I'd say that's likely. My apologies to Paal, of course, but I think a cleaner list is
worth it. I =know= the digest readers will agree.
Doug
if it makes anyone feel better to mangle my name, please feel free
At 10:58 PM -04009/5/01, Doug Franklin wrote, or at least typed:
>
>I hate to say it
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 21:43:46 -0400, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Now that MIME has been dealt a death blow, [...]
I hate to say it, but I there's a reasonable chance that DEMIME is the
cause of the wrenched up high ASCII characters, like the "a with circle
over it" in Paal's name. :-|
TTYL, DougF
-
This
William Robb wrote:
>
> ...advantage lies with the incumbent technology, as it has a long
> and well proven track record of reliablilty.
I guess that is true, that must be why the good old reliable horse and
buggy still dominates transportation, and the new-fangled and imperfect
automobile has n
"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
>
> What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
They are so young, so lacking in experience. They become much more
interesting a few year later -- naked or clothed.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://ww
> > How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED
> digital?
> > I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance?
I did some product shots for the web about three months ago
using my boss's Sony Mavica (the one with the 10x zoom lens).
I covered up the built-in f
Jostein wrote:
"There's no digital medium (or print) with a lifetime
expectancy longer than a negative."
Well I, for one, can lay my hands on CDs I purchased more than ten years ago
in a few seconds whereas, I couldn't find my negatives from that timeframe
in a week. The CDs work no problem but
Since the digest was created, majordomo, because of the server set-up, has been
reluctant to include the subject lines in the digests. No amount of wheedling,
threatening or cursing on my part had any effect. It simply refused. I cast about for
a cause, consulted the gurus, studied chicken entr
Great! I'll be looking for you! I'll be there too, prolly covering the event
for the McKinney Courier. It'll be great to meet you. I'll be the guy with
the pz1p various lenses small blue Besler bag. My wife will prolly be close
by with a K1000. :)
Erm, "... and lots of donations..." I have no ide
--- Tiger Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any recommendations for really low price mail order
> processing?
> -
You may want to look into Dale Laboratories. They are
a mail order CO. out of Florida and do wonderful 35mm
and medium format work. Ill see if I can find a phone
number for you. C
some portraits shot with konica 3200 are beautiful.
Received: from smtpin-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.96) by
storefull-165.iap.bryant.webtv.net with WTV-SMTP; Tue, 4 Sep 2001
22:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtpin-101-2.bryant.webtv.net (WebTV_Postfix+sws) id
960F01CA; Tue, 4 Sep
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> It has all the basic problems of a P&S (Slow AF, delay on shutter
> firing, single lens)
Just as a FYI, in case you didn't know, you can get screw-on adapters that
expand the capabilities of the lens. Nikon makes a fisheye, wide-angle,
and two telephoto
> Right on! Welcome to the club!
>
> What lens did you get with it?
Picked up the 105 F2.4 (standard kit material). It's nice & sharp,
the teddy bear test slides looked great, as did the theatre promos
I shot with it a week or so ago. Also got with it a 67mm Hood (the
square plastic $100.00 ma
I have to second that. For my anniversary last December, my wife got me a
Nikon Coolpix 990. When I opened it I looked at her and said "Do you know
what this is?" In my mind I was thinking, "Why did you get me one of these?
I have no interest in it." After playing around for a bit, I discovere
First, let me state that I'm not a railer. I've owned a few
digital cameras. Let me list them by their max resolution of
the pictures produced. That way I don't have to get into brand
names.
1. 640 x 480
2. 1024 x 768
3. 2048 x 1536
4. 2240 x 1680 - this last one will put out TIFF
Amen!!!
On Wednesday 05 September 2001 18:56, you wrote:
> I'm with Mike on this, and I get the messages in real time. It's
> annoying and perhaps poor netiquette to repost an entire message,
> sometimes with headers, footers, and other messages contained
> therein, when replying to the list. A
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> William Robb
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digest users rejoice!
> Hell no, I can barely figure out how to put a gallery together
> every month.
...And now I have a slightly different tack to take than in my last message.
How many of you who are railing against digital have actually TRIED digital?
I mean recently, and in a way that gives it a fair chance?
One of the common themes I encounter ceaselessly on the digicam forums is a
great s
The opposite can be true also. If you trim too much, then it is hard to
follow the thread. :)
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: Have a heart!
> Do
Very interesting observations, Mike. I just hope that the films that
survive are not just the common consumer ones.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Re:
Do you mean like this??? (Microsoft default)
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Have a heart!
Or like this?? (Just plain goofy)
>So, please trim your
> messages and, wherever possible, put your replies above the
quoted
> material. Thank you ...
But definitely no
Anand DHUPKAR wrote:
>
> i have a question here ... might sound strange, however, what is 'enablihg'
> ???
Enabling, literally, is giving someone what they need in order to do
something. If I give you the keys, you're able to unlock the door.
On this list, however, 'enablement' means talking s
On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:38:57 -0500, you wrote:
>There is the Raptor Festival held by Heard Natural Science Museum in
>McKinney, north of Plano, on Sept 15. Lots of great birds that are used to
>humans so that you can get good and close, and lots of donations. Big event
>so it's not something tha
I'm with Mike on this, and I get the messages in real time. It's
annoying and perhaps poor netiquette to repost an entire message,
sometimes with headers, footers, and other messages contained therein,
when replying to the list. Another annoyance is when the reply is
posted ~below~ all that, so
> Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to
> happen is an indicator.
Maybe, maybe not, because you can't extrapolate saturation. Mark Twain wrote
a funny essay in which he calculated the rate at which the Mississippi river
was getting shorter, as the result of e
Folks, please...trim the trailers and the second- and third-generation
original messages off your replies. Lots of you don't take the Digest, but
for those of us who do, the endless trailers on short messages make it
considerably harder to read the PDML...or, if not exactly "harder," then at
least
i have a question here ... might sound strange, however, what is 'enablihg'
???
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: An equipment epiphany: no MZ=2 0 0 DS for me, yet
>Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 11:21:43 -0400
>
> >> You're evil!
> >
> >No, I'm
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Digest users rejoice!
> As a digest user I am grateful for the individual responsible
for finally
> enabling the system whereby the list of subject lines of all
the posts on
> each digest precede the actual posts themselves. William, be
this yo
Last night I was batch scanning some rolls (this is how I do proofs)
and for a few frames didn't realize that the selection in Silverfast
was limited to a thin vertical part of the image, somewhere around the
center.
The scary part is that the resulting images, random crops of a few
consecutive f
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The really ironic part of this scenario is that computers
>themselves are among the worst polluters now. They are a
>manufactured object, which eats up natural resources and energy
>resources to produce, then they eat up more energy resources in
>use, an
An index of subjects with every digest! Thank you,
listowner. --John
=
John Edwin Mason
Charlottesville, Virginia
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
alt email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com
-
This message is from the
"Brian Campbell (PM)" wrote:
> Oh yeah, and I have completely given up the idea of buying the
> used and in good condition K1000se with the purchase of my
> brand new off the shelf 67II.
Right on! Welcome to the club!
What lens did you get with it?
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Dis
Hi, John,
SP II's take the same battery as the SP, SP500 and SP1000, that is a PX400,
or equivalent. Mercury cell would be best, 'cause they literally last years
(like 5 or 10), but they've been illegal to sell in the US for a long time,
so good luck finding one.
They do make alkaline ones, but
A good lens and very good value if you can get it for under $100. I have it
in both the M42 and K-mounts. A bit on the larger/heavier side but it
balances well with a K body or and older Ricoh. I like the 67mm (1st)
version and the 70-210 2.8~4 (3rd) best. The 62mm 3.5 I tried didn't impress
me as
Last week I shot some rolls of Velvia film with my MZ-S, FA 24-90 zoom lens,
SMC Pentax-A 15mm, and SMC Pentax-F* 300mm lenses.
A small selection of pictures is published in Gallery section of AOHC
website:
http://digilander.iol.it/aohc/galle.htm (English)
or http://digilander.iol.it/aohc/galli.ht
>My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
>sitting down before one of them silly PC-boxes just to get an
>image on a piece of paper, that's not convenient technology in
>_most_ people's eyes.
Jostein, I couldn't agree more! That's why I make it a lot easier on
myself and si
I second that, the CZJ 80/1.8 is superb lens. It's similar design
(maybe even same?) to Pentax K 85/1.8 (I have to dig out my 80/1.8 CZJ
diagram), but in that case, the CZJ is original while Pentax is
"copy". Anyway, it's a gaussian design, aka Planar or Biometar, unlike
Pentax 85/1.9 or Jupiter 9
As a digest user I am grateful for the individual responsible for finally
enabling the system whereby the list of subject lines of all the posts on
each digest precede the actual posts themselves. William, be this you?
Thanks!
Cotty
___
Pers
Hey Group,
An actress-friend of mine brought her camera to the show I'm
doing last night, and wanted me to take some pictures for her.
Her camera is a decent-condition K1000se with a 50mm F2.0
lens on it. 2 questions, First what kind of battery does it take,
and 2nd, what should I offer he
I've never used the Vivitar, but I have the Tokina 80-200/2.8 MF. I got it
for $195 at a local camera store in like-new condition complete with case. I
use it some, but it's become the favorite lens of my husband, who likes to
shoot sports. We both like it a lot.
- Original Message -
From
Oakville is a bit out of the way.I deal with the Newmarket
Steeles Ave stores mostly,but find i'm using the Downtown
store to try and find a 8-200 f2.8 for the D1(s)
Still might upgrade the SF-1 to a mz-5n or pz-1p and
proper flash
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Aaron Reynolds
Hi,
It could happen.
One of the funniest cartoons I ever saw was of a man who'd just come
home from work. He was standing in the hallway of his house, his
shoulders were slumped, his briefcase hanging heavy in his hand, a
miserable look on his face. He was talking to his wife, saying "I've
been
> film volumes are going to be (and certainly are
>now being) reduced. The midrange camera market (SLRs for hobbyists like
>us) are taking the big hit. As I reported earlier this year, a local
>large-volume retailer of camera equipment sold more digitals in the
>$500-$1000 range than ALL BRAND
>> The evil part about this is that Mark already has a 645
>
>A 645 has its uses, and I'd take a 645n over most 35s in an instant, but
>there's no arguing that 67 is bigger than 645.
My feelings exactly. Which is why I got the 645. I can easily go hiking
with the 645, 45/2.8, 75/2.8, 200/4.0
Hi
I remember old archives saying someone had motor problems when tured upwards!
Otherwise check Photodo tests. It's a little better than the Tokina AF ATX pro
2.6-2.8/28-70mm and the very good Pentax f4/28-70mm (discontinued). KEH has one for
1000$. BTW: It's an excellent zoom lens!
Jens, Denma
Robert Wetmore wrote:
Very interesting and thoughtful views.
>I'll not buy a digital camera any time soon - I have no interest in simply
>the outward appearances of images.
I think the notion that film/chemical images are more than just "outward
appearances" of images in a way that digital im
Dear friends,
It took me more than a year to get all the pieces of
my equipment together. I was happy experimenting with
and learning. Then yesterday, during day time,
somebody got into my apartment and among other things
stole all it was worth. Fortunately I have insurance,
although it won't be e
Given my earlier statements, though, film will not disappear because of the
marketplace. There'll always be enough hobbyists and craftsmen to keep the art/craft
alive. It would only be gov't regulation that would eliminate the chemical usage.
But with either scenario, film volumes are going t
tom wrote:
> The evil part about this is that Mark already has a 645
A 645 has its uses, and I'd take a 645n over most 35s in an instant, but
there's no arguing that 67 is bigger than 645. Case closed.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http:
>> >> You're evil!
>> >
>> >No, I'm enabling you. ;)
>>
>> Like there's a difference???
>
>The difference is that enablement is for you own good. I gain nothing
>by your purchase of a 67, but you, on the other hand, have creative
>doorways thrown open wide in front of you! How can you resist?
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> Brendan wrote:
> >
> > I agree Aaron is evil :).
>
> C'mon now, I only convinced you to buy a lens! I'm trying to get Mark
> to buy a whole medium format camera system. ;)
The evil part about this is that Mark already has a 645
tv
-
This message is from the Penta
This lens has had quite a bit of discussion in the past. You may want to
check the arhives first, then come back if you have more questions.
A good way to check prices is to check the following sites:
www.ebay.com
www.keh.com
Good luck.
tv
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My local photo
Why is it that it has to be something you/someone approve of to be
interesting to the photographer, or to the other members of the club. There
are others on this NG that also seem to think that they are the ultimate
judge of what is a good/bad photo/technique/crop/subjectetc...
Just smacks o
dave o'brien wrote:
> The 6x7 comes with a 105/f2.4 as standard and that seems to be about a
> 50mm equiv. It's also just about the fastest MF lens available.
The 90mm has a slightly closer minimum focus distance, from what I
recall when I was deciding which to buy with my 67. Our Pentax rep (
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> The interchangeable viewfinders
> are a wonderful and valuable feature that neither the MX nor the ME-S
> has. The interchangeable focusing screens on the LX are another great
> feature, which the MX has but with much more limited options, and the
> ME-S doesn't offer at
There is one other aspect which may, for just a few folks, impede the total
triumph of digital over slide film - even after the resolution, cost, and
all other functional limitations are removed (which will of course happen
very soon indeed): namely, the questionable authenticity of a digital i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> You're evil!
> >
> >No, I'm enabling you. ;)
>
> Like there's a difference???
The difference is that enablement is for you own good. I gain nothing
by your purchase of a 67, but you, on the other hand, have creative
doorways thrown open wide in front of you! Ho
>>I don't need an MZ-S right now.
>
>Wow! It's good to see someone driven by practicality over marketing!
>
Now, here's a Classic oxymoron if I ever saw one. Pentax? Marketing?
Har de har har!
-joe
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.n
You know folks, the fact that you can walk into a Wal-Mart (and others),
pull the SmartMedia card, or CompactFlash card out of your digital camera
and plug it into the appropriate slot of a digital print maker, select your
choices for print size, color balance, sharpness, cropping, etc. and get
ju
Brendan wrote:
>
> I agree Aaron is evil :).
C'mon now, I only convinced you to buy a lens! I'm trying to get Mark
to buy a whole medium format camera system. ;)
Lookout, Mark, the Aaron-enablement voodoo just convinced one of my
friends to buy a used 645n on eBay...compared to that, a $900 67
A scroll of mail from Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 Aug
2001 21:43:26 -0400
Read it? y
>hmmm. Isn't 90mm more of a normal lens on a 6x7? It is about equivalent to a 45mm in
>the 35mm world, innit?
The 6x7 comes with a 105/f2.4 as standard and that seems to be about a
50mm equiv. It
A scroll of mail from "David A. Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat,
1 Sep 2001 15:28:10 +1200
Read it? y
> Not a steal, they know what gear is worth :) If it's still there tomorrow I'll ask
>them what its worth without the lens. I know its a little pointless having a body
>with no lenses but at
Mike Johnston wrote:
> I'm kind of thinking along similar lines. With digital covering snapshots
> and family pix, do I really need a 35mm any more? I'm thinking of maybe
> going to medium format for black-and-white printmaking and letting digital
> cover the rest of my needs.
The last time I th
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
"Every two or three years the club membership turns over. All they
do is a bunch still-life shots of fruit baskets and a few nudes of
that college girl.
Nothing really intersting."
What's not interesting about naked college girls? ;^)
Christian
William Robb wrote :
"What I find really stupid is all the talk about film being
replaced by digital."
Which was the point I was making in the first place! Granted I did not use
the words "stupid" or "moronic" because I'm new to this forum and didn't
want to offend anyone. ;^)
C
Hi,
My local photo store has a Pentax 28-70 F2.8 in very good condition can
anyone provide some feedback about this lens with respect to:
1) Optical Quality (sharpness/bokeh/contrast etc...)
2) Flare control
3) Robustness/reliability (this has power zoom)
4) What would be a fair price to pay fo
David J Brooks wrote:
>
> Did you see any goodys in the used bins??
Nah, I never get to leave my store. I conducted the business by phone,
with the Henry's out here in Oakville. Plus, one of their sales guys
was in here a bunch over the last two weeks getting some custom printing
done (shhh).
Absolutely! That was my point. According to Bruce Dayton
(elsewhere in this thread) this is already happening.
So if the memorycards of today's digital cameras fits tomorrow's
digital labs, all will be well...?
...or?
Bit sceptical still...
Jostein
-- Original Message -
William Robb wrote:
> I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
> users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who
> is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs
> by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market
> that is driving
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>> If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
>> could see this being the thing that turns the masses to
>> digital.
>
>If photofinishing becomes regulated as I think it will be, there
>will be no choice but to turn to digital.
>William Robb
I expect this will happen too.
The scenario as
So, where do we obtain books on creating
our own paper emulsions for paper & glass?
That seems about the only way the craft will survive
the next 2 decades. (and I'm serious!)
Here's the future that I dread:
Clubs of people in their 50s learning to mix chemicals for paper and plates. They
shoo
Mark,
Something @ www.mpex.com
Pentax 67 ML body, w/105 f2.4,Prism Fdr., 8++ $900
20PXBD-4-900-000
Collin
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug
Not sure if they are AF or MF.The site just lists the
equipment breifly with price and contact info.
Thanks William
Begin Original Message
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:28:14 -0600
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Re: Best Zoom lens
- Ori
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
. If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
> could see this being the thing that turns the masses to
digital.
If
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Jostein [ISO-8859-1] Xksne wrote:
> Hi, Alexandre.
> You missed my point...
> It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We
> eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images
> to brave new technology...:-)
>
> My point was that the conversi
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre A. P. Suaide"
> Maybe we can have an idea. I don't know the prices but how
much expensive
> is a super-8 film today when compared to 30 years ago. We
should remember
> to take into account the inflaction of this period. Maybe the
price will
> be alm
They creation of excitement that I must have what's
new, special, better, more exciting.
How else does a consumables business survive?
Collin
What marketing?
- --
Mark Roberts
Re: An equipment epiphany: no MZ DS for me, yet?
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mai
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
"The LX allows the use of a grip without
having to attach a winder, unlike the MX or ME-S."
When I received my LX it had the Grip-B which I removed (along with the
strap) as an ungainly eye-sore. Well, I didn't want to lose it so after
playing with the came
I think we are violently agreeing, just from different directions. As we
compare digital to film, we are generally doing so with our favorite
emulsions (the ones that will slowly be discontinued). If all that was left
was Gold 200 and Superia 400, digital might be more appealing. I do agree,
th
Hi, Alexandre.
You missed my point...
It's easy for computer literals to convert between media. We
eagerly await the future for another chance to convert our images
to brave new technology...:-)
My point was that the conversion task, and even the task of
sitting down before one of them silly
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Mike Johnston wrote:
> Christian wrote:
>
> > I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively
> > expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about
> > every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL.
>
>
> I just don't
I have a metz SCA adapter that I use with my PZ-1p and a Metz 45CT-4. The
adapter has a spot beam. I suspect that the same SCA adapter would work
with the MZ-5n. I'm not at home now but I think the model number is: SCA
3701. You can always look at http://ww.metz.de and find out. All of the
inf
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 4:19 AM
Subject: Re: Jody gets assertive with NZ Customs.
> You have to pay tax on the shipping? Wow!
> --graywolf
We have the same situation in Canada. We call i
At 05:15 PM 9/4/01 +0800, you wrote:
>Trouble is I've never played a (vinyl) record that didn't have the odd
>crackle or snap. If you can ignore that - then yes, it sounds surprisingly
>good. Film on the hand has no such artefacts (to my amateur eyes ;-)) so it
>should be able to put up a good f
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly
starting to
> happen is an indicator.
I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR
> > http://homepage.mac.com/hood1616/PhotoAlbum.html
The Capilano Canyon shot is lovely. Nice work!
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.kom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're evil!
No, I'm enabling you. ;)
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> But here I think you're nuts! Just try to tilt
> your lens forward or backward a couple of degrees
> on the 67 or 35mm. You'll miss it quickly.
Well, I rarely used it outside of studio stuff, and I don't shoot much
studio these days. More often I run around with my
How real do people turn...? Silly question, sorry...:-)
IMHO, the advance of digital photography is related to other
issues than _just_ the advance of affordable technology.
[enter rambling mode...]
A great number of people will have a lot of pleasure in producing
images digitally, view them
Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly starting to
happen is an indicator.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:20 AM
Subject: RE: Slides v
>>It hit me the other day while I was out shooting
>> with my glorious (and,
>>of late, neglected) Pentax 67:
>>I don't need an MZ-S right now.
>
>Wow! It's good to see someone driven by practicality over marketing!
What marketing?
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
-
This message is from
>> Yeah, well that's fine for you...
>> But what all the rest of us who now need a 67 after reading your post?!
>
>Well, a used 67 with a metering prism and the 105mm f2.4 can be found
>for under $1000 Canadian, if you don't mind the body being cosmetically
>ugly. That's less than an MZ-S! :)
Yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yeah, well that's fine for you...
> But what all the rest of us who now need a 67 after reading your post?!
Well, a used 67 with a metering prism and the 105mm f2.4 can be found
for under $1000 Canadian, if you don't mind the body being cosmetically
ugly. That's less
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It hit me the other day while I was out shooting
> with my glorious (and,
>of late, neglected) Pentax 67:
>I don't need an MZ-S right now.
Wow! It's good to see someone driven by practicality over marketing!
>I've just sold my Arca Swiss 4x5 in a
Quoth Jody:
> This is really serious. I feel like I am insulting
> this guy every time I call him "Pel".
What's the accepted ASCII transliteration for the time before
Unicode? Isn't it "Paal"? (Pal/Pel/Paal, could you please
let me know whether I've got that right? I seem to remember
seeing y
according to:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/thepentaxlx.html#AccessoriesFindermo
delsanddetails
the magnification is 0.9
The original LX brochure states 95% horizontal and 98% vertical.
hope this helps.
Christian Skofteland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
I've several friends with this lens in C* mount,
and they really like it. It's an older optical
design but still competes favorably with many newer
lenses. Consider it a medium-weight lens. A bit
bulky, but not as much as a 2.8 would be.
It commonly sells for $100 to $150 in the US.
That's just
Hi,
On 5 Sep 2001, krytu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does somebody know anything about CZJ Prakticar 80/1,8 MC with K mount?
> Ii it good as a portrait lens compare to CZJ 135/2,8 MC and SMC A
> 135/2,8? I know SMC 85/1,4 is superb but it`s out of my range.
No CZJ lenses were made for K moun
Mike Johnston wrote:
> I may be the only person on the planet who is both getting into digital in a
> big way and ALSO building a fine custom black-and-white darkroom in my
> basement at the same time. I love film/chemical black-and-white, and that
> won't change just because I'm learning about d
"Skofteland, Christian" wrote:
> Can
> you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
Actually, with the very best we've got today, if he had shot with DV
after doing the same testing he would with film stocks, I'd bet we
couldn't tell the difference.
Funny story from
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
