Thanks,
That is what I did.
I had not made up enough fixer (volume)to completely cover the top film.
I am so used to doing one film at a time!
The film seems ok and it is not an important film anyway.
It was just a few areas near the sprockets that had not been in enough
solution.
Alan
--
Here's some stuff to think about... Pentax survived throughout the 90's
largely on the strength of their p&s lineup, which was very impressive.
Now that more and more people are switching to digital, what will Pentax
have to offer in a few years? Let's see... a line of p&s cameras that's
still i
Yes people have become rather excited about a DSLR and Photokina. Despite
the volume I've read every thread, sometimes laughing out loud! It is like
I can see all us PDMLers hunched in front of a computer screen, typing madly
on the keyboard and shaking their fists at the screen! :)
- Origi
For those not directly involved I thought about what was posted, and decided
I should have sent it only to whom I was speaking. So I'm sorry. However,
I am not sorry concerning Bruce and Vic.
Regards,
Brad Dobo
**
Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.)
Ema
> Let me ask a simple question. Who here would pay $3000 to $6000 US for
> a DSLR that is backward compatible with the Pentax K mount? I know
> everyone wants one, but who would pay the price right now?
Not unless there were no more film for us to buy and use. But then again, I
might put my $3000
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> I'm really hoping Pentax does not pursue a DSLR. Then people
will bitch and
> moan and threaten to switch and leave the list. It should
make for some
> interesting emails.
Actually, it would be
> Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a
> bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-)
I think the AF mechanism could be extracted from Limited lenses and still
working perfectly, without AF of course.
regards,
Alan Chan
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in
Leica
> mount, why not KA?
I could be wrong, but I think the Leica mount version was meant for the
Japanese market mainly where people like to collect unique items, useful or
not. Even Ricoh made a 28/2.8 in Leica mount afte
Bruce has a mental disorder that prevents him from realizing what an idiot
he is.
- Original Message -
From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax digital slr (WAS: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
>
> Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do
> not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until
> they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their
> "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel.
Don't think that will ever happen. :(
regard
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >
> > I can certainly secon
Perhaps you could try to contact Pentax Japan directly by sending them a
fax. Or someone on the list might go to Pentax Melbourne to look for the
parts for you directly (rang or faxed them didn't do much) they still had
some pretty old parts. But first, you need to figure out which parts you
need
*sigh* Read my other post. IMHO why are you asking me this anyhow? Is it
constructive? Did I make an error in voicing my own IMHO personal opinion?
Will a good answer satisfy you? You are also more than bordering on insult
by saying "The only thing f**king you over is you mind" How ELSE do I
Hi Thomas,
Lots of us have nothing to contribute but questions and that works out
just fine (these guys that already know everything get bored talking to
each other after awhile).
Welcome,
Dan Scott
>
>
>> Let me ask a simple question. Who here would pay $3000 to $6000 US for
>> a DSLR that is backward compatible with the Pentax K mount? I know
>> everyone wants one, but who would pay the price right now?
Not a snowball's chance in Hell.
Not counting film or processing I can actually aff
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Scanning vs. Printing BW negs/BW basics
> On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:58, William Robb wrote:
>
> > This, in part, is the siren song of larger negatives. You
can
> > get the shadow detail you want, and still have the sharpness
> > needed to
I can go out with tripod, macro, bellows, whatever, and no one gives me
anything other than a cursory glance and perhaps some rolled eyes. But,
if I am wearing my hat, one specific hat, I don't get much shooting done
because of that hat.
People come tiptoeing up behind me and look over my shou
> -Original Message-
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> tom wrote:
> >
> > I raise my Bass to the PDML!
> >
> > tv
>
> Will a Murphy's do?
As long as you're buying
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> Good news. E100S is my favorite transparency film, and this
> new emulsion
> is reportedly an improvement.
You shoot people, right? I haven't shot any Ektachrome in while, and
when I did it was for landscapes and
In a message dated 9/24/02 3:41:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< What is the groups opinion on what is
the finest grain/sharpest COLOR 35mm
film still available?
I dont care whether it's color neg / or slide film
or what ever speed or color saturation
characteristics. I just what the finest
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series
> cameras is very light and plasticky.
Excepting the MZ-S of course.
The funny thing is that the other MZ's (5n in particular) are such
nice cameras
In a message dated 9/24/02 3:22:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If a Pentax DSLR comes along, I'll be pissed...natually. They
are really f**king over everyone that went out and got a MZ-S kit IMHO. >>
Why are they f**king you over. You bought it. No one twisted your arm. Are
you happy
You know, I have to say this. I don't care how knowledgeable you may be, I
cannot take seriously anyone who spouts such utterly juvenile drivel as
this. You can argue your point without bringing it down to kindergarten
level.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
In a message dated 9/24/02 11:42:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Lat weekend I was hired to shoot a Christining. I went in armed with my
MZ-3,
28-105 lens, and Vivitar 283 flash. I also luged around a cheapo Minolta
tripod
which i didn't even use. Everyone thought I looked like a real
> How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make
> them in Leica mount, why not KA?
I would love that concept, Mishka, bit I wouldn't expect it, of
course. Sort of a Limited-Limited lens line (Limited-squared?)...
Fred
> Unfortunately to implement a focus clutch on them would serve only
> to destroy their attractive and diminutive dimensions. :-(
Well, Rob, that may be true, but I would rather have them be just a
bit larger but a lot nicer to focus. Just my 2 f-stops worth... ;-)
Fred
A, William :)
> How would you have been screwed by the MZ-S if they come out
> with a digital SLR?
I enjoy film, I love my lightbox and loupe and slides and looking at them.
I guess I am fond of the traditional aspects of photography. While anyone is
free to debate this, it is my personal f
I can certainly second that. The build quality of the MZ series
cameras is very light and plasticky. My wife loves them for the light
weight and ease of point and shoot behavior. I don't particularly
care for them because of the lack of heft and weight. Of course, I've
been using and loving a
How about making manual focus only versions? I heard they make them in Leica
mount, why not KA?
Mishka
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote:
>
> > Amen. I (for a short time each)
...or, are you trying to be the single sane person here? that's pretentious!
mishka
On 24 Sep 2002 at 23:06, Fred wrote:
> Amen. I (for a short time each) have owned Limited lenses, and I do
> not care for their focus feel. I won't buy another unless/until
> they provide a focus clutch, or some other way to turn their
> "whirring" focus feel into a more "silky" feel.
Hi Fred,
frank,
don't be ridiculous! we have some serious business here, planning out Pentax
corporate strategy for the next decade or so. that "PUG" thing... who cares?
mishka.
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2
This is begining to sound like the Pentax Flagship thread from 4 years ago.
Probably with the same results on the part of Pentax: still waiting for the
right moment..
BR
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well by that time I'll wildly speculate then that they'll fly out the door
at
betwee
...paulaner hefe-weizen...
mishka
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> - Original Message -
> From: tom
> Subject: RE: SMC Pentax F* Zoo
Yes, Chris, DSLR work on Monday, Wednesday and half of Friday, and MZ-1 on
Tuesday, Thursday and the other half of Friday. Weekends are reserved for
perpetual motion machines.
BR
From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... the word from my Pentax rep is that Pentax is officially working on
a DSL
On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:58, William Robb wrote:
> This, in part, is the siren song of larger negatives. You can
> get the shadow detail you want, and still have the sharpness
> needed to make a great print, simply because you are enlarging
> the negative less.
Mr Robb, do you have to make so much s
William Robb wrote:
>
= snipped =
>
> The only place I feel they have let my down is in keeping my
> LX's operating.
Seems, from all I've read, Pentax would have done everyone well, had
they just done adequate product improvement on the LX, and finally
made it the camera it had/has potential
On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:22, Chris Brogden wrote:
> FWIW, the word from my Pentax rep is that Pentax is officially working on
> a DSLR. It's *not* a full-frame one apparently, and will probably be
> around 5-6MP (that's the working model right now). It's allegedly slated
> for either announcement o
> -Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> I'm finding that if I expose/develop a
> BW neg just right for optical printing, that it
> SCANS (Epson 2450) a little to dark (scanner
> likes a little more density ). Is this
> typical or a fault with my scanne
In two years, I hope that we will be speculating whether the Rube has
finally gotten tired of baiting Pentax photographers or if he has merely
disappeared into the Nikon swamp.
"Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" wrote:
>
> Better than that it's only once every 2 years. Of course, that does mean that
- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
>
> I don't know about that, the Limited lenses in the US look
like a good
> match for US ZX-5n. The feel is a little different, cold metal
versus
> warm polycarbonate, but that doesn't bum me out or anyth
"Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nope. Lens have resolution in 100s lpmm.
Whatever *number* lens resolution is (I picked 50 as an example) the math stays
the same. Multiply the resolution in lpm times the dimension of the sensor and
you'll get a bigger number as the sensor size gets bigger.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, maciek pasiok wrote:
> i was just given an ZX-60 (european MZ-60 in fact); quick look at the
> manual made me sure i'll have problems with my old maual lenses
If you have "M" or earlier lenses (no "A" on the aperture ring), you will
have problems. If you have an "A" on the
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> Wow, some long and passionate emails. This isn't geared
towards any one
> person. I see my position simply. I do photography as a
hobby, and like
> using the best. I dropped a wad of cash for the MZ-S
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, William Robb wrote:
> My local pro shop sez the lowbrow B+Ws are using aluminium for the
> filter body. I don't know if this is true or not, but it does disagree
> with what buddy on the website sez.
This is true. B+W makes two grades of filters, at least for the UV/sky
fil
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > I have no idea why anyone seriously thought, as opposed to wished, that Pentax
>would sell a DSLR.
>
> People seriously thought so because Pentax have officially stated that
> they intend to manufacture K-mount digital slr's. I'll still
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On 24 Sep 2002 at 18:14, William Robb wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mishka
> Subject: Re: 15mm gone for 370USD
> > > There's another one, showing up on ebay over and over -- but
> > the reserve is
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
In the camera industry, pro gear means a camera that can
withstand certain shutter cycles.
My 3 LX bodies.
>
>
> > Pentax "PRO" means no product support, and little brand
cachet.
>
>
The first pa
> I do get tired of folks wanting digital instead of glass.
> No, that's not true. I am weary of those who want digital
> knocking glass to the ground! Both can exist. Why is a world
> beater digital any better than a world beater glass camera?
> You do use them for different things, they ser
Although I used a polarizer quite frequently at one time, I now feel
that it causes oversaturation and blocky looking colors in many cases.
I'll use one for landscapes when the sky is pale or when haze and/or
reflections are a problem. But that's about it.
I do use yellow and red filters for
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> William wrote:
>
> > This is how it has always been, how it is now, and how it
will
> > always be.
>
>
> Interresting concept. One must be pretty rigid in mind to
believe such drivel.
>
No Pål, but I h
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600
> And it doesn't matter how the photographer performs in all
this mess?
> That's being ignored?
> You mean you walk in and present your folio, and before the
person
> looks at your WORK, s/he says, "Wha
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I believe both are shaper than any Kodachrome, or any print film out
there.
<
this is my experience shooting Kodachrome 25 and Provia 100F. Provia is
noticeably sharper under high enlargement.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Alan Abbott
Subject: Film not fully fixed- help
You are a bit vague about whether you failed to use enough
solution to cover the film, or if the solution was not robust
enough to do the job. Either way, just refix the film in fresh
fixer, and rewash it.
You cou
I'm finding that if I expose/develop a
BW neg just right for optical printing, that it
SCANS (Epson 2450) a little to dark (scanner
likes a little more density ). Is this
typical or a fault with my scanner/driver??
I'm using silverfast driver...
Second question (may be a little too basic
but what
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen
Subject: Re: Loyalties (was: Re: SMC Pentax F* Zoom 5,6/250-600)
> Are you telling me they don't do that in North America? Have
you actually asked Pentax about their pro services? I personally
loaned a 120 film insert for free from one of their loa
On 24 Sep 2002 at 20:15, David Chang-Sang wrote:
> Man..
> between PDML and HUG; all I've been seeing today is stuff on this 645 AF
> system that looks strangely like a Contax 645AF.
>
> That being said, the HUG is split on whether this is a "good move" by
> Hasselblad. The hard core 6x6 camp is
On 24 Sep 2002 at 18:14, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: 15mm gone for 370USD
> > There's another one, showing up on ebay over and over -- but
> the reserve is
> > $700 (ouch!)
Hi Mishka,
They have been selling lenses, the pics are the same but they s
> Tom,
>
> My biggest film concern is not that it will go away, but that the
> choices will continue to diminish. The more specialty/unique films
> will slowly go on the chopping block as more pros turn to digital. I
> would be far less happy about film if my only choices were Kodak Gold
> and F
Speculation is that Fuji's maybe making the whole camera.
They're definitely making the lenses.
Cheers,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 645 autofocus
Pål Jens
Man..
between PDML and HUG; all I've been seeing today is stuff on this 645 AF
system that looks strangely like a Contax 645AF.
That being said, the HUG is split on whether this is a "good move" by
Hasselblad. The hard core 6x6 camp is miffed by the lack of a full frame 6x6
digital back and feels
It all depends upon whether money has changed hands.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MZ-S or Phoenix deal makes no difference, the name is
> blacked out so no one will know. Not like Nikon or
> Canon who's cameras are seen with their bra
Ouch (not)
Talk about Oscar Wilde.
Once again Bruce demonstrates his uncanny psychic ability to know the
unknowable.
He's just guessing, folks, and like any guesser he'll crow about his hits
and hope we forget his misses.
Regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Rubenstein, B
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: 15mm gone for 370USD
> There's another one, showing up on ebay over and over -- but
the reserve is
> $700 (ouch!)
If that's this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1382471310&rd
=1
You might want to look at their feed
On 24 Sep 2002 at 19:45, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Film also give me a hard
> copy; a physical entity that exist and can be touched and that can be viewed
> without any external means. I can digitize any piece of film when it's needed.
> The instant gratification aspect of digital is nice by\ut not man
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 12:23 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Hmmm. I always felt that the screw mount Takumars matched the
> Spotmatics: The K-series lenses the K-bodies; the M-series the
> M-bodies; the A-series the A bodies. The LX matches pretty much all of
> these. The F-series of le
Tom,
My biggest film concern is not that it will go away, but that the
choices will continue to diminish. The more specialty/unique films
will slowly go on the chopping block as more pros turn to digital. I
would be far less happy about film if my only choices were Kodak Gold
and Fuji Superia.
Bruce,
Wrong is wrong. The rounding error defense doesn't wash in this case. You
gave a price which the cameras wouldn't go below, and then they did >:-P
I don't care if a Pentax DSLR appears tomorrow or on any particular date,
but there's no reason for Pentax to release at any time except whe
> New kodak films:
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020924-21.shtml
> Nice to see someone still investing in film R&D!
Cool beans.
Though in regard to the idea of someone "still" investing in film R&D, I
think one thing most "film is going to be gone next year!!" type people
f
I found something that really looks good. The MZ-S w/grip and the 100
2.8 macro (which I bought to also use as a short tele). I used it to
take pictures of my daughter's soccer game and got some serious looks
and comments. Amusingly, I got the "everyone else has a Nikon or a
Canon so this Penta
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 01:04 PM, tom wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>
>> "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I break something *every* week
>>
>> I thought you hired assistants to do that?
>
> It's a big job, I have to do s
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:23:53 -0400, tom wrote:
> I'm very happy with the support I get.
Is "Santa Claus" your rep? IIRC, you're in Maryland, and I think
that's part of his territory.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
New kodak films:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020924-21.shtml
Nice to see someone still investing in film R&D!
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:37:48 +0100, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I expect I am one of the few people on this list who has been so happy with
> what they have, that other equipment/manufacturers products, were of little
> relevance.
I'm another. So far, there hasn't been anything that I both wanted an
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at 05:04 PM, Tom Reese wrote:
>
> I have a few thousand dollars tied up in Pentax 35mm equipment but I'd
> still
> like to see Pentax recognize that the format is going to be obsolete and
> start a new digital system based on digital sensor sizes.
>
> Tom Reese
>
I can't seem to email you...I'll take you up on your offer
--
Thomas Van Veen Photography
www.bigdayphoto.com
301-758-3085
> -Original Message-
> From: Mail Delivery System
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:53 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mai
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Nick Wright wrote:
> [...] my infection of digitalitis. [...]
I wonder if digitalis will cure that? :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Hey, I resemble that remark!
> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 24 September 2002 20:38
> To: Pentax List
> Subject: RE: Who here would really pay the price for a DSLR
>
>
> >I am most definitely not a pro, just a nutter!
>
> I can vouch for that.
>
No, that's the worst thing they could do in my mind. What reason would
any of us have to feel bound to Pentax if we had to replace all our
lenses anyway for a totally unproven lens lineup in a mount which could
be abandoned if not successful?
Remember too, that smaller sensors with the same numb
I'm sot sure I'd buy a lens from someone calling themselves "!ebola!".
At 03:10 PM 9/24/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1382939639&rd=1
>
>Sigh...
>
>Gianfranco
>(just paid 460USD MORE for mine...)
>:-(
>
>=
>
>
>_
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:23:37 -0400, Peter Alling wrote:
> Complaining about superfluous redundancies are we? :)
I'm from the Department of Redundancy Department ... I'm here to help
you. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Nope. Lens have resolution in 100s lpmm. It's the film that limits it to
what it is. Strictly speaking, it's lens+film MTF. If a digital sensor comes
with large values for hi-freq MTF, it will be possible to do just that --
stamp sized sensor that beats 35mm format resolution. Add to that lenses
t
I thought it was too, but I just checked the Kodak site
and it's still mentioned in current tech. pubs.
At 04:42 PM 9/24/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>What is the groups opinion on what is
>the finest grain/sharpest COLOR 35mm
>film still available?
>
>I dont care whether it's color neg / or slide film
Is K25 still avail???
> -Original Message-
> From: Pal Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 5:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sharpest color 35mm film available???
>
>
> JCO wrote:
>
> > My first guess would be Kodachrome 25
> > but I think
I'd say Velvia but I haven't used Kodachromes for several years
Christian
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 16:42, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> What is the groups opinion on what is
> the finest grain/sharpest COLOR 35mm
> film still available?
>
> I dont care whether it's color neg / or slide film
>
You think that Provia is sharper and has smaller grain than Velveta? I'm
only asking because I find Velvia to be a bit sharper and have a bit less
grain than Provia 100F. I use both a lot as you know but perhaps it is just
my preference.
Christian.
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 17:50, tom wr
Hi Albano,
I have a Pentax Lenses and Accessories brochure, 06771, from the time
bridging the K and M lenses. In the blurb about the K 200/2.5 it says
"...ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer [...] its
6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and definition,
I don't use slide film, but I agree that Konica Impressa 50 is the sharpest,
and especially the finest-grained negative film.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 3:42 PM
Subject: Sharpest color 3
Bingo! Add K-mount adapter (like 645-to-K and 67-to-645) and you've got a
winner: your 200/4 becomes an extreme telephoto AND you can get an
inexpensive fast superwide just for that mount.
Mishka
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue
Tom wrote:
>
> You are correct that there is no official structure to support pros as
> Nikon or Canon has, but that doesn't mean pros who use Pentax don't
> get support. They do *if* they are actual working pros.
>
> I'm very happy with the support I get.
Right! Thats another case of Pentax
Albano wrote:
> I think it's the first time I see "official" manufacturer stuff talking
> about bokeh, including all brands.
Huh?
> We all know the great Pentax bokeh, but I've never seen it on any
> promotional brochure or pdf.
Huh? Have you seen the PDF for the Limited lenses?
> Yes, I kn
Albano wrote:
> Hasselblad launched a 645 af system, the H1.
> For details go to www.hasselblad.com
> It looks as a kwel beast
> Regards
Weird that so companies invest into a market everyone says is dead.
Ugly lenses without aperture rings :-(
Who's making it? Fuji?
Pål
Tom wrote:
> Provia 100F, or the new 100 ISO Velvia II due to be introduced at
> Photokina (I I think).
No way! Provia F is no sharper than other 100ISO films. It's just less grainy. Some
even say that shots with Provia F looks soft. It would be a total disaster if they
make Velvia at the sam
JCO wrote:
> My first guess would be Kodachrome 25
> but I think it's discontinued...
Don't know about negative film but the sharpest slide film is Kodachrome 25 followed
by Kodachrome 64 and then Velvia. Yes, Velvia have smaller grain and higher resolution
than Kodachrome 64 but it ain't sha
according to many tests, velvia 50 is.
larger grain than provia, but better resolution.
mishka
I hear you. The company I work for finally broke down and bought me a Canon
G2 (they were having a little guilt trip over some of their past actions).
It's a nice little camera, and works great for most things -- except sports.
To get the most out of it, I'll have to get a flash for it. It's very
The 14 Mpixel kodak sounds good to me, BUT
it's got a Nikon mount and I'm definately
not ready to spend $4k...
I'm getting great results shooting film with
my P67 and scanning/printing digitally.
Only disadvantge is cost and hassle of film
and processing and scanning time.
JCO
I believe that Pentax could steal a couple marches on Canon, Nikon et al by
coming out with an entirely new system for the digital slr. Tying new
technology to old 35mm technology doesn't make sense. The 35mm size lenses
and bodies were built to allow the lenses to focus on a 35mm frame. A new
dig
Hmmm ... $3,000 to $6,000 would be a bit steep for my personal budget (you
know -- house, cars, kids and all that). Digital isn't strictly necessary
for what I do on my own, but if I had enough business to justify it, I
could possibly swing $3,000. A full-frame sensor wouldn't matter much to me,
"Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think Minolta has already produced two lenses with _adjustable_ bokeh...
Oh they're *way* late with this. Juah Buhler pioneered the "Bokeh On Demand"
concept years ago: http://jbuhler.com/HLimited/
--
Mark Roberts
www.robertstech.com
Photography and writ
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
