On Wed, Jun 26, 2013, Mark C wrote:
> On 6/25/2013 10:59 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
>>
>>I won't buy a camera that doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder. I just
>>can't use those "hold it out at arms length & compose a photo using the
>>little TV screen on the back cameras".
>>
>>As far as I can tell,
On 6/25/2013 10:59 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
I won't buy a camera that doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder. I just
can't use those "hold it out at arms length & compose a photo using the
little TV screen on the back cameras".
As far as I can tell, the Canon G series, the Nikon 7100 & (some model
On 24/6/13, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed:
>What do you think?
Have a look at the Fuji X-10 (used, although you can still get them new).
Seriously, if you haven't picked one up, you might be surprised
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
|| (O) |Web Vide
I've been watching new Pentax Q's on Amazon and with the standard zoom
the low prices have been around $250. There are still a lot of high
prices out there though. A few days ago I found 2 vendors selling Q kits
for around $250, today I only found this $239 offering (but I didn't
look hard.)
OK. You can quibble if you like. I came to the K-x from a K200D and
the difference in high ISO was superb, IMHO.
I pointed to the first K-x I could find (at KEH). I'm sure you can buy
the body alone if you want to for a little less but in the used market
the kit lens is probably nearly a "gimme".
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>>>
>>> The K-x has superb high ISO and runs on AA batteries.
>>
>> By the standards of the K-5 II, it only has "good" high ISO, not superb
>> (based on my exp
True, but the discussion was comparing it not to Pentax models that
came after, but to Point & Shoots (and, I would suggest, it
outperforms any Pentax model that came before it with its Sony
sensor).
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Aahz Maruch wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>
> The G1x doesn't seem to have reviews as good as the G12.
Depends what you want to do with it. If you want a high-ISO P&S, the G1X
rules.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
<*>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>
> The K-x has superb high ISO and runs on AA batteries.
By the standards of the K-5 II, it only has "good" high ISO, not superb
(based on my experience with Larry's K-x). But you've got a good point.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote:
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:59:57 -0400
From: John Sessoms
To:pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Reasonable Price?
Message-ID:<51c9b06d.1080...@nc.rr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
From: Bipin Gupta
>My son just bought a S
Actually, he had a couple of used StormTrooper K-x in the display case.
I probably ought to stop by again and inquire about his price for one of
them before I buy.
For that matter, I could probably use my *ist-D.
He also had a Z-x (?) and a Zm (?) in the case & when the last Ritz camera
in Ralei
From: "Chris Brogden"
Pentax itself has been known to make that mistake:
http://p.bfram.es/pentax-always-ready-for-a-shit.jpg
I remember that one.
--
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
From: Darren Addy
No matter how hard I try, I can never come to grips with point &
shits.
If that wasn't on purpose it was the greatest Freudian Slip of All Time.
Also, I misposted my K-x suggestion in Bipin's thread, but it was a
response to John's question regarding P&S (which was a forked t
On 25/06/2013, John Sessoms wrote:
> I won't buy a camera that doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder. I just
> can't use those "hold it out at arms length & compose a photo using the
> little TV screen on the back cameras".
I _really_ want to see you using an eye-level viewfinder to take
underwate
et] On Behalf Of Darren Addy
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:49 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Reasonable Price?
>
>> No matter how hard I try, I can never come to grips with point &
>> shits.
>
> If that wasn't on purpose it was the greatest
ginal Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Darren Addy
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Reasonable Price?
> No matter how hard I try, I can never come to grips with point &
> shits.
If that wasn't o
> No matter how hard I try, I can never come to grips with point &
> shits.
If that wasn't on purpose it was the greatest Freudian Slip of All Time.
Also, I misposted my K-x suggestion in Bipin's thread, but it was a
response to John's question regarding P&S (which was a forked thread).
--
PDML
There's a great deal of sense in that, Darren. My old K100Ds with a
set of Eneloops and stashed in the trunk should be ready for any
contingency. When I get the new 24Mpx K-5 this fall and the K20D
becomes my backup, I think I'll do just that. :-)
No matter how hard I try, I can never come to grip
Honestly, I'd rather have a spare Pentax K-x in the car than a point &
shoot. You can find them for less than $300 with a kit lens at KEH.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Digital-Camera-Outfits/1/sku-DP019991321100?r=FE
Put it in a bag and stick it under the seat if it won't fit in the
glove compa
The G15 for $799 is a whopping $300 more than Amazon's price. I
appreciate supporting local businesses also, but that is quite a
premium.
The G12 for $325 is a decent buy. The cheapest used G12 on Amazon is $320.
The G1x doesn't seem to have reviews as good as the G12.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:5
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: Aahz Maruch
>>
>>Before I can give you any advice, you need to provide some info about
>>what you want to use it for. I got the G1X because I wanted a
>>point'n'shoot with good low-light performance -- nobody else makes one
>>with a zoom lens and s
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, John Sessoms wrote:
>
> I won't buy a camera that doesn't have an eye-level viewfinder. I just
> can't use those "hold it out at arms length & compose a photo using the
> little TV screen on the back cameras".
Agreed (although I can use the LCD in some situations and a fully
From: Bipin Gupta
My son just bought a Sony Alpha Nex-3N with a 16-50 zoom from Costco
Toronto for CAD 400. Excellent compact camera with a tiny power zoom
lens.
We compared photos with the Canon S-90 P&S and the Nex-5R. The Nex-3N
won in all categories - sharpness, color, contrast, exposure and
From: Aahz Maruch
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013, John Sessoms wrote:
I mentioned earlier that I'm thinking about a new "point 'n shoot"
camera to replace my aging 2MP Canon A60. The Canon PowerShot G15
was recommended.
Today I found a used Canon PowerShot G12 for $325 at one of my local
independents. D
My son just bought a Sony Alpha Nex-3N with a 16-50 zoom from Costco
Toronto for CAD 400. Excellent compact camera with a tiny power zoom
lens.
We compared photos with the Canon S-90 P&S and the Nex-5R. The Nex-3N
won in all categories - sharpness, color, contrast, exposure and
bokeh.
Do use camera
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013, John Sessoms wrote:
>
> I mentioned earlier that I'm thinking about a new "point 'n shoot"
> camera to replace my aging 2MP Canon A60. The Canon PowerShot G15
> was recommended.
>
> Today I found a used Canon PowerShot G12 for $325 at one of my local
> independents. Didn't ge
Shop around John. G15's are $399-$449 here in Canada. B&H lists it at
$499, but there must be better US prices.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 3:54 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> I mentioned earlier that I'm thinking about a new "point 'n shoot" camera to
> replace my aging 2MP Canon A60. The Canon PowerShot
I mentioned earlier that I'm thinking about a new "point 'n shoot"
camera to replace my aging 2MP Canon A60. The Canon PowerShot G15 was
recommended.
Today I found a used Canon PowerShot G12 for $325 at one of my local
independents. Didn't get any idea how many shutter activations it has.
Th
Patrick Genovese wrote:
What about other characteristics like bokeh how do the two compare.
Basically your comments are tempting me to go for the 77 instead of
the 85. the 77 is slightly cheaper to boot.
One more question, does the front element on the 77 rotate when focusing ?
Nope - fron
condition at Samys in LA for only $350. I was short on cash and
> declined, but changed my mind and when I came back it was gone.
>
> Paul
>
> Ursprungligt meddelande
> Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Datum: Feb 25, 2006 8:18:23 PM
> Till: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Är
: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Ärende: Re: FA 85 f1.4 - Reasonable price ?
Patrick Genovese wrote:
> That's not to bad the price this dealer is asking is just a little
bit
> higher than that but hey this is europe and prices here tend to be a
> bit higher than the US maybe if I haggle a b
What about other characteristics like bokeh how do the two compare.
Basically your comments are tempting me to go for the 77 instead of
the 85. the 77 is slightly cheaper to boot.
One more question, does the front element on the 77 rotate when focusing ?
On 2/26/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED
It is a very close call, but convenience mostly. The 85 is a big lens,
and the 77 is very compact. Having a smaller front element, the 77 also
less prone to flare.
The 77 is probably a tad sharper wide open, but without direct
comparison, I couldn't tell. The slight speed difference isn't a
Hi Derby,
What makes you prefer the 77 over the 85
Rgds
Patrick
On 2/25/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrick Genovese wrote:
> > That's not to bad the price this dealer is asking is just a little bit
> > higher than that but hey this is europe and prices here tend to be a
> > bi
Patrick Genovese wrote:
That's not to bad the price this dealer is asking is just a little bit
higher than that but hey this is europe and prices here tend to be a
bit higher than the US maybe if I haggle a bit I can get a better
price.
I seen some of you guys wax lyrical about it is this lens r
That's not to bad the price this dealer is asking is just a little bit
higher than that but hey this is europe and prices here tend to be a
bit higher than the US maybe if I haggle a bit I can get a better
price.
I seen some of you guys wax lyrical about it is this lens really that good ?
Regar
I think B&H gets $800.
Paul
On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Patrick Genovese wrote:
A local pentax dealer offered me an FA85 f1.4 what would be a
reasonable price for it. The price at which he has offered it seems a
bit on the high side but I may be mistaken.
The lens is new plus full warr
A local pentax dealer offered me an FA85 f1.4 what would be a
reasonable price for it. The price at which he has offered it seems a
bit on the high side but I may be mistaken.
The lens is new plus full warranty etc etc..
Regards
Patrick Genovese
New?
--- Frank Wajer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> what would be a reasonable price for an FA 80-200
> f/2.8?
>
> Frank
>
>
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi everyone,
what would be a reasonable price for an FA 80-200 f/2.8?
Frank
I wonder if the price of these will stabilize or decline now that the DA
50-200 ED has been announced.
Joe
Thanks for the input(s).
We settled on a price of CAD$180 (US$150). Seems like a very reasonable
price for one in excellent condition, complete with lens hood, well
cared for & from a good home (a co-worker who was an avid Pentax user
until he went over to the Dark Side and swapped to N
He he - a reasonable price is what yopu wnt to pay for it!
I paid almost 300 USD for mine years ago. But as you know - Danish price are
just very high an *ist D body costs something like 2667 USD. I'd say a fair
price for an excellent-like new condition would be 150-200 USD. It is a nice
ou can see here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PAW_--_Gull_in_Flight.html
Fred Widall wrote:
Could someone please tell me what a reasonable price for this
lens would be (in VG condition) into today's 'hot' market.
Looking at Jim's Colwell's excellent spreadsheet it s
;Fred Widall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:41 AM
Subject: SMC Pentax-F 70-210mm F4-5.6 - what's a reasonable price ??
> Could someone please tell me what a reasonable price for this
> lens would be (in VG condition) into today's 'hot
Could someone please tell me what a reasonable price for this
lens would be (in VG condition) into today's 'hot' market.
Looking at Jim's Colwell's excellent spreadsheet it shows an Ebay
range of US$75-115. Is that still reasonable ? They don't
seem to show up ver
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote:
Graywolf wrote:
K2 was the top of the line K series camera. ME Super was 2nd from the
bottom M series and they sold millions of them as well so the K2 is
much rarer.
I've got little to no clue about reasonable prices, but
I must point out that the K2 is one _sweet_ ca
Graywolf wrote:
> K2 was the top of the line K series camera. ME Super was 2nd from the
> bottom M series and they sold millions of them as well so the K2 is
> much rarer.
I've got little to no clue about reasonable prices, but
I must point out that the K2 is one _sweet_ camera. Uh,
once you
On Dec 16, 2004, at 1:03 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
I don't know what a K2 should go for, I'd pay between $300 and $500
for a late model LX depending on it's condition.
Last time I checked a K2 was generally considered to be worth about
US$200. But that was a couple of years ago. I paid about t
Yes, that's probably the main reason Henri, I think so too. It's too bad!
:-)
/Joakim
>
Sweden never was "Pentax-country". Still isn't. That we have already
found out at fotosidan, right? ;-)
There aren't very many Pentax'es going around here, so that drives up
the prices on the attractive ho
ecember 2004 21:00
Till: pdml
Ämne: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has
had both for sale for a while, and I'm a bit tempted...
- Toralf
---
Incoming mail is
I don't know what a K2 should go for, I'd pay between $300 and $500 for
a late model LX depending on it's condition.
Toralf Lund wrote:
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both for sale for a while,
sprungligt meddelande-
Från: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 december 2004 21:00
Till: pdml
Ämne: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both for
Joakim Johansson wrote:
I agree with you, the price is a little bit high. But the prices in Sweden
are higher than elsewhere, I really don’t know why!
/Joakim
Sweden never was "Pentax-country". Still isn't. That we have already
found out at fotosidan, right? ;-)
There aren't very many Pent
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: SV: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
Joakim Johansson wrote:
I'm going to by a Pentax MX tomorrow, and the seller also has a K2 in used
(but quite good) shape. He wants 1400 SEK ($204.15) for the cam
---Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Skickat: den 15
december 2004 21:00
Till: pdml
Ämne: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both
t;
>
>-Ursprungligt meddelande-
>Från: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Skickat: den 15 december 2004 21:00
>Till: pdml
>Ämne: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
>
>What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
>
>A guy here in Oslo (same per
I'm going to by a Pentax MX tomorrow, and the seller also has a K2 in used
(but quite good) shape. He wants 1400 SEK ($204.15) for the camera.
/Joakim
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 december 2004 21:00
Till: pdml
Ämne: Reaso
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both for sale for a while, and I'm a bit tempted...
- Toralf
> I'm not sure why anyone, accept collectors or Pentax fanatics
> which we have plenty of here, would pay the exhorbitant amount for
> the Pentax A 2.8 when they can get the Kiron for a fraction of the
> price...
Perhaps, except that the A 100/2.8 Macro was not always so dear -
that is to say that
I can vouch for the Kiron. I think it is one of the best 100 mm macros ever
made both in lens quality and build quality. I'm not sure why anyone, accept
collectors or Pentax fanatics which we have plenty of here, would pay the
exhorbitant amount for the Pentax A 2.8 when they can get the Kiron f
On 5 Jul 2004 at 20:05, Fred wrote:
> >> Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite...
>
> > I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
>
> Er, no, not yet, Rob. But, if I ever do spring for it, I'll have
> you to blame/thank, for sure...
>
> I really would like to try the lens, Rob, b
>> Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite...
> I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
Er, no, not yet, Rob. But, if I ever do spring for it, I'll have
you to blame/thank, for sure...
I really would like to try the lens, Rob, but it's somewhat down on
the priorities list (with th
Gak! Don't say that Rob, I'm lusting after too much expensive stuff
already! (-:
David
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:39, Alan Chan wrote:
I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it.
Har, David Nelson will probably have a play
On 5 Jul 2004 at 16:39, Alan Chan wrote:
> >I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
>
> Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it.
Har, David Nelson will probably have a play with it this week, if he is a
convert then you'll have two of us to deal with. LOL
Rob Studdert
HU
I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
Stop reminding me Rob!! You know I can't afford it.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
_
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com
On 5 Jul 2004 at 13:48, Fred wrote:
> Still, the A 100/2.8 Macro is my favorite...
I can tell you haven't tried the V125/2,5 yet :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user sinc
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So a very quick search of the usual used sites found me a Kiron manual
>focus 105/f2.8 Macro
Reputedly one of the really great macro lenses.
>The 25-year-old Kiron cost about a hundred bucks, which was the going
>rate and not some super lucky bargain.
> From the replies I've seen, there is no reasonable price for this
> lens - it sells for unreasonable prices.
John is correct. The price of the lens is driven by scarcity, which
affects both collectors (who want 'em for and/or despite of their
scarcity) and users (who want &#x
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:37:35 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>just checking, anyone know what a reasonable price is for an SMC A 100 2.8
>macro?
>
>Frank
>From the replies I've seen, there is no reasonable price for this lens
- it sells for unreasonable prices.
If one
A $1000? that is absurd from a user standpoint.
Must be a collectable item nowadays.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 3:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what is a reasonable price for an SMC A 100 2.8 macro?
--- Frank
--- Frank Wajer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> just checking, anyone know what a reasonable price
> is for an SMC A 100 2.8
> macro?
They seem to fetch anywhere from $500-$1000 US on
ebay. I would say that $500-600 is fair non-c
Hi all,
just checking, anyone know what a reasonable price is for an SMC A 100 2.8
macro?
Frank
Sears 135mm F2.8 "Macro":
Macro setting engaged (1:5): 3ft
Macro setting not engaged: 4.75ft
I took these by measuring from the object to the film plane. If you a
measuring from the front element, subtract 1/2ft.
Todd
At 06:56 PM 4/10/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Close focusing distances for vari
Rob,
Your point is well-taken: The 135/1.8A* is, of course, at the top of the
heap of other 135/1.8s, which include the following third-party
auto-diaphragm telephotos. Year of introduction is shown, followed by
original list price and list price in 1998 U.S. dollars. Unless noted,
these are avail
Now this is a fellow who wants emails! Regards, Bob S.
In a message dated 4/11/01 2:16:56 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I think I'll soon sell mine...
Just give me some time to make good digital pictures of the lens from every
angle.
I don't yet how much I want fo
I think I'll soon sell mine...
Just give me some time to make good digital pictures of the lens from every angle.
I don't yet how much I want for it.
Regards
Jerome - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Paul Stregevsky wrote:
"Close focusing distances for various K-mount 135s:
Vivitar 135/2.8 CF: 1.7 feet (CF = Close Focus)
Pentax 135/2.8F,FA: 2.3 feet
Vivitar 135/2.3: 3 feet
Pentax 135/2.8A: 3.9 feet
Pentax 135/1.8A*:4 feet
Pentax 135/2.5K: 5 feet
Pentax 135/3.5
the
f1.8 at the maximum aperture of the lenses to which it was being compared
would lead you to different conclusions.
Back to the issue at hand "Reasonable price for A* 1.8 135mm" sheer luck
combined with a seller with no idea of the current market values will be the
most likely way t
Paul:
> Unrecorded PDML contributor, who had run his own tests: "A* 135/1.8: F:1.8:
> Not particularly sharp. Slight light fall-off at the corners. F: 2.8:
> Strange results. Left part of the image unsharp; right side sharp. Don't
> know what happened here. F:4: Sharp. F:5.6: Very sharp. F:8: Ext
Want to cry? In 1986, the 135/1.8A* was being advertised by Cambridge
Camera Exchange for $299.
Of course, that's before, "Sir, would you like glass with that? And a
focusing ring? And..."
Paul Franklin Stregevsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsu
"Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a quick question, I saw a private-add offering this lens, no price
mentioned.
Before calling, I would like to know what they usualy go for ...
Jan,
"Reasonable price for A* 1.8 135mm lens" is the oxymoron to end all
oxy
There's one in a store here in Buenos Aires for about usd 1000 in supposed ex+
condition (I didn't inspected it because I will never have this money to spend
in just one lens). If somebody is interested I can give the phone number (don't
know them don't know if they are trustable).
-
This messa
83 matches
Mail list logo
