>
> >I have seen my investment in K mount lenses go out the window
> >when Pentax decided against full compatibility.
>
> How does K & M lenses/non-A work on the *ist D (firmware 1.1. installed)?
> Do I have to focus and shoot stopped down (like with an old, preset lens) -
> with a dark vievfinde
- Original Message -
From: "Caveman"
Subject: Caveman goes digital
> So now I have some questions - not brand specific. I've read that
some
> people preffer to use these digi P&S with a "low sharpening"
setting and
> the lowest ISO, and do the sharpening later in Photoshop or
whatever.
Hi Caveman
I wonder whether a Digicam *automagically* leads to good PAW and PESO, I
think that the overall quality of the shoots often suffers if you have media
*a discretion* . But I understand you where not serious here :-)
Infrared is painful slow, only works to about 1 Meter distance and needs
Very nice photograph, Paul. To me the light gray beam in the window above
the car is a bit disturbing.
All the best
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 7. august 2004 22:48
Til:
Jens Bladt a écrit :
I have seen my investment in K mount lenses go out the window
when Pentax decided against full compatibility.
How does K & M lenses/non-A work on the *ist D (firmware 1.1. installed)?
Do I have to focus and shoot stopped down (like with an old, preset lens) -
1- You foc
>
> Only things that bugs me is why it must be so difficult to transfer the
> images to the computer. I mean, I have either to plug an USB cable or
> pull out the memory card and insert it in a reader. Why no IR port, so
> that I could just put the camera in front of the computer and that's all
>I have seen my investment in K mount lenses go out the window
>when Pentax decided against full compatibility.
How does K & M lenses/non-A work on the *ist D (firmware 1.1. installed)?
Do I have to focus and shoot stopped down (like with an old, preset lens) -
with a dark vievfinder?
What else wo
I think you guys may have seen this one before.
I had an 18x12" print made recently but the machine printed the whole
thing a little dark due to the large area of cloud. Next time I'll
send them a digital file.
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=8-Aug-2004
Cheers,
- Dave
http:/
Why are your lenes unusable on a ist D.
If I owned no dedicated (Pentax) lenses, bellows, flashes etc., I would
definitely go for a Canon 10D.
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send
How easy do you want it to be, what Norm said plus lazy bum...
Caveman wrote:
C'mon. I still have an LX and an ME Super and I'll keep the old Oly
P&S too (somewhere in the car's glove box). But no way I'll pay any
more film & processing & printing for the daily snapshots. And ah, the
instant gra
I find the USB connection to be much faster than IR... and far faster than
even a 1-hour place...
Tom C.
From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Caveman goes digital
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 00:25:29 -0400
C'mon. I still have an LX and an M
Marc,
Like Don says, Eric at Premier is a good resource. He repaired/CLA'ed numerous
cameras for me. He apparently worked for Pentax at one time.
He 'retired' to Tennessee a year or two ago after living in suburban Chicago. He
revived KX's and ES's/ESII's with bad meters for me, no problem.
I'm a dork and am mixing up things... please help me... I'm caught in a
temporal anomaly, please Mr. Spock...
Tom C.
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On list for a day
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 22:13:18 -0600
I hope, think that I was
C'mon. I still have an LX and an ME Super and I'll keep the old Oly P&S
too (somewhere in the car's glove box). But no way I'll pay any more
film & processing & printing for the daily snapshots. And ah, the
instant gratification factor imagine how easy I could produce
gazzilions of PESOs, P
I hope, think that I was just expressing a wish and an opinion... I thought
Paul S. started it :)
Tom C.
From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On list for a day
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:06:57 -0500
No Tom, I think there was a fla
Keep them coming Markus, as a travel junkie I love this stuff. Thanks
for sharing.
Norm
Markus Maurer wrote:
Please have a look at the presentation at:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=256444
No Tom, I think there was a flame war and you started it, you bastard!
Norm
Antonio wrote:
Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom.
On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but
not a flame war.
the only lens worth using it on is the 35-105/3.5, but it is marginal even
in bright light because of the loss of light in the adapter. i think
anything slower than a 2.8 isn't worth it. also, an extender magnifies the
center portion of the lens circle and so if you are using it on a less than
supe
If you can call it that...
Brendan wrote:
--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Sadly...
(Pentax Marketing Strikes Again!)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax has marketing?
__
Post your free ad now! http://persona
I know what you mean about the 85, I'm just going to use the 35-135 for now.
I do have a 19, 28, 200 and 300 but the 300 isn't very good.
Don't know about the hood yet, I'll let you know when it arrives in a few
days.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sen
Oh, yes. I forgot. Carry on as before.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Test
Why apologize, be proud, damnit!!
I am Canadian!
William Robb
Hey, that's the exact same 135 I bought after asking
about the exact same Takumar 135. :) Does the hood on
that one stay out fine? Mine doesn't like to stay in
the extended position, it sags or falls back in.
I've been happy with the results from it tho.
I lack a bit more than just a 35... I'm s
KW> I guess what I need is a head for the monopod that is basic. Quick Release
KW> and the ability to turn the camera for portrait type shots.
Hi Kevin, it's the other mentioned one - I don't recall the number,
but it's just a thing that can rotate in only one direction -
vertical/horisontal, 90 d
Found a nice A 35-105/3.5 the other day.
Just got this 135, 19 minutes after it listed:
http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/135_35.jpg
(No, I won't say the price this time, but it was better than KEH):)
Thanks for all your help deciding which one was the best "bang for the
buck".
All I'm after now is
Here's my (first) attempt.
http://www.oksne.net/wow/tanWow.html
Suggestions for further improvements?
Cheers,
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> http://www.tanyamayer.com/wowforweb.jpg
>
Okay, okay...let's try to get rid of the paranoia, alright? No, I mean you...
I suppose I could have just said, "Huh? Whaddya mean?"
But, I tried to talk to what you said...
Just assume I'm an old fart and sometimes just don't get it, if the comments
are a bit obscure.
I wasn't funnin' you. It's o
This one time, at band camp, fra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out there
> >> using, and why that particular head?
>
> I am using a normal medium ball head. But if you intend to use it for
> superteles (like 2.8/300 and similar),
Hi Bruce
I like the composition - simple and very effective. A classic "lead the eye into
the picture" composition. I'd like to have seen the same image photographed
later in the day - I think the colours in the vegetation and soils in the
distance might have had a bit more impact then?
I did
And here she is, bloodied but unbowed. Somewhat
to my dismay, you
can actually see EXACTLY how poorly I did by going
to the NSA website. Ugh.
for the quick version - I was 14-16 in Division 2
(of 7 divisions) Played a lot of
people I didn't know. I pulled only 6 blanks out
of 22 (in 11 games)
Good grief. Treasure the moment!
John
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:31:31 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why apologize, be proud, damnit!!
William Robb wrote:
Sorry.
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:25:54 -0400, Peter J. Alling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I always make fun of Frank and never make fun of Shel. But that's just
me.
That's because Frank can, and does, make fun of himself.
John
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Looked like you were being plretty flamey to me Tom.
A.
On 7/8/04 11:29 pm, "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but
> not a flame war.
>
> Welcome.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
I've dealt with Eric at Premier, seems fair, reasonable and very
knowledgable.
I believe he was with Pentax for quite some time.
He's helped me with a couple of nasty ME Super problems via e-mail, for
free!
Nice guy too.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Pentax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Sadly...
>
> (Pentax Marketing Strikes Again!)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
Pentax has marketing?
__
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Hello everyone,
I need to send out my K1000, ME Super, and Program Plus for cleaning,
lubrication, and adjustment. I've found Phil's Camera Service
(www.philscamera.com) and Premier Camera (www.premier-camera.com)
through search engines. Does anyone have any experience and feedback on
either of
I see you have given up argument yet again Greywolf and feel somehow insult
will win you the argument.
A.
On 7/8/04 11:08 pm, "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are
> not that dumb. Second, that means you are being a
Keith, I think that Tom lost the artument regarding focal lengh and
perspective/AOV some time ago and just keep arguing so as not to loose face,
digging an ever deeper hole for himself.
A.
On 7/8/04 10:40 pm, "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm
There wasn't a flame war over HCB. Maybe a little spirited discussion, but
not a flame war.
Welcome.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: On list for a day
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 16:39:53 -0400
Hi all,
I'm back for a day or s
Good movie, great photo, love the foreground detail with the
crowd/background.
My second 35mm was an 801, tough old beast, just gave it away (still
working) a few years ago.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 4:01 PM
There are two things I would like to address here Keith. First, I know you are
not that dumb. Second, that means you are being an (censored).
Have fun.
--
Keith Whaley wrote:
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use
mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop.
If I car
Americans probably know Shirley, maybe even the Canadians. If anyone
else would like to know her, rent the movie called "Heart Like a
Wheel." Bonny Badalia plays Shirley. Good story. I had the pleasure of
meeting Shirley several times over the years, and my race car even came
up against her on
Hey! SMILE when you say that. ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 3:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: ReSkema for 7.b 2004/2005: The new baby's here!
>
>
> Not a bad deal, na na na na na
>
> Jens Bladt
> ma
The guy who owns this car bought it new. I chose to shoot it in front
of a glass walled building instead of the usual void background. The
camera was the *ist D, the lens was the SMC Pentax 135/2.5, f11 at
whatever on a tripod. The lens was fitted with a polarizer to control
reflections a bit.
I essentially don't use any automatic 35mm cameras, I almost always use
mechanical cameras with a marked f-stop.
If I carry out the test you outline, I must measure the diameter of the
first camera's aperture blade's opening, and set the second camera to that
opening diameter, NOT the f-stop?
Is
Hi all,
I'm back for a day or so, just in time for the ping pong thread and an
HCB flame war.
I'm doing fine. I'm writing freelance at Y&R. That's going very well
and may become permanent. I shot two cars this morning. I used a glass
walled building as a background rather than the usual empty m
I wanted to apologize for my apologies, but with this offer I am not sure I will still
get my spanking...
On Thursday 05 August 2004 23:38, Bob Blakely wrote:
FJW> Maybe one of the girls on the list can give you your spanking.
FJW>
FJW> Regards,
FJW> Bob...
FJW>
FJW> From: "Frits Wüthrich" <[E
Thanks for the suggestions. Fortunately it is somewhat close. I'm
guessing it will be better with morning light, as it sits 1000 feet
down in the bottom of the canyon. Not much sunset light to speak of.
I'll have to get up early a couple of mornings and see what it looks
like.
--
Best regards,
Hello Don,
I truly appreciate comments. This is a case where I am unsure about
my overall feelings concerning this one. So I figured on putting it
up and getting some feedback from others, who's opinions I value.
Thanks for all input, good, bad or otherwise.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Saturday,
Not a bad deal, na na na na na
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 7. august 2004 21:41
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: RE: The new baby's here!
No, they're not.
They're GREAT deals!
No, they're not.
They're GREAT deals! ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The new baby's here!
>
>
> Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> >$102.01 with shipping. ;-)
> >Na Ner
GOOLLL!!
Peter J. Alling wrote:
PPPOONNGGG!!!
Norm Baugher wrote:
PING
Peter J. Alling wrote:
PONG
Bob W wrote:
ping
Swish...Darn I missed!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: PPP00NNGGG was [Re: Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]]
>
>
> PPPOONNGGG!!!
>
> Norm Baugher wrote:
>
> > PING
> >
>
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Test
> Why apologize, be proud, damnit!!
I am Canadian!
William Robb
No offense meant, certain things just get to me.
We have a couple of beautiful covered bridges up north,
they put "Chain Link Fence" :-( over the windows so no one would jump out!
Might's well have painted the beautiful aged oak purple!
You are of course 100% correct, just my (old hippie) hangup ab
Bruce, the scene looks like it has possibilities, the railings running off
into the distance really grab my attention. Your image doesn't do much for
me - centered makes it static & the lighting is harsh (try this again around
sunrise or sunset), also a different point of view (higher or lower came
Adelheid, (& Jostein) thanks for all your thankless efforts on behalf of the
PUG.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Adelheid v. K." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PUG - comments from the PUGmeister
> Hi folks,
>
> I saw this discussion about PUG vs PAW.
> I think Bernd put it ver
My God, it's a powerful throbbing purple...
Jon M wrote:
I'm finally getting around to posting some pictures on
here for y'all to see. :)
http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~jm34966/photography/CHAMPION.JPG
It's an Electro-Motive Division of General Motors
(EMD) E-6 locomotive, formerly belonging to the
Atlant
Don Sanderson wrote:
$102.01 with shipping. ;-)
Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner!
(Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.)
(It's that "inner childish..., I mean, "inner child" thing ) :-(
Don
I got my MX for $60 with shipping.
My SMC-M 135/3.5 I got for $25 with shipping.
The K28/3.5 for $40 with shipping
PPPOONNGGG!!!
Norm Baugher wrote:
PING
Peter J. Alling wrote:
PONG
Bob W wrote:
ping
$102.01 with shipping. ;-)
Na Ner Na Ner Na Ner!
(Oops, sorry! I meant, I was just lucky.)
(It's that "inner childish..., I mean, "inner child" thing ) :-(
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL
Why apologize, be proud, damnit!!
William Robb wrote:
Sorry.
I always make fun of Frank and never make fun of Shel. But that's just me.
John Francis wrote:
I don't know - peer pressure (or just fear of appearing stupid)
can be a pretty compelling thing. I would imagine it would take
a fairly bold poster to speak out here against a photograph from
Shel or F
Now you've gone and shattered MY frail ego! ;-)
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: fra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 1:38 PM
> To: PDML; PUGW
> Subject: lens testing !
>
>
> The excellent "lens testing" resource is
> http://cameraquest.com/lenstest.htm
>
>
Different standards I suppose, or different lenses. I will agree that
it becomes razor sharp at
f8.0.
Fred wrote:
It's very good, it follows the usual Pentax normal lens
characteristics, a bit soft, (by prime lens standards), wide open.
Very sharp when stopped down to 5.6 or 8.
I would basi
Well, the question was about portraiture, as I recall. In actuallity any lens
can be used for any photo as long as it is not too long to get the subject into
the frame from the distance you have to work in.
As for portraits, I love how our English/American cultural biases dictate
subject distan
I am interested in thoughts and comments on this one.
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_0023.htm
*istD, DA 16-45/4
Thanks,
Bruce
No, the lenses are NEARLY identical except for mount. The screwmount is
more versatile
and has better resale market because it fits way more cameras , not only
pentax K,
but even other makes like Canon AF with an adapter. Hence given a choice
between
the two for same price and condition, you are
Hi,
if you do get a zoom for your K1000, do get one with constant
aperture (that is, like 80-210/4, not 70-210/4-5.6). Otherwise,
your exposure will change when you zoom, and you will have to
forever adjust for it.
Good light!
fra
I'm finally getting around to posting some pictures on
here for y'all to see. :)
http://wcuvax1.wcu.edu/~jm34966/photography/CHAMPION.JPG
It's an Electro-Motive Division of General Motors
(EMD) E-6 locomotive, formerly belonging to the
Atlantic Coast Line Railway. It was probably built in
the 194
JCO,
If you have a M42 camera then it may make sense to consider that the Takumar
is an advantage. Do you have any information that suggests the K and
Takumar versions have different optics and/or apertures ? My comments are
based on the following quotation from Alex Nemerovsky's site:
"K500/4.
>> Whilst on the subject of Manfrotto monopods, What heads are folks out there
>> using, and why that particular head?
I am using a normal medium ball head. But if you intend to use it for
superteles (like 2.8/300 and similar), I just screwed them directly onto the 'pod,
without any head, the few
Swish..Darn I missed!
> -Original Message-
> From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:36 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re:Ping [was: Pong Was: [ping]]
>
>
> PING
>
> Peter J. Alling wrote:
>
> > PONG
> >
> > Bob W wrote:
> >
> >> ping
>
This is a young man's game. Too fast for me.
John
On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 10:36:15 -0500, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
PING
Peter J. Alling wrote:
PONG
Bob W wrote:
ping
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Too late. Frank has already deified him, so beatification and
sactification are both now redundant.
John
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:36:41 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:22, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
What was the my post about, in case you didn't notice, is how
t
F> I've heard that the Tamron is quite nice (although I'm quite happy
F> enough with my AT-X 80-200/2.8). The only thing that keeps me from
F> the Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses is the Ka version of the mount - while
F> I've found the K version to be quite rugged and foolproof (as in
F> "Fred-proof") to
On 7 Aug 2004 at 17:22, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
> What was the my post about, in case you didn't notice, is how
> the religiosity around HCB is detrimental to perception of his work.
> Perhaps you would like to discuss this, what I wrote about?
I hope the controversial cropping issue won't delay h
PING
Peter J. Alling wrote:
PONG
Bob W wrote:
ping
SB> And one guy from Magnum, expressing a personal opinion, now gives rise to a
SB> generalization of the man's character? Most people, especially successful
SB> and creative people, have detractors. To bring such a comment into a
SB> conversation such as this - a conversation about a man's work
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:53:59 -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
I don't know whether to try to find a gallery that's hip enough to be in
on the joke or to try to pass it off seriously at some really
pretentious place.
Seriously. There's more money in serious. :-)
Which jus
PONG
Bob W wrote:
ping
I disagree about the "k" and "screwmount" versions being the same
optically and both with same
manual aperture and "it makes little difference which you get" quote. It
is much more preferrable
to get the screwmount version in that case as it can be used on BOTH
screwmount and K-mount bodies, where
Sorry.
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: first question
> Cropping has everything to do with it. You can crop a shot form a
25mm so it
> looks identical to the shot you would get from a 85 mm. (focal
length does
> not change perspective). I believe DOF is very improtant in
p
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: first question
>
> > > The 135 is really only excellent as a portrait lens for tight
head
> > > shots
> >
> > ...or, if you like to sometimes stand back a little farther from
the
> > subject.
>
> I must be really strange, I've man
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: cost per mm
>
> > The Pentax 15mm f/3.5 that I just enabled myself with was right
in
> > the US$100/mm range.
> > Good stuff ain't cheap.
> >
> > William Robb
>
> Depends. A number of Pentax's good old lenses are expensive
primarily
> because of rarit
Hi Robert.
It will turn the 50 into an 85 F3.4, and the 28 into a 47 F4.8, both should
work fine.
The 35-105 becomes an F6 and may not autofocus very well, anything over 5.6
seems "iffy".
I just tried the converter on a 70-210/3.5 and wasn't pleased, sometimes it
focused OK, sometimes not.
This was
Markus:
I have always been interested in ships in general, and the people who
crew them. It is fascinating, to me, to see the large ships ply the
seas. Now, if you have some pictures from, oh, say, the early 1800s,
that would be good, too .
Seeing your pictures from your point of view was great
Hello,
I have a friend who is considering moving into AF Pentax film SLR from MF
Super Program. She has the excellent A 35-105 f3.5, A 50 f2.0 in addition to
a Gemini 28 f2.8. I have recommended the ZX-L due to budget constraints
(otherwise I'd recommend the MZ-S). My question is:
How well will t
I have great results with a Manfrotto joystick head (222) on my Manfrotto
compact monopod (479-4/LA24). The joystick does not produce gentle & smooth
movement, but gives all of the motion required. If you need long exposure
times, you can get better support by angling the monopod towards you - pl
Thanks Bob, apparently the 135/2.8s I've tried have been SO bad that it made
this one look good. ;-)
That's why I threw this question out there.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 6:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
I have the SMC 500/4.5 "K mount" version of the SMC Takumar 500/4.5, and I'm
very happy with it. AFIK, it is exactly the same as the Tak version, and
since it has a manual aperture (not controlled by the body), it makes little
difference which you get. I use my SMC 500/4.5 "straight up", and with
Yes, thanks for sharing that article. Look who the players are:
The top vendors in the digital camera market are Sony, Canon, Kodak,
Olympus, Fuji, HP, and Nikon, ranked in terms of 2003 U.S. unit share. Each
of these players captures more than 5% market share, and other players
capture individua
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don askes:
Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated?
Don,
I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by
the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in l
Don askes:
>>Have I just not experienced a "Great" 135 or is this lens being unfairly treated?
Don,
I've run some subjective tests with Pentax 135's. The A135/1.8 was best, followed by
the K135/2.5, followed by the M135/3.5, with the Takumar A?135/2.8 bayonet in last
place. I could see the di
film camera figures for Japan show that over there, film camera sales have
dropped over 50% since last year and show every sign of dropping even
faster. the fastest drop, as expected, are in P&S cameras. Pentax, the 5th
largest in sales, lost over 2% of its film camera market share to just over
7%.
> Hello there,
>
> I'm new here and was hoping you might be able to answer a couple of
> questions. I'm travelling for a few months and hoping to take a lot of
> pictures. And hopefully good pictures. I was originally planning on buying
> a Nikon Digit
I cant see any point in you tryingf the M 135/3.5 Don if like with the
Takumar you will only take your own impressions if they are backed up by
those of others as you have done here.
A.
On 7/8/04 8:39 am, "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Fred, good answers.
> I noticed that t
Hi Norm
Hey, I just eye witnessed how those great photographers careers probably
start.
Or maybe that "photo gene virus" in your
family gets active now.
greetings to Lukas from chocolate country.
Markus
> -Original Message-
> From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday,
Hi Shel
Interesting "profession", palm reading.
Are they tolerated to do that on the streets in Berkley?
I would like to see the writing better and less off the right background.
You missed the angle a bit for me but the subject is indeed interesting and
well seen.
thanks for sharing it
Markus
Hi Shel
glad you are still or again here.
Without your description this picture does not tell me a lot and for an
arranged shot it is not well composed too.
sorry, not this time ;-)
Markus
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 200
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
