No but i'll try some.Thanks Tom
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Have you used any of the Fuji NPx stuff? It seems to be about a 1/2
stop faster...skin tones and contrast are good, as you would expect
from a portrait film, though I suspect the color balance
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> David,
>
> I, too, have not had very good luck with Fuji. I will say that for
> cheap consumer film, the 800 Superia is pretty good - much
> better than
> the Kodak zoom max (whatever they call it now) stuff.
>
> L
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
> Nikon is no better than Pentax except being quiter.
Except for small things like Lock-On Focus Tracking at 8fps.
chris
DB> From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DB> Sent: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:11:38 -0400
DB> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DB> Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
DB> At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
>>Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 st
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:10:27 -0400
"Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term
> use of? Or is this just another of Pal's "I'll make up
> anything to defend Pentax".
>
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?=
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce wrote:
> Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term use of? Or is this just
>another of Pal's "I'll make up anything to >defend Pentax".
I've been trying out the F100 and it's no better than the MZ-S. I find Nikon more and
more irrelevant these days as they are just second r
Bruce wrote:
> I still own, and like, Pentax MF gear. I find the current day Pentax Co., and their
>AF line up, to be a combination of >idiosyncratic and lame.
Don't know about the lame part but it is definitely idiosyncratic. If anything, the
MZ-S isn't idiosyncratic enough to make an impact
Not true. I have found Nikon users to be far noisier than Pentax users!
;-)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nikon is no better than Pentax
> except being quiter.
>
>
Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term use of? Or is this just another
of Pal's "I'll make up anything to defend Pentax".
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nikon is no better than Pentax except being quiter.
- Original Message -
From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
>
> No, I meant Fuji (superia) 400.
> 200 is fine, 800 is fine. I just don't kno
They look great to me Jerome.Some nice angles.
Dave
Begin Original Message
At 20:39 25-9-2002 -0400, Jerome wrote:
>OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if you're
interested
>in such things:
>
>http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
>
>As a side note, this wa
Look, I didn't start with the foul language, making jokes about the Pope or the
Royals. If I've incited the kiddies to bedlam, I promise not to address members of the
peanut gallery anymore.
BR
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think this has gone too far now!
mber 2002 14:32
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
>
>
> Hi Wendy.
> Finally someone else besides myself has a problem
> with the Fuji 400.I would get a blue hue to all
> the proofs.Oh and were i take it is a Fuji lab,
> and h
n Original Message
From: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:11:38 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 stuff'? Do
yo
I was missing loads of shots the same way you were. This resulted in my wanting to get
a body with better AF. The fact that Pentax didn't look like it was ever going to come
out with "world class" AF (which it still hasn't) was one of the major factors for
deciding to switch brands. I can't com
Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
> don't speak for everyone
>
> mishka
>
> From: Brad Dobo
>
At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 stuff'? Do you mean
>the older versions or did you mistype Fugi and meant Kodak or something?
>
>Regards,
>
>Brad Dobo
No, I meant Fuji (superia) 400.
200 is fine, 800 is fine. I just don't know what the
don't speak for everyone
mishka
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
<...>
> don't make flippant remarks, no one really appreciates them.
- Original Message -
From: wendy beard
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
> I've been experimenting a lot with different films for this
sort of thing
> and the Fuji Superia 800 has been the best by far (and I
believe that
> Black's own brand is the
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
> Bruce,
>, don't make flippant remarks, no one really appreciates them.
Well, not quite no one, but I hate to quibble.
William Robb
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mai
At 20:39 25-9-2002 -0400, Jerome wrote:
>OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if you're interested
>in such things:
>
>http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
p.s.
My attempt from two weekends ago, uncropped and unaltered from the scan
Blacks did to CD
http://members.rog
That should have read, you won't see me do that again.
>You won't seem to do that again
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
In a message dated 9/25/02 6:50:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about equipment that actually
already exists! And I'm going to stretch even further and talk about
TAKING PICTURES with these cameras (do I have the right discussion
group?! Should I l
> How many rolls did you shot?
6 rolls of 24-exposure. However, not all of it was action (trophy shots,
crowd shots, etc. were included). As for the action shots (maybe about 4
rolls total) the downfall of most of the shots were the backgrounds. I
didn't have much to work with as each sideline
> I looked at the pics -- great action, and on
> top of that, they seem quite
> focussed.
Thank God for manual focus!
> What did you exactly mean by
> "it failed just about everytime"?
Hmmm... good question. Well, for one, subjects were moving too fast for me
to focus on them on AF mode. The t
t;
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
>
> Hello all -
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about equipment that actually
> already exists! And I'm going to stretch even further and talk about
> TAKING
Great pics!! Never seen so much fun... and action...
How many rolls did you shot?
Btw,i had good experience with Fuji Press 800. Grain is not visible in
10x15 cm prints.
Gasha
Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes wrote:
> Hello all -
>
>
...
> http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
>
...
- Original Message -
From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes
Subject: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
>
> OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if
you're interested
> in such things:
>
> http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
Flying da
Hello all -
I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about equipment that actually
already exists! And I'm going to stretch even further and talk about
TAKING PICTURES with these cameras (do I have the right discussion
group?! Should I list this as OT?)
Anyhow, I was out shooting with my ZX-
29 matches
Mail list logo
