Instead of pushing down on the shutter button, you flick your finger
across the button. The mirror will lock up and you are free to take
the picture.
Bruce
Monday, February 24, 2003, 10:31:19 PM, you wrote:
nmc> On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:22 US/Pacific,
nmc> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
On 25 Feb 2003 at 1:41, Peter Alling wrote:
> When you look at giga pixels in a reasonable sized sensor you're running
> into fundamental
> physical constraints. In other words you can't pack the photons tight
> enough for a hand held
> device.
It's more fundamental than that, there is an obvi
At the moment yes thats true! I read an article not long ago about
holographic optical storage systems being developed for computer
applications. In theory they work, but as yet the quantum physics hasn't
caught up to the researchers trying to build the things. Using this type
of storage medium
Peter Alling a écrit:
As good as the 55 f1.8 which is very good indeed.
The f:2/55mm is strictly the same lens that the f:1.8/55mm
There is a ring that limits the aperture to f:2 inside !!
Michel
But I bet the KX is more reliable. why?
becuase its really just a slightly modified spottie
which are extremely reliable.
Secondly TTL flash is overrated in my
opinion, on camera flash pix suck even when
they are perfectly exposed. Fill flash looks
good, but even the LX maxes out at 1/90 for flash
I noticed the problem was always in the center of the neg and
based on what everyone said I figured the neg was too close to
the glass in the middle, hence sagging.
What I tried was placing 4 quarters under the corners of the
film holder to hold the neg slightly higher during scanning.
PROBLEM SOL
I think it has to be the LX, for the meter that can go to minutes, the TTL flash - and
later when your funds have recovered - the waist level and angle finders. The mirror
lock-up on the MX seems to be a 'fortunate' bug but on mine it's unreliable. Tap the
shutter too hard and it fires, too ligh
Mine's 8.9 million, so that puts it at
approx Jan. 1965. 38 yrs old and still going strong.
Cool. Thanks for the info.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Antti-Pekka Virjonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: My latest
It's an optical effect that comes from the proximity of the glass
surface and the negative, and damn it I can't remember what it's
called. (Newtonian Rings)? There is nothing wrong with your
scanner. It just wasn't really designed for the type of scanning
you're doing. (Scanning transparencies
In the interview I read, he was surprised how close he came for a number
he pulled out of his a**.
At 12:46 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:28:51 -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> > I also think that the original [Moore's Law] comment
> > was made tongue in cheek.
Gordon Moore d
When you look at giga pixels in a reasonable sized sensor you're running
into fundamental
physical constraints. In other words you can't pack the photons tight
enough for a hand held
device.
At 03:35 PM 2/25/2003 +1100, you wrote:
Yes it may well be a fools game, but categorically stating what
8x10 sensor arrays in Wista style cameras?
At 02:39 PM 2/25/2003 +1000, you wrote:
On 24 Feb 2003 at 21:35, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> So, on how big a sensor to you see these gigapixel images coming from?
I see no problems, foot square sensors will be commonplace :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTR
It's essentially a stripped down ME, as such it's as good as an ME.
I've been happy with the one I have for it's purposes.
At 09:47 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Is the Pentax MV any good? Just curious...
Thanks
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center
Congrats! The SA 90/8 is a fantastic lens. You'll love it
more with every shot you make. I have the modern multicoated
version of this lens and I also have the SA XL 58/5.6 which is
a superwide for 4x5" and an equivalent of something between my
SMC 15/3.5 and SMC 18/3.5 for the 35mm format.
You
On Monday, Feb 24, 2003, at 17:22 US/Pacific,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before going too far in pursuit of the ideal body, you should see what
you
get with whatever gear you already have. It sounds like you are just
getting in to this type of work, so you probably have a good deal to
learn
in t
I wonder if the seller will think to put the drive cover back on the camera.
At 02:04 PM 2/25/2003 +1100, you wrote:
Good value at this price...
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=2912943555&rd=1
++
That looks like a moire-type interference pattern to me JCO. Is the
original not being held flat against the glass by the scanner? Do the
negatives a some curl in them that the scanner can't cope with?
Guessing
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
This is what LowePro said about the Dryzone 200.
"We were able to float the DZ-200 with about 50 lbs. of gear in testing.
It is critical that the zipper be correctly closed and well maintained."
Antti-Pekka
At 14:24 14.2.2003 +0200, I wrote:
>I just found an article (nicely written) about the ba
Welcome Bill.
My stuff is insured by a company recommended by my broker, and I have had
only good experiences with them. I'd strongly recommend getting a broker or
two to shop around and get some quotes for you.
HTH
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Henderso
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:36:23 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> > newton rings only occur when you sandwich
> > two pieces of glass right? Well in this case
> > there is only 1 piece of glass, the scanner's
> > bed glass. I am confused.
>
> Newton rings can occur whenever two surfaces come in close pro
whatever...but remember this conversation if we are all still around in
10 years time.
Cheers
Shaun
Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
Shaun Canning wrote:
Yes it may well be a fools game, but categorically stating what can
and can not happen in the future is just plain ignorant.
Normally I would agree
Is the Pentax MV any good? Just curious...
Thanks
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:28:51 -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> > I also think that the original [Moore's Law] comment
> > was made tongue in cheek.
Gordon Moore doesn't think so (the Moore of Moore's Law). He's
expounded on it recently in the IT trade press.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens,
get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off
to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like
John said, there's always used glass for sale that's
cheaper than this Sigma.
Also consider that the resale on this lens will be
lousy
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:45 -0700, John Mustarde wrote:
> >Photography can be expensive.
>
> Not really.
Not nearly as expensive as auto racing. Thank your lucky stars you're
only interested in photography that much. :-) I've got both diseases.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Hi;
Does anyone have any experience with the Kodak RFS 3600 film scanner?
Calumet has them on sale for $499, less then half the cost of a N***N 4000,
and it can do a full roll of negs uncut.
Also, has anyone done a comparison between a picture CD scan (or equivalent)
and a scan from a 2800 and/or
Shaun Canning wrote:
Yes it may well be a fools game, but categorically stating what can and
can not happen in the future is just plain ignorant.
Normally I would agree with you, but not in the regard of the wavelength
of light. It's not even a rule, it's a fact. This aint gonna change.
If yo
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
> newton rings only occur when you sandwich
> two pieces of glass right? Well in this case
> there is only 1 piece of glass, the scanner's
> bed glass. I am confused.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/faq/rings.shtml
Concentric bands of light sometimes seen
> On 25 Feb 2003 at 14:50, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
> > True, as the emulsion side is irregular and will randomize the surface to
> > surface contact such that the sub-lamda interference patterns are no
longer
> > visible.
>
> DOH, should read "lambda" of course.
>
> Rob Studdert
Excellent explanati
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Matt Greene wrote:
> Even then, "Afford ability" will be the catch. And
> then, only for those who buy 3-pass, $100,000+ Medium
> format digital backs today.
>
> Ed
> I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Who's Ed?
chris
While off topic, I guess some of you guys
use 4X5 once in a while so I figure I'll
report on my latest lens acquisition.
It's a Schneider Super-Angulon 90mm F8.
This is just like a 28mm on a 35mm camera.
Judging by the shutter and chrome barrel
I think it's 60-70's vintage. Anyway results
using i
There is no such thing as a rule that wasn't meant to be broken. While I
am aware of the nature of the physics involved Bruce, I don't pretend
to be an expert on things of this nature. However, whole new fields of
research in quantum physics have still yet to be explored so who knows
where thi
Like repealing laws of physics?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...only they call it R&D, and the results of their foolishness are
called INNOVATION.
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Studdert"
> Subject: Re: OT: How things change so quickly
>
>
> > On 24 Feb 2003 at 21:35, Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > So, on how big a sensor to you see these
> gigapixel images coming from?
> >
> > I
Yes it may well be a fools game, but categorically stating what can and
can not happen in the future is just plain ignorant. As I have said all
along, the technology may well be completely different, but we will have
gigapixel resolution in digital cameras in the future. I understand the
restri
>>Photography can be expensive.
> Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
> you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
;-)
> There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap
> bargain.
A bargain, yes. Dirt cheap, no.
> You real
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Moore's Law depends on shrinking the geometries of the lines, traces and
devices in the IC's. There are limits to this. Digital cameras are
starting towards the end of where it is getting hard to shrink things.
It should also be noted that Moore's Law applies to CPU's. It
Yes Bruce, Moore's Law does specifically relate to CPU performance, so
it is perhaps not the best analogy to use here. However, I still
maintain that we WILL be using Gigapixel digital cameras in 10 years
time. Wherever there has been a problem with electronics in the past
engineers and designe
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. ...
Photography can be expensive."
By mounting a 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC on a partial-frame DSLR, you can attain long
(small-birdable) focal lengths AND fast f/stops. I've basically called a
morat
J.C.
Looks to me like ripples in a pond . . . is it possible that there is
something causing the film to stick out? Amybe some sort of particle
that isn't being scanned?
Otherwise, I'd say that the imaging sensor isn't being held steady,
or something, though that doesn't sound right eithe
David Barts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
"So, should I even consider a K2 or KX?"
Absolutely! I owned a KX and found that even when I wasn't using MLU, my
prints seemed sharper because of the low vibration. The K2 adds
autoexposure. Only the KX allows MLU in real time or with the timer. I sold
the K
Moore's Law depends on shrinking the geometries of the lines, traces and
devices in the IC's. There are limits to this. Digital cameras are
starting towards the end of where it is getting hard to shrink things.
It should also be noted that Moore's Law applies to CPU's. It's much
harder to impro
On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:32 PM, KT Takeshita wrote:
On 03.2.23 3:06 PM, "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There has been some reports that *Ist is more than a camera name but
a
"brand" name for certain Pentax products (SLR's).
Hi folks,
As long as I can see in Pentax Japan's
Yup. Sounds like newton rings. Try scanning the neges emulsion side down.
Works sometimes.
John Poirier
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discuss Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: February 24, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: Weird scanning problem
I'm at that awkward age where they look equally good.
At 06:42 PM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
A friend worked for a major university in the administration
building. One fall at the start of a new year, mothers and daughters
came to pay tuition bills and he had a revelation. The moms had b
It's a wonderful lens. I've always felt it to be under-rated or at least
under-appreciated. Not quite fast enough to be "sexy" or exotic, they're
cheap as hell (I know that's not an issue, Steve, because you already own
one), often going for $10 or so on eBay. I suppose that because they were
th
Good value at this price...
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=2912943555&rd=1
Shaun Canning
Cultural Heritage Services
newton rings only occur when you sandwich
two pieces of glass right? Well in this case
there is only 1 piece of glass, the scanner's
bed glass. I am confused.
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PRO
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 08:27 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I've been scanning 4X5 negs the last few days
with my Epson 2450 and I'm getting a weird
"pattern" on my scans that looks kinda like a fingerprint
but it's definately not. I've tried scanning in
the holder and flat on the glass wit
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: Weird scanning problem
> Sample scan, cropped showing problem:
>
> http://jcoconnell.com/temp/apartment02p.jpg
Thats a Newton ring, like Doug sez. Try raising the humidity in your
computer area.
William Robb
Now there is a brave prediction. Absolutely can't happen! Wilbur and
Orville's critics probably said the same thing. Give me one good reason
why digital cameras won't technologically advance at the same rate as
other electronics?
Cheers
Shaun
Ryan K. Brooks wrote:
Shaun Canning wrote:
Hi all
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Lawrence Kwan wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Dan Scott wrote:
I hear ya, but as it's the only 5MP P&S Pentax has mentioned, fair or
not, it's the only Pentax I can compare to the other 5MP digicams. :-(
But you forgot Pentax has a *5X* optical zoom vs Sony'
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
>
>Photography can be expensive.
Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap
bargain.
Po
Get the Pentax Adapter. I have one of each and the non Pentax adapter
was a total waste of money.
At 03:45 PM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
How good is the Super Takumar 55 f2 m42 mount? I've looked on several
pages but can't find any evaluations (just specs). My daughter is
taking a photo class
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:27:56 -0500, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> http://jcoconnell.com/temp/apartment02p.jpg
Newton rings. But I don't know how to get rid of them. Try a Google
search on "Newton Rings".
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Shaun Canning wrote:
Hi all,
Funny how things change isn't it? If digital camera performance and
capacities follow Moore's law, then we can expect to be talking about
Gigapixel resolution in a decades time...
Absolutely cant happen.
As good as the 55 f1.8 which is very good indeed.
At 03:45 PM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
How good is the Super Takumar 55 f2 m42 mount? I've looked on several
pages but can't find any evaluations (just specs). My daughter is
taking a photo class and needs a manual camera. She really doesn't l
I've been scanning 4X5 negs the last few days
with my Epson 2450 and I'm getting a weird
"pattern" on my scans that looks kinda like a fingerprint
but it's definately not. I've tried scanning in
the holder and flat on the glass with same results.
Also tried 1800 as well as 2400 ppi, same prob.
The
Another thing to consider is the price of pictures. 645 gives 15 exposures
per roll of 120, while the 6x7 gives only 10. It may or may not matter to
you, but it is a factor that shouldn't be overlooked.
Pat White
Shoot*ist
...with apologies to John Wayne movie lovers...
--
John Mustarde
www.photolin.com
Well, you're right, Bruce...they didn't mention Pentax that I noticed!
On the other hand, who's Thom to be predicting?
keith
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
>
> There is an interesting (to me) piece about the direction of digital
> photography in 2003 by Thom Hogan here:
> http://www.bythom.com/2003p
When it feels enough tension on the film to indicate the end of the roll.
At 10:07 AM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On February 24, 2003 09:42 am, Fred wrote:
>
> I find the ME Super quieter than the MX, and the MX quieter than the
> LX. And the ZX-5n seems quieter than any of them (except when it
I have noticed that LX prices seemed to have gone down on eBay. Someone
wrote that if you get an LX you might have ongoing repair bills on it. I
have an an earlier model LX and have not experienced some of the situations
mentioned by others on this list.
Jim A.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply
Hi all,
Funny how things change isn't it? If digital camera performance and
capacities follow Moore's law, then we can expect to be talking about
Gigapixel resolution in a decades time...
http://starterupsteve.servepics.com:6/funny/computer.jpg
--
++
I tried to point this out a long time ago but no one seemed to care. The ZX
series of cameras seem to have quieter shutter/mirror/winders than any of the
manual mechanical camera shutter/mirror combinations. I happen to like the old
metal bodied cameras better but at least I'm honest with myself
Hi Guys and Gals,
I recently subscribed to this list and this is my first post, I shoot a Pentax 67ii
amongst other things.
I was wondering if any one could reccomend some good camera insurance in Australia?
I was hoping to insure my Pentax 67II and Canon 1Ds and lenses.
Cheers,
Bill
___
There were many proprietary flash units, at least on American
cameras, that had hotshoes for their attachable bulb flash units in
the '40s and '50s. The Univex Mercury and Argus C4 come to mind. The
synch contact in the Mercury flash unit was raised up significantly,
though, so that a modern fl
I've never seen a non-EFU flash unit that would sync through a hotshoe.
At 04:20 PM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
http://whitemetal.com/pentax/spotmaticii/spotmaticii_06.jpg
It is not a common feature and I had not noticed it when I first used the
SPII with a flash...
Andre
At 06:35 PM 2/22/200
Peter Jansen said:
> I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens.
What's wrong with the Sigma?
I have to believe that at $5000 the Sigma has decent optics, and "decent"
includes capability in addition to fussier details of optical quality like
how good the bokeh is.
But it's all academic fo
Cool.
At 03:54 PM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
The only Spotmatic with switchable flash synch on the hotshoe:
http://whitemetal.com/pentax/spotmaticii/spotmaticii_06.jpg
... on ppro's exhaustively indexed site.
At 06:35 PM 2/22/2003 -0500, Gregory wrote:
The offset on top dead center is standa
To use a faster shutter speed you have to adjust your exposure to match
the light output for FP bulbs. It works the same as for ambient light.
You can use FP bulbs at any shutter speed with a Focal Plane shutter if
you take this into account.
At 11:56 AM 2/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Mat Maessen sai
I concur... I had a SMC-M 28mm f/2.8 (Type I) and did not feel it performed
very well. Sold it and bought a SMC-M 28mm f/3.5. This lens performed
better but I felt it was too slow. I sold it and bought a SMC-K 30mm f2.8.
Great performance and adequate speed. Now I am happy.
Jose R. Rodriguez
I'd say mine is a Type 1.
John P
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: February 24, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Advisor Needs Advice--
> > Am I allowed a 'me too'? I have no complaints with the M28/2.8 either!
>
>
> John P. and John
I'm likely going to be doing some extreme macro photography this summer
(in the 1X to 4X range), so I've been seriously considering getting a
body that offers MLU. I detest autofocus; worse, the modern Pentax AF
bodies all appear to offer no way to get a focusing screen with a
split-image cent
On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Mike Johnston wrote:
Dan,
Yeah, that one does look killer.
--Mike
It does. Just noticed Steve's Digicams has a link to the Sony brochure.
Dan Scott
That's a great story - especially since I used to own a Pinto (not the fun
explosive model), and it was usually covered in something.
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: To Everyone who
> My first one was a couple of months ago, in a magazine
> for buildings-home-owners:"Nuestro Consorcio" (small
> run of 1000 magazines).
> It was the cover. I'll be doing the next cover, next
> month. If you want to see the pic and cover:
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=2850
Pål,
That's like saying that any two cameras operate about the same. It is
most like comparing the LX to the ZX-5n (build quality aside). The LX
is manual focus, has different finders has a different feel, lenses of
that era feel different, etc. Looking through the finders is
different, aspect
Pål,
Well I tried to 645n's and it was no different. Perhaps the 645nii or
maybe later modified 645n's but the brand new ones in the shop I
bought from had that issue.
Bruce
Monday, February 24, 2003, 2:21:02 PM, you wrote:
>> Kepplerian finder must be dead centered on your eye and is hard
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Dan Scott wrote:
> I hear ya, but as it's the only 5MP P&S Pentax has mentioned, fair or
> not, it's the only Pentax I can compare to the other 5MP digicams. :-(
But you forgot Pentax has a *5X* optical zoom vs Sony's 4x.
You really cannot compare camera with different zoom ra
The 150/2.8 for the 645 is a very very nice lens, probaly one of my
favourites from pentax.
The 150/3.5 on the other hand, leaves a bit to be desired.
Regards,
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:50 AM
Subjec
Mark,
Are there any other lenses in 67 that are not available in 645 or that
are real dogs in 645?
I have both 165's and have debated with myself many times as to
whether to sell the 2.8 because of the need of the leaf shutter. But
that extra stop is always handy to have and the lens does have v
> -Original Message-
> From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Mark wrote:
>
> > Actually, I'm considering doing just that myself. I'm
> thinking of the 67
> > 165mm f2.8 for my 645. (I've heard people say they don't
> like the 645
> > 150/2.8, which is the closest 645 lens)
>
> Wh
> Kepplerian finder must be dead centered on your eye and is hard to use
> when wearing glasses.
Thats the old one. It was modified on the 645N and NII
Pål
Mark wrote:
> Actually, I'm considering doing just that myself. I'm thinking of the 67
> 165mm f2.8 for my 645. (I've heard people say they don't like the 645
> 150/2.8, which is the closest 645 lens)
Why? I've heard that the 165/2.8 is not the best among the Pentax 67 lenses whereas
the 150/2.8
Bruce wrote:
>If you like the old style of cameras and handling then you
> might like the 67, if you like all the automation of the new cameras
> then you will probably like the 645.
(snip)
>I tend to shoot more manually or aperture priority, liked
> better the style and handling of the 67ii and
Won't the postman be confused?
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: Sell me your zipcode!
> Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada
>
> Just the first 3 digits would be fine.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> --
> CAMERA DIRECT
>
Killer price for that beast, too!
keith whaley
Mike Johnston wrote:
Dan had said:
> > I saw this, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022406sonyv1.asp , this
> > morning and am quite impressed with the specs. This looks to be an
> > awesome 5 megapixel P&S.
> >
> > Just slightly larger than t
Thanks, Dan
Yes, it's a very beauty building (it's a twin towers),
and very known in Buenos Aires. A friend of mine does
the design of the magazine. He showed me an ugly photo
he took of the same building, so I told him I had took
a nice night-pic of it. He really liked it. I didn't
got paid, but
"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>do you still get the auto aperture function
>when you mount a 67 lens on a 645 body
>via the adapter?
Yep. (So I'm told.)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's really twisting his meaning. How many 645 owners
> out there go
> >out of their way to purchase a 67 lens specifically to use on their
> >645? I gotta believe it i
Hi Fred,
I've been trying to email you but I'm not sure if they're getting
through. Could you please email me off-list?
Many thanks,
Cotty
Oh, swipe me! He paints with light!
http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Free UK Macint
Yeah, I guess that's true. It would also be true if Mike Johnston
lived in my darkroom with his Saunders 4500, but I don't think either
is going to happen.
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROT
> Hallo Mike
> is the 10D the upscale or the basement one?
> Regards
Rüdiger.
I don't know. I'd guess the former, but I'm not sure. The formal
announcements haven't been made yet.
--Mike
My local store even have a F 50mm f/1.7 for $50!!!
And you get everything?
/Paul
I think you could probably even get a good MF K-mount Pentax lens (SMC-M
50/2, SMC-A 50/2) for the price of the adapter or not much more.
Gosh, I'll even sell you an SMC-A 50/2 or an SMC-M 50/1.7 for $25 or $30 if
Yeah, you don't want to go out barefooted today.
On Monday 24 February 2003 09:31 pm, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dan Scott posted:
> >
> > Still dropping too; it was about 35 F when last I
> > looked.
>
> Balmy 37 F here.
>
> Guess
> I saw this, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03022406sonyv1.asp , this
> morning and am quite impressed with the specs. This looks to be an
> awesome 5 megapixel P&S.
>
> Just slightly larger than the Optio 550, it features a flash hotshoe,
> ISO 100-800, a Zeis Vario-Sonnar 4x zoom lens, and 3
Type 1 - chrome accent and 156g.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Advisor Needs Advice--
> > Am I allowed a 'me too'? I have no complaints with the
do you still get the auto aperture function
when you mount a 67 lens on a 645 body
via the adapter?
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Seeking advise on medium format
>
>
the sp500 and the k1000 weigh virtually
the same! Thats because a K1000 is
essentially the same chassis with a k mount
JCO
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: MF Normal Lens
1 - 100 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
