>> In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur
for portrait
>> shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length
(plus f1.4).
> 85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the
FA* 85/1.4 is
> ~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances,
so that the
> difference between the autofocus 8
> how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
More of the same but better in every respect.
Pål
>> how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and
really like
> I would consider the 43 is not particular great
optically while the 77 is very good imho.
> regards,
> Alan Chan
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
> In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait
> shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4).
85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the FA* 85/1.4 is
~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances, so that the
difference between the autofocus 85/1.4 an
> manual focus feel is good
Well, speaking for the minority once again, I have to say that I
don't like it (or the 43/1.9) for manual focus - too much of a
"whirring" gear train feel - not "fluid" like ~real~ manual focus
lenses (or even the FA* 85/1.4, with its focus clutch).
Fred
- Original Message -
From: whereswayne
Subject: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its
cracked up to
> be?
It's a pretty good lens. AF is good on my MZ-5, manual focus
feel is good. The finish seems tough and the bu
Yeah, I forgot this - the 85 is said to be poor at long distances near
infinity.
> -Original Message-
> From: Arnold Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 11:18
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
>
i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its cracked up to
be?
or is saving up for the 85mm better bet
i am looking for a portrait come landscape lens come people even a macro
lens with pentaxes marvelous convertor the heliocoid windout thing
i currently use the vivitar 35-85mm for
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
I would consider the 43 is not particular great optically while the 77 is
very good imho.
regards,
Alan Chan
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
thanks
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:42 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> I havent used the 43 seriously, so cant say. Opinion on the 43 seems to
>
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait shots, as
it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4). For landscapes and
general photography the FA77/f1.8 is said to be the better choice. See
http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm
Arnold
top
drawer. It can look overpriced based on specs and build, but the glass
is what you are buying.
Hope this helps...
> -Original Message-
> From: whereswayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 11:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm lim
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> I wondered if you woul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2002 10:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
> how does it compare to the 24-90mm
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMA
how does it compare to the 24-90mm
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
> It is EVERYTHING it is cracked up to be, and more
2002 10:10
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
>
>
> i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its
> cracked up to be? or is saving up for the 85mm better bet i
> am looking for a portrait come landscape lens come people
> eve
i am thinking of buying it and am wondering if it is all its cracked up to
be?
or is saving up for the 85mm better bet
i am looking for a portrait come landscape lens come people even a macro
lens with pentaxes marvelous convertor the heliocoid windout thing
i currently use the vivitar 35-85mm for
The MZ-S screens and the Z-1p screens have the same size. You can use Z-1p
screens in the MZ-S body and visa versa. The LX, MX screen are bigger and do
not fit
Regards
Rüdiger
>Heiko wrote:
>
>>BTW - are the MZ-S screens compatible to
>> any other camera (Z1?) or are they only for the MZ-S?
>
>
Heiko: new answers below, others snipped!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
On Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:55 PM, Heiko Hamann
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> on 19 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>
> I wouldn't say that my low-light vision is bad, but the addition of
> small vi
Heiko wrote:
>BTW - are the MZ-S screens compatible to
> any other camera (Z1?) or are they only for the MZ-S?
As far as I know they are only for the MZ-S.
Pål
Hi wendy,
on 19 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>1. Nice, light, silver
>2. Nice, light, black
>3. Nice, heavy, black
>1 & 2 I'd recommend to anyone. Sharp, good contrast. 1. looks a little
>flimsier than 2. but really isn't. 3 - I'd only use it on the LX, it's
>really redundant when I have the
Hi John,
on 19 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>Heiko, I would definitely go for an MZ-S for the better AF, better
>build quality and more advanced exposure system, amongst others.
Thanks, this seems to be the unanimous opinion here and confirms my
intentions.
> Personally, I don't have prob
Hi Pål,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> for the LX2000. They have numbers between 60 and 70. But isn't there
>> a problem with the metering if you have the wrong screens?
>No. The LX meters at the film plane and is therefore oblivious the variation
>in focusing screens or finders.
Of
Hi Bruce,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>BTW, I saw a rumor on another board, not Nikon, that Nikon will be
>introducing a D2, DSLR with full frame sensor that shares features with a
Interesting. But I was always sure that the release of a major full
frame DSLR is only a question of t
Hi Sylwester,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> Do you know a webpage where he tells something about the MZ-S?
>I don't know - I can only scan a page from Color Foto 8/2002 with "13
>perfekte Kamera-Kombis" where you can find MZ-S and note about Rolf
>Nobel - I have found on web only some
This gets argued every so often. There appears to be a very minor
difference which most people don't notice. Someone even came up with
an actual difference in the specs once, but I forget what it was.
The actual problem with the MZ/ZX bodies is that the eyepieces are poorly
corrected uncoated
On 18 Nov 2002 18:00:00 +0100, Heiko Hamann wrote:
Hi Heiko,
>>My wife has an MZ-3 and it's viewfinder is the same as (she says
>>slightly better) than the MZ5n, but I don't like the viewfinder on it.
>
>Afaik the viewfinders are identical.
This gets argued every so often. There appears to be a
Heiko wrote:
> At Boz's webpage I found some information that there were newer screens
> for the LX2000. They have numbers between 60 and 70. But isn't there a
> problem with the metering if you have the wrong screens?
No. The LX meters at the film plane and is therefore oblivious the varia
Nikon and Canon have been selling digitial cameras for over 10 years. In the
case of the D100 there are subsystems used from the F80, but the camera is
not a F80 modified for digital use. Nikon also has had their version of USM
lenses out for several years and they have been selling a lens with IS
On poniedziaÅek, lis 18, 2002, at 17:47 Europe/Warsaw, Heiko Hamann
wrote:
Hello Heiko,
I don't hink too. MZ-S does it's job very well - it is not camera for
every
professionalist, but there are some like German foto-Proffessor Rolf
Nobel
who said "MZ-S has as many features as it is needed and
Hi Pål,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
...
>They have different names. Can't remember the names at present and they might
>start to get hard to find. Absolutely worth having; a must in fact.
At Boz's webpage I found some information that there were newer screens
for the LX2000. They h
Hi Michel,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>And, don't forget the grip BG-10.
>Extra, and an indispensable complement !
Of course! But this might be a perfect item for a christmas wish
list...;-)
Regards, Heiko
Hi Pål,
(I have just browsed my ASCII-tables for the right å: AltGr+134 ;-))
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>The MZ-S has a significantly better viewfinder thatn any other Pentax
>AF camera. It uses the same type screens as the new LX screens. The
>only "controversial" issue with the MZ-
Hi akozak,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
Yes, nice equipment.
>and much better that zooms I could afford to buy in different
>system.
That's reight. This is the advantage of the available Pentax prime lenses.
>Sometimes I think that Pentax marketing is not good, they can produce
>gr
Hi Alin,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
> I also have a MZ-5n and more or less the same assortment of lenses.
It seems a quite common assortment;-)
> I don't plan to sell any of them, partly because at the current prices
> it's not worth the hassle,
That's right. But sometimes eB
Hi Sylwester,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>> - It has a great build quality.
>That's true - very nice, it's weakest point is back cover, but even Nikon
>F100 has plastick back too.
That wouldn't bother me.
>> - I don't think, that Pentax will release a superior highend modell in
>> t
Hi Leon,
on 18 Nov 02 you wrote in pentax.list:
>>- I'm wearing glasses and the viewfinder of the MZ-5n is not very
>>useful
>My wife has an MZ-3 and it's viewfinder is the same as (she says
>slightly better) than the MZ5n, but I don't like the viewfinder on it.
Afaik the viewfinders are identi
Heiko Hamann a écrit:
At have to say first that I'm not a professonal photographer. I've great
respect for the craft and the art that photographers do. For me
photography is a part of my spare time, so my demands are different from
those of pros - some of this demands may even be more subjec
Heiko wrote:
> - It doesn't have a much better viewfinder than the MZ-5n but a much
> better AF that might help me in difficult situations.
The MZ-S has a significantly better viewfinder thatn any other Pentax AF camera. It
uses the same type screens as the new LX screens. The only "controvers
Heiko,
Many of us face similar decisions, and unfortunately Pentax doesn't
help a bit. :o(
I also have a MZ-5n and more or less the same assortment of lenses.
I don't plan to sell any of them, partly because at the current prices
it's not worth the hassle, and for the rest
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Shaun Canning wrote:
> $201.
Too rich for my tastes, now..
> Your camera won't be any less featured when something else comes out that
> costs more. The only thing that it'll lack is being "top of the line," but
> chances are, anyone and everyone you see isn't going to know that, unless
> you say, "hi, i'm brad and this is my TOP OF THE LINE slr" when you
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Who will get his DSLR in a couple of years when they start showing up on
> ebay for five hundred bucks.
As will I for the same reasons.
Malcolm
Brad Dobo wrote:
>
which was developed first?
> The real MZ-S as a 35mm SLR or the 'MZ-D' that when abandoned, was converted
> to film?
The MZ-S and MZ-D were introduced at about the same time as two seperate
projects. The MZ-D wasn't converted to film.
>I'm also afraid of my existing lens no
: Thoughts on a film flagship
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
> Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
How would you have been "suckered?" You paid your money, you got your
camera. At the time, it was a fine piece of equipment, with nothing above
I know, it's odd, and it doesn't make much or any sense. But
wellneither does Pentax either :)
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Treena Harp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: Th
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: Re: Thoughts on a film flagship
> Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the
rumored new
> flagship?
>
>
> At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
>
>
> >Why am I increasing aware that I got suc
Why? Did it suddenly stop working when Pål posted about the rumored new
flagship?
At 12:52 PM 10/18/02 -0400, Brad wrote:
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
- Original Message -
From: "Glen O'Neal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
> Personally I really love my PZ1-p. It has all the features I want and
need.
> I would love to see an upgraded version with a faster more accurate
> mu
You better re-read that sentence. I know what you mean, but the English
doesn't make sense!
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen O'Neal [mailto:goneal@;kc.rr.com]
> Sent: 18 October 2002 18:06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Thoughts on a film flagship
&g
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Thoughts on a film flagship
Realistically Pentax's immanent film flagship may be it's last high-end film
camera. It seems it might go more in the high-tech direction (PZ-1p, Maxxum
7) or, alternatively, in the lower tech - an LX w/ AF sort of thing. O
Why am I increasing aware that I got suckered when purchasing my MZ-S?
[Brad Dobo]
You didn't get suckered - the MZ-S is a beautiful camera. But perhaps you
are alluding to the fact that it may not be a long-term flagship but,
rather, as some of us have speculated, a kind of stop-gap camera ne
Realistically Pentax's immanent film flagship may be it's last high-end film
camera. It seems it might go more in the high-tech direction (PZ-1p, Maxxum
7) or, alternatively, in the lower tech - an LX w/ AF sort of thing. Or
could it, like the Maxxum 9 and to some extent the MZ-s, hit both poi
, what they did/didn't do well, why certain decisions were made
and how certain designers are regarded.
> -Original Message-
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Chris Brogden 'Subject: Re: Digital thoughts
>
> OM-88??
> And who remembers the T-80?
Isn't that a type of tank?
> William Robb
>
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Chris Brogden 'Subject: Re: Digital thoughts
>
> > AFAIK, the only AF 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses that
> Olympus
> > produced was the OM-77,
>
> OM-88??
> And who r
- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden 'Subject: Re: Digital thoughts
>
> AFAIK, the only AF 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses that
Olympus
> produced was the OM-77,
OM-88??
And who remembers the T-80?
William Robb
AFAIK, the only AF 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses that Olympus
produced was the OM-77, and that was a hunkajunk, poorly built and poorly
spec'd. I don't disagree with what you say, but my main point was that
companies who don't follow the major movements of the market lose
visibility in th
It isn't that Olympus didn't "get it", they did. The came out with a couple
of AF SLRs, realized how tight the competition was and how high the cost was
developing these things and opted out of the market. They decided to expand
their P&S line (very successfully) and just keep making the same non
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
> This is not the DDML (Digital Distribution Mailing List) Guess what?
> It's PDML, and I used to think it stood for Pentax Distribution
> Mailing list.
Until you found out that it's the Pentax Discuss Mailing List. :)
On an unrelated note...
Personally
Tuesday, September 3, 2002, 10:53:55 PM, Łukasz wrote:
ŁK> I haven't tried it, but I read that in order to fully benefit from the fine
ŁK> grain and smooth tones one has to process it very carefully and in a
ŁK> particular combination of the chemistry used. There was a test of this film
ŁK> in a
HC-110 works well with it.
I'm certain others do as well.
Developing info at www.digitaltruth.com
Collin
At 01:07 AM 9/4/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Chris Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Pentax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject
M
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: thoughts on fuji across
>
>
> It's a new emulsion. I'm not sure if it's available
> everywhere (I don't know
> if I can buy it here in Poland either :)
>
> Lukasz
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Ow
It's a new emulsion. I'm not sure if it's available everywhere (I don't know
if I can buy it here in Poland either :)
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Neither have I! Where/how can I get some and give it a try?
Bill KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What film is this ?
> Never heard of "Fuji Across"..
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Brendan wrote:
> I just fired off 2 rolls of this stuff and I'm
> mimpressed alot, just very long wash time, ( purple
> tinge for 20 min ) but it's nice. Anyone have other opinions?
>
I just shot two rolls of Across 100. What developer did you use? I havn't
developed mine y
s interested I
could dig this out and post some results.
Lukasz
-Original Message-
From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:18 PM
To: Pentax
Subject: thoughts on fuji across
I just fired off 2 rolls of this stuff and I'm
mimpressed alot, just
What film is this ?
Never heard of "Fuji Across".. Neopan yes.. Across nope...
Dave
Original Message:
-
From: Brendan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: thoughts on fuji across
I just fired off 2 rolls of
Steve Larson wrote:
> NEW! You lucky dude. Agreed, it`s a fantastic camera. I think a button for
> DOF would be nice too, like on the Super Program (actually it`s an
> actuating lever).
Sorry, but by "new" I meant "newly acquired", not "brand spanking new
just out of the box". Thats why I used
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My suggestion, don't go too far down this road. When it is supposed to be
> sharp and it can be sharp it's always best to make it sharp. If it's a
> moody shot, an artistic interpretation of a scene or a grab shot than
> sharpness plays a secondary role. Maximize your e
Christian Skofteland wrote:
> The LX is, I believe, the best camera for macro photography. You HAVE to
> get a Bellows A. It, combined with the LX is amazing!
Thanks for the tip. I've been keeping my eyes open for a set of bellows
for quite some time (on the local secondhand market). I'll b
In agreement with Rob more than JCO here! A good portrait, for
example, may be soft everywhere, _except_ the eyes, which should be
perfectly clear and sharp. Which is why a soft filter is so popular
for this type of work. On the other hand, if looking at hard-edged
objects, for example raci
Hi,
> the circumstances of taking the photo may have prevented any real sharpness
> being achieved (eg. Robert Capa's D-Day landing shots), but this does
> not detract from the impact.
to be a bit pedantic, the circumstances in which Capa took the photos
did not cause their unsharpness (althoug
In a message dated 8/31/02 11:54:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I refuse to train myself to notice a degree of sharpness
whose absence will then bother me. If some folks want to do that it's
fine by me; just don't preach to me about how important or necessary it
is. It is ultimately a ma
In a message dated 8/31/02 11:27:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Are photos taken with fast (1600 and up) less valid because they appear
less sharp than those taken with Velvia? Nope. >>
No they are not less valid but they tend to lack colour and sharpness. In
most cases that makes them a
On 31 Aug 2002 at 23:02, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> I disagree. Sharpness is what makes a photograph appear
> more real. I have excellent 20-15 vision and I find that
> the better the sharpness ( ala medium and large formats)
> the more I can appreciate a photo, all else being equal.
>
> I'm not sa
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Brewer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 12:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Some random thoughts
>
>
> There is too much emphasis on sharpness in photography.
I disagree. Sharpness is
There is too much emphasis on sharpness in photography. A lot of people who
consider themselves photographers simply because they have stopped the lens
down far enough to get everything in focus are misguided. Sharpness comes
in a distant third behind light and composition.
Are photos taken wi
Dave;
The LX is, I believe, the best camera for macro photography. You HAVE to
get a Bellows A. It, combined with the LX is amazing!
Funny, I've always been used to the lever-type DOF preview and when I
recently got a Super Program and P3 it was hard to get used to it's
different style.
100F
I have a ZX-7, which is very similar to the ZX-L. It's a great camera
and the improvemtns of the ZX-L can only make it better. The fact that
Rebels outsell it by quite a bit is another tribute to the power of
advertizing and name recognition.
I have 4 lenses I use all the time: Pentax 50 1.4,
On 31 Aug 2002 at 16:28, David A. Mann wrote:
> Firstly, I loaded some film into my "new" LX today and did a few macro
> shots. What a fantastic camera. Its very smooth and very responsive.
> It just doesn't get in the way. But I will have to get used to that DOF
> lever (the K2 and Z-1p b
Sorry Steve...
Vic
In a message dated 8/31/02 8:22:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Hi Vic,
Actually, David wrote that, and I do agree with you.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California >>
In a message dated 8/31/02 8:22:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< In a message dated 8/31/02 7:26:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << Last of all, I've decided that the quest for absolute sharpness in my
>
> > slides is not as important as I used to think. A good image will stand
>
Hi Vic,
Actually, David wrote that, and I do agree with you.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Some random thoughts
>
> In a message dated
In a message dated 8/31/02 7:26:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Last of all, I've decided that the quest for absolute sharpness in my
> slides is not as important as I used to think. A good image will stand
> out regardless of whether your lens was used wide-open, handheld at
> 1/30th.
Hello David,
David A. Mann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a few small things to post about so I might as well bundle it all
> together like a digest :)
>
> Firstly, I loaded some film into my "new" LX today and did a few macro
> shots. What a fantastic camera. Its very smooth and very responsive
Hi all,
I have a few small things to post about so I might as well bundle it all
together like a digest :)
Firstly, I loaded some film into my "new" LX today and did a few macro
shots. What a fantastic camera. Its very smooth and very responsive.
It just doesn't get in the way. But I will
A few weeks ago, my kennel club hosted an agility trial. I
thought it would benice to take some shots of the dogs running
through the course. The fastest drive I have is the motor drive
A for the Program Plus. I think it runs at about 3FPS.
Here was my technique:
I would set up and prefocus on one
Since, you are too critical about flash to subject distance, I will
strictly follow the lines.
Many thanks again.
With regards,
Ayash.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > Many thanks for the explanation. I will follow the lines
>
> Talking about lines, think about
- Original Message -
From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee
Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
> Hi Bill,
>
> Many thanks for the explanation. I will follow the lines
Talking about lines, think about attaching a string to your
flash once you have figured out your
ash Kanto Mukherjee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
>
> I have no idea for how much extension of bellow and
> separation between the
> flash & subject such cancellation takes place. >>>
>
> Maybe it was because the
I am able to understand it now.
Many thanks again.
With regards,
Ayash.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee
> Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
>
> Ayash, with the setup Warren describes, the bel
Hi Bill,
Many thanks for the explanation. I will follow the lines
With regards,
Ayash.
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee
> Subject: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
>
> Hi Ayash:
> You had best use b
<<
Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
I have no idea for how much extension of bellow and
separation between the
flash & subject such cancellation takes place. >>>
Maybe it was because the 80mm lens I was using was a
1:1 lens, which meant that it was symetric
- Original Message -
From: "Ayash Kanto Mukherjee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
> No, no, no. Please don't feel small. PDML is the place to
share
> inf
- Original Message -
From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee
Subject: Re: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
Ayash, with the setup Warren describes, the bellows factor and
guide number factor cancel each other out perfectly.
Exposure must be increased based on an obverse square ratio of
the lens to
- Original Message -
From: Ayash Kanto Mukherjee
Subject: Twin flash for Macro: Some thoughts
Hi Ayash:
You had best use both flash units in manual. As you know, in
auto, they will quench very quickly when used close to the
subject. Don't worry about point source or whatever, as
> Not the Pluto because nobody requires that much of time; besides
> its too cold out there. LX won't work. :-))
But, it will take at least 150 years or so to develop "sticky mirror
syndrome". ;-)
Fred
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.ne
Hallo all!
I have two flash units. I want to use both the flashes simultaneously for
frontal lighting, sidelighting and back lighting macro shots of flowers
etc. I have a synchronization cord, eye and cord extensions (2 m) to fire
the flashes simultaneously. The problem is automodes of the fla
>any one had any experiences with this lens?
>what is it like
>anygood?
I bought one brand new few years ago in Melbourne. In short, it was poor
optically and mecnahically. A true rip off. The SMC PENTAX-A 35-105/3.5 is
much sharper and better built.
regards,
Alan Chan
__
1101 - 1200 of 1391 matches
Mail list logo
