My sediments exactly!
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: FAQ-abuse (was Re: cliches (was Re: UV filters on sexy
> lenses))
>
>
> On Tue, 03 A
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 08:57:32 -0500, Don Sanderson wrote:
> Think mini-mall, not mini-skirt.
Mini-skirt wins every time, here. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
And what makes you think that anyone who actually reads the FAQ will
follow it???
graywolf wrote:
You guys do know that if I put all this stuff in a FAQ, there would be
no need for the mailing list, as there would be nothing left to talk
about here.
--
Steve Jolly wrote:
English sports cars
Be
Graywolf said:
> You guys do know that if I put all this stuff in a FAQ, there would be no
need
> for the mailing list, as there would be nothing left to talk about here.
>
> --
>
> Steve Jolly wrote:
>
> > English sports cars
> > Beer
> > What Pentax should be doing different and why they're
same question asked about
computers can have a new answer about every week, are cameras, accessories and
techniques so different?
Don
-Original message-
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:46:37 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cliches (was Re: UV filters on
DC> zooms v primes
DC> AF v MF
DC> autoexposure v what it says on the inside of the kodak box
DC> plastic v metal
DC> diffusion v condenser enlargers (or fibre v RC, or glass v glassless
DC> carriers, and other cutting edge technologies)
DC> which local pentax distributor is crappeir
But what woul
You guys do know that if I put all this stuff in a FAQ, there would be no need
for the mailing list, as there would be nothing left to talk about here.
--
Steve Jolly wrote:
English sports cars
Beer
What Pentax should be doing different and why they're doomed for not
doing it.
S
--
graywolf
ht
What part of "mini", didn't you understand. There are photographic encyclopedias
out there with all that information in them.
--
Derby Chang wrote:
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
OMG! This 'discussion' again. It's nothing more than a filler. Could
this topic be added to the PDML mini-FAQ ;-) ? Like:
English sports cars
Beer
What Pentax should be doing different and why they're doomed for not
doing it.
S
Chrome v Black
regards,
Anthony Farr
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
OMG! This 'discussion' again. It's nothing more than a filler. Could
this topic be added to the PDML mini-FAQ ;-) ? Like:
Actually, Frantisek has a good point...graywolf, would you consider
adding a cliche discussion list to your FAQ? To Frantisek's, I'd add:
zooms v pr
DC> Apologies Frantisek,
No, do not apologise :) My post was so long anyway that it surpassed
the entire filter discussion in length, it was partly a joke (although
the arguments stand).
DC> I'm the cause of this. But the original thread came about because I'm
DC> too vain to have a black mount f
Graywolf wrote:
g> Second, the FAQ only mentioned things that have achieved consensus
g> opinion on the list.
Not the Con***sus word again ;-)
g> Third, you would miss out on writing a long e-mail stating
g> your opinion on the matter for the umpteenth time.
My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek
Well put!
All the best!
Raimo K
Personal photography homepage at:
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
- Original Message -
From: "Frantisek Vlcek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:15 PM
Raimo K posted:
> Well, I was not so sure myself - until I managed to bump a sizeable chunk
> out of the skylight filter on my 3.5/35-105 SMC Pentax. I had used the
> filter to correct the bluish cast of the Fujichrome Sensia II. The hood for
> this lens is useless as a hood or protection. Rubber h
> Having said that, next week I'll probably smash the front
> glass of a favorite lens.
I did just that in May. Dropped my istD and my Sigma 28-105mm face down
and shattered my UV filter. I've also had salt spray from the sea get on
the filter, which doesn't hurt the filter at all but would have
04 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: UV filters on sexy lenses
> I've wondered, too, why so many list members use UVs or Skylights
> as "protection". It seems to come down to shooting style; some
> folks leave lenses out and about while shooting and risk damage.
> I've never
I've wondered, too, why so many list members use UVs or Skylights
as "protection". It seems to come down to shooting style; some
folks leave lenses out and about while shooting and risk damage.
I've never felt the need for them. In fact, I've poked the glass
out of a few in order to extend rubber
In truth, there's no comparison. In the shot laeled 29, flare has
basically ruined the photo. A huge ribbon runs down the middle, the
trees are muddy and the result is uneven. In 30, the image is clear and
crisp. UV filters are strictly for amateurs and neurotics. Why would
anyone buy a great l
I haven't had a great lot of time to do tests with the 43mm Ltd, but it
sure is a comfortable lens to hold.
On the discussion about UV filters, there is definitely a difference
between nekkid lens and lens with the cheapie UV filter. But not as much
as I would have thought. These two shots are
20 matches
Mail list logo
