 35 and 50 for some time, but the 50 fell into disuse when I bought the 77 then 70. The 35 did the same when I got the 28. 28 to 70 is a big jump, but both the 35 and 50 were too close to either end. So I picked up the 43 and sold both the 35 and 50. I could actually be very happy and productive with just the 21, 43 and 70. That trio seems to work very well for me most of the time and the bag I can fit them all into is ridiculously small for a 3 lens DSLR kit with the K10D. The 28 is more for when I want to work with just one lens, or two (paired with the 14 mm). G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
Hi guys, Some more stupidnewbie questions, I hope you don't mind. When I bought the k100d, I also got an FA50/1.4 and DA40/2.8 ltd. Got the DA40 because it had a good rep, was nice and compact and relatively affordable aw hell, who am I kidding, it was a pure impulse buy. A few weeks later and I am seriously dissatisfied with it. I love the build and size, but for every 'wow' pic it makes, there are 3-5 blah pics. It's to the point that I prefer the kit lens, I seemed to have generated far more keepers with it. Focal length is useful. A bit more in the frame than the 50. But f/2.8 and the "meh, whatever" shots it's produced have me wanting to unload it. I remember posting here how the shots I had seen never really wowed me, and they still don't. F/2.8 is the real killer though. Anything shot past 6pm is a noisy, blurry mess, even with SR. ... However, almost every shot I've ever seen taken with the 43 really pops. Color is RidicuNice(tm), it's decently fast - meaning I'll never be SOL if I bring it only with me on an outing, and i've even seen the elusive 3d effect on a few of the pics. At 500 canuckbucks, it doesn't come cheap, and costs as much as the K100d itself. The question is... is it really that big a step up over the FA50, which, at $220 US, was a steal? Now, assuming I make some money back off the DA40, it would slightly undo the financial damage. I am also going to sell some computer stuff I have lying around, this will make for extra fundage too I went back to the April where I asked a similar question. General consensus was that the 43 produced some excellent results. Godfrey dumped his 50 for it and had no regrets. I will never sell the 50. It's RidicuFast(tm). Only thing better is that Zeiss Noctilux at f/1.0, but that's just being silly. I was asking previously afout 70 vs 77 but I haven't spend enough time in that focal range to know if I care about it enough to put a sucking chest wound into my bank account. Especially when old super-taks in that ballpark are plentiful. Bottom line: I'd unloading the DA40... I'm 96% convinced it's the right move. I'm keeping the FA50, 100% confidence Now given this situation, is the 43 worth the 500 bones? Is it... 2.2X better than the 50? Alex --- Join the PDML Traineo group to get in shape! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
