--
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Novice again
Yea, but with kids and dogs it's not scratching the lens, it's the
stubborn nose prints.
True story from my last trip.
I was changing lenses, and had made the mistake of l
Yea, but with kids and dogs it's not scratching the lens, it's the
stubborn nose prints.
On 10/11/2010 6:09 PM, eckinator wrote:
2010/10/11 John Sessoms:
The PL is almost certainly a linear polarizer (Polarizer, Linear).
It should work with a digital camera as a polarizer, but might make
au
On Oct 11, 2010, at 6:09 PM, eckinator wrote:
> As for protecting the front element, I've stopped using always-on
> filters and never managed to scratch a lens - the hood usually keeps
> harm at arm's length so to speak. Only exception is photographing kids
> and dogs... also, scratches on the fr
On Oct 11, 2010, at 5:27 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> Two filters you can likely use - polarizer and split neutral density filter.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graduated_neutral_density_filter
>
> They can be combined.
>
> I would also suggest a second lens - perhaps a medium zoom - 35-70 or
2010/10/11 John Sessoms :
>
> The PL is almost certainly a linear polarizer (Polarizer, Linear).
>
> It should work with a digital camera as a polarizer, but might make
> auto-focus problematic. For auto-focus cameras the Circular Polarizer (CP)
> is recommended.
Often times also marked PL-CIR.
As
From: Eric Weir
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Your PL is probably a linear type.
To use a polarizing filter, you rotate it while looking through
the viewfinder to get the best effect - they work best at a angle
of around 90 degrees to the sun, as Larry said.
Thanks, Brian.
From: Eric Weir
A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix to join a couple of
my long-time, well-known sisters and another we'll be meeting for the
first time -- we only discovered her this past January; she's
English; our father served in the US Army Air Force in England during
WWII -- an
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:06 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> I think "Don't worry about committing Art yet" is a "Mark!"
Don't know that I'll take it with me, but I've printed out a collection of the
most pointed pieces of advice from yesterday for easy reference.
That one I don't need to print out, an
On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:58 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Of course, post lots of your pics when you get back so we can
> criticize the hell out of them. ;-)
Well that would be quite a change of personality for the group, wouldn't it?
Thanks, Steven.
-
On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Go, have a good time, try different things to see what works and what
> doesn't. Don't worry about committing Art yet, or you'll end up paralyzed.
Thanks, Doug. It is a family trip, and the emphasis will be on that. But it
would be a shame to m
Doug Brewer wrote:
>I'll agree with Godders here. Of course, I =would=, being a guy for whom
>a trip with one or two focal lengths is perfectly fine.
I'm just finishing up a photo book of stuff shot on a trip a few years
ago on which I carried only two primes with me each day.
>Go, have a good
Of course, post lots of your pics when you get back so we can
criticize the hell out of them. ;-)
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>> A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix...
>>>
>
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix...
I haven't been doing much shooting, but I imagine I'll be shooting a fair bit
on this trip. Following advice given by several here earlier, I'm taking my DS
and one
Eric,
No worries. Pictures of parents who were once young and vital can be
moving for so many reasons.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> Here's the link to the photos that go with my story that Paul Sorenson put up
> on the web for me. As he explained, he en
Den 10. okt. 2010 kl. 22.46 skrev Bob W:
>>>
>>> If you think that you're the rankest, you obviously have not smelled
> certain
>> of the people on the list.
>>
>> Hey, stop talking about Cotty like that...
>>
>
> you should try standing next to me after I've been jogging...
I´m not impressed
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Bob W wrote:
> you should try standing next to me after I've been jogging...
I'll put my stinky two year-old shoes after a 90 plus run in the humidity down
here in Georgia up against anybody -- shoes or whatever. I left em to dry out
in the sun before allowing them
> >
> > If you think that you're the rankest, you obviously have not smelled
certain
> of the people on the list.
>
> Hey, stop talking about Cotty like that...
>
you should try standing next to me after I've been jogging...
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/ma
On 10/10/2010 4:09 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If you have the two touch Vivitar it is fairly sharp stopped down a bit,
however it's got lots of elements and not the best multi-coating so part of
that unsharpness is due to veiling flair. A good lens
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:34 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> If you have the two touch Vivitar it is fairly sharp stopped down a bit,
> however it's got lots of elements and not the best multi-coating so part of
> that unsharpness is due to veiling flair. A good lens hood helps.
>
> The lens formula is
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:04 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> The 28mm is effectively a normal lens on APS-C,. You'll probably want a wider
> lens, I'd go with 24mm or even 20mm, if I was only carrying one lens. I'd
> probably carry at least two though. A 20mm and a short telephoto, maybe
> 50-55mm, or
On 10/9/2010 6:43 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
UV, and skylight filters are clear. They nominally block out UV light that
would focus differently than visible light, and expose film our of focus,
causing a slight blurriness. These days they mostly serve
On 10/9/2010 4:21 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
If you're shooting outdoors, it can be very handy to have a polarizer. Not that
the polarizer won't work as well to bring out the clouds shooting either
directly into, or directly away from the sun as it wi
If you have the two touch Vivitar it is fairly sharp stopped down a
bit, however it's got lots of elements and not the best multi-coating so
part of that unsharpness is due to veiling flair. A good lens hood helps.
The lens formula is closely related to ,(supposedly identical, in fact,
to),
The 28-200 is surprisingly compact, and much better than it's
reputation, (formed on 35mm film), when coupled with a APS-C sensor. It
doesn't however give you anything like a wide angle. You can however
get them relatively cheaply. Unfortunately KEH doesn't have one in
stock right now, they
The 28mm is effectively a normal lens on APS-C,. You'll probably want
a wider lens, I'd go with 24mm or even 20mm, if I was only carrying one
lens. I'd probably carry at least two though. A 20mm and a short
telephoto, maybe 50-55mm, or 85-100mm, if you've got one. My first kit
consisted of
On 10/9/2010 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Oct 9, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix to join a couple of my
long-time, well-known sisters and another we'll be meeting for the first time
-- we only discovered her this past January; she's Engl
Here's the link to the photos that go with my story that Paul Sorenson put up
on the web for me. As he explained, he enlarged them and tweaked the brightness
and contrast a bit. I think they're fine. As I said to him, at times I get a
bit choked up about this situation myself, and looking at th
On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> A "normal" lens hood, available as a screw-in metal hood in 49mm
> thread size for about $7 each, will work for both those lenses. Best
> thing you can add to those lenses to protect them and to reduce flare.
>
> While an additional longer
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> Thanks, Godfrey. I do have a 50 -- a 1.7 M. Hadn't thought about a hood. Only
> ones I've got are built-in on longer lenses.
>
> Going with two small lenses has strong appeal. [My 50 is smaller than the
> 28, even though it's faster.] ...
A
On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> The 28mm is a very good "shoot anything" choice for a Pentax DSLR. It
> is a wide-normal on the format. Be sure you have a good lens hood on
> it.
>
> I'd also bring a 50mm lens, if you have one. The combination of a wide
> normal and a sho
On Oct 10, 2010, at 11:17 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> I have an Pentax A70-210mm F4 and its an excellent
> lens with great sharpness/color saturation,
> from corner to corner on a APS sensor (never tried it on film).
> based on its usual street price on ebay of
> around $90-$120 its currently a s
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix...
>
> I haven't been doing much shooting, but I imagine I'll be shooting a fair bit
> on this trip. Following advice given by several here earlier, I'm taking my
> DS and one lens, an a 28/2.8.
, October 10, 2010 10:56 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Novice again
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> In general, personally I would recommend against manual focus lenses,
> especially telephoto ones. My eyesight makes it difficult to focus
> preci
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
>
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Guide-to-buying-a-polarising-filter-131
Thanks, for this, Brian. They've also got a companion piece on using polarizing
filters.
-
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>>> 1) Protect the surface of the lens, being cheaper and easier to replace.
>>
>> Would you want to use a polarizing filter the same way?
>
> I would not, because you will lose more than a st
On Oct 10, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> In general, personally I would recommend against manual focus lenses,
> especially telephoto ones. My eyesight makes it difficult to focus precisely
> even with the help of Katz Eye (split prism, etc) focusing screen. Given that
> 70-210 (if
On 10/10/2010 3:06 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
Thanks, Boris. I've gotten quite an education from this thread. That
is, if I put into practice what's been suggested. I'm undecided about
what to take for a long lens, my a 70/210, which I went shopping for
because I knew it was highly rated, or to get me
On Oct 10, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> If you don't take Eric up on his offer,
> Picasa is a good alternative. See here
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan
> I use the site to post sanpshots, it's free from Google.
Thanks, Bob. I'll keep it in mind for when I have something th
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> On 10/9/2010 9:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> When I travel light, I like to bring two lenses, a zoom and a fast
>> prime. The zoom gives you the range of lengths, and the prime allows
>> you to shoot in low light.
>
> Larry's right. Though havi
On Oct 10, 2010, at 1:25 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
> What a fascinating story! And so great that you're all going to get
> together. If you'd like to share the photos, you can e-mail them to me off
> list and I'll post them on my web site for a week or two - longer if you'd
> like.
Thanks, P
On Oct 10, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:38 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by this. The exposure lock button is only
>> valuable if you have a weird exposure situation, you can take a reading off
>> a neutral subject and lock it.
>
> I
Eric,
If you don't take Eric up on his offer,
Picasa is a good alternative. See here
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan
I use the site to post sanpshots, it's free from Google.
I started on an overseas trip to New Zealand as a way for the family to watch.
And I surely enjoyed your story.
Rega
On 10/9/2010 9:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
When I travel light, I like to bring two lenses, a zoom and a fast
prime. The zoom gives you the range of lengths, and the prime allows
you to shoot in low light.
Larry's right. Though having been a prime lenses person, I admit I
wasn't all to right abo
Eric -
What a fascinating story! And so great that you're all going to get
together. If you'd like to share the photos, you can e-mail them to me
off list and I'll post them on my web site for a week or two - longer if
you'd like.
-p
On 10/9/2010 11:35 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
A copy of thi
A copy of this got sent without the explanation I intended to insert: As you'll
see below, I originally attached three photos, which caused the message to
bounce. So now I know attaching photos is a no-no. Too bad. The three I tried
to send made a nice set to go with this story. [Which as I ack
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:38 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. The exposure lock button is only valuable
> if you have a weird exposure situation, you can take a reading off a neutral
> subject and lock it.
I think, on the DS, it's a the only way to set aperture with
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:43 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> I'm a bit confused. Is the the 28 an A or FA? Why would the manual
> (M) lenses teach you less about exposure. You'll learn quite a bit
> with the M's since you will notice the exposure more. As a matter of
> fact, when I use the M's on s
On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:31 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Jeffery Smith wrote:
>> With memory cards as cheap as they are, I don't shoot in anything but RAW. I
>> never need a string of closely-timed images, so RAW is normal for me. Unless
>> it is overcast, I won'
Eric,
Throw the A70-210 lens into your bag and use it if the chance arises.
Put the 100mm macro onto the camera tonight and start practicing with
the green button.
You'll learn plenty and the conscious step of pressing the button to
determine speed will be educating.
It's really not a problem, don'
Of course. But sometimes, you have to make pictures in an "it is what
it is" situation. The light will be harsh, but the scenery will still
be breathtaking. Enjoy your family, make the best of the photos, bring
home happy memories.
And be careful when taking family photos at the rim of the Canyo
With memory cards as cheap as they are, I don't shoot in anything but RAW. I
never need a string of closely-timed images, so RAW is normal for me. Unless it
is overcast, I won't even think about shooting at midday. I know, it's sort of
a lazy attitude, but dawn and dusk are so much better for la
>
> For your trip, I wold just rely on the multi-point exposure. But if your
> scene is almost all whites and tans, like a bright beach or desert scene,
> dial in + 1/2 stop exposure comp. If it's almost all really dark tone, dial
> in -1/2 stop exposure comp. Or just shoot Raw and correct in yo
I'm a bit confused. Is the the 28 an A or FA? Why would the manual
(M) lenses teach you less about exposure. You'll learn quite a bit
with the M's since you will notice the exposure more. As a matter of
fact, when I use the M's on static subjects I often adjust the
exposure with the histogram.
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
>
>> Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
>
> Thanks, Paul. What's your thought regarding my anxiety about missing out on
> lessons about exposure if I re
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
>
>> Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
>
> KEH has several. $43 to $65.
Given your's and Larry's comments on it, and those on Stan Halpin's site, I'm
gon
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>> 1) Protect the surface of the lens, being cheaper and easier to replace.
>
> Would you want to use a polarizing filter the same way?
I would not, because you will lose more than a stop of light. There is
also the possibility of unwanted effects
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
> Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
KEH has several. $43 to $65.
Maybe I should let go of my obsession with being able to control aperture from
the camera. As Larry suggested, and as I aspire to do, le
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:59 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> UV, and skylight filters are clear. They nominally block out UV light that
> would focus differently than visible light, and expose film our of focus,
> causing a slight blurriness. These days they mostly serve two purposes:
>
> 1) Protect the s
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> It's looking like if I take anything long it'll be the 70/210 zoom?
>
> that's probably the most versatile of the long zooms, so I'd bring that. If
> you were going in April, I'd say to bring the macro for flowers. Though if
> that's a Serie
On Oct 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
> Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
Thanks, Paul. What's your thought regarding my anxiety about missing out on
lessons about exposure if I rely on the exposure lock button to set aperture?
---
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:05 PM, paul stenquist wrote:
> Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
I had one and loved it, but got a 2.5 because I felt I needed the extra speed.
Ended up selling the 3.5 to a list member. If I had the K-x rather than the
K100 when
On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>> I have an m 100/4 macro, an Albinar 135/2.8, and an a 70-210/4. And the guy
>> who sold me the p3n threw in a Vivitar 70-150/3.5.
>
> This got buried in a longer response. I thought I'd lift it
Watch for a Pentax SMC-M 135/3.5. Excellent lens and a bargain at about $60.
Paul
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>> KEH is right here. . . . I'll take a look.
>
> There were a couple a 135/2.8s, but they're more than I want to spe
On Oct 9, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:21 -0400, "Eric Weir"
> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>>> If you're shooting outdoors, it can be very handy to have a polarizer. Not
>>> that the polarizer won't work as well to bring ou
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> I have an m 100/4 macro, an Albinar 135/2.8, and an a 70-210/4. And the guy
> who sold me the p3n threw in a Vivitar 70-150/3.5.
This got buried in a longer response. I thought I'd lift it up in case anyone
had any recommendations.
Both the Alb
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> KEH is right here. . . . I'll take a look.
There were a couple a 135/2.8s, but they're more than I want to spend at the
moment, and the comments about it on Stan Halpin's site are not encouraging.
--
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote:
> Good advice from Larry. I'd certainly like something longer than a 28mm when
> heading for the Grand Canyon/ Four Corners area.
I really want to travel light. And I'm strongly inclined to take the advice
given earlier and stick with one lens.
On Oct 9, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Christine Nielsen wrote:
> And think about bringing a tripod. We first
> entered the park at sunset -- which was SPECTACULAR. I was totally
> kicking myself for leaving my lightweight tripod at home... it would
> have been great to do some longer exposures at sunset
Eric,
I just took a trip this past August to the Canyon/Four corners area.
Our trip was a family vacation, not photo safari, so I wanted to pack
light, too. I brought one lens, a 17-70. Which was fine -- I used
the wide end a good bit of the time -- but there were several times I
wished I'd brou
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> You may be surprised what the *sense* of compression from a long lens will do
> for landscapes like that. There are good, reasonably-priced 100-300 range
> zooms out there. I have an old Tokina 35-200 that is quite sharp but they
> sell
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
> Your PL is probably a linear type.
>
> To use a polarizing filter, you rotate it while looking through the
> viewfinder to get the best effect - they work best at a angle of around
> 90 degrees to the sun, as Larry said.
Thanks, Brian. Yeah, I
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Hey Eric, no pulling "rankest" on us. ;-') I agree with Larry. If
> you have a kit zoom (18-55 or so) take just in case you see the "best
> shot ever" and the 28 just won't do it.
Thanks, Steven. My only a lenses are the 28/2.8 and a 70-21
On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:21 -0400, "Eric Weir"
wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> > If you're shooting outdoors, it can be very handy to have a polarizer. Not
> > that the polarizer won't work as well to bring out the clouds shooting
> > either directly into, or direct
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote:
> Hey! No line-cutting!
I've been paying attention here. I know what I'm talking about. I do appreciate
the fact that no one holds it against me, though.
-
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
> I'm taking my DS and one lens, an a 28/2.8.
If there's room I may also take my Smena Symbol film camera. The lens is pretty
sharp, and I've gotten some decent shots with it. [As far as sharpness goes,
that is. They have absolutely no artistic meri
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> If you're shooting outdoors, it can be very handy to have a polarizer. Not
> that the polarizer won't work as well to bring out the clouds shooting either
> directly into, or directly away from the sun as it will shooting at 90
> degrees. I.e.
Eric,
Rankness come with time.
Usually in the presence of geeky or dweeby people.
If you were to carry just a 28mm, that would probably cover most of what you
want to get.
But don't think of needing a wide lens for the Grand Canyon.
You may be surprised what the *sense* of compression from a
Good advice from Larry. I'd certainly like something longer than a
28mm when heading for the Grand Canyon/ Four Corners area.
Don't know if you've been that way before, but, unless you're in a real
hurry, I highly recommend zipping over to Sedona and taking AZ 89a up
Oak Creek Canyon from Se
Hey Eric, no pulling "rankest" on us. ;-') I agree with Larry. If
you have a kit zoom (18-55 or so) take just in case you see the "best
shot ever" and the 28 just won't do it.
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
>>
>> A week fro
Hey! No line-cutting!
-- Walt
On 10/9/2010 2:59 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I am the most amateur of the amateurs here
--
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
On Oct 9, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> If you think that you're the rankest, you obviously have not smelled certain
> of the people on the list.
Thanks for the suggestions, Larry. As to the above, I am the most amateur of
the amateurs here, but I'm not the least timid about insisting
On Oct 9, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
>
> A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix to join a couple of my
> long-time, well-known sisters and another we'll be meeting for the first time
> -- we only discovered her this past January; she's English; our father served
> in the US
A week from today I'll be taking off for Phoenix to join a couple of my
long-time, well-known sisters and another we'll be meeting for the first time
-- we only discovered her this past January; she's English; our father served
in the US Army Air Force in England during WWII -- and then spend m
83 matches
Mail list logo
