Op Tue, 06 May 2008 22:36:19 +0200 schreef Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 6, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>>
>> > Take a static subject, put your eye to the finder and let it roam
>> > around
>
Op Tue, 06 May 2008 23:07:29 +0200 schreef Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> hand-drafting?'. Well, personally I can draft on the computer and use
> paint programs quite handily, but I enjoy drafting out a plan by hand
> or spending a few hours painting. And yes, it's nice to load pictures
> from m
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:23 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hope this helps,
> >
> It's called a film changing bag or darkroom bag there is no special name
> that I know of. Surprising really since English has more damned words
> than any other language.
And i can proudly mi
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
> Op Tue, 06 May 2008 07:41:08 +0200 schreef Godfrey DiGiorgi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>> On May 5, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Jan Moren wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask: what does it entail
>>> today to actually use a 645 film camera? I've
>Do I want to go to that expense again for equipment that is already
>aging and for which there may never be new parts again?
scrolling past all the other opinions,
If it makes you happy, sure. Pentax cameras last a good long while,
and the K lenses work on the digitals anyways. Plus, film is
e
On May 6, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On May 6, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>>
>>> Take a static subject, put your eye to the finder and let it roam
>>> around
>>> until you're satisfied?
>
True. After trying the magnifier eyepiece on the K10D I took it off.
While it helped with critical focus in some situations, I had trouble
seeing my composition.
Paul
On May 6, 2008, at 4:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>
>> Take a static sub
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
>
> > Take a static subject, put your eye to the finder and let it roam
> > around
> > until you're satisfied?
> >
> > I'm not even being flippant: I liked both th
On May 6, 2008, at 1:26 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
> Take a static subject, put your eye to the finder and let it roam
> around
> until you're satisfied?
>
> I'm not even being flippant: I liked both the OM-1 and the MX. What
> is the
> big deal with eye-relief?
I want to see the whole frame
Op Tue, 06 May 2008 16:39:26 +0200 schreef Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On May 5, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> >> I much prefer the LX viewfinder as well. I hated the F3 viewfinder.
>> >> It was one of th
Lucas Rijnders wrote:
> Developing isn't a problem: you need a light-tight zippered bag with
> openings for your hands (I'm quite sure the english language has a word
> for it. Sadly I don't know it ;-), a daylight developing tank (patterson
> is the brand to have, I think), and chemicals wit
Op Tue, 06 May 2008 07:41:08 +0200 schreef Godfrey DiGiorgi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On May 5, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Jan Moren wrote:
>
>> Brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask: what does it entail
>> today to actually use a 645 film camera? I've been on the fence on
>> getting one for a
On May 5, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> From: "Michael S. Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only
>>> now did I
>>> notice the absence of Pentax film cameras in the product lineup.
>>> Should
>>> I
Don't count on a thousand years, or even a few hundred for any modern
medium. If you want you pictures to last use glass plates.
Michael S. Keller wrote:
> Yeah, I'm kinda there. I hate to see analog go completely away, though.
> Someone might consider my pictures worthwhile, in a few hundred o
Only for Brooks...
David J Brooks wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:34 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> In my first darkroom, I kept chemistry in beer bottles (they were brown,
>> and about the right
>> size),
>> William Robb
>>
>
> That, would be VERY dangerous
Actually I like them both. I guess that's why there are more than one
manufacturer.
Adam Maas wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On May 5, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> >> I much prefer the LX viewfinder as well. I hated the F3 v
Yeah, I'm kinda there. I hate to see analog go completely away, though.
Someone might consider my pictures worthwhile, in a few hundred or
thousand years. Despite my fond nostalgia for the MX I so wanted
when they were new on the market, I'm just not sure that I want to go
there again. If my SO
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:34 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In my first darkroom, I kept chemistry in beer bottles (they were brown, and
> about the right
> size),
> William Robb
That, would be VERY dangerous around castle brooks.:-)
Dave
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 5, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> >> I much prefer the LX viewfinder as well. I hated the F3 viewfinder.
> >> It was one of the reasons I
> >> switched from my F3 based Nikon system to an LX based Pentax s
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:39 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > The standard F3 finder is IMHO far better than the HP f
- Original Message -
From: "Michael S. Keller"
Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
> Thanks? I was a teenager, with limited funds. One did what one could. At
> least I had an SLR for shooting said film, and an eagerness to experiment.
In my first darkroom, I kept c
I'm sorry. Didn't mean to be arrogant, but sometimes I am without
trying:-). I did the same thing as a teenager. I thought this was
your plan going forward. But, seriously, if the result is your
motivation rather than the process, digital BW is very nice. And very
controllable.
Paul
On May
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
> No, like all AF bodies it's battery dependant (As is the F100 I
> compare it too). If you're looking for a body that can function
> without batteries, the equally pricey LX
Thanks? I was a teenager, with limited funds. One did what one could. At
least I had an SLR for shooting said film, and an eagerness to experiment.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, you shouldn't care.
> Given the darkroom technique you describe, you'll get much better results
> shooting BW on a di
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
>
> The standard F3 finder is IMHO far better than the HP finder and also
> better than the LX finder. The real weakness is the F3's meter
> readout, which is awful, especiall
On May 5, 2008, at 7:13 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>> I much prefer the LX viewfinder as well. I hated the F3 viewfinder.
>> It was one of the reasons I
>> switched from my F3 based Nikon system to an LX based Pentax system.
>>
> The standard F3 finder is IMHO far better than the HP finder and also
> b
- Original Message -
From: "David J Brooks"
Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
>I had two of them for quite a while, and shot 2-3 weddings with it and
> an old cheapy flash.
I bet my K1000s shot 300 weddings for me. Those cameras paid for themselves
many. many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> From: "Michael S. Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now did I
>> notice the absence of Pentax film cameras in the product lineup. Should
>> I care? I was thinking of getting another, but is it worth it? Or i
At 6:01 PM -0400 5/5/08, P. J. Alling wrote:
>Sadly it's getting hard to find good condition MXs at reasonable
>prices. Damn photographers insist on using them.
My MX has been in for repairs for almost a year while the repair guy
waits for one that he can strip for the parts...
--
Steve Sharp
No, you shouldn't care.
Given the darkroom technique you describe, you'll get much better results
shooting BW on a digital Pentax.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: "Michael S. Keller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that
The KX is a lovely camera and they're going Dirt Cheep these days.
Especially considering what they are. However Since I already own a
pair of MX's a pair of LX's an ME and a ZX5n and an MZ3 that don't get
enough exercise...
Bong Manayon wrote:
> Hey! I just picked up a very clean Pentax KX
shot 2-3 weddings with it and
> an old cheapy flash.
>
> I still have my original, my sister has the other.
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> - Original Message -----
>> From: "
Hey! I just picked up a very clean Pentax KX today--black body with
hardly any scratches or brassing! It's worth it!
Bong
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Michael S. Keller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now did I
> notice the absenc
ooks"
> Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
>
>
> > Have we forgotten about our trusty friend, Mr K1000
>
> It annoys me how little respect the K1000 gets. I had 3 of them for a while,
> and used them for
> weddings. Never had any problems with any of
Michael S. Keller wrote:
> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now did I
> notice the absence of Pentax film cameras in the product lineup. Should
> I care? I was thinking of getting another, but is it worth it? Or if I
> ever shoot film again, should I just use the Ni
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:54 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
>
>
> > No, like all AF bodies it's battery dependant (As is the F100 I
> >
- Original Message -
From: "David J Brooks"
Subject: Re: Should I care about film?
> Have we forgotten about our trusty friend, Mr K1000
It annoys me how little respect the K1000 gets. I had 3 of them for a while,
and used them for
weddings. Never had any problems wit
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:39 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Michael S. Keller"
> Subject: Should I care about film?
>
>
> > I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now
Sadly it's getting hard to find good condition MXs at reasonable
prices. Damn photographers insist on using them.
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Michael S. Keller wrote:
>
>> Can the MZ-S operate with no juice, as my dearly-departed KX and K1000
>> could?
>>
>
> Nope :(
>
> I'd recommend an MX.
On May 5, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Jan Moren wrote:
> Brings me to a question I've been meaning to ask: what does it entail
> today to actually use a 645 film camera? I've been on the fence on
> getting one for a long time now, but I have very little experience of
> shooting film. It is the slower workf
On 5/5/08, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I still shoot film because I like the donkey work.
Mark!
(The responses to this are simply limitless )
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
- Original Message -
From: "Michael S. Keller"
Subject: Should I care about film?
> I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now did I
> notice the absence of Pentax film cameras in the product lineup. Should
> I care? I was thinking of ge
tis 2008-05-06 klockan 00:08 +0200 skrev Lucas Rijnders:
> Op Mon, 05 May 2008 22:09:22 +0200 schreef Katrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Pentax film body recommendations:
> If you don't like your camera to focus for you, but like modern exposure
> modes a super A (or 645 ;-) would be a good choice
Hi...
I'm also still shooting film and I also like b/w... and just recently a friend
asked me to shoot
candid shoots at her wedding reception and she really liked the b/w ones ^_-
but I thought about upgrading my film bodies too... because I love my me but
sometimes
autofocus and build in fla
Op Mon, 05 May 2008 22:09:22 +0200 schreef Katrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Pentax film body recommendations:
As said, the MZ-S and LX keep their value: the first is rare, the second a
legend. Probably not the best buys.
If you like the dual control wheel set-up of the high-end digital cameras
ge
Have we forgotten about our trusty friend, Mr K1000
Dave
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, like all AF bodies it's battery dependant (As is the F100 I
> compare it too). If you're looking for a body that can function
> without batteries, the equally pric
At 10:09 PM +0200 5/5/08, Katrin wrote:
>Hi...
>
>I'm also still shooting film and I also like b/w... and just
>recently a friend asked me to shoot
>candid shoots at her wedding reception and she really liked the b/w ones ^_-
>
>but I thought about upgrading my film bodies too... because I love
>
No.
Michael S. Keller wrote
> Can the MZ-S operate with no juice, as my dearly-departed KX and K1000
> could?
>
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> Overall, even if you want to still shoot film the lack of new film
>> bodies isn't a big issue. There's a superb selection of used film
>> bodies on the marke
No, like all AF bodies it's battery dependant (As is the F100 I
compare it too). If you're looking for a body that can function
without batteries, the equally pricey LX is the most desirable (and is
priced similarly against the Nikon F3 as the MZ-S is to the F100. The
LX is much closer in performan
Some folks persevere with film because they like it or it suits their
photography well enough, or whatever. Others prefer to learn
rendering B&W (if it's black and white work that they want).
Whatever seems right to you is the right answer. As Freeman Paterson
put it in a recent interview, "
Michael S. Keller wrote:
> Can the MZ-S operate with no juice, as my dearly-departed KX and K1000
> could?
Nope :(
I'd recommend an MX. Only uses battery power for the light meter. Other
than that it's 100% functional without electricity :)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Can the MZ-S operate with no juice, as my dearly-departed KX and K1000
could?
Adam Maas wrote:
> Overall, even if you want to still shoot film the lack of new film
> bodies isn't a big issue. There's a superb selection of used film
> bodies on the market today at far more reasonable prices than t
Overall, even if you want to still shoot film the lack of new film
bodies isn't a big issue. There's a superb selection of used film
bodies on the market today at far more reasonable prices than the new
bodies ever sold for (although the really desirable Pentax bodies are
rather overpriced in compa
I've been out of serious camera shopping for so long that only now did I
notice the absence of Pentax film cameras in the product lineup. Should
I care? I was thinking of getting another, but is it worth it? Or if I
ever shoot film again, should I just use the Nikon P&S I inherited from
my fath
54 matches
Mail list logo
