; On Dec 3, 2011 22:07 "Steve Larson" wrote:
>> The camera is bought!! Yeah
>> Steve
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Steve Larson"
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:58 PM
>> S
ail List"
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
>
>
> > Thanks guys!!!
> > Steve
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Larry Colen, l...@red4est.com (From Droid)"
> > To: "
K-5, no doubt.
I recently sold my K-7, and got the K-5.
A different world. Less noice at high ISO, Higher ISO ability.
Appr. 50.000. Forget the flash: Nice everyday shots at 8000:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/5571771712/
K-5 can utilize the new GPS-device. No more syncronizing in the comput
Who the hell cares, Steve! Great to see you back on the list.
How long's it been?
cheers,
frank
--- Original Message ---
From: Steve Larson
Sent: December 3, 2011 12/3/11
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
Hi folks,
Amazon has the K-5 for $1099 and the K-7 fo
On 12/3/2011 3:27 PM, Steve Larson wrote:
Hi folks,
Amazon has the K-5 for $1099 and the K-7 for $1049. Which one should I
get?
Thanks,
Steve Larson
With a mere $50.00 difference between the two the answer is obvious. I
don't even know why you asked.
--
Don't lose heart! They might want t
03, 2011 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
>
>
>> Thanks guys!!!
>> Steve
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Larry Colen, l...@red4est.com (From
>> Droid)"
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>> Sent
:
> The camera is bought!! Yeah
> Steve
>
> - Original Message - From: "Steve Larson"
>
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:58 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
>
>
>> Than
K-5, no contest. Much better low light performance, better autofocus, overall a
much better camera.
Paul
On Dec 3, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Steve Larson wrote:
> Hi folks,
> Amazon has the K-5 for $1099 and the K-7 for $1049. Which one should I get?
> Thanks,
> Steve Larson
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discu
The camera is bought!! Yeah
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Larson"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
Thanks guys!!!
Steve
- Original Message -
F
Thanks guys!!!
Steve
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Colen, l...@red4est.com (From Droid)"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Quick question, K-5 or K-7
K5
Steve Larson wrote:
Hi folks,
Amazon has the K
K5
Steve Larson wrote:
>Hi folks,
>Amazon has the K-5 for $1099 and the K-7 for $1049. Which one should I
>get?
>Thanks,
>Steve Larson
>
>
>--
>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 dire
K5, without doubt!
Bulent
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/
http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun
2011/12/3 Steve Larson :
> Hi folks,
> Amazon has the K
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: Quick question
> OK, but no ourageous export duties on Potatoes...
>
How about we put potatoes under the CWB umbrella?
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OK, but no ourageous export duties on Potatoes...
On 10/7/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Subject: Re: Quick question
>
>
> > No, no, no! We never agreed to take the Frenchies.
&
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: Quick question
> No, no, no! We never agreed to take the Frenchies.
> You gotta keep them, or spin them off.
> We've already got two official languages - English and Spanish.
> There is no room fo
send Bret Farve and the returning Louisiana national guard
up there to show them how to play football and be right thinking 'mericans!
Regards, Bob S.
On 10/6/06, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Sub
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Quick question
> You didn't include it in the list of other states...
They are in a state of confusion.
We don't pay them much heed.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pd
You didn't include it in the list of other states...
Tom C.
Original Message Follows
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: Quick question
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:07:10
How about you keep Quebec and we'll trade you Mississippi for New Mexico.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
C
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:38 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Quick question
What about New Brunswick?
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Quick question
> What about New Brunswick?
What about it?
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: "P. J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Quick question
>I think we want to negotiate. Will you take California too?
>
No, but we will consider Oregon and Idaho.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/
I think we want to negotiate. Will you take California too?
William Robb wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Bob Sullivan"
>Subject: Re: Quick question
>
>
>
>
>>Boris,
>>These states were added during my lifetime to the USA.
>>They w
What about New Brunswick?
Tom C.
Original Message Follows
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: Quick question
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:09:54 -0600
- Original
- Original Message -
From: "Boris Liberman"
Subject: Quick question
> Hi!
>
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the
> United
> States. What are the states that do not belong to low 48?
BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nove Scotia, PEI,
Ne
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: Quick question
> Boris,
> These states were added during my lifetime to the USA.
> They were territories and lobbied to become states with full voting
> rights.
> Hawaii is a long way from the mainland USA
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<< "The Lower 48" means the same thing as "Continental
US", or "the contiguous states". >>
No, no, no, Alaska IS continental... It's not an
island! (Neither is Rhode Island, but that's another
story ;-).)
Continguous, on the other hand, does indeed refer t
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The term most often used is "Lower 48," sometimes -
> more rarely - is Continental US
That's 49 states; Alaska is Continental.
The Lower 48 is equivalent to the Contiguous US.
Doug
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?
Canada.
From: "Boris Liberman" >
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the United
> States. What are the states that do not belong to low 48?
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Alaska and Hawaii. "The Lower 48" means the same thing as "Continental
US", or "the contiguous states". There is beyond those 50 states the
District of Columbia (federal capital) and a couple of protectorates
whose people are considered US Citizens. However the US is slowly
becoming part of Mex
Alaska, Hawaii, and any non State overseas possessions such as Puerto Rico.
Boris Liberman wrote:
>Hi!
>
>People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the United
>States. What are the states that do not belong to low 48?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Boris
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as
Hi!
> The term most often used is "Lower 48," sometimes - more rarely - is
> Continental US (you may have seen the abbreviation CONUS). The two states
> you asked about are Alaska and Hawaii.
Great many thanks everyone who responded.
Well, now I am just a little bit wiser ;-).
Thanks again!
B
Boris,
These states were added during my lifetime to the USA.
They were territories and lobbied to become states with full voting rights.
Hawaii is a long way from the mainland USA and occupied by Japanese tourists.
Alaska is still a frontier town with the population in wet coastal areas.
(It's par
Alaska and Hawaii, which are not contiguous to the other 48 states,
Hawaii being a chain of Islands, and Alaska having Canada in between it
and the rest of the Continental US.
-Adam
Boris Liberman wrote:
> Hi!
>
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the United
> Stat
The term most often used is "Lower 48," sometimes - more rarely - is
Continental US (you may have seen the abbreviation CONUS). The two states
you asked about are Alaska and Hawaii.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Boris Liberman
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48"
> in regard to som
Alaska and Hawaii.
Tom Lesser
On Oct 6, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Hi!
>
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the United
> States. What are the states that do not belong to low 48?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdm
Hawaii and Alaska.
-- Original message --
From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi!
>
> People often say "lower 48" or "low 48" in regard to some of the United
> States. What are the states that do not belong to low 48?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> PDM
I owned the SMC Pentax-FA 28-70mm f/4 AL for a year or two. It came
with my ZX-5n kit. ...best "kit" lens I've ever seen. It got pretty
good reviews too. I only sold it when I finally decided I needed a
28-105 instead. I've never really missed it now, but I was always very
confident in its
Hi Henri,
My 28-70 was one of the ones that died of element seperation,
I liked it a lot. No parts are available.
I use the 35-70/3.5-4.5 in it's place and have been quite
satisfied with it.
Macro ability is pretty good too.
This is the only example I could find quickly:
http://www.donsauction.com
Henri Toivonen escribió:
Which one is better as a carryround normal zoom for my SFX:
F35-70/3.5-4.5
FA28-70/4.0 AL
I've had (and sold) both of these lenses. Both of them are fine, but the
28-70 is a tad better. It has fabulous flare resistance, and it is quite
sharp, except at 28 mm f:4.0, at thi
--- Henri Toivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which one is better as a carryround normal zoom for my SFX:
> F35-70/3.5-4.5
> FA28-70/4.0 AL
Probably the FA28-70/4, but inspect carefully when buying used because it's
rather
prone to foggy elements and broken plastic parts inside. Not exactly a w
Hi,
Wednesday, December 15, 2004, 3:03:34 AM, Mishka wrote:
> Any knowledge here about Contax filters? They seem to be quite cheap new, but
> I amnot sure if they are multicoated or not.
they are multicoated, in general. Some of them are not, but this is
true for all brands. They are very well m
Any knowledge here about Contax filters? They seem to be quite cheap new, but
I amnot sure if they are multicoated or not.
Mishka
Thanks, Bob. I ended up with a couple of B+Ws on the recommendation of a
sales guy at B&H.
Amita
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Two surfaces out of perhaps 11 that are probably in your
> lens? Probably not.
> Not that can be observed without sc
--- Amita Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those of you who like to keep UV filters on your lenses for protection,
> is there any difference between the Pentax SMC filters and, say, the B&W or
> Hoya multi-coated filters?
If you mean the multicoated only, I have found PENTAX SMC is slighty be
- Original Message -
From: "Amita Guha"
Subject: RE: quick question about protective filters
We've had this discussion before and I know I've mentioned that I
like to
use UV filters for protection. But thanks for the advice anyway. ;)
With this in mind, I would go
On 12 Dec 2004 at 15:48, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: quick question about protective filters
>
>
> > My philosophy is to use CAPS for protection and
> > remove them when taking photo
> My philosophy is to use CAPS for protection and
> remove them when taking photos and replace them
> when finished. A metal screw in CAP will give
> better protection than a filter will, and using no
> filter cannot degrade image quality like using a filter
> could.
We've had this discussion bef
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: quick question about protective filters
My philosophy is to use CAPS for protection and
remove them when taking photos and replace them
when finished. A metal screw in CAP will give
better protection than a filter
Yes. Price.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: quick question about protective filters
> For those of you who like to keep UV filters on your lenses for
protection,
> is the
Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: quick question about protective filters
Two surfaces out of perhaps 11 that are probably in your lens? Probably
not.
Not that can be observed without scientific insturmentation anyway
Two surfaces out of perhaps 11 that are probably in your lens? Probably not.
Not that can be observed without scientific insturmentation anyway.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For those of you who like to keep UV filters on your lenses for
protection,
is there any differ
in terms of quality or effect/result.
Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: quick question about protective filters
For those of you who like to keep UV filters on your lenses for
prote
ED]
Subject: Re: quick question *istD battery grip...
Tan,
I've found that when this happens, the batteries in the grip have
about half a charge or no charge. I've never really checked to see
what the status of the charge is. I have also found that the camera
batteries are fully charge (or
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: quick question *istD battery grip...
> I am considering buying af *ist D battery grip.
> What is the big advantage of using a battery grip?
The vertical shutter release and controls are kinda cool.
I like having
quot; grip to be perfect size for my hands.
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 7:54 PM
Subject: RE: quick question *istD battery grip...
> I am considering buying af *is
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 24. august 2004 14:10
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: quick question *istD battery grip...
Hi Tan,
I found that the camera will arbitrarily choose between the sets of
]
Emne: Re: quick question *istD battery grip...
Hi Tan,
I found that the camera will arbitrarily choose between the sets of
batteries when you turn the camera on, so both sets would be depleted
simultaneously when they first went.
My solution was to remove the battery set in the camera and keep the
Hi Tan,
I found that the camera will arbitrarily choose between the sets of batteries when you
turn the camera on, so both sets would be depleted simultaneously when they first
went.
My solution was to remove the battery set in the camera and keep the one in the grip...
Jostein
> So, I final
58 matches
Mail list logo
