Short answer. No. Illumination, Pentax doesn't support USM lenses. The
focus motor is
in the camera body, period. Except of course for the infamous SMC PENTAX
AF ZOOM 1:2.8 35~70mm
that not only contains it's own motor but also it's own power supply.
Which you can see here:
http://www.bdimit
They'll work in AV or Program mode, they lack aperture rings.
At 10:22 PM 2/18/04, you wrote:
> Pentax has not used usm etc. for AF. A disadvantage of using
> it is that you disenfranchise all older lenses; Pentax's
> mechanical solution means that old and new lenses work on
> old and new camer
Just an interesting comment on this lens (FA28-70/4). . .
Literature says it was/is made in Taiwan, yet my example has a label
that says "Made in Vietnam."
I guess that's how they can sell "A cheap consumer zoom that delivers
excellent results."
keith whaley
Stan Halpin wrote:
>
> Pentax has
My broken one is from Japan...
> Just an interesting comment on this lens (FA28-70/4). . .
> Literature says it was/is made in Taiwan, yet my example has a label
> that says "Made in Vietnam."
> I guess that's how they can sell "A cheap consumer zoom that delivers
> excellent results."
>
> ke
I should read what I write more often, yes you're right. You can use Tv mode
or Program.
At 05:38 AM 2/19/04, you wrote:
Missing the aperture ring, mean missing the Av mode, no ? But can use the
Tv using the dial on the MZS...
I use meuch more Av than Tv and Manual than Programm...
Peter Alling
It was made a lot of places, my example is Made in Japan, (I feel so special).
At 06:44 AM 2/19/04, you wrote:
Just an interesting comment on this lens (FA28-70/4). . .
Literature says it was/is made in Taiwan, yet my example has a label
that says "Made in Vietnam."
I guess that's how they can sel
Jon Hope wrote:
> That's why the camera has an MF/AF
> switch, and lenses a focusing ring. :-)
>
> If you're not happy with what the AF
> is selecting you can go to MF. It
> happens a lot, especially when you
> are focusing on an area that isn't
> covered by an AF sensor.
Can an AF sensor fo
> Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
> seems that, from what I understand you to be saying,
> it may not
> be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
> better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
> portraits, especially if one were to be
At 18:49 17/02/01, you wrote:
>Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
>seems that, from what I understand you to be saying, it may not
>be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
>better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
>portraits, especi
> Shel asked:
> Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It
>seems that, from what I understand you to be saying, it may not
> be possible to get that precise, and that MF may well be a
> better, more accurate, method of focusing when making typical
> portraits, especially if one w
In a message dated 2/17/01 5:53:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Can an AF sensor focus on something as small as an eye? It seems that,
from what I understand you to be saying, it may not be possible to get that
precise, and that MF may well be a better, more accurate
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:14:46 -0800, you wrote:
>As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
>camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an AF
>camera can focus as precisely.
Sure it can - just move the little switch beside the lens mount. The
one that says AF or
Hi Shel,
Yes, your assumption is correct, AF is not for everything, especially
for us people shooters. I prefer to use it as a feature I resort to when
manual focus is difficult (getting more frequent as I approach 40). While
many of the smaller center zone AF brackets in cameras are very a
Jon Hope wrote:
> If we are talking current Pentax cameras
> the best we have is 3 point AF, with the
> only choice being wide or centre AF
> selection. If you use wide the camera will
> choose the best AF point. You don't really
> have any control on what it'll choose.
OK, that's good to
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
>
> > The trouble with using the centre AF
> > sensor for portraits is that you can
> > end up with images that you wouldn't
> > take if you were using MF.
>
> H
Shel asks:
>As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
>camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an
AF
>camera can focus as precisely. It seems the sensors are too
>large to be able to focus specifically on an eye, or any
>particular facial feature. Is this t
Ed Mathews wrote:
Hi Ed ...
> AF is not for everything, especially
> for us people shooters. I prefer to
> use it as a feature I resort to when
> manual focus is difficult
What MF bodies are you using? The LX (and, I suppose, the MX to
a degree) with its interchangeable screens seems to wor
Rofini wrote:
> Robert Monaghan has an
> interesting page comparing
> auto focus with manual focus.
> Seems rather scathing to the
> autofocus camp. See:
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html
I read that some time ago, and my recollection is that the
comments weren't at all favorable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But for portraiture, you ought to
> use manual focus, trying to set
> the ~exact~ plane of focus ~just
> *behind* the eyes~, never in front.
> *Focusing just behind the eyes gives
> them depth.
Great tip. I'll have to try that and see if I can make it work
even w
> Shel asks:
>
> >As I was shooting yesterday, I was thinking about how an AF
> >camera might focus in the same situation. I don't believe an
> AF
> >camera can focus as precisely. It seems the sensors are too
> >large to be able to focus specifically on an eye, or any
> >particular facial fe
on 2/17/01 12:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> And in the ZX5N (besides not being
>> able to choose the AF sensor), the
>> outer AF brackets are only sensitive
>> to horizontal lines so in the portrait
>> position, they don't see the eyeball well.
>
> That's good to know. Sin
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:47:01 -0600, you wrote:
>For myself, the PZ-1p is WAY too much camera.
>William (any camera that needs a training video is too
>complicated) Robb
Geez - I didn't get the PZ1p training video. Couldn't really
understand the manual too well, either. Must be why it took a full
on 2/17/01 12:30 PM, Len Paris at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Remember, the steps are:
>
> 1. Decide on the important feature that you want in focus.
>
> 2. Don't be afraid to tilt or twist the camera until focus is
> achieved.
>
> 3. Hold the shutter button halfway down to lock focus or if
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 07:19:36 -0800, you wrote:
>John Mustarde wrote:
>> And with the focus assist beam I
>> can even do it in complete darkness!
>
>Does that mean that, in order to focus on a person's eye, you
>have to put a beam of light into their eye?
Yes - if doing it in complete darkness
Ken, that would be interesting to see. Thanks
- Original Message -
From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> BTE, on Z-1p, there was a testing on its focus-lo
Answers/comments interspersed:
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed Mathews wrote:
>
> Hi Ed ...
>
> &
Ed Sed:
> Yeah, for focus accuracy, a macro
> lens should provide better flatness
> of field and be better. But then
> you get all those nasty macro problems,
> like: too sharp; not such great bokeh;
> slower lens, etc
I like "too sharp". The A100/2.8 macro is no slower than the
K105/
Rofini wrote:
> Robert Monaghan has an interesting page comparing auto focus
> with manual focus. Seems rather scathing to the autofocus camp.
> See:
> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html
This kind of "research" is usually done for justifying some people position and their
subjective ch
Pål said:
> I also have a problem with this
> anal-retentive fascination
> with focus accuracy. Does anyone
> really have problem with focusing
> on normal subjects with
> "normal" lenses? For this, any
> reasonable human error is way within
> DOF for anyone with normal
> vision, even with t
Ed wrote:
>But in critical conditions, in
> every case with every lens and camera used, AF failed to provide enough
> accuracy to match a carefully manually focused lens when comparing them with
> lines/mm tests. Sometimes the results were staggering.
Sorry for being rude but it isn't person
Len Paris wrote:
>
> Remember, the steps are:
>
> 1. Decide on the important feature that you want in focus.
>
> 2. Don't be afraid to tilt or twist the camera until focus is
> achieved.
>
> 3. Hold the shutter button halfway down to lock focus or if
> your camera has a focus lock b
In a message dated 2/17/01 1:03:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Not your usual portrait situation, but occurs often in the field shooting
wildlife. >>
Point well made.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.
Comments interspersed:
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed wrote:
> >But in critical conditions, in
> > every
In a message dated 2/17/01 2:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< For example, what looks good and sharp at 5x magnification may not look so
good at 10x magnification, and may look awful at 16x or 20x >>
Ah, another slide shooter's affectation, looking at things at 10x
shita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> on 2/17/01 12:07 PM, Shel Belinkoff at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> And in the ZX5N (besides not being
> >> able to choose the A
Ed wrote:
>Or should they just ignore it and continue wiping their
> asses with this information?
You should :-)
Because you then try to use AF in a situation where manual focus works perfectly well.
The point must be to articulate a situation where MF won't work, and MF works any
target that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/17/01 2:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << For example, what looks good and sharp at 5x magnification may not look so
> good at 10x magnification, and may look awful at 16x or 20x >>
>
> Ah, another slide shooter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> << For example, what looks good and sharp at 5x magnification may not look so
> good at 10x magnification, and may look awful at 16x or 20x >>
>
> Ah, another slide shooter's affectation, looking at things at 10x, 16x and
> 20x power.
WRONG! I don't often shoot sli
- Original Message -
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: February 17, 2001 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 2/17/01 2:34:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> &g
on 2/17/01 6:40 PM, Ed Mathews at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You can be sure it is true. In landscape mode, the center AF area is
> sensitive only vertical lines, and the two outer AF areas are sensitive only
> to vertical lines. Turn to portrait mode, and of course that turns to the
> reciproc
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:53:26 -0500, K.Takeshita wrote:
>I know the sensor orientation. What I was not sure about was whether or not
>MZ-5n being able to choose the AF sensor, as you were saying that it is not
>switchable on 5n. I know MZ-3 can, but I do not have an MZ-5n. I thought
>that the M
>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed wrote:
>
> >Or should they just ignore it and continue wiping their
> > asses with this information?
>
> You should :-)
> Because you then try to use AF in a situation where manual fo
In a message dated 2/17/01 7:54:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Vertical/horizontal sensor orientation is another issue, but with the
narrow centre sensor, it usually focus on eyes without problem. >>
Mike said something no one has commented on: turning the (whatever)
Pål writes:
> Anyway, if someone wonders if AF is the way to go to solve
> some focusing problems, the aswer is simple: if these problems are due to the
> fact that the subject won't be still long enough for the photographer to focus,
> AF helps.
This is *exactly* why I've been considering (and
ED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Ed Sed:
>
> > Yeah, for focus accuracy, a macro
> > lens should provide better flatness
> > of field and be better. But then
> > you get all those nasty macro problems,
> > l
(sorry - this was meant to be private)
Thanks,
Ed
- Original Message -
From: "Ed Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Autofocus Question
> Hi Shel,
> I sent all 9 files to your creatu
William Robb wrote:
> For myself, I don't presume
> that when I push the button, all I
> will want is an 8x10 print.
That's pretty much the same here, although with a somewhat
different take. I assume that I'll want a 16x20 print from
Tri-X 135. Perhaps that's why there was all
the fuss on
In a message dated 2/19/01 8:23:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
SURVEY: How many list members make 11x14 or larger B&W prints, and how
often? >>
Almost every medium format (portrait) session.
>From 11 x 14 up to 20 x 30.
When shooting 35mm B&W or SUPRA 100/PORTRA
>SURVEY: How many list members make 11x14 or larger B&W prints,
>and how often?
>From black & white? I do very frequently. And I want my shots to
be sharp enough to *be able* to go to 11x14 all the time.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdm
In a message dated 2/19/2001 2:31:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> >SURVEY: How many list members make 11x14 or larger B&W prints,
> >and how often?
>
> From black & white? I do very frequently. And I want my shots to
> be sharp enough to *be able* to go to
>>SURVEY: How many list members make 11x14 or larger B&W prints,
>>and how often?
>
>From black & white? I do very frequently. And I want my shots to
>be sharp enough to *be able* to go to 11x14 all the time.
Of course, I'm assuming you're asking about 35mm.
And I actually do all my black & whi
Bob Walkden wrote:
> However last week I saw some of my slides projected
> to about 1.5 metres on the long edge through a Leica
> fixed length lens. O_h__m_y__G_o_d_! Fantastic. I
> had no idea it could be so much better.
>
> So whatever other factors contribute to sharpness,
> resolution or
>
> In a message dated 2/19/01 8:23:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> <<
> SURVEY: How many list members make 11x14 or larger B&W prints, and how
> often? >>
I generally print all of my B&W on 11 x 14. I'll drop down to 8 x10 for
a particularly grainy neg or whe
53 matches
Mail list logo
