Amen Lukasz, and may this be the last message on this thread.
I am personally looking to add a 28 mm f:2.0 to my collection for available
light photography. Is there one that has similar optical characteristics to
my beloved K28,f:3.5? I am not interested in the autofocus lenses.
Cheers, - And
I am personally familiar with the M28 f:2.8 (earlier version) and K28 f3.5.
The 2.8 M lens is OK but unremarkable. OTOH the K3.5 lens is spectacular.
Sharp, contrasty and showing wonderful tonality and extremely low flair
levels. Used with XP-2 super, it has the smooth tonality, sharpness and
bri
Steve:
We all have been in your situation at time or another. I think we can give
you all the reasons for using one type of a meter or the other according to
our experience. But perhaps it would be useful to do some serious reading
on the subject and make your decision then. Ansel Adams' "The N
he
meter is in the same light as the subject. IOW, you point a reflective
meter at the subject, and an incident meter is placed near the subject and
pointed towards the camera.
Hope this helps,
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Hagner, Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: &l
Bruce:
I disagree. My statement is correct. It is the reflected light that is
recorded on the film. The reflected light is measured by the reflected spot
meter and the reading does indeed indicate placement of this value on Zone
V, but it is up to you to place it on the correct zone for proper
Hi Steve:
I think some people think that it is "better" because it seems to work best
in average light conditions (not too much contrast and the same light
hitting the meter as the subject. It frees them from interpreting the light
so it is easier. It actually is easier in studio conditions.
Ho
Steve:
The light that is recorded on film is the reflected light from your subject.
The ambient meters measure only ambient light and ignores the reflected
light, so logically the reflected light meters give you information that you
actually need. Ambient meters, however work in many situations.
Hi Frits:
I used one of these some years ago for a day. It was a bit of a novelty
which wore off its appeal pretty quickly.
With a M50mm f:1.7 it gave a full frame image with enough distortion to call
it a fisheye effect. With my M28 f:2.8 it gave a circular image within the
frame. Optically i
Andre:
I would be interested in your findings so please post them.
Best, - Andrew.
-Original Message-
From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: March 18, 2003 1:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is flare bad?
>Hi Andre:
>
>It is interesting what you say about the K3
Hi Andre:
It is interesting what you say about the K35 f3.5 lens. I have actually
acquired one recently in a like new condition. I used it last weekend and
tested it for ghosting pointing the upper frame corner at the rather
brilliant sun (the snow and ice desert of the completely frozen Georgia
n (as opposed to the rangefinder) until
you develop the film. at least with an SLR, you can see whether the camera
is focused on what you want, and even then, there is some doubt if the
focusing screen isn't aligned correctly with the film plane.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "
Does anyone know if Mike Johnston's article "Lens Contrast And the Basics of
MTF" is available anywhere?
Cheers, - Andrew.
Perhaps they are the only people in the business (other than Leica) who
recognize that autofocus technology is not all that accurate (or desirable)
and are unwilling to compromise their rather fine optics. I personally like
the built quality of their MF lenses. As for the Bessaflex, it just might
Hi Boris:
The way I see it, it will depend on whether you want to engage the subject
or not.
If you do not want to engage the subject, one technique is to have your
camera prefocused and preset and at the right time simply raise it
discreetly to the eye level and release the shutter. The
raising
Peter:
I bought P67 165 mm F2.8 lens from them couple of years ago. They sent it
to me by mail and I got it in Toronto without any problems. I have not
heard anything negative about them, their prices seemed to be quite
competitive for Canadian market.
Cheers, - Andrew.
-Original Message-
Mike - Absolutely!
Many years ago (1978) I got my first camera - Pentax MX. (This was love at
first sight.) Then came the 6x7. Initially I used transparencies almost
exclusively until I discovered Fred Picker and took his Zone VI workshop in
Vermont. Since then I have been photographing and p
> >User interface doesn't count.
>
> Yes it is! Just try a Canon Powershot S40 and a Pentax Optio. The user
> interface of a DSLR is much more important than that of a SLR
>That wasn't my point. The point is that without getting people attention
they won't check out the interface. I do not know t
17 matches
Mail list logo
