I have one of these I'm looking to sell. Minor cosmetic wear, perfect
working condition, comes with original soft case and box. $200 US.
If anyone's interested, please write me off-list.
Cheers,
chris
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Look for an AF500FTZ on ebay. US$250
> Does
Nice story, John - by the look on their faces she said 'Yes'!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2003
> I come from a family with several musicians. You don't play classical
> music without solid technique. You don't develop solid technique without
> practice. Technique doesn't make you a good musician (although with
> enough practice the vast majority of people wouldn't know it), but you
> don't b
Hi, Mike,
Nope.
I'm a 46 year old bike messenger. I just rounded off for the sake of
convenience...
regards,
frank
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> Wait a minute! You mean to tell me youre a ~45-YEAR-OLD~ bike messenger
>
> Good Lord, I'm 45 and I can hardly get to the convenience store on my bik
> The next part of the story is harrowing and not
> fit for setting down here besides having nothing to do with photography or
> Pentax.
Oh, c'mon, you have to tell us now. Can't leave THAT hanging.
--Mike
> I ask because back in the
> early 90's I took the Johnson O'Connor series of aptitude tests. One of the
> interesting tie ins was that people with high musical aptitude often
> gravitate to photography and there seems to be a lot of musically inclined
> people on the list.
Butch,
WHOA! I took th
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Rubenstein
Subject: Re: What toys you have in 2002?
> That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're hungry
again a
> half hour after you've eaten. Since I've switch to a "stick to
the ribs"
> brand, all I bought last year was a used 50mm lens, a
> I just subscribed to this list
Welcome Pierre--
--Mike
> I've never taken a photography
> class in my life (except when I was about 15 - 30 years ago
Wait a minute! You mean to tell me youre a ~45-YEAR-OLD~ bike messenger
Good Lord, I'm 45 and I can hardly get to the convenience store on my bike!
--Mike
When I was printing optical/chemical color prints before the last year my
645 16X20s were strikingly superior ot 35mm at that size. Now I scan 35 on a
Nikon4000 to 67Mb files but I scan 645 on a 1640 SU Epson flatbed. The 27Mb
files I get on the 1640 are inferior to the 67Mb files from 35mm even
ac
Mike Johnston wrote:
> Well, I majored in Philosophy for a year at Reed before I dropped out...not
> sure that counts, though.
Why, Mike,
'Cause you dropped out, or because you were at Reed?
Seriously, I'm flexible. I think that counts. I bet you're relieved now, eh?
-frank
> --
"The o
> Dan Scott, Tom Van Veen, Steve Desjardins and I have so far innocently
> mentioned that we were philosophy majors in university or college.
>
> Anyone else out there?
Well, I majored in Philosophy for a year at Reed before I dropped out...not
sure that counts, though.
--Mike
Especially when you can buy one off ebay in Excellent condition like I
did recently for $13.09+ s&h.
On Thursday 02 January 2003 03:48 am, Fred wrote:
> The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most
> dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I
> would t
> Artistic composition is something that is learned. There are rules to follow
> that would immediately improve many images.
Vic,
What are they? What rules do you follow?
--Mike
Anybody know what is the least expensive
35mm film scanner that has 4000-4800 dpi
resolution? I'm happy with my epson 2450
for medium format but I'd like to get something
better for 35mm film use.
JCO
> What does a Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro go for these days?
I'm not sure exactly, Steve, but my own best indication would be the
one I sold through eBay a couple of months ago. I had three of
these critters (http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/a100f28m6.jpg), and
I sold the one that was of "USER" quality
> I'm with you Fred. [Zoom] Convenience often wins out...
Perhaps, Vic, although for me it is not always just laziness:
I think that a good zoom is a useful substitute for prime lenses
under some conditions. It's not always laziness that keeps me from
"zooming with my feet" for framing: Someti
> I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the flash from
> the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit made for it. Would the
> universal model fit? Are there other options that aren't bulky?
Something that I do that's probably a little unorthodox (actually, I
may do a lot of things that
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 17:33:34 -0500, you wrote:
>Were you in the next county when you made those shots?
>
>They ARE good.
>
Thanks everyone for the nice comments. The distance was not exactly in
the next county - maybe 40 feet for the Spoon photo, and 60 feet for
the freckled lady.
Speaking of lon
> Fred, tell me more about the SMC, K, 55 f1.8 lens-do you have this
> exact lens? If so, how do you like it? Does a price of $39 sound
> about right for this lens (in good condition)?
Yes, Steve, I have a K 55/1.8, although I don't end up using it as
often as I should. I do like using it, as l
> I alsoo had the A50/2. I preferred this one to the M1.7 for both
> the A setting and the fact that it was incredibly small and light.
The 50/2 design, in my opinion, is the one 50 that shows the most
dramatic improvement optically from the M to A models. In fact, I
would tend to suggest the A 5
It would be if you didn't need another hardware bon-bon to tide you over.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmmm ... picked up a 6x7, 105mm & 150mm sometime early
spring, would that be "meat & potatoes" enough ???
What does a Pentax A 100/2.8 Macro go for these days?
--- Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself,
> but Vivitar's
> > Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of
> equipment. It's a great
> > combination of quality, price and utility and can
> be found
What was the movie? I've dumped all the answers, unfortunately.
Maybe I'll order it out from my DVD source...
keith whaley
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > Or that absolutely marvellous little imp from Iceland?
>
> Bjork. By the way, if you haven't seen her recent movie, it's really
> stunning. I was
don't bother with the AF330 Rob. It's a good enough flash unit, but
doesn't bounce, tilt, or swivel. Spend some extra bucks and buy an
AF500. They are infinately better. I use one on a z-1p with great results.
Cheers
Shaun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
pdml folks:
a happy '03 to all.
i've been us
If all else fails, the bottom part of a 25 oz. Agree hair conditioner
bottle works just as good as my Stofen diffuser. ;-)
On Thursday 02 January 2003 02:34 am, Mark D. wrote:
> I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the
> flash from the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit
> made f
Bruce wrote:
> That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're
> hungry again a half hour after you've eaten. Since I've
> switch to a "stick to the ribs" brand, all I bought last
> year was a used 50mm lens, a flash bracket and a off camera
> flash cord.
hmmm ... picked up
Hey Folks,
I was wondering what people were using to diffuse the
flash from the AF 280T. I couldn't find a Stofen unit
made for it. Would the universal model fit? Are there
other options that aren't bulky?
Mark
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus -
> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's
> Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great
> combination of quality, price and utility and can be found for
> about $75 on eBay.
The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X TC is indeed a very nice little piece
of gear.
> Don`t know if I`ve taken more pictures than you, but I lean
> towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180
> is sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh
> effect, and built like tanks.
[and]
> Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. It's the early metal version with
>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have taken a
>> lot more pictures than I have, what is your favorite manual
>> focus, K mount, macro lens for flower close ups?
>
> 1) A 100mm f/2.8 macro.
[and]
> The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life.
Yes, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my own p
I've heard of these virus thingies but have never seen one . . .
Stan (from his Mac)
-
on 12/31/02 5:01 AM, Ken Archer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's times like these that make me glad I use Linux. ;-)
>
> On Tuesday 31 December 2002 04:13 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Please verify
Having gone there, and finding even more interesting venues, look at this:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/convergence.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=
Very, very interesting... left me nodding my head in wonder.
keith whaley
Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> I hope everyone is in for
>> I would like to know, from all of you whom I know have taken a
>> lot more pictures than I have, what is your favorite manual
>> focus, K mount, macro lens for flower close ups?
>
> 1) A 100mm f/2.8 macro.
[and]
> The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life.
Yes, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my own p
> Don`t know if I`ve taken more pictures than you, but I lean
> towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180
> is sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh
> effect, and built like tanks.
[and]
> Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5. It's the early metal version with
> Well, strictly speaking it's not a lens by itself, but Vivitar's
> Macro Focusing 2x TC is a handy piece of equipment. It's a great
> combination of quality, price and utility and can be found for
> about $75 on eBay.
The Vivitar Macro-Focusing 2X TC is indeed a very nice little piece
of gear.
William...
I use the TC with my A50/1.4. By good results, I mean sharp 4x6s and 5x7s; I
haven't tried too many 8x10s or larger. I don't use it very often for
non-macro work, but it's been fine the couple of times I have used it.
t
On 1/1/03 11:04 AM, William Johnson wrote:
> I have one of thes
It'll change your bank account, too! Har!
t
On 1/1/03 12:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The A100/2.8 Macro will change your life. Regards, Bob S.
>
Perhaps using a 200mm macro would cut down on the "busy" background a bit?
t
On 1/1/03 5:05 PM, Fred wrote:
>> My Vivitar S1 105/2.5 Macro is awesome. It focuses 1:1 without
>> extension tubes or accessories, is Tak sharp, and has wonderful
>> bokeh. example: http://pug.komkon.org/02feb/iris01
[EMAIL PROTECTED] inquired, after sharing a cool story:
>
> Has anyone else ever bribed a friend or relative to allow you to get "the
> perfect shot"?
I think I've been brainwashed too much with NPPA Journalistic Ethics to even
consider bribery -- however, during a visit from my father last year
Delta 100 or Acros in XTOL.
tv
"David Chang-Sang" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks...
I've been considering getting a body to use with my beautiful 50mm f1.4
SMC-M. I was looking at the MZ-M used. What do you all have to say for this
baby compared to the older MX/K1000/K2 etc. bodies? any experiences for
those who own an MZ-M?
That's because Pentax gear is like Chinese food; you're hungry again a
half hour after you've eaten. Since I've switch to a "stick to the ribs"
brand, all I bought last year was a used 50mm lens, a flash bracket and
a off camera flash cord.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I used to be happy with
Hi;
K28/3.5
M135/3.5
M200/4.0
All to replace a lousy Vivitar 28-210 3.5-5.6
Then my ME Super died and I bought a;
K-1000 with a
M50/2.0
M100/4.0 macro
My one great E-Bay deal
BUTCH
"Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself"
Hermann Hesse (Demian)
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 11:25:56 -0500, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
> Does anyone have a favorite f/stop? Or, since an f/stop's "look" varies with
> focal length, a favorite f/stop for a given focal length?
I seem to shoot mostly either wide open in low light or stopped down to
f/8-22 in broad day
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:56:09 -0500, Tom Reese wrote:
> Anyway, could you elaborate on your comment about scanning
> artifacts? What are they? How do you deal with them?
First off, there's the unavoidable softening of the scanned image
compared to the original piece of film.
Secondly, th
Kodak TMAX 100, damn sharp!
JCO
>I'm interested in looking at sample photos of flowers,
>close ups (i.e. w/ macro lens), shot in B&W. Anyone
>have any personal favorites, or a web site to refer me
>to?
Funny you should ask that Steve, there are a few here
(http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/new.html) I came across them only a few
Hi Frank,
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:24:21 -0500, frank theriault wrote:
> The million dollar question was
> very simple, something like "who said Cogito Ergo Sum" (really, it was
> that easy!). Before he answered it, he said, "This is for all my
> friends who went into engineering and computer scie
>It's so cute how pentax-fan has attempted to black out the "Contax" engraving
>on the 135mm hood :-)
Oh, is that what it is? I did think the 135 hood looked a bit tatty.
But the Pentax 135 A* hood is no good (it's actually for a 645 zoom). I have
constructed a hood for mine out of a 77mm strai
Hi, Steve,
I might make my fortune yet! Anyone on this list who ever writes a
comic book with such a character will be hearing from my lawyer.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
-frank
Steve Desjardins wrote:
> This has the makings of an Internet comic book character . . . .
>
> Thank
Hi, Gary,
You must stop. You must stop now...
"Gary L. Murphy" wrote:
> How fowl, Ann :-)
>
--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer
Funny, I have no idea what the "rule of thirds" is! I think Mike referred to it
in a post, but to be honest, it made no sense (but then I didn't try too hard to
figure it out - I probably could have had I ~really~ tried).
What's that tell ya?
-frank
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Frank Theriault's "C
I think that was supposed to be "condemnation".
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:53 pm, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
> > I blame Mike Johnson, Bob Sullivan, Paul Stenquist, and Bruce
> > Dayton most of all.
>
> Thanks, Bill. I didn't know that I was an effective enabler. But I
> appr
Hi, Jeff,
I was a good boy last night (unfortunately). Stayed home. Didn't have so
much as a beer.
Not to sound like a grouch, but New Years Eve just means that my favourite
bars are full, and everything costs more.
I did stay up 'til about 2am, but the cat let me sleep in until almost 9!
Nic
--- Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have recently tried Ilfor FP4 (ISO 125). I liked
> the grain at 5x7, but at 8x10, I did not. I'm
> giving
> some thought to:
I'm partial to Delta 100. It develops very well in
ID-11. I've also developed it in PMK Pyro and the
results were fantasti
I wanna see if the CL is reparable, and if so, how much.
You may be hearing from me, though!
cheers,
frank
Keith Whaley wrote:
> Wanna buy a new, one-owner, two rolls Leica C1? I know it won't
> replace a CL, but...
>
> keith whaley
>
> frank theriault wrote:
> >
> > It's 11:00 am.
> >
> > I
Hi Paul,
Glad you`re back, but the wife has got to go. ;)
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky
Nowadays, I
> just want to get off before my wife finds out I'm back on the list.
At 05:38 PM 01/01/2003 -0500, Dave wrote:
Folks...
I've been considering getting a body to use with my beautiful 50mm f1.4
SMC-M.
I was looking at the MZ-M used.
What do you all have to say for this baby compared to the older MX/K1000/K2
etc. bodies?
Yuk?
I had an MZ-M for about two weeks. Ran
Most people take snap shots (this is the entire universe of people with
cameras). The vast majority produce a visual effect like a poke in the
eye with a sharp stick. A handful of guidelines would help immeasurably.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Of course, I can certainly think of a set of ru
Steve Pearson wrote:
>
> Which is your favorite for large (8x10 & up) prints,
> in 35mm format?
Kodak Plus-X
Paul Stenquist
William Robb wrote:
> I blame Mike Johnson, Bob Sullivan, Paul Stenquist, and Bruce
> Dayton most of all.
Thanks, Bill. I didn't know that I was an effective enabler. But I
appreciate the commendation :-).
Paul Stenquist
I'm interested in looking at sample photos of flowers,
close ups (i.e. w/ macro lens), shot in B&W. Anyone
have any personal favorites, or a web site to refer me
to?
Thanks all!
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up no
Amen, Brother Robb.
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:03 pm, William Robb wrote:
> The m 50mm f/1.4 is very nice on the ME-Super.
--
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
"Business Is Going To The Dogs"
On 1 Jan 2003 at 22:37, Anton Browne wrote:
> Happy new year to all.
>
> I've got to hand it to some folk and their websites, take a look at
> http://www.pentax-fan.jp/LENS/KT/AS135_18.html be sure to scroll all the way
> down for the full thrust. Shame my machine can't display the fonts... but t
There was an article in the NY Times several years ago about a study
done by some art historians. A large number of portraits were analyzed
and it was discovered that a vast majority of them painted with one of
the subjects eye's on, or near, the vertical centerline of the picture.
It wasn't a
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Paul,
How's that Tokina 9- ?
Must be great as a fisheye. ;-)
Jeff,
Er, make that a Tokina 90/2.5. When I used to write to PDML from work, I
claimed that I shouldn't be using company time to proofread. Nowadays, I
just want to get off before my wife finds out I'm bac
Music and scales were brought up by Mike: his bogus point. If you're
going to manually follow focus a football player (their's or our's) with
a long lens, you need some real well honed motor skills. Any skill can
be improved with practice.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know, I see a lot
On 1 Jan 2003 at 13:52, David Chang-Sang wrote:
> Comparing the Contax glass to Leica glass.. some Leica-philes will call me a
> blasphemer but I didn't note any big difference that warranted the extra price
> for the Leica glass. This was a comparison (non-scientific mind you) between
> the 50mm
Happy new year to all.
I've got to hand it to some folk and their websites, take a look at
http://www.pentax-fan.jp/LENS/KT/AS135_18.html be sure to scroll all the way down for
the full thrust. Shame my machine can't display the fonts... but then I wouldn't be
able to read it anyway.
Anton
__
Were you in the next county when you made those shots?
They ARE good.
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Portraits with the 400-600mm??
>
On 1 Jan 2003 at 15:19, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
> > This point combined with technical issues is the basis for my prediction that
> > the 645 format will hit the dust far earlier than larger 120 film formats.
>
>
> What technical issues are you thinking of?
Apart from the likelihood t
Hi,
Wednesday, January 1, 2003, 9:20:19 PM, you wrote:
>>> Fine. You think there are rules of composition? Okay, tell me what they are.
>>> List them. I'd like to know what they are.
>>
>> Disingenuous indeed. You might just as well ask somebody to list the
>> laws of science in an email.
> But
From: "Steve Larson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I lean towards the Vivitar Series 1`s, 90/2.5 and 90-180/4.5. The 90-180 is
sweet, sharp everywhere in the zoom range. Both have a 3D bokeh effect, and
built like tanks. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California
I second Steve's two candidates. I own both
My Vivitar S1 105/2.5 Macro is awesome. It focuses 1:1 without extension
tubes or accessories, is Tak sharp, and has wonderful bokeh.
example:
http://pug.komkon.org/02feb/iris01a.html
Also, lately I've been shooting with the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro. It does 1:3
on it's own, is very sharp and also
Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use a tripod for about 90% of my pictures and I'm working on my laziness
to eliminate that other 10%.
Tom,
You put me to shame! Using a tripod more often is a New Year's resolution
I'd be sure to break; I simply shoot too many stealth shots of people.
Last n
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I guess it depends on how good an "eye" one has. Some people have an
>innate ability to design beautiful images. Others struggle. For the
>latter, the rules can help. And sometimes they can lead to a realization
>of innate abilities. Cameras tend to confu
At 04:28 PM 01/01/2003 -0500, you wrote:
But since I've already made my contribution to the collective memory with
Bjork's name, I'll have to depend on someone else to supply the title of the
movie...I can't remember it :-(
--Mike
Dancer in the Dark?
Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://
I have only seen A50/f1.4s with plastic aperture rings. However, I have
seen A135/f2.8s both with plastic and metal aperture rings, so I can
well imagine that there are different versions of the A50/f1.4, too.
Arnold
Peter Spiro schrieb:
I agree with Mark that lenses with metal aperture rings
Steve Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which is your favorite for large (8x10 & up) prints,
>in 35mm format?
Mine is Ilford Pan-F+, developed in Microdol-X and printed on Ilford paper.
It's a pain to work with because it's slow and the grain isn't as fine as
some faster films like Dela 100, bu
All Pentax equipment acquired in 2002:
ZX-L
FA 50mm f/1.4
FA 35mm f/2.0
AF360FGZ Flash
AF220T Flash
For 2003, maybe a telephoto lens? Or a digital camera? What is
everyone else thinking of buying in 2003?
Happy New Year!
Michael Cross
Chico, CA
Frankie Lee wrote:
Happy new year all of you!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> IMHO, learning to see better is a technique and when it comes to graphic arts and
>photography, it is *the* technique.
>
Exactly. And there are some guidelines that can help one learn to see
better. Some do it instinctively; some have to learn.
Paul Stenquist
I'm honored to have my image chosen by
you for your 2003 PUG Calendar. HOO HAA!
Never tried it myself, I'm fortunate if I
have enough time to just view each PUG.
Thanks again.
Ken Waller
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
>
> Most of what I know about Catholics and Catholocism
I think we should stay away from this. It's a lot like guns.
Paul Stenquist
Yep, that's the one. I think that you will love it.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 2:04:27 PM, "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well,
>
>I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
>new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
>I think:
>
>http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWP
William Robb wrote:
>
> my 300mm f/4 for the 6x7 has not had a shot taken
> with it yet,
Bill, Bill,
You've gotta go out and shoot some stuff with that 300/4. Remember it's
like a 150 35mm lens. It's great for shooting people without them
knowing that you're shooting them. It's a lot of fun. U
I don't know, I see a lot of difference between developing motor skills, and
developing visual skills. With a couple of years of tutoring by an excellent
music tutor, and a couple of hours a day practice, people who didn't even
know me could reconise the tune I was trying to play, barely. But I don
Mike Johnston wrote:
>I interviewed one of them in Washington, a young
> black boy from the projects who was given a camera and some basic
> instructions
Are you sure those basic instructions didn't violate the whole concept
of shooting without rules? :-)
Paul Stenquist
Yes, that is the K, or pre M.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 12:57:15 PM, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Steve Pearson wrote:
>>
>> Keith:
>>
>> Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
>> filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
>> other? Pentax did not do me a
K50/1.4. The M, A, F, FA 50/1.4's are all 49mm thread.
William in Utah
1/1/2003 12:44:00 PM, "Steve Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William:
>
>When you say the "K" lens (w/ the 52mm filter), is
>this a 50mm or a 55mm lens? I assume this is not an A
>lens?
>
>
>--- William Johnson <[EMA
Most of what I know about Catholics and Catholocism comes from novels. There
were John Powers's trilogy about growing up Catholic in Chicago, starting
with "Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up?" Later I read a
couple Irish novels: Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man and Angela's
Ashes.
Yup. That be the one...
Price is sure up there, tho'. Can't comment on that.
I paid $50 for mine, at a camera repair shop.
keith
Steve Pearson wrote:
>
> Well,
>
> I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
> new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
> I think:
>
>
>h
>> Fine. You think there are rules of composition? Okay, tell me what they are.
>> List them. I'd like to know what they are.
>
> Disingenuous indeed. You might just as well ask somebody to list the
> laws of science in an email.
But dear Heavens, Bob, do you mean to say these rules are so esote
- Original Message -
From: Steve Pearson
Subject: Re: A or M 1.7 Vs. 1.4?
> Keith:
>
> Which version of the 50mm, F1.4 lens, w/ a 52mm
> filter, do you have? Is this an A or an M, or SMC, or
> other? Pentax did not do me any favors with all of
> these confusing options!
A 50mm f/1.4 l
EOS1Ds.
No it is not two small sensors glued together, at least that I have heard.
Most of these ICs have leads coming out all four edges so it would be hard
to do that (we are talking the chip now, not the package). Big chips have
low yields (that is a higher percent of defective chips per wafer)
- Original Message -
From: Marnie
> I wish someone had warned me that reading this list can really
pull one into buying more stuff.
Unsubscribe.
Do it now.
Righ now.
I used to be happy with my LX, 2 K-1000s a half dozen lenses, my
6x7 and a few lenses, and the 4x5 and a few lenses.
The
Nikon rebate was supposed to end on 31Dec but has got extended to March 31.
In next PMA, camera makers may announce few more DSlrs. This may further bring down the
scanner prices.
I feel it's better to wait till PMA. I am also aiming for Nikon 4000 but waiting
Thanks
Ramesh
-Original
Well,
I could not hold back making the first purchase of the
new year. So, I went w/ the 50mm 1.4 K version, or so
I think:
http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=4302990&SKID=PK0699900172906&SID=newused&BID=PK&CID=06&SOID=N&ISPRICE=76.0
Thanks again for all the input. Looking forward t
I'm very fond of the second one (the girl eating ice cream). The long
lens does give you an element of surprise and anonymity that can't be
accomplished with normal portrait lenses. Nice work.
Paul Stenquist
John Mustarde wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:43:25 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >>Since I ne
Hi,
Wednesday, January 1, 2003, 8:23:19 PM, you wrote:
>>Given the "rules" thread I couldn't resist looking for images conforming to
>>the "rule of thirds". I found a few that were kinda sorta there, but nothing
>>that struck me as a strong use of the "rule of thirds". For what it's
>>worth.
>
1 - 100 of 209 matches
Mail list logo
