Mark. This is one thing i never really had a handle on,up until 2 years or so ago.
Having
read many
posts on the subject in those 2 years, made me realize how much i did NOT know about
taking good
pictures.Now that i understand light/metering better,i am taking better
pictures(IMHOG)
I too
Paul wrote:
Excellent post, Mark. I enjoyed it thoroughly. But one of your
statements is an absolute falsehood. You wrote:
I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice
a year I take one that seems to be good.
I agree with Paul. I think your post explains why you
. maaliskuuta 2003 14:47
Aihe: Re: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
Okay, now that I've calmed down, and read past the first paragraph (and
commented thereupon in another post g), I have to congratulate you, Mark, for
an excellent post.
In a much more modest way, taking far fewer shots than I'm
Same here. I have owned and used Practica (first SLR), Canon,
Olympus, Nikon and Pentax. Price is not the issue. Feel, size,
interface and SMC glass are issues. There are a few situations where
more technology is helpful, but for what I do, not many. Pentax
technology has been adequate in
Well stated Mark.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snip, snip, snip
I take a lot of photos. Most of them suck. Some are OK and once or twice
a year I take one that seems to be good.
The idea that a different brand of camera would somehow
HI!
PJ From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
PJ why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
PJ good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
PJ are making arguements against it.
PJ For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
PJ my manual Pentax stuff
På søndag, 23. mars 2003, kl. 06:36, skrev Mark Cassino:
At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
in film, trips, and marketing my work than a new
system that may not improve my photography
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual Pentax stuff slowly. I'd rather put my $$$
From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST)
why are we using Pentax??
The optical character of the lenses (low flare, nice colour rendition,
lifelike images).
Ergonomics, handling, compact size and low weight
Fast AF performance and accurate metering
PROTECTED]
Sendt: 22. marts 2003 20:39
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me
] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Peter Jansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WHY PENTAX? WAS: Re: Pentax -- Canon
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland
Alan,
why are we using Pentax??
I've been thinking of it for quite a while. So far
I've come to two basic
On March 22, 2003 04:56 pm, Peter Jansen wrote:
Well said Artur. Like I mentioned earlier, unless the
latest and the greatest can improve your photography
immensely, then???
Depending on what you're doing latest and greatest varies from a big yawn
to essential. For me it's all a
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST), you wrote:
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
why are we using Pentax??
Right now I'm storing Pentax gear, not using it, except for an
occasional photo using a bellows and the D100. But that will change
soon. I'll again be a
Since Roland was defending Pentax, I saw little or no need to defend as
well. I just tried to point out the flaws of Pentax. That doesn't mean I
don't like Pentax, but trying to say Pentax isn't perfect. Just think it
this way, if Pentax were so perfect, why most people used Canon Nikon? It
At 11:38 AM 3/22/2003 -0800, you wrote:
From the exchange of e-mails below from Roland Alan,
why are we using Pentax?? Doesn't sound like a
good system to buy into, and even long-time PDMLer's
are making arguements against it.
For me it is cost at the moment. I just expanding on
my manual
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
Recently, I've gotten my first digicam. Also, I
recently enabled myself to
buy an ES II. I got a chrome one in *really* nice
condition. I really like
it--starting with the premise that I want to shoot
TX with the 50mm f/1.4
Super-Multi-Coated
Why do you choose or stay in Pentax ?
I got interested in photography seriously in 1980. I considered a Leica R3
but, although I could afford it, I knew I couldn't afford additional lenses.
I ended up buying a Contax 139, which I used all the way through photo
school (I have a BFA in
Hi,
Contax don't have them in their lineup. It goes: 35/1.4 to 35/2.8 and
85/1.4 to nowhere, although there is a 100/2 (discontinued, and a lot
bigger than eg the SMCP M 85/2).
I agree with Mike about this. I have both the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.4,
but they're both very big and it would sometimes
Yeah ... but Mike's been wanting the Pentax lenses for quite a while.
At one point he was after my M85/2.0 ...
Of course, you get no disagreement wrt the leica glass. In fact, I'm
toying with the idea of a 35/1.4 ... but that's after a scanner and a
computer upgrade and some dental work, and
I think the question can also be phrased Why not Pentax?
Solid, dependable, high quality, simple to use, robust are some words that
can be used to describe a pentax system.
Just pick up any pentax camera and you'll know Why Pentax!
You should sell these to Pentax for the next TV ad
Original Message-
From: Carlos Royo
Since this thread seems to be on a sentimental bent, allow me to briefly
introduce myself and why I popped in. My name is Jim Timpe and I'm a
regular participant on the Ol*mpus list. My father is and has always been a
Pentax guy, but his failing
Hi Jim
I'm a regular here and lurk a lot on the Oly list. Welcome aboard and stick
around awhile. We can get just as OT here as you do over there :-).
Bill KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the
Jim Tempe,
Here's my take on their EBay value, based on your descriptions:
a) SMC 50/1.2 ($275 to $350)
b) SMC-A 85/1.4 ($800 to $1000; one just went for $1100)
c) SMC 200/2.5 ($350 to $550)
d) SMC shift 28/3.5 ($600 to $800)
e) 500/4.5 ($800 to $1200 in K
I think the question can also be phrased Why not Pentax?
Solid, dependable, high quality, simple to use, robust are some words that
can be used to describe a pentax system.
Just pick up any pentax camera and you'll know Why Pentax!
Francis M. Alviar
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss
My father died when I was eight (1975), and some of the most vivid memories I
have are of him and his camera equipment - his beloved Pentax Spotmatic SP (which
will always be my favorite body, no matter what) and a variety of oddball screw
mount lenses.
I used to tag along with him when I was
101 - 125 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
