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
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
you mean
the older versions or did
: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 he's a Fuji shooter,so i'll assume he knows
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!
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 was
- 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 know what they did to
the 400
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.
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.
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.
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 rate
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] Nikon is no
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
- 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 dawgs. Thats fun stuff.
William
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
...
I looked at the pics -- great action, and on top of that, they seem quite
focussed. What did you exactly mean by it failed just about everytime?
Mishka
- Original Message -
From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 7:48
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 thing
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
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
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
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
- 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 Mail List
- 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 same film too)
You
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.
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 they did
- 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
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
...
don't
25 matches
Mail list logo
