Thanks for all your proposals. I think this MEsuper has a plastic screen. I
got the camera yesterday from ebay and examined and cleaned it in the
evening. Todays morning I have compared the brightness of the viewfinder
against that of my ME, and it is noticeable brighter, so it must be another
type
> My S.O. of nearly 17 years, Alma, and I were
> married at Inverness Registry Office at high noon
My best wishes for you! I hope she didn't force you. ;-)
Bernd
OK, I admit that I always try to be optimistic and hopeful.
I think there are lot of things that may perhaps exist but human intellect
is not able to conceive.
Regards
Bernd
--original message
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 08:21:20 -0400
From: Dan Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
n what *exactly* do you mean?
>
> Inquiring scientist wanting to know.
>
> --thomas
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 20:39:14 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (U+B Scheffler) wrote:
>
> > It is scientifically proved that the prayer of lot's of people for
> > a certain person
So I am the fourth. Constant good results troughout the range. And good
bokeh, for nearby objects, too - see my july pug entry
http://pug.komkon.org/03jul/green.html
Regards
Bernd
---original message--
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:01:22 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E
That is one thing that I like in PDML: I am always learning something new
about life and people.
When starting in this list I read all about Pentax gear and I spent very
much money on getting a better quality level of my equipment (I had been
warned ... )
Now I am switching more and more to read th
I think there is yet another thing Paul teaches us: One camera with one
(prime) lens can be enough to get impressive photos.
I admit I often forget that fact.
Regards, Bernd
---original
message--
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:54:25 -0400
From: fr
Because of several comments I buyed the SMC-M-135/3.5 in jan 2002 for 60
Euros and first was impressed. But in the summer on a biking trip I took a
picture that disappointed me and I found that this lens doesn't reproduce
enough details. I sold it and got me a SMC-K-135/2.5 with 58mm front. It is
m
It -is- fun!
I like especially the pics of my sons when they were childs.
You should look whether the viewer is added, can be used with slides only.
You can learn to look at prints, too, without any equipment, after you have
trained your eyes. I do it because I almost never use slide films. But on
Actual I can't remember because I have looked for several different lenses
and might mix them. But I noticed that a SMC A 20/2.8 went for a price I
didn't want to spend by the way. I have already the wonderful FA* 24/2.0 and
I am not sure if I am really in need of a 20mm. But there is a little bit
oding: 7bit
forget it the 20mm SMC Takumar sucks.
All the Kmount 20mms are much better.
JCO
> -----Original Message-
> From: U+B Scheffler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 5:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: Automatic diaphragm on adapted Takum
Hi all,
I have a question concerning the use of a Takumar lens with k-mount adaptor
on (for example) my K1000:
Will the automatic diaphragm work or do I have to close the diaphragm for
each shot manually?
Especially I thought of using a SMC Takumar 20mm lens which will be less
expensive than k-m
I just feel the need to join in: I, too, wish you all a happy new year.
Yesterday I reorganized my link-collection and got on Graywolf's site. I
stuck there for some time scanning over his story. Made me contemplative for
a while. So I think good wishes for a good new year are really useful for
s
Hi,
So when I look at my SMC Pentax 1:2.5 135mm (K-lens) I discover a nice
analogy to the second edition Takumar:
the greater gap,
mark for F4.
last marking 35 meters.
If you would state that the Takumar has 58mm filter size, too, I could
believe that the K SMC 2.5 135 is almost the same.
BTW: I g
This is no answer to the concrete question but I think it's worth to be
mentioned:
Some months ago I got a
+++ Kenko 2x KAX Macro Teleplus MC7 +++
on ebay and thought it would be a nice thing to play with. The price was
raesonable and no real risk. And I found: the results are very fine! It
mak
Perhaps there comes a zoom-lens-poll later?
Regards
Bernd
--original message--
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:34:09 -0700
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMC Pentax Super Wide K-Mount Lens Poll
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PR
Good lens ... and a very charming girl!
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Sleeper Lens / another 35mm 2450 scan
> Yesterday I recieved in the mail another interesting M42 lens,
> the
17 matches
Mail list logo
