Well, let me fine-tune your understanding just a little, too - g. While I
do agree with your statements ~in general~, Bruce, I do disagree somewhat
with your emphasis on it being ~so~ bad as a landscape lens. I do think
it's a better portrait lens, yes, but I haven't found it to be so
At portrait distances (say 4 to 6 feet) or at mid-range say 10 feet),
just how different is the angle of view of the subject lenses? I've seen
test reports that suggest that the 77 is actually a bit longer than that,
and the 85 is not quite that (at least close in, due to the IF), so they
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apparently, the shutter button is connected to the control circuitry
by a flexible printed circuit board that goes over the prism. The
board has a tendency to crack at the bends. The cure is to run
ribbon cable in place of the board.
I believe that
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Bob Blakely wrote:
I've tried to stay out of this OT thread
Me too, but
Each year, approximately 150,000 folks are killed by physician and
pharmaceutical error. Most of these folks were not involved in any life or
limb threatening situation. This dwarfs folks
Five degrees isn't much of a spot. IMO, it's inadequate for critical
metering in many instances.
David A. Mann wrote:
I have a Sekonic L328 meter with the 5-degree spot attachment. It'll do
anything and everything, even spot flash metering. Its not that great at doing
low-light with the
Cesar's a great guy. Great company. A good time was had by all and I'd
love to do it again. Maybe someplace safer and prettier next time. :)
Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Matamoros, Cesar
Bill wrote:
What are those 11 brass colored discs in my MZ-S if not data emitters?
Electrical contacts to the data back.
Pål
-
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'
Alan wrote:
At least mine was hopelessly soft at wide open near infinity. Brokeh was
horrible at near infinity too.
Like Alan I replaced my FA* 85/1.4 with the 77 Limited and don't regret it.
One thing was the lack of sharpness of the 85 wide open, worse was the fact
that you need to stop
I own the 77, and I would suggest you would not be disappointed with it
in any respect. I only have one 85mm lens to compare it to - an 85mm
F1.8 AF Nikkor, and it takes in approximately the same field of view.
The Nikkor is a rear focusing design, so I don't know if that affects
the focal
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 12:40:03 AM, Paul wrote:
PJ From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 12 00:55:44 2001
PJ Received: from noc002.aitg.com ([216.32.91.72]:29669 EHLO noc002.aitg.com)
PJ by data.centrum.cz with ESMTP id S30418517AbRLKXys;
PJ Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:54:48 +0100
PJ
Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 4:19:13 AM, Mark wrote:
MC Thanks Frantisek. I'll definitely look into those - they have to be
MC shorter than 24mm to work , but now that you mention it, I think John Shaw
MC talks about those in one of his books.
MC - MCC
There is plenty such lenses on
t Basically the calculation is the same, the difference is that the
t distance is from flash to bounce point to subject. The X factor is how
t high the ceiling is, so I don't think there's any rule we can give you.
Is that true? The normal calculations works for spread of radiation,
according to
I think Dave just pretty much put the nail in the whole argument there...case
closed.
Norm
dave o'brien wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
I probably should refrain from commenting in this thread, but when have I
ever shown good sense? Here in the US the statistics show
John wrote:
An lost/damaged shipment rate of 1 in 20 is extremely common amongst
all the major carriers operating from the USA. Our shipping companies
may be the last bastion of the old we don't give a s**t method of
quality control.
My reply:
This is just not acceptable today. Why should we
LeviL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Mark
Please elaborate on this a little. What made you come to this conclusion?
Experience :( I've did that myself to a focusing screen once.
Which part of the cleaning process did I kill the screen with. I was in
fact fairly confident that if I could get
I've never had any problems running film through the X-rays here (carry on),
I wouldn't worry about it...
Norm
LeviL wrote:
The place I will have to get through an X-ray is in Germany. I assume
thay have film certified equipment too, but it is worth a try.
-
This message is from the
Are these easily available??
Norm
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Why not get some lead bags? snip
-
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 .
Most camera stores have them.
Norman Baugher wrote:
Are these easily available??
Norm
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Why not get some lead bags? snip
-
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
Anyone have any info on a replacement for the FA 135/2.8 (end of production
2000)?
Is this just a poor selling focal length, or is there something even better
coming? (a Limited or FA* replacement perhaps?)
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
If there's one thing I've learned it's that there are degrees of
hopelessly and horrible, and as many definitions of them as there are
sets of eyes in the world. In fact, I've seen pictures from hopelessly soft
lenses with horrible bokeh hanging on gallery walls. It's enough to make me
wonder
Brian W. wrote:
I enjoyed the linked photos, but I still can't decide to sell an excellent
lens and buy another excellent (lighter, but shorter?) lens, especially if
the focal length is significantly shorter than the length (and what length
is that?) that works for me. I'm sorta-kinda
Well said.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Bob Blakely wrote:
I've tried to stay out of this OT thread
Me too, but
Each year, approximately 150,000 folks are killed by physician and
pharmaceutical
In a message dated 13/12/01 03:42:58 GMT Standard Time, Mike writes:
To no one in particular:
I find discussion of gun issues extremely offensive. If this gun control /
gun rights discussion continues, I'll have to be leaving the PDML. It has
NOTHING TO DO with Pentax or with
Anyone have experience comparing image degradation of Pentax's A 1.4x-s
and A 2x-s against their Kenko, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, etc.
counterparts?
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Matamoros, Cesar A. wrote:
Volleyball at the Pier - Steve Larson, USA
I am wondering if the softness of the image is due to the lens. I
am not familiar with your lens. I'd like to give it a try :-) That is
the
only thing I dislike about the image.
Some people would want more outside the
I fly frequently, and I always take my cameras and a load of film. I've
been using lead bags for 25 years and have never had a problem. I
frequently include a few rolls of T-Max 3200. The bag is always run
through the carry on x-ray. I've never seen a touch of fogging. And when
I've had an
Mick Maguire wrote:
Is this lens any good? what's it best suited for
(portraiture etc)? Is it a reasonable buy at $165?
any thoughts / opinions anybody?
Is it true that *nobody* on this list has an opinion on this lens?? Or are
you all just ignoring me?
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-
This message is
In a message dated 13/12/01 13:39:12 GMT Standard Time, Malcolm writes:
John wrote:
An lost/damaged shipment rate of 1 in 20 is extremely common amongst
all the major carriers operating from the USA. Our shipping companies
may be the last bastion of the old we don't give a s**t method of
Aren't you the same guy that mounted his big tele lens to get a shot of the
full moon and then tried to back up a few steps to make it fit in the frame?
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tried to take one like that once, but couldn't get my tripod to go high
enough girn.
Ciao,
graywolf
-
No worries, Mike. It baffles me why a light hearted thread about the
Croc Hunter and his endorsement of the Pentax brand came to be used as a
soapbox by gun enthusiasts, who believe that our (Australia's)
government oppresses us by prohibiting the unjustified ownership of
killing implements.
On Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 08:46 AM, Mick Maguire wrote:
Is it true that *nobody* on this list has an opinion on this lens?? Or
are
you all just ignoring me?
I'm not ignoring you, I just don't have one and have never used one. ;)
Why don't you buy a nice SMC-A* 200mm f2.8? Now
On Thursday, December 13, 2001, at 07:28 AM, Levente -Levi- Littvay
wrote:
Why not get some lead bags? snip
I am not sure it is sucha good idea. First of all NEVER use it in a
checked bag. They will just boost the x-ray. Second I am not sure it
works 100% but I might be wrong on this.
How the hell would Kent know whether or not the good citizens of sunny
Brighton, UK, were apt at gunplay? Or not? There is surely no reason
to disparage a whole community just because of their relative innocence
of killing machines.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From:
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by version of for civilians. If you
mean a non military version you are sort of correct. While the several
versions of the full auto M16 don't have a civilian version there are plenty
of semi-auto versions under other names produced by Armalite, Clot and
At 21:46 13/12/01, you wrote:
Hi Mick
I missed your earlier post in all the noise. :-)
My 135/2.8 F series lens isn't used anywhere near enough. I use it as a
short telephoto, mainly shooting horse racing, and mainly at night. I have
no complaints with the lens at all. I haven't really used
Mike Johnston wrote:
[An apology for an allegedly intemperate post, snipped]
Hey, don't sweat it, Mike. After all, when intemperate posts are outlawed,
only outlaws will be making intemperate posts. And THEN what will we all
do? VBG
Bill Peifer
(proud owner of a copy of The Federalist
Courtesy of the Writer's Almanac:
It's the birthday of the German poet (Christian Johann) Heinrich
Heine, born in Düsseldorf, Prussia (1797). He is most famous for his
poems, such as The Lorelei, which were set to music by Schubert,
Schumann, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and other German Romantic
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I fly frequently, and I always take my cameras and a load of film. I've
been using lead bags for 25 years and have never had a problem. I
frequently include a few rolls of T-Max 3200. The bag is always run
through the carry on x-ray. I've never seen a touch of fogging.
Thanks John :) I was getting paranoid at the silence... I too am an amateur
and am working on a tight budget so cant afford the likes of the limited
lenses, so I really tend to look at the bargain end of the spectrum.
Perhaps I should break out my old screw mount equipment LOL
Regards,
I know you are right about lead bags in checked luggage, but how about in
carry-ons? When I have done this, rarely and mostly years ago, the security
person sees the bag pn the screen and usually then hand inspects it, whereas
when I've asked for hand inpection I've had a bigger hassle.
Aaron
Thanks John, I'm sorely tempted by this lens, but it's probably just itchy
fingers for some new gear. :)
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Hope
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 9:14 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for mis-spelling your name Jon. :-/
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-
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 .
The previous poster was me, and I take exception to your reference to
the level of ignorance and of and paucity of rational thought (sic).
FYI have a look at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/03/24/p7s2.htm
and
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/australia.asp
as well as
Kent Gittings wrote:
Clot
Bullseye!
-
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 .
ROTFL
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: Peifer, William [OCDUS] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(snip)
Hey, don't sweat it, Mike. After all, when intemperate posts are
outlawed,
only outlaws will be making intemperate posts.
(snip)
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail
On 13 Dec 2001 at 7:33, David Brooks wrote:
All this talk about spot meters has me now wondering
what to get for use with Dad's Yashica-Mat camera.This
model does not have a built in light meter and the ancient
Sekonic he had i'm not sure is still acurate.
Can any one recommend something
Not really. To be honest it just means the criminals are more careful and
commit less crimes as a result. The guns in illegal hands are still there.
Not to mention any competent person in the world with a decent milling
machine and lathe could turn out serviceable guns as long as they could get
On 13 Dec 2001 at 0:22, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
I remember seeing some formula, but there would be much more error
than in the simple direct-flash formula. For bounce, flashmeter or
auto/ttl metering is imho best.
And the use of TTL or Flash meters also compensates for the unpredictable
Dan wrote:
Anyone have any info on a replacement for the FA 135/2.8 (end of production
2000)?
It exist. It may not reach the market.
Is this just a poor selling focal length, or is there something even better
coming? (a Limited or FA* replacement perhaps?)
It is a poor selling focal
That's OK Mike. We are all probably just as sorry for bringing it up in the
first place.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Apology
Hey
When did you get back? Nice to see you here.
tv
Fred wrote:
-
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 .
There is actually a screw that holds the frame in place under the foam
mirror bumper. Lots-o-luck finding that SE screen, if you find a source for
them let me know, I would like a couple myself
Ciao,
graywolf
- Original Message -
From: LeviL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The unfortunate part about mistyping a word is when it is still a valid word
your spell checker will pass it right by.
Kent Gittings
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of mike wilson
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:05 AM
To: [EMAIL
Why don't you give dad's old meter a try first? If it works at all it is
probable pretty accurate. If it isn't then you can think about replacing it.
If you do, I suggest spending a little bit more than you are thinking of and
getting something a little more versatile. The Sekonic L-308 b (or b
Yah, and the lens was too long to get a good shot or the cliff dwelling as I
went by. Sometimes you can't win for losing.
Ciao,
graywolf
- Original Message -
From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Night Photo of Earth
Aren't you the same guy that mounted his big tele lens
In a message dated 13/12/01 15:14:11 GMT Standard Time, Paal writes:
Re: FA 135/2.8 replacement coming?
Dan wrote:
Anyone have any info on a replacement for the FA 135/2.8 (end of production
2000)?
It exist. It may not reach the market.
Is this just a poor selling focal
To anyone that's still interested!
Thank you to all the people who responded to this question - very useful.
Experiment:
I thought I'd give a quick update based on the test I finally got round to
performing:
1. Set the MZ-S NOT to fully pull a completed film back into the canister
2. Take a
Mick Maguire wrote:
Mick Maguire wrote:
Is this lens any good? what's it best suited for
(portraiture etc)? Is it a reasonable buy at $165?
any thoughts / opinions anybody?
Is it true that *nobody* on this list has an opinion on this lens?? Or are
you all just ignoring me?
Well,
Brian Walsh wrote:
At portrait distances (say 4 to 6 feet) or at mid-range say 10 feet),
just how different is the angle of view of the subject lenses? I've seen
test reports that suggest that the 77 is actually a bit longer than that,
and the 85 is not quite that (at least close in, due to
From: Joseph Tainter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
The new thing is that ever since September I have always been
denied
hand inspection of film. The only ones they will inspect are when I am
carrying ASA 3200. Not like before when I could claim that it is within
the
guidelines
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
t Basically the calculation is the same, the difference is that the
t distance is from flash to bounce point to subject. The X factor is how
t high the ceiling is, so I don't think there's any rule we can give you.
Is that true? The normal calculations works for
Right.
Bill Owens wrote:
Lees-McRae College.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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 .
Isaac Crawford wrote:
Welcome to the wonderful world of rangefinder photography! At some point
you'll have to ignore the focusing patch and start to zone focus (Use the
Force Luke!).
Ack! I do that now with slr's in dark rooms...
After some tests, I've found that my acceptable
- Original Message -
From: LeviL [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: Airport Postal Scanners Fogging Film
In the U.S., FAA regulation still gives you the right to request hand
inspection. The problem is in the rapid
- Original Message -
From: Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Airport Postal Scanners Fogging Film
Print this out and use this next time. It's their own regulations.
THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html shows gun death statistics
for many countries. It is interesting to note that Japan, Australia, New
Zealand, Canada have very high suicide rates despite restrictive laws
about gun ownership. BTW it looks like 95+% of the hits for gun deaths are
Thanks Mike, I did look at Stan's site, but unfortunately there wasn't
anything much on that particular lens there. Tom has since convinced me to
buy it though :)
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Johnston
Sent:
paul,
Thanks for the extensive test. From your results, I'm guessing that
Mid-roll change will work with data imprinting because the body would
know how many frames it skipped. If you used the old method -fire
until the right frame (kept dark of course), would probably double
imprint the first
Well, it looks like I have my Christmas present to myself now... I just
hope it arrives before I head off back home to England next week.
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tom
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:40 PM
... arrived today, and I'll be giving them a good examination. My first
reactions are mixed, with the print made from the Canon D30 getting a
big
thumbs down for a photo quality image. The prints made from the
Pentax Optio 330 at first glance appear superior, although they are
substantially
LeviL wrote:
Thanks but I think I'll pass on that. E-bay usually has them for less
anyway. I personally HATE converters. I used to use a Takumar 35mm. I
almost killed my camera with removing and remounting the converter.
Ah -- but the secret is to leave the adapter in the body
Mike wrote:
Hey everybody,
I apologize for my intemperate post yesterday objecting to the gun thread
and threatening to leave. I should have thought that one over before hitting
Send. Sorry!
Ah - Good :^)
IMHO, it is best to just let those occassional hot threads
Mick wrote:
Thanks John :) I was getting paranoid at the silence... I too am an amateur
and am working on a tight budget so cant afford the likes of the limited
lenses, so I really tend to look at the bargain end of the spectrum.
Perhaps I should break out my old screw mount equipment LOL
Collin wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many of you long-lens-lovers use a gun
stock for mounting and shooting those big beasts?
Me! I do! But my long tele's are rather modest ones.
My SMCK 400mm f5.6 has a bit too stiff of a focus for the
riflestock approach,
Sounds good to me!
Make it so.
Dan Scott (cold, wet San Antonio)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter wrote:
Howzabout an FA 135mm F1.8? That would glean Pentax some much needed
limelight. Make it a DC lens, like the Nikkor.
Kind regards from sunny Brighton, soon Kagoshima
Peter
-
This message is from
I was looking @ shooting today @ lunch,
but it's misty -- with a little drizzle.
How does one keep a lens free from
this excess moisture? A hood is not
always enough. Umbrella?
Collin
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
I was looking @ one at a good price
today @ lunch. ($50) BUT, I put
batteries in it, put it on a
super program (no lens attached, no film)
but it won't fire. Won't do anything
off-camera either. Switch on side alternated
between red and green positions.
What else should I check?
CRB
-
This
This is why the MZ-S has the dial-in the first frame number feature. If it
didn't and you used the conventional lens-cap-on, 1/6000th at f/22
technique, the original imprinting would be overwritten with the above data.
Regards
Jim
Christien Bunting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for
That's a bummer.
The FA 135/2.8 has very good comments wrt performance. Any idea how the
replacement would have differed?
Thanks,
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pål wrote:
It is a poor selling focal length so the new version may not be released.
My understanding of this issue was that the new FA
Jon Hope wrote:
At 03:40 14/12/01, you wrote:
Does that mean I am a celebrity? I already own the F series 135/2.8. H,
nup, I gather not. LOL
Can I have your autograph?
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Hi, Collin ...
Don't worry about a little drizzle. Just go out and make some
photographs. A lens hood is usually adequate, and if you're feeling
particularly in need of some more protection, add a skylight filter. If
the rain gets too bad, or if you want to keep the camera/lens out of the
Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many of you long-lens-lovers use a gun stock for mounting
and shooting those big beasts?
Do you mean some kind of shoulder rest? A Pentax photo sniper?
--
http://members.chello.nl/~j.schoone\\|//
I'm just a amateur with a LX wishing I had more lens like you all. I see
lots
of Screwmount lens on Ebay going cheap. The question is, Buying these
screwmount is it going Backwards? Or should I just save up and stay with
the times , Like the Limited lens. Thanks . Bob.
-
This message is from the
Thanks. Same to you!
Dan Scott (chokes me up, it does)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill, KG4LOV wrote:
Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, non-addictive,
socially responsible, low stress, gender neutral
winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most joyous traditions
of the religious
Great!!. Another good reason to get the MZ-S :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why the MZ-S has the dial-in the first frame number feature.
If it didn't and you used the conventional lens-cap-on, 1/6000th at
f/22 technique, the original imprinting would be overwritten with the
above
The following link shows some sledding pictures I sent to Idaho Magazine. I
would have done things differently now as opposed to yesterday, specifically
only including one of the center three on the top row.
These are basically just all snapshots taken with a PZ-1p or ZX-10. Most
are rough
There must be some reason X-Ray techs wear lead aprons in hospitals.
Perhaps because they protect vital parts from X-Rays? If the X-Rays from
airport scanners are strong enough to pass easily through these lead bags,
there's a good chance that they are also hazardous to unprotected people.
Len
I have always understood this to be true-- that is, they can scan the film if
there is any concern on their part. A couple of times I was told this as they
took my film and ran it through the machine. Once I was told the film was not
going with me unless scanned, it was my choice. Since the
I have no idea what the regs say and really doubt most at the scanners know
either.
However, I always understood this to be true-- that is, they can scan the film
if they feel there is a need to do so.. A couple of times I was told this as
they took my film and ran it through the machine.
Have you read the mortality rate for airport security scanner technicians?
:-)
Sorry, probably in poor taste.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: Paris, Leonard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: airport scanner film damage
Just to be nit-picking, I don't believe that it is a
right. The FAA
has guidelines that do allow handchecking, but they are free at
any time to
suspend those guidelines. I also believe that it is left to the
discretion
of the checker as to if they will allow it or not. My advise is to
I'm just a amateur with a LX wishing I had more lens like you all. I see
lots
of Screwmount lens on Ebay going cheap. The question is, Buying these
screwmount is it going Backwards? Or should I just save up and stay with
the times , Like the Limited lens. Thanks . Bob.
Hey, try it.
It's
There must be some reason X-Ray techs wear lead aprons in hospitals.
Perhaps because they protect vital parts from X-Rays? If the
X-Rays from
airport scanners are strong enough to pass easily through these
lead bags,
there's a good chance that they are also hazardous to
unprotected
Have you read the mortality rate for airport security scanner
technicians?
:-)
Sorry, probably in poor taste.
Of course it is high. Didn't you hear how many of them make a sport out
of scanning poor photographer's films? I mean that old K1000 with that
heavy metal lens is sure good enough
I guess one of the reasons I keep considering one is that there are
people who are very fast with them. Maybe it just takes some practice.
Actually it takes a LOT of practice. I personally believe daily practice is
necessary, even if it's only five or ten minutes' worth. Also, most people
who
Bob,
One limited will cost you more than a set of screwmount lenses...it will also be much
easier to use!
If I was looking to fill out a small, fast kit with an LX, I would probably go M28/2,
M50/1.4, and K135/2.5 for $400 if you bargain shop. You might substitute a K or
A24/2.8 on the
All,
I haven't looked at Pentax patents for awhile, so I did a search at the U.S.
Patent Office website. I found these extremely cool Pentax Patents:
6311022 Film-Back Exchangeable Camera
Maybe a new version of their 645, but with exchangeable backs? Cool
6318912 Adapter
I don't know how expensive or hard to find it is, but the K28/2.0 might
be a nice addition to a set of early K-mount lenses. I'd love to have
one even though I've an A28/2.0 ... I just love those early K-mounts.
Anybody have one of these puppies?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One limited will
13 Dec 01, Peifer, William [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Roberts wrote:
[Answers to Levil's cleaning questions, snipped]
Hi Mark LeviL,
(Snip)...
I've had great luck getting all sorts of schmutz off of all sorts of
surfaces using various brands of waterless hand soap
(Snip)...
If I was looking to fill out a small, fast kit with an LX, I
would probably go M28/2, M50/1.4, and K135/2.5 for $400 if you
bargain shop. You might substitute a K or A24/2.8 on the wide
end or if speed was not a concern, a K28/3.5 for $150 less than
the M28/2.
That is pretty much what I
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
