Re: One lens only...

I don't believe in "the fold". Let's stick with moral turpitude. ]'-) Godfrey On Apr 8, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I shunned zooms for thirty years or so, but they've come of age and > are to be welcomed into the fold. > >> The use of zooms reeks of moral turpitude. -- PDML Pent

Re: One lens only...

- Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: One lens only... > Bob W wrote: >> The use of zooms reeks of moral turpitude. > > I disagree. > But only because I *like* moral turpitude. > ;-) You are not so much disagreeing as saying that you reek. William Robb -- PDML Pe

Re: I'm back

keith_w wrote: > frank theriault wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > > > >> Anne, >> >> You MUST come to Toronto, then! >> >> Like you and Dave, GFM is a no-go for me this year (Messenger World >> Championships are in Toronto this

Re: One lens only...

Bob W wrote: > The use of zooms reeks of moral turpitude. > MARK! (I know I can't be the first.) > Bob > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Bruce Dayton >> Sent: 08 April 2008 21:28 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject

Re: One lens only...

Take several lenses and leave behind a pair of shoes if you don't have space! Rick --- Peter McIntosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > My wife and I are off to the south island of NZ in > September for a couple of > weeks. I want to travel light, and am considering > taking just one

!

Mark Roberts wrote: > Bob W wrote: > >> The use of zooms reeks of moral turpitude. >> > > I disagree. > But only because I *like* moral turpitude. > MARK!!! > ;-) > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis

Re: I'm back

David J Brooks wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> frank theriault wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >>> Anne, >>> >> > >> > You MUST come to Toronto, then! >> > >>

Re: I'm back

P. J. Alling wrote: > keith_w wrote: > >> frank theriault wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Anne, >>> >>> You MUST come to Toronto, then! >>> >>> Like you and Dave, GFM is a no-go for me th

RE: Epson R800 wireless print server?

Thanks. I found a link to their site, and they claim compatibility with the R800, so I've ordered one and will see how it goes. Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Sorenson > Sent: 08 April 2008 02:29 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

Is the current lens focus fracas something that's just being noticed with the advent of the ability to discern and correct/adjust or is it something new? Makes me a bit uneasy and suspicious of all my lenses. Did B&H press for the "controlled conditions" applied in testing your 16~50 prior to agree

RE: One lens only...

It's not actually my opinion, it's just a cynical attempt to get on the quotes list before the snow melts. Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Stenquist > Sent: 08 April 2008 23:21 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re:

Re: One lens only...

On my 3 week trip this summer, I hauled everything. My wife ended up using my *ist D with the 16-45, and I used my K 10D with the 70mm limited almost exclusively. I did put a f 100-300 on for a couple of wildlife shots, but other than that, we would just trade lenses. I felt I learned a lot by

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem > Is the current lens focus fracas something that's just being noticed > with the advent of the ability to discern and correct/adjust or is it > something new? > Makes me a bit uneasy and suspi

RE: One lens only...

Based on year of single lens 35mm film cameras typically having a 40-45mm lens for widest possible usage, I would say at this point with Pentax digital that a good 28mm lens would be the best bet for all around usage on DSLR...A clean K28/2.0 does the trick nicely.. jco -Original Message-

Re: I'm back

P. J. Alling wrote: >ann sanfedele wrote: > > >>Including your's , there are at least 3 beds for me. >> >> >Mark! >(Taken entirely out of context, but hey)." > Maybe 35 years ago ... ;) ;) ann > > >ann sanfedele wrote: > > >>frank theriault wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>On Mon, Apr 7, 200

Re: I'm back

P. J. Alling wrote: >David J Brooks wrote: > > >>On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>>frank theriault wrote: >>> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:16 PM, ann sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Gasp! F R A N K !!! >>> >>> Have you no c

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

I think the DA* 16-50/2.8 is an aberration. All my other lenses check out quite nicely. Some adjustment dials them in more precisely, but they're all within acceptable range. Apparentlly there's some problem involved in the manufacture of the DA* 16-50 that sometimes results in a plane of focus

RE: One lens only...

On my recent trip to Egypt, I took only three lenses - an M50/1.7, 16-45 zoom and 50-200 zoom. Out of the three, the 16-45 I used most often, the 50-200 next, and the prime only for a few available (low) light shots. I'm more than satisfied with the results, and so if you want to take just one le

Re: One lens only...

>> On Apr 8, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Bob W wrote: >>> The use of zooms reeks of moral turpitude. >Bob W wrote: > It's not actually my opinion, it's just a cynical attempt to get on > the quotes list before the snow melts. Mission accomplished. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://p

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

Yes, in many areas, the customer is put in charge of QC. If it isn't noticed, the manufacturers saves on their QC budgets. It does, however, place the supplier in the position of buffer, therein making it important to deal with a reputable supplier such as B&H. Jack Jack --- William Robb <[EMAIL

Re: One lens only...

Steve Desjardins wrote: > > Makes you wonder if the Lens Police are going to enforce the one lens > only rule here. I don't know how many times we have had a similar > question - I can't answer it because I can't come up with a situation > where the lens police won't let me have another lens or tw

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at it! ;-) G On Apr 8, 2008, at 4:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think the DA* 16-50/2.8 is an aberration. All my other lenses > check out quite nicely. Some adju

RE: One lens only...

IF YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE LENS, ITS GOT TO BE NORMAL, (28MM ON DSLR) EVERYTHING ELSE IS LESS CALLED FOR. JCO -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.

Re: One lens only...

On Apr 8, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Steve Desjardins wrote: >> >> Makes you wonder if the Lens Police are going to enforce the one lens >> only rule here. I don't know how many times we have had a similar >> question - I can't answer it because I can't come up with a situation >> wh

Re: One lens only...

Not my term; I'm just an admirer that made the smart ass that made the "to serve and difract" comment. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/08/08 8:4

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

mine was somewhat fiddly on my k10d, focusing lousily when at 16mm position, but since i've done adjustment via the firmware crack of heavy backfocus for my fa 50 1.4, it seems to act better. what i did find out is that 50mm of 16-50 is something like 40mm in 50 1.4 terms as far as fov is concerne

HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Ok, so this is a photography/camera related website so it's not OT...really. It is, however, one of the most interesting and provocative photo sites I've ever seen. This guys takes his commitment to his subject to a totally different level... http://www.boyofblue.com/cameras.html Some of the sub

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

I'm forced to agree. This is what comes from using lenses on a test bed instead of in the real world. I only ever resort to this kinda' testing if my real world shots show optical deficiencies. Cheers, Dave At 08:50 AM 9/04/2008, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >Gads, I'm beginning to believe that

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

I don't know, sometimes mediocre photography, made into art by pinhole cameras that are mostly gimmicks. The question is would anyone take a second look if he used a Quaker Oats container, , or a cigar box,

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

P. J. Alling wrote: > I don't know, sometimes mediocre photography, made into art by pinhole > cameras that are mostly gimmicks. The question is would anyone take a > second look if he used a Quaker Oats container, > , or a cigar box, >

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

I would look closely. I never test lenses. But I have taken advantage of the focal point adjustment on the K20D. It's worthwhile. And when this lens showed aberrant behavior, I tested it further. I could have settled for what was essentially a defective lens. And if the chips fell right I m

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

Perhaps you should while it's still under warranty. I hope that my lens was the exception rather than the rule. I tend to think that it was. I've never resorted to extensive testing before. But I'm glad I did this time. Paul On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:50 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Gads, I'm begi

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

I wouldn't say pinhole photography is considered less or more "arty" than any other. But, as Belger explains, he believes pinhole photography is a more organic way to capture images. In fact, it's central to his idea of what he's trying to do in his art; connect with the subject on a deeper level.

RE: One lens only...

At 08:54 AM 9/04/2008, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >IF YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE LENS, ITS GOT TO BE NORMAL, (28MM ON DSLR) >EVERYTHING ELSE IS LESS CALLED FOR. >JCO While I tend to agree with the underlying sentiment, that kind of generalisation doesn't take into account what you may be shooting on a N

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

I don't know if it's more "organic." That sounds like a bit of peace, love and wampum lake nonsense to me. Like other forms of photography, it's fun. He should leave it at that. Paul On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:56 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: > I wouldn't say pinhole photography is considered less > or m

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

At 09:42 AM 9/04/2008, Paul Stenquist wrote: >I never test lenses. That may have been true once. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Alright I take it back, his art isn't a gimmick, his photography is. Brendan MacRae wrote: > I wouldn't say pinhole photography is considered less > or more "arty" than any other. But, as Belger > explains, he believes pinhole photography is a more > organic way to capture images. In fact, it's ce

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Like I said, you may not buy into it... I would classifiy this guy as perhaps more "artist" than "photographer." I like it because it's provocative. And the cameras are pretty cool, I mean, skulls and dragonflies? Bizarre. -Brendan --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

One thing's for sure, you've elevated flippancy to an art form. -Brendan --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alright I take it back, his art isn't a gimmick, his > photography is. > > Brendan MacRae wrote: > > I wouldn't say pinhole photography is considered > less > > or more "arty"

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

On Apr 8, 2008, at 19:50, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective > DA*16-50 in captivity. Perhaps I shouldn't look too closely at it! ;-) > I have almost saved up enough to buy one, and I'm scared to actually pull the trigger! -Charles --

PESO: Perfect Form

Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 Two things here. First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the perfect form. Hand out for balance. Head down. She's a natural. Second: Shot this with the obviously defective DA* 16-50/

Re: PESO: Perfect Form

On Apr 8, 2008, at 21:29, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 > > Two things here. > First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the > perfect form. Hand out for balance. Head down. She's a natural.

RE: One lens only...

yes, those are good for vistas but most of the time you are going to need tight shots too and you are screwed with such a wide lens unless you want to do "digital zooming" E. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

You got me:-). On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:16 PM, David Savage wrote: > At 09:42 AM 9/04/2008, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> I never test lenses. > > That may have been true once. > > Dave > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNS

Re: PESO: Perfect Form

Looks like major back focus.(?) Nice sharp grass well behind a soft (but cute) Grace. Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 > > Two things here. > First: I'm training Grace to be a plac

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Your point? Brendan MacRae wrote: > One thing's for sure, you've elevated flippancy to an > art form. > > -Brendan > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Alright I take it back, his art isn't a gimmick, his >> photography is. >> >> Brendan MacRae wrote: >> >>> I wouldn't sa

Re: One lens only...

Dave, I didn't find the 31mm limited was a bad lens for the South Island. There are so many opportunities... Here are some samples from a trip in the fall of '06. http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Sabbatical http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/NewZealand02 I used the 31mm limited exten

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

I hate to answer my own post, but obviously you haven't paid much attention to the titles I choose for my own photography. It's very hard for me to take someone such as Belger as seriously as he apparently takes himself. P. J. Alling wrote: > Your point? > > Brendan MacRae wrote: > >> One

Re: PESO: Break Out

>I have to go pee. >I'll be right back Hope eveything came out all right. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: PESO: Break Out I have to go pee. I'll be right back. Dave On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 9:51

Re: PESO: Perfect Form

I have to say I agree with the other comments, the grass seems to be in perfect focus. Paul Stenquist wrote: > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 > > Two things here. > First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the

Re: OT: another motorcycle thread

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > ... but a photo to share ... > > One so rarely gets to see one of these on the street anymore ... Glad > I had a camera with me. > > A mid-sixties era Ducati 250 Mark III "Diana" with the euro-style clip- > ons, etc. > >http://homepage.mac.com/godders/ducati-dian

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem > You got me:-). Nah, you test AF systems. You discovered you had a buggered lens by accident. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/list

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

- Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" Subject: Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem > Yes, in many areas, the customer is put in charge of QC. If it isn't > noticed, the manufacturers saves on their QC budgets. > It does, however, place the supplier in the position of buffer,

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" Subject: Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem >I would look closely. I never test lenses. But I have taken advantage > of the focal point adjustment on the K20D. It's worthwhile. And when > this lens showed aberrant behavior, I tested

Re: One lens only...

> I really like the term "lens police"! > > Now let's have someone use it in a quotation worthy of a PDML/NCCF > t-shirt and I'll make it available in the store... I once asked my wife to hand me the lens police. (please - for those who don't get it.) Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/2

Re: One lens only...

All right pull over, this is the lens police... Ken Waller wrote: >> I really like the term "lens police"! >> >> Now let's have someone use it in a quotation worthy of a PDML/NCCF >> t-shirt and I'll make it available in the store... >> > > I once asked my wife to hand me the lens police

Re: Accepted and Declined

- Original Message - From: "Brian Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Just for fun I thought I'd put together a gallery of images that have > been accepted and declined in the Pentax Photo Gallery. If anyone's > interested Brian: and that was fun to look at. Lots to like in the declined.

Re: PESO: Break Out

At 10:54 AM 9/04/2008, Ken Waller wrote: >From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I have to go pee. > >I'll be right back > >Hope eveything came out all right. Ur in(e) so much trouble now. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.n

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate to answer my own post, but obviously you > haven't paid much > attention to the titles I choose for my own > photography. You've got me there. It's very hard > for me to take someone such as Belger as seriously > as he apparently > take

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

If my titles aren't a simple descriptions, they're at least tinged with irony, sometimes outright parody. Geez It's seldom if ever that I take a photo that I consider particularly serious and then it's not my statement, it's simply recording what's there. I looked at Belger's work, he's st

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

If you don't take your work seriously, why should anyone else? -Brendan --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If my titles aren't a simple descriptions, they're > at least tinged with > irony, sometimes outright parody. Geez > It's seldom if ever that I take a photo that I > cons

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Once again answering my own post, if you think I take myself too seriously you haven't read my commentaries on my own work. > If my titles aren't a simple descriptions, they're at least tinged with > irony, sometimes outright parody. Geez > It's seldom if ever that I take a photo that I co

Re: Pulitzer

This is extremely moving. Derby Chang wrote: > I am speechless > > http://www.prestongannaway.com/main.php > > (the Pulitzer winning entry is under Stories and Essays - Remember Me) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser e

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

If it helps, know that I don't take you seriously. Ever. Cheers, Dave :-) At 12:42 PM 9/04/2008, P. J. Alling wrote: >Once again answering my own post, if you think I take myself too >seriously you haven't read my commentaries on my own work. > > > If my titles aren't a simple descriptions, th

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

Perhaps no one should. To paraphrase, I take pictures I like, if someone else likes them, that's their problem. Brendan MacRae wrote: > If you don't take your work seriously, why should > anyone else? > > -Brendan > --- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> If my titles aren't a s

Re: HIV+ blood for a #25 red filter? Why not!

I appreciate that, (I think). David Savage wrote: > If it helps, know that I don't take you seriously. > > Ever. > > Cheers, > > Dave :-) > > > At 12:42 PM 9/04/2008, P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Once again answering my own post, if you think I take myself too >> seriously you haven't read my comme

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

;-) I haven't used this example of the 16-50 to really say one way or another whether it might be subtley defective ... I simply prefer to use prime lenses most of the time anyway, in this focal length range. It's one of the lenses I have for 'evaluation', so I suppose I really should exam

Re: OT: another motorcycle thread

On Apr 8, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Christian wrote: >> >> One so rarely gets to see one of these on the street anymore ... Glad >> I had a camera with me. >> >> A mid-sixties era Ducati 250 Mark III "Diana" with the euro-style >> clip- >> ons, etc. >> >>http://homepage.mac.com/godders/ducati-diana-

Re: PESO: Perfect Form

On Apr 8, 2008, at 7:29 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Or a decent shot with an imperfect lens. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7147418 > > Two things here. > First: I'm training Grace to be a placekicker in the NFL. Note the > perfect form. Hand out for balance. Head down. She's a natura

Re: DA* 16-58/2.8 and the flat focus problem

I'm feeling the same way. Not having done any formal tests with it...of course I got the first one on the block so no one was worried at that point. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 5:50:36 PM, you wrote: GD> Gads, I'm beginning to believe that I have the only non-defective GD

URL change and cosmetic change to Pentax japan website

Just a short notice for you to know that Pentax website is now www.pentax.jp (instead of pentax.co.jp) and has been slightly change (on a cosmetic POV). It might lead to a better website design in the future hopefully. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- Photo: K10D,Z1,Super

<    1   2