RE: About Sigma: beware ??
I think it is not fair to gerealise based on the single known Canon compatibility problem. Sigma gives information about this on their web site, it affects a known range of cameras and Sigma offers a free upgrade for all lenses where this is technically feasible. Not bad for customer service. Otherwise it is a mixed picture for me. Of my two Sigma lenses the 2,8/28-70 is very sharp, it holds very well against the FA 24-90 but the AF is less consistent than that of the Pentax ... and the 12-24 is unique anyhow but not as sharp as I would like it to be. Both feel solid and seem to have good build quality, something that cannot be said about the FA 24-90. Sven Zitat von Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Unfortunately and very frustratingly I have great problems with the new Sigma 18-125 DC f3.5-5.6 for Canon (20D). Nate and I both have this lens and Nate uses his on the 20D without a problem. (That's the only lens I could afford when I finally got enough money to buy the digital stuff.) Optically - for a zoom of this type - it's not bad at all. However it is consistently inconsistently malfocusing. Typically it will focus at a point closer than the aimed focus point. Nate has had this problem on several of his lenses. He says that Sigma's lenses have trouble communicating with Canon bodies. He says you need to get it replaced, which you're already doing. But give the lens a chance when you get a new one - it's really good for the kind of lens it is. What do you guys think - can I trust a Sigma EX 70-200 f.2.8 APO HSM DG will do a good job, or will it let me down like the 18-125? It just depends on the lens; sometimes you get a stinker, but it's never happened to me. I have a couple of EX lenses, the 15mm fisheye and the 20mm f/1.8, which I like a lot. Amita
AW: excellent price on Pentax 24-90!
As far as I can see it is gone from their site. Good luck... Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Juli 2005 20:30 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: RE: excellent price on Pentax 24-90! I'm in! At less than 1/2 price I'd hate myself if I didn't. ;-( Sounds way too good to be true, we'll see. Don -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:37 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: excellent price on Pentax 24-90! On Jul 9, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote: However, I just happened upon http://www.beachcamera.com listing the FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL IF for a remarkable $199, new. Beach Camera has an excellent rating on resellerratings.com I have bought a PZ-1p and my *ist D from Beach, both transactions without any problem. At the time I bought my D (late October 2003), the first batch had sold out everywhere else and only Beach had it. They do charge high shipping fees. The main problem with Beach is that they don't carry much Pentax stuff. Hmm. Well, they list the 24-90 as in stock, free shipping (7-10 day service) or $7 shipping (3-5 day service). Couldn't help myself ... at $200, I ordered one. Now I'll be able to do a direct comparison of the two lenses. Godfrey
Re: ME-F
Oh, that explains it then - you haven't tried the AF lens yet... It is so ridiculously slow (and heavy) that I find it hard to understand how this ever made it into customers hands. Honestly, after you push the button you can watch the lens slowly approaching focus ... still focussing ... yes, almost, ... just a bit more ... o.k., done it ... focus achieved. I think the reason for the commercial failure simply is that it did not work well enough. Sven Zitat von Joaquim Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Brian Walters wrote: I suspect that the commercial failure of the ME-F with its autofocus lens is what set Pentax back in the autofocus race. After the ME-F they went back to manual focus systems in the P series and were not ready to meet the challenge of the Minolta 7000. Can't understand why, as a focus assist system it works really well. With low ligh it's a bit worse than the DS but not too much. Was it too expensive? When I receive the autofocus lens I'll report on how it works.
Re: Your Favorite Pentax Camera
For me it is also the MX (purchased new in 1982) as there is nothing wrong with it, for what it is, a manual camera. I hate qirks and design flaws (and somehow love them at the same time - I have some really weird cameras). With many cameras it is a single minor thing that spoils it for me. Certainly not in actual use but as this is about favourites... The Spotmatic F leaves the meter on when I forget the lens cap - bad. The ME does not tell me when I have exposure correction set The LX (though a marvellous camera) has no AE lock (although the K2DMD that came earlier has it) The Super A is louder than the ME Super The P5/50 does not show the aperture (although the Super Program that came earlier does it) The MZ-5 does not tell me which one of the three AF sensors it has used The MZ-S is near perfect ... but has a plastic back. Regards, Sven - Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -
AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
So am I. The 8 Megapixel model of the other brand is now much cheaper than what I paid for the ist D 1 1/2 years ago. I do not regret that I paid this money but I want a comparable body from my brand soon! And if there is no clear indication that there will be one in the forseeable future then I don't know how to convince myself to stay with Pentax. Lenses, for sure aren't a plus for Pentax either, these days. It took me quite a while to get hold of a FA 2,0/35 (no longer available new) and a FA 2,0/24 seems to be equally rare. I have meanwhile bought my second Sigma lens and I really didn't want to do that... We all want to believe that there is a future for Pentax but what is it that we base this upon? The roadmap? I can make this up in 1/2 an hour. The 645 D mockups? ... The other brand has three different shift tilt lenses to choose from! And there is a 2,0/35 available new ... but there also is a 1,4/35 if you like this better... Yes, their cameras are ugly but still... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Mai 2005 21:27 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future - Original Message - From: keithw Subject: Re: Rumors About Pentax's Future Why the concern? Tom is very concerned about being able to upgrade his camera bodies. William Robb
AW: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future
The FA 3/35 is not even in the Pentax Germany price list since 12 months - and Germany is not a niche market for Pentax. It is nice to know that BH got hold of some from wherever but what kind of sales strategy is that? Pentax did have a decent lens range for 40 years until now. How can they possible let the opportunity slip to sell me a DA 1,7/35, a DA 2/24 a DA 2,8/24-70, a D-FA 2,8/70-200 to name a few and let me turn to Sigma instead? They were able to offer comparable lenses for decades and they are unable now? What does this tell me? Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: glenn murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2005 05:41 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: AW: Rumors About Pentax's Future keller.schaefer wrote: snip Lenses, for sure aren't a plus for Pentax either, these days. It took me quite a while to get hold of a FA 2,0/35 (no longer available new) and a FA 2,0/24 seems to be equally rare. snip I just got my brand new FA 35/2 from BH less than two weeks ago. They can't make 'em fast enough, but they are being made. Glenn
AW: istd or istds or wait?
Maybe ... wait. I have the ist D since it came out and it has become my main camera - but I don't use it exclusively. With all the advantages it has, the ease of use, the clean 'digital' images, the good low light capabilities, if you have the time and a good film (and the light) then 6 MPix is not better that 35mm film and certainly no match for medium format. Both ist D and Ds are very good 6 Megapixel cameras - but 6 MPix is not the end of the story if you ask for fine detail. Is there a Pentax DSLR with 8 MPix or rather 10 MPix around the corner? I don't know. If you think it is, then maybe you should wait. Regards, Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Frank Wajer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 23. Mai 2005 17:47 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: istd or istds or wait? Hi all, simple question: shoudl I get an istD or istDs, or should I wait for the next digital SLR. Will Pentax bring us a newer digital SLR, with the Sony rumours? Is the only main difference between the D and Ds that the D will accept a battery pack? I have invested a lot in Pentax glass and will feel pretty shitty when I cannot upgrade to a good digital SLR. Frank
Re: Pentax 645
I think it is difficult to tell from a picture what exactly caused the vibration. So exact proof will be hard to get. Reichmann SAYS that the obvious blur that he shows in his pictures comes from shutter induced vibration - but how does he know? It could have been wind, nearby machinery or he himself. An impact of the first shutter curtain seems hard to believe. If I hand-hold my 6x7, set it to B, pre-fire the mirror and release the shutter I can hardly hear the first curtain being released - and I can not feel it. From my perception, this impact would not cause a Auto 110 to tremble. Sven Zitat von Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm a regular reader and occassional contributor to both forums. The shutter bounce vibration nonsense has been debunked numerous times. Read Wheatfield's earlier post. There are some obvious things you can't do with extremely long lenses and flimsy tripods, but when used correctly, the 6x7 Pentax works very well. I've proven that conclusively in terms of my own work. I think it's time this mysth got debunked once and for all. Tomorrow after work, I'll set up a test and video the damned thing. I don't really see what debunking needs to be done - no one has ever claimed that the shutter vibration is a problem at all times, under all conditions, only that the massive shutter of the 67 can cause problems at certain shutter speeds with long lenses *if certain precautions aren't taken* (sufficient tripod and head - which some people new to the 67 system underestimate). Reichmann's site shows the issue clearly and then specifically shows how it can be totally eliminated with the correct set-up. You don't really need to duplicate his efforts. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: MZ/ZX bodies built-in flash refuse to pop-up?
... and here is a drawing - dimensions taken from the original part. Clearly, bad engineering in the first place. www.kellerschaefer.mynetcologne.de/teil.jpg Do you know whether the MZ-S has the same part? Regards, Sven Zitat von Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's the fragile plastic which is broken. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973085.jpg How about made one out of aluminium rod? http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973286.jpg This is how it looks when installed. http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/41973287.jpg Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: removing stuck filters
The underside of a mouse pad works fine for this. Sven Zitat von Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ...and put the lens filter down on a sheet of rubber on flat surface (another rubber glove could do in a pinch). Press hard down and turn. Voila! Good light! fra
RE: DA 14 vs. Sigma 12-24
I also have no doubt that the DA is the 'better' lens. Inspecting 100% crops on computer screens however isn't really what lenses are made for. I do not say that this makes no sense, but it should be put into context. If stopped down to 8 or 11 the Sigma is good enough to produce 15x20 prints of very acceptable quality (to me). Would you really say that print quality is much different between both lenses? Regards, Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. April 2005 00:51 An: pdml Betreff: DA 14 vs. Sigma 12-24 Having time today I decided to test the DA 14 f2.8 against the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 DG at 14 mm. I did this in part to clarify in my own mind what is going on when people complain about the DA 14 being weak in the corners. I know, I know -- I am comparing a prime to a zoom. No contest, right? Well, the Sigma is the only lens I have access to that includes the 14 mm. focal length. Also, the last time I compared a prime to a zoom, it was the DA 14 vs. the DA 16-45 at 16 mm. -- and the zoom won. The subject was, as usual, an adobe (mud brick) wall, with the camera at about one meter distant. I used ISO 200, and a tripod. All comparisons were at actual pixels, although I went to 200% in one case. Firstly, the DA 14 becomes progressively sharper through f8 (the smallest aperture I tested). The center is noticeably better at f4. At f5.6 the corners sharpen up considerably, then improve a bit more at f8. Stop this lens down. Now the comparison. Both lenses wide open: (f2.8 for the DA 14, f4.5 for the Sigma). The DA 14 is much sharper in the center. It is mostly sharper also at the edges and in the corners, although the difference is less. The Sigma may be slightly better at the left edge and in the lower left corner. Where the Sigma seems better, it is not by much. Where the Pentax is better, the difference is very clear. F5.6 (both lenses): The Pentax is far better in the center, slightly better at the edges and in the corners. F8 (both lenses): The DA 14 is much better in the center and corners. It is also better at most edges, the exception being the left edge where the Sigma seems a bit sharper. The DA 14 is clearly the better lens overall. What is interesting is that it has an arc of slight weakness from the lower left corner to the left edge (about 225 to 275 degrees). Shouldn't lens performance be symmetrical? I would think that even assymetrical lenses should be symmetrically assymetrical. Any thoughts? BTW, on aperture priority the Sigma consistently exposed the images 1 EV less than the DA 14. The Sigma seemed to be underexposing. Joe - Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -
AW: 645D - more pictures
I doesn't even look like there are mirrors behind the lenses... Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Marz 2005 18:05 An: pentax list Betreff: 645D - more pictures Don't know if this page has been linked to yet, apologies if it has http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/other/2005/03/18/1209.html scroll down a few inches for side views Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Sigma 12-24
I have read this (very positive) review of the Sigma 12-24 zoom http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html and I wonder if anybody here has tried this lens? Thanks Regards, Sven
AW: Totally OT: It's tax time!
I missed the joke, can someone send it to me again please. Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 11. März 2005 20:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Totally OT: It's tax time! Wise words, oh fellow Burns fan. John
AW: A short DSLR users survey
I expected my film usage to become specific - slide only - and that has been the case. I still use slide film and I still like slide shows. (BTW, ist there anybody in the group who has bought a beamer for his istD or who regularly uses a beamer to present the results?) I have also found that my MF film use has dropped to almost zero after the purchase of the ist D. I did not buy new lenses to suit the D. I find the DA 2,8/14 very expensive but I am still thinking about it. Regards, Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Marz 2005 05:24 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: A short DSLR users survey OK we've now got quite a few DSLR owners on board with a bit of use behind them, how about a quick informal usage survey? For those DSLR users with 35mm gear who thought before buying their DSLR that their 35mm film usage would: Remain the same? Be halved? Become occasional? Become specific (i.e. BW only or high ISO or slide only)? Cease all together? Did your subsequent actual film use match your prior expectations? For users who had Pentax SLRs prior to purchasing a Pentax DSLR did you end up buying one or more new lenses specifically to suite the DSLR? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
AW: Enablement
Jens, as you already have a 45 CT 5 flash doing TTL you should be alright using the adapters you have on the 60 CT 2. Both flashes are from the same period, when Metz first tried TTL flashes with the SCA 500 system. This was before the SCA 300 System became popular. AFAIK the two systems are backwards compatible so that on a 45 CT 5 or 60 CT 2 you can either use the older C8x adapters or the later SCA3xx adapters together with a SCA 500 C cable. You can not however use a SCA300 flash with an old C8x adapter. Regards, Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. März 2005 00:37 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: RE: Enablement William, please explain. What do I need to do TTL with the 60 CT-2? Judging from Metz website, the only 60 CT flash mentioned in the adapter search engine is the 60 CT-4. I have found that my Metz 45 CT-5 does satisfying TTL with my *ist D within the interval 200-800 ASA. Above 800 ASA I don't really care about flash anyway. Most other flashes only do TTL satisfactory within the interval 200-400 ASA. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 8. marts 2005 13:26 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Enablement - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: OT: Enablement I just won an auction for a Metz 60 CT-2! I alwasys wanted at real powerful flash. I intend to use it as the main light in my home made Metz-strobe outfit. The 60 CT-4 would have been able to do TTL with the *ist D (with the right adapteres), but the 60CT-4 (two flash tubes) is much more expensive. So I settled for the CT-2, which can be purchased for app. 150 USD. In theory, the CT-2 will do TTL flash with the istD as well. In practice, the istD is pretty much useless at TTL flash. William Robb
Re: Jammed Up 6x7
Isn't it nice from Pentax that they have a put a button on the 6x7, specially desiged to deal with your problem. Such a caring company and so foresighted ;-) Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, you can forget my guess that the battery is dead g. Congratulations on an easy fix. Paul Thanks! I owe you a case of beer. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 8:02 PM Subject: Re: Jammed Up 6x7 - Original Message - From: Mark Cassino Subject: Jammed Up 6x7 Any idea how to un-jam this thing? Mark: look on the front of the camera below the shutter button. There is a small recessed button on the front of tha camera. Push it and the mirror will go up the rest of the way. Trip the shutter and all should be normal again. William Robb
Re: HELP! *istD problems
Zitat von Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... The AF does NOT 'see' the same thing as the screen. When the position of the AF module (that sits under the mirror) relative to the lens is different to the position of the screen, both result in a different focussing position of the lens. So if images taken using the Autofocus appear sharp, then maybe the focussing screen is out of alignment. Is there a diagram that shows what the AF path is? How does the AF see the image if not through the focusing screen, i.e. if its under the mirror, then how does it see the image? I will try to find a diagram and provide a link. Basically the mirror is half transparent so that some light goes through it. This is then reflected by another smaller mirror that folds out behind and directs the light to the AF module that sits in the bottom of the mirror house. If you inspect your camera with the lens talken off you can see some of it. However, using a 1.4 lens with manual focus on a ist D screen without focussing aids is a worst case scenario. If you really want to rule out focussing errors on your side you need to use a magnifier or refconverter in the 2X position. I need some help understanding how this helps. The ist D finder image is small if compared to film SLRs, especially those meant for manual focus. Also, the finder screen does not have focussing aids such as microprisms or a split image field. This means that the error margin that you have when focussing manually is relatively high. This is not a problem when the lens is stopped down a little and/or if the resulting prints are viewed under normal viewing distance. However, if you use a fast lens (like a 1.4) wide open AND want to inspect 100% crops of the resulting image on a computer screen it is well possible that your focussing was not accurate enough for this extreme setup, i.e. it did not fall within the shallow DOF range of the lens. About the only thing you can do to improve accuracy here is to focus with the help of a magnifier or a refconverter attachment using its 2x magnifying position. This certainly is nothing that you would want to use for normal photography work. All it would tell you is wether the camera screen is out of alignment (in which case it would have to be adjusted by Pentax) or if the error is more on your side. Regards, Sven
Re: HELP! *istD problems
... The AF does NOT 'see' the same thing as the screen. When the position of the AF module (that sits under the mirror) relative to the lens is different to the position of the screen, both result in a different focussing position of the lens. So if images taken using the Autofocus appear sharp, then maybe the focussing screen is out of alignment. Is there a diagram that shows what the AF path is? How does the AF see the image if not through the focusing screen, i.e. if its under the mirror, then how does it see the image? I will try to find a diagram and provide a link. Basically the mirror is half transparent so that some light goes through it. This is then reflected by another smaller mirror that folds out behind and directs the light to the AF module that sits in the bottom of the mirror house. If you inspect your camera with the lens talken off you can see some of it. Here is a page from a book on the Z1p that shows some details (although not to scale): www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/af.jpg Regards, Sven
Re: HELP! *istD problems
As has been said before, there are two separate optical systems 1) lens to focussing screen and 2) screen to eye - so that the diopter adjustment does nothing to the focus of the image on the screen. Adjust it so that you can see the screen best and forget it. The AF does NOT 'see' the same thing as the screen. When the position of the AF module (that sits under the mirror) relative to the lens is different to the position of the screen, both result in a different focussing position of the lens. So if images taken using the Autofocus appear sharp, then maybe the focussing screen is out of alignment. However, using a 1.4 lens with manual focus on a ist D screen without focussing aids is a worst case scenario. If you really want to rule out focussing errors on your side you need to use a magnifier or refconverter in the 2X position. Sven Zitat von Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I need some help with my *istD. For the longest time, I've been having problems with my pics being quite soft wide open. I thought that it was just because the lens was wide open. I have alot of manual focus lenses, which I use often. The problem showed up mainly with them, so I went back to look at some of the pics more carefully, and I noticed a pretty consistent pattern. There were areas of sharpness alright, but not where I wanted them to be. I was consistently back-focusing. So I did some tests. I mounted my FA* 85 1.4 on the camera, set it on a tripod, and proceded to make some careful experiments to see if I could put the blame where it belonged, on me or the camera. The setup was your typical measurebating focus test setup. I had a ruler at an angle with a target off to the side of it where I focused. I took pictures with and without autofocus. The result: no matter how carefully I manually focused, the autofocus was always right on the money, and I always back focused. I adjusted the diopter after autofocusing to see if I could match the camera's focus point, took my glasses off, put my glasses on, danced around the camera, but no matter, I always back-focused. What is going on here? Doesnt the autofocus see the same thing I do? Or is something mal-adjusted somewhere? When I look through the viewfinder after I auto focus, it seems to be in decent focus, but it looks pretty much the same as when I focus manually. If I then switch to manual focus and get it out of focus and back in and take the pic, it is back-focused! Am I going blind?
AW: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
I happily use all my manual lenses and I think that the differences discussed between lenses and betwen digital and analog applications are overrated - and the words on the digitally improved labels that some lenses now carry are mostly marketing blurb. What can be said is that comparing lens performance has become much EASIER with digital, so that many people do it - but you can still make many mistakes that spoil the results and lead you to false conclusions. I have myself 'compared' many of my lenses and I have however fooled myself many times... As an example, when you look at 100% crops of images taken wide open, you are not only judging the lens - you are also judging the focussing ... unless you made sure that the focussing was VERY accurate (i.e. done manually with a loupe). Autofocus is not good enough here. My bottom line is that with digital it is LESS important which lens you take. At least stopped down a little they all work well. As an example, here is a comparison between a lens with a mediocre reputation, the M 2,8/40 and the F 1.4/50 of which some say it is the best, both at f=8. www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/4050.jpg Yes, you can see the difference - but it isn't big. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 21. Februar 2005 16:45 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD The time is getting closer for me to make a decision about getting a DSLR, but more information is needed. There have been some comments on the list to the effect that some manual focus Pentax lenses don't produce very good results when used with the istD(s). A little more information is needed. Which lenses are giving poor results? In what way are the results poor? When using a particular lens, are the problems only in certain circumstances, or across the board. I've seen some awful looking results with some longer lenses (Paul's bird shots), but they seemed to be relegated to backlit scenes. So, any comments on the quality of images with various manual lenses would be appreciated. Reasonably sized pics (sections of larger images) might be helpful as well. Thanks! Shel
Re: Question on MZ-S quirk
Mine does exactly the same and I also regret that it does. Setting the AF button up for AF + AE-L would give this button at least some meaning. Regards, Sven Zitat von Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I grabbed a like new MZ-S from KEH last month (it truly was like new, and only four rolls had gone through it based on the data imprinting count -- I don't think it was reset, either, because it looked like it had never been used at all). I had borrowed an MZ-S from a list member briefly a little over a year ago, and had been thinking about the MZ-S ever since ... anyway, the question is whether this is a quirk -- I changed the Pentax Function 6 to make AF and AE both lock with a press of the AF button on the back. I didn't realize it at the time, but this completely disables the AE-L button on the back so that it has essentially no function at all. (It will still wake up the camera to give a meter reading, and it still will select Pentax Functions in the PF mode, but it will no longer lock exposure.) This is true for the AE-L button on the grip, too. I couldn't remember if I had tried the AE-L button before this, and I was truly bewildered until I thought to switch the PF back so that only AF is performed by the AF button on the back. Lo and behold, the AE-L button works fine again. The manual, of course, makes no mention of this. Is it a quirk anyone else has noticed? Joe
RE: slide exposure?
At 06:33 PM 2/15/2005 +0100, you wrote: Francis, I think your camera meters and exposes stepless - it only indicates the speeds rounded to the next full value. Do you mean that it actually does have half stop (or whatever you call it) shutter speeds but only when it is in auto exposure mode it? Or does that only work with A or newer lenses (I don't have any)? Yes, exactly, in automatic mode both speeds and apertures (with an A lens) are 'stepless', i.e. the program might decide to use f=6,27 @ 1/362s. But otherwise your question is a good one. As there is no exposure compensation dial and the ISO speed is set automatically, the only remaining option would be to modify the pattern on the film canister to show a higher film speed to the camera Does that work? I had thought of doing that when I wanted to push the film but wasn't sure if I might fry some thing. The DX coding is no secret and I am sure it can be found on the web. To modify it you would either have to grind off or add paint (or a piece of tape) where needed. Regards, Sven
RE: slide exposure?
Francis, I think your camera meters and exposes stepless - it only indicates the speeds rounded to the next full value. But otherwise your question is a good one. As there is no exposure compensation dial and the ISO speed is set automatically, the only remaining option would be to modify the pattern on the film canister to show a higher film speed to the camera - but that is not an everyday solution. Anyhow - are you sure you WANT to expose 1/2 stop under? My advice would be to invest in a test roll of the film you want to use and try it out. Be sure to use the exposure lock often, i.e. whenever there are abnormal lighting conditions and try to 'balance' the lighter and darker portions that the camera sees before locking (at least that is how I do it) ... and I am sure you will get good results. Ultimately, when you start bothering about 1/2 stops you will need a different camera ;-) Regards, Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Februar 2005 17:45 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: slide exposure? Hi all This may sound like a dumb question, but I honestly don't know (eek I just blew my cover ;-). I, as you've probably read, have a P3n, and, as you likely know, it only meters in full stops, so, as you might have guessed, I'm wondering if that will have a significant affect on the exposure when using slid film. It wouldn't really make sense, but I've heard people talk about being sure to under expose it half a stop (which I can't do )-: ). Francis PENTAX SAMURAI
Re: Refconverter A and a MX
I believe the A model refconcerter has a cutout below the finder frame to be able to see the data display of the A cameras. Mine is an M model as well and I can not quite see the display of the Super A with this. It works well however with every other camera. Sven Zitat von John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Perhaps the MX and RefA might have a compatability problem? The refconverter A should work well with everything from the M series through to the *ist. Mine fits everything I have beyond K series, I use refconverter II with the KX due to the different viewfinder window on the K. AFAIK The refconverter A is apparently the refconverter M with the letter A subsituted for the letter M on the bottom. John -- Original Message --- From: Hal Sandra Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:16:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Refconverter A and a MX Perhaps the MX and RefA might have a compatability problem? RefM would be of the same manufacturing period as MX. Have only the RefM so can't be sure but your posting would suggest just that. - Original Message - From: Pawel Bartuzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:08 PM Subject: Refconverter A and a MX I would like to ask refconverter A owners here on the list: does your refconverter stay at 90 angle in relation to a camera back or does it go down a little? Mine looks as if it looked into viewfinder a little from under the center of a viewfinder (like in www.pentax.ca/support/manual_pdfs/accessories/REFConverter.pdf http://www.pentax.ca/support/manual_pdfs/accessories/REFConverter.pdf - I _think_ I can see that the bottom of the refconverter is not at 90 angle with the MX back). Also, when looking with x2 magnification I see that the center of a frame (the split image) is not centered in the refconverter but rather in a lower part of the refconverters field of view. Is it normal? Pawel --- End of Original Message ---
RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
Porst is not my primary brand of interest but I still think that what has been said do far does not do this name justice. Porst certainly is one of the great names in the German photo industry since the twenties, although he - to my knowledge - never actually made cameras. However, he had many, many cameras made to his specs before WWII (not just rebadged) and has played his part as the largest (by far) retailer (mainly mail order) before and after the war. Porst is and always was a 'West-German' company. They imported Japanese as well as east German (GDR) cameras. Since the late eighties Porst is no longer family owned and the brand has since then changed ownership several times. Sven Zitat von Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many brand names have been reused as names for products that have nothing to do with the original brand/manufacturer. Trading companiers, that have no production anymore or have no real realations with the original brand buy old names. Exakta, Contax, Voigtländer - are examples - to mention a few. I believe ther's a market for just names. When a manufacturer closes down, they can make a profit by selling or licensing their name/brand. A Cosina named Porst is still not a Porst, just a Cosina with borrowed name tag. BTW, I may be confusing Alpha (made by Zeiss) with Acra Swiss, a large format Swiss camera - portable large format, great for landscapes etc. I was reviewed in Outdoor Photographer a couple of years back. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Raimo K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. februar 2005 22:30 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses? I wrote: IIRC the later SLRs were rebadged Chinons. Do you have difficulties in reading? And by later I do not mean fifties SLRs which were indeed made in DDR like the pictures clearly show. Try to find some info concerning the eighties, for instance. Here is one sample: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4702item=3872139519r d=1 Looks like the still later ones were made by Cosina - and maybe by some others as well. Porst filed for bankruptcy in 2002. And there was no Swiss camera by the name Alpha, it was the prestigious Alpa, made by Pignons SA, no connection with Porst whatsoever. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 10:18 PM Subject: RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses? Rebadged Chinons - in the GDR (German Democratic Republic) in the fifties? Come on! I seriously doubt it! They were from Dresden: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=8275item=3871653324r d=1 http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=8275item=3871653324r d=1 In this last add it actually says it's baugleich (built like/the same as) a Praktica (Pentacon, Dresden, DDR)! This one even has a Praktica lens! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Raimo K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. februar 2005 20:52 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses? No, it is just a trading company, rebadging only, no manufacturing facilities anywhere (?). IIRC the later SLRs were rebadged Chinons. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses? Yes, German company. I seem to remember a connection with Swiss Alpha, but I'm not shure. Perhaps realated to DDR kameras from the Dresden manufacturers, Pentacon, Ihagee, Zeiss Ikon etc Anyway, look: http://www.praktica-collector.de/134_Porst_reflex_FX2.htm http://www.praktica-collector.de/162_Porst_FX4.htm http://search.ebay.de/porst_Porst_W0QQcatrefZC12QQcoactionZcompareQQcoentryp ageZsearchQQcopagenumZ1QQfromZR2QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsaatsZ77QQ sacatZ4702 All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Wilko Bulte [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 7. februar 2005 08:36 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses? On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 08:44:44PM -0500, Larry Cook wrote.. I have run across a 135/1.8 lens for Pentax K mount that I have never heard of. It is a Porst. Porst I believe is a German camera company and the lens was actuallt made by a Japanese company named Tomioka. Does anyone know anything about this Porst/Tomioka lens or about the brand in general? Porst is indeed a German
RE: Have you ever heard of Porst lenses?
Kostas, probably a 6-element Cosina lens as it was offered by Porst together with Cosina made cameras. I have found only one other reference to a 1.2/55 lens and that points towards Vivitar - but Vivitar never made lenses themselves. According to the Vivitar lens numbering code, a 9 as the first digit means it was made by Cosina (see http://www.cameraquest.com/VivLensManuf.htm). So if your 'Porst' lens number begins with a 9 and if it follows the same numbering system... Regards, Sven Zitat von Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, keller.schaefer wrote: Porst is not my primary brand of interest but I still think that what has been said do far does not do this name justice. Any comments on the Porst 55/1.2? What is its provenance, given that it was not them who made it? Thanks, Kostas
Re: LX/circular or linear polarizer
Only the speed indication in the finder will be off (depending on the position of the filter). The actual exposure will be fine, as it is not affected by the half-transparent mirror (it is only determined after the mirror has moved up). Regards, Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 7. Februar 2005 19:57 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: LX/circular or linear polarizer The metering will be off depending on the position of the polarizer by up to 1 1/2 stops if I remember correctly. It's not impossible to work with a liner polarizer on an LX but the circular are much easier. Reg Wiest wrote: It¹s slipped my mind . . . Does the metering system in my LX require the use of a circular polarizer or will a linear one work nicely. Thanks, RW
AW: Survey: How many *ist D's and how many *ist DS's
1 *ist D Sven -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:43 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Survey: How many *ist D's and how many *ist DS's I'd like to know the number of D-owners and DS-owners are ther on this list? I own 1 *ist D Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Advice needed - *istD versus *isDS
Hello Jim, welcome to this list (if I may say so, as I currently contribute hardly anything). I remember your name from the medium format other brand camera list and I keep a bookmark for your site to show other people how nice landscape photograpy can be and how beautiful your country is. As for the *ist D and the Ds ... I have the *ist D and I am very happy with it. I have also tried the Ds. The differences between both are marginal if you look at how easily both can be operated, all in all. Using M or K lenses is easy on both - I use them a lot. I use only one M42 lens on the D, a 50 mm Macro Takumar which works fine as well. Something that took me a while to realise: If you have time ... you don't need ANY metering with a digital (SLR). Just select exposure according to your best guess and give it a try, check and correct if necessary. One last thing that has not been mentioned I think, is that there is no vertical grip for the Ds (and will not be, as there are no contacts). I always have the grip mounted to the D as it really improves the handling. Also, the D has no picture modes... Best Regards, Sven Keller Zitat von Jim Hemenway [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Folks: I'm new to this list. Along with some other brand cameras, I've been shooting with a Pentax ZX-5n. Since I have a bunch of AF lenses for it, I'm thinking of getting the *isD for digital work. I also have some Spotmatics with a bunch of lenses as well and would like to use some of those screw mount lenses on the digital camera. If screw mount lenses are used on the D, is metering available? When I handled a D at a camera store several months ago I was told that there wasn't any metering possible for those lenses... but then I later heard that some sort of software upgrade had been made available. Is this true? Also, can anyone here tell me if one can use screw mounts on the DS? Other than the price difference, is there a reason to get the DS? Thanks in advance, Jim Hemenway Some of my photos are here: http://www.hemenway.com
Re: Magifier FB - Question
I have found that the camera diopter adjuster (if present) should be in the middle position for best viewing quality when using the refconverter. The 1x - 2x switch (at least on the M-Version that I have) will only retain focus between the two positions when the diopter is set to zero. Sven Zitat von Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --- Patrick Genovese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don' t beleive that the refconverter A is compatible with the MZ series cameras right ? Did you ever use the magifier FB with a macro lens since my interest in it stems from the need to be able to critically foucs some macro shots. Any comments in this regard would be apreceated. The Refconverter M/A work with any Pentax 135 bodies since the M series, that include the MZ/ZX series. I did use my Magnifier F with my FA100/2.8 for macro shots, but very rarely because I did not find the need, and only the centre of the viewfinder could be seen. If you are using any MZ bodies other than the MZ-S, the difficulty of manual focus might be due to the generally poor quality viewfinders. The magnifier might or might not help, I am not sure. = Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan __ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
AW: Mirror cleaning
Alex, you can rub as long as you want with a piece of cotton towel. The ME Super mirror coating is quite sturdy, unlike the silver coating on really old cameras. Even if you scratched the mirror it would not matter - you would not see a difference in the viewfinder. So, just rub away, but don't apply too much pressure, the mirror still is but a thin piece of glass... And take care not to touch the focussing screen. THAT part is really delicate. Have fun! Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Henri Toivonen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2004 17:48 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Mirror cleaning Sarbu Alexandru wrote: Hi there... Here I am again, quite sad this time... I don't know why, but I *had* to look my *new* ME Super to the wrong person. Of course, she thought the camera is *empty* so she stick a finger inside. Now there is a huge fingerprint, right on the mirror :sad grin: Can it be cleaned? It seems it can't, as everyone says don't touch the mirror - ever... but I'm still asking, just in case. Alex Sarbu I have cleaned the mirror on my SFX, it was no biggie, just don't press hard on it, very light touch. Maybe you're really not supposed to do that, but I did, and it still works. /Henri
Re: Use of Green Button (was Re: istDs - what a great camera!)
If I remember correctly, operating the DOF preview lever around the shutter release does the same than the green button in manual on the *ist D (I usually use the green button however). So as the *ist Ds HAS DOF preview this COULD work similarly. If this worked like on the *ist D, the cheaper model could be the better choice alltogether. Sven Zitat von Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thanks Anders, Paul ... I hope the istDS allows for something similar for, as noted earlier, the price range is ideal for my intended use, and I don't really want to buy lenses to replace those which I already have. While making coffee this morning I was thinking that it's too bad digital is pretty much worthless for BW. Shel From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it isn't necessary to press the green button for a subsequent shots at the same exposure. From: Anders Hultman [EMAIL PROTECTED] No. A press on the green button does a light metering that takes the aperture setting on the lens into account, and sets the camera to a suitable shutter time. That shutter time remains set until you a) press the green button again or b) change the shutter time manually with the Tv wheel.
AW: Use of Green Button (was Re: istDs - what a great camera!)
You are right ... but it SOUNDS the same ;-) Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. September 2004 20:27 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Use of Green Button (was Re: istDs - what a great camera!) keller.schaefer mused: If I remember correctly, operating the DOF preview lever around the shutter release does the same than the green button in manual on the *ist D. No - the DOF preview lever also activates the metering circuitry (so you can check to see what the camera thinks the exposure would be), but it doesn't change the selected shutter speed. I think that's a good thing - there has to be a way to check the effect of the current settings without altering any of them. I'd hate it if the DOF preview changed my carefully-selected shutter speed, just as I'd hate it if it activated the AF circuitry and changed my carefully-selected focus.
AW: Metz SCA 374/2 AF M1 Pentax question
Markus, IIRC, the whole rear 'panel' is supposed to slide away and the s.b switch (whatever that stands for) makes the adapter work as an AF assist lamp only, without triggering the flash. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Markus Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 13. September 2004 18:51 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Metz SCA 374/2 AF M1 Pentax question Hi Pentax users I got a new Metz SCA 374/2 flash adapter for my Pentax SFXn from Ebay but it did not come with a manual and there are no manuals at www.metz.de for these SCA adapters to download and I did not find any information in a google search. The adapter seems to need four batteries but I am simple too stupid to find out how to open that battery case thing without using force. Can anybody help me by showing how to place batteries into (open) this adapter and maybe explain the switch S.B too? What's the default or best setting. I think Jens has one of these adapters, do you hear me Jens ? thanks in advance Markus
Re: viewfinder magnification
I don't quite buy that. What determines the size of the viewfinder image is the size of the frame the screen sits in (as long as we are talking +/- a millimeter). Make that frame a little bit larger and you have a 100% viewfinder. Of course, all elements that attach to the mirror box have to be 'accurate' but I don't see why that would be so difficult here. Even with a 90% viewfinder I would have hoped that what I see is from the center portion of the image, not from an edge... I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I believe the manufacturing tolerance of a 100% viewfinder is way too difficult and expensive. It is not difficult to understand why once you have seen how the viewfinder is assemlbed. Every piece has to be 100% accurate (mirror, screen, pentaprism, eyepiece). Besides, even if the factory could do it at reasonable cost, the regional service centres can't. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan This is probably a silly question which has been discussed to bits, but I was wondering if someone could give me the quick answer as to why it was too hard to put a 100% viewfinder in the ist D (as opposed to the 90something percent..) I think it might be too expensive. It might have other tradeoffs in things like viewfinder image size. It's not impossible--most if not all of Nikon's F-series pro cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage and I believe at least one of their new pro digital cameras has 100% viewfinder coverage. Shouldn't it even be easier given that the image area isn't as big as the image area of film? OTOH, most Nikons have HUGE pentaprisms. That's not very Pentax-like. DJE
Re: viewfinder magnification
Zitat von Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I have always argued the *practicality* of any 100% viewfinder. A 95% finder already shows *almost all* of the image: 95% of 24x36 is 23.4x35.1 mm (for APS-C it is 23.5x15.7 vs. 22.9x15.3). No matter what application you are thinking of for either a negative or a slide, you will have a hard time actually *using* more than 95% of it. A slide frame will cut away about 7% and any lab (including home printing) will probably cut away more. In that sense it is *correct* to show 95% as it gives you a better indication of what you will eventually get than 100%. Most people won't be wanting negatives or slides though. And home printing should still get all of the frame: I don't think any inkjets crop the picture. For on screen display too you will not lose anything so to me a non-100% viewfinder on DSLRs does not make sense. Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Sven
Re: 14mm DAs on eBay (was RE: Last rant, for a while, maybe)
Also (and I think that's too in Ebay's rules) the feedback should take into account how *both* partners handle possible complaints. If I (as a seller) provide feedback immediately after I ship the goods I cannot do this. If a buyer has a problem with what he received from me I certainly do my best to satisfy him - but I also expect him to be reasonable. This is still part of the transaction and included in my feedback. Leaving the feedback of both partners disclosed for some weeks (and whether or not they have given any) would work well, I guess, but it would probaby lead to more negative feedback in total - and I doubt that Ebay has any interest in seeing that. Sven Zitat von Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The hidden feedback is a good idea. Sellers also have the problem, not just buyers. If they give honest bad feedback to a buyer who was slow to pay, or gave the seller a hard time, then the buyer might get revenge by posting bad feedback in return, even if the seller completed his end of the bargain perfectly. Sellers with 100% pos feedback are especially vunerable to intimidation by unscrupulous buyers. rg Dan wrote: Yes this is a problem. I am in this situation myself as a buyer of sub-standard goods. I think a hidden feedback system would be better where the feedback was only revealed once both parties had submitted their feedback. If only one party submitted then after a certain time limit the feedback would be revealed and the other party could no longer leave feedback (to prevent revenge). On Aug 31, 2004, at 10:30 PM, Alan Chan wrote: I think the eBay feedback system has a serious flaw. Sellers have not been forced to leave +ve feedback once the payment was received and confirmed. This puts the buyers in a disadvantage situation when things gone wrong. Often the buyers won't leave -ve feedback because the sellers might just do the same as revenge. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Re: viewfinder magnification
Not much, but we are only talking one or two millimeters on each side of the print (just the difference of 95% and 100%...). Sven Zitat von Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ks Yes, I realise I was thinking of conventional printing on (light sensitive) ks paper rather than inkjet printing. But then again, once you send your digital ks files to a lab to 'print', they will crop. Why? None of the labs I use do crop. Apart from the teeny bit of paper that might rotate during processing. They even offer sizes of prints to match these from a true 2:3 film/DSLR. Good light! fra
RE: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II?
I think what it really boils down to is whether or not you like the waist level finder of the Rollei and whether or not you like the square format. If you prefer the prism finder of the Pentax then this is the better choice because the Rollei with the prism makes a even heavier and larger combination (and you inevitably need the grip then). If however you fall in love with the square format... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 28. August 2004 18:50 An: Pentax Disc Betreff: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II? I'm going to post this same question on the rollei list, responses should be interesting. I'm in pretty deep with Pentax 35mm equipment. First, I do have a question about the 645N vs 645 NII. Does the N have the program shift like the NII? And does the NII program shift work like the MZ-S program shift favoring speed vs aperture? I can't really tell from the manual I downloaded I've always wanted a Rollei MF camera. Saw a 6003 w/ 80mm f2.8 on ebay and at a decent price, so I bought it. (it's got metering and almost all features of 6008 but without the full film magazine and w/o dark slide, but I can live with that). I knew going into it, new lenses are not cheap, but had seen reasonable prices on a few used. But did not realize the availablity of reasonably priced used ones are slim to none. (I would even settle for either using old lenses w/ stop down metering OR even renting them occasionally). I'm getting antsy waiting for lenses to come around at a fair price. My SECOND question is to anyone that has used BOTH Pentax 645N II system and Rollei 600x series. Should I dump the Rollei and get on w/ life and easy to find lenses at reasonable prices? Or should I wait it out to get the lenses I want (sees like it could be a long time)? I'm sure Pentax 645 lenses are good, but are Zeiss and Schneider lenses that much better to justify waiting? ( I can only image what the response to this will be on the Rollei list) Lastly, I greatful I can ponder such questions in my life, I know others are not so fortunate. John
AW: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II?
I don't believe there is much difference in lens performance. I think what it really boils down to is whether or not you like the waist level finder of the Rollei and whether or not you like the square format. If you prefer the prism finder of the Pentax then this is the better choice because the Rollei with the prism makes a even heavier and larger combination (and you inevitably need the grip then). If however you fall in love with the square format... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 28. August 2004 18:50 An: Pentax Disc Betreff: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II? I'm going to post this same question on the rollei list, responses should be interesting. I'm in pretty deep with Pentax 35mm equipment. First, I do have a question about the 645N vs 645 NII. Does the N have the program shift like the NII? And does the NII program shift work like the MZ-S program shift favoring speed vs aperture? I can't really tell from the manual I downloaded I've always wanted a Rollei MF camera. Saw a 6003 w/ 80mm f2.8 on ebay and at a decent price, so I bought it. (it's got metering and almost all features of 6008 but without the full film magazine and w/o dark slide, but I can live with that). I knew going into it, new lenses are not cheap, but had seen reasonable prices on a few used. But did not realize the availablity of reasonably priced used ones are slim to none. (I would even settle for either using old lenses w/ stop down metering OR even renting them occasionally). I'm getting antsy waiting for lenses to come around at a fair price. My SECOND question is to anyone that has used BOTH Pentax 645N II system and Rollei 600x series. Should I dump the Rollei and get on w/ life and easy to find lenses at reasonable prices? Or should I wait it out to get the lenses I want (sees like it could be a long time)? I'm sure Pentax 645 lenses are good, but are Zeiss and Schneider lenses that much better to justify waiting? ( I can only image what the response to this will be on the Rollei list) Lastly, I greatful I can ponder such questions in my life, I know others are not so fortunate. John
RE: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II?
I think what it really boils down to is whether or not you like the waist level finder of the Rollei and whether or not you like the square format. If you prefer the prism finder of the Pentax then this is the better choice because the Rollei with the prism makes a even heavier and larger combination (and you inevitably need the grip then). If however you fall in love with the square format... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 28. August 2004 18:50 An: Pentax Disc Betreff: Keep Rollei 6003 6x6 or get Pentax 645N II? I'm going to post this same question on the rollei list, responses should be interesting. I'm in pretty deep with Pentax 35mm equipment. First, I do have a question about the 645N vs 645 NII. Does the N have the program shift like the NII? And does the NII program shift work like the MZ-S program shift favoring speed vs aperture? I can't really tell from the manual I downloaded I've always wanted a Rollei MF camera. Saw a 6003 w/ 80mm f2.8 on ebay and at a decent price, so I bought it. (it's got metering and almost all features of 6008 but without the full film magazine and w/o dark slide, but I can live with that). I knew going into it, new lenses are not cheap, but had seen reasonable prices on a few used. But did not realize the availablity of reasonably priced used ones are slim to none. (I would even settle for either using old lenses w/ stop down metering OR even renting them occasionally). I'm getting antsy waiting for lenses to come around at a fair price. My SECOND question is to anyone that has used BOTH Pentax 645N II system and Rollei 600x series. Should I dump the Rollei and get on w/ life and easy to find lenses at reasonable prices? Or should I wait it out to get the lenses I want (sees like it could be a long time)? I'm sure Pentax 645 lenses are good, but are Zeiss and Schneider lenses that much better to justify waiting? ( I can only image what the response to this will be on the Rollei list) Lastly, I greatful I can ponder such questions in my life, I know others are not so fortunate. John
RE: MZ/ZX Flash Fix Link
Here is a drawing that I made of the original plastic part that breaks. www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/teil.jpg The one I eventualy made was not quite like that - but complicated enough to step back from the idea of opening a new business... Sven Zitat von Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello Sven, I was going to try to make a part also, but I like this method and it's much easier, as you say. I can also now put the flash up silently, without having to remember to catch it so it doesn't make noise. Don -Original Message- From: keller.schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 7:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MZ/ZX Flash Fix Link Don, this is a very nice idea and I am sure it works. I will forward the link to a friend who still has a non-pop-up MZ-5n. I have managed to repair my own MZ-5n with a replacement part that I machined from aluminium - but this is not an easy repair and yours is far better. Sven Zitat von Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Here's a link to a page describing how to fix MZ and ZX flashes that won't pop/stay up on their own anymore: http://www.donsauction.com/ebay/flashfix/fix.htm Almost too simple, but it works very well. Don
AW: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program
I always thought that Pentax missed the boat somehow with the Super A/Super program although it was a very successfull camera. When it came out I was a devoted MX user - and I immediately liked the LCD display in the Super A finder ... until I discovered that it did not provide the information it promised: no aperture readout in aperture priority or in Manual - combined with a DOF lever that *only* works correctly in aperture priority / manual. I always thought when setting out to design a new lens line they should have gone he whole way and invent something that provides all the information - always. It is still a nice camera, though. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Jon M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Juli 2004 18:27 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: LX vs K2dmd vs Super Program BTW why not an MZ-S ?? I've not seen any used ones around (haven't looked much on ebay tho), and new ones are $770 from KEH, whereas they regularly have the LX for $350... but even that is pushing it. Jon, I think the only way you can make a decision is to go to a camera shop and play with these cameras. Do you have one near you? Everyone's preferences are different. None of the shops around here have anything more than the more common cameras. (ME, K1000, etc) Does KEH have a retail storefront, or are they phone internet order only? I'm about 2.5 to 3 hours driving distance from Atlanta. I really think I'd like the LX, but I'm scared I'll spend $350-$500 on a camera body that will need $200 worth of repairs in six months. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
RE: Fixing a viewfinder
Just one more little note: you don't need to take off the shutter release lock - this can stay where it is. Sven Zitat von Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Dave! I tried to scan the manual page in but my copy is so bad the scan was worthless. Yes the tools are to get the top cover, and eyepiece off. They made this a bit more involved on the K then they did on the M series but just note carefully the position of things and lay them out in order and you should have no problems. Most important tools are a GOOD set of jewelers screwdrivers, Phillips and Straight tip. There is also a small nut under the rewind knob, a pair of snap ring pliers, carefully used, will remove it. You may have to file the tips a bit to get a good fit, I use spanner wrenches but the SR pliers work fine. A good supply of cotton swabs (Q-Tips) is handy too. Most important tip is: Be patient, careful and DON'T FORCE ANYTHING. Most of the K's come apart rather easily but some are a little stubborn. Work over a nice fluffy white towel, dropped parts will be easier to see and won't bounce so far! If you get a replacement eyepiece before you disassemble it will be easier to see what needs done inside. If you get in trouble email me and I'll try to help. I have a couple of KX's here to look at. I assume that you're fairly handy just by the fact you're willing to tackle this. Be sure to gently clean things as you go, this will aid in re-assembly. Don -Original Message- From: David Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 9:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Fixing a viewfinder Don Sanderson said: With the proper tools and a little patience it's not too bad. Can you give me a few details, such as needed tools, etc.? Any adhesives needed or foam? Are the tools needed to take off the chrome cover basically? Anything else to watch for when the cover is off? Yes, the scratch is on the eyepiece. Thanks! Dave -Original Message- From: David Weiss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fixing a viewfinder Hi all, Does anyone know if it is easy to remove the viewfinder of an KX? Mine has a little scratch in it that bothers me a bit. Would it be easy enough to swap it with another from a beater? Does anyone have a KX parts camera? Thanks Dave __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: OTF metering question
... and then there is that excellent web site by Rob Studdert, where I have learned much about the LX. Thank you! Sven Zitat von Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 9 Jul 2004 at 15:21, keller.schaefer wrote: IIRC, and I think this is explained in enough detail in the LX brochure and manual (snip) by closing the second curtain once enough light has hit the film. Correct. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OTF metering question
I think that is a very good question (and I don't have an answer). 'Featurewise', OTF metering would have suited any later camera well. One reason they abandoned this technlogy (and this is just a wild guess) might have been the cost of the shutter with its titanium curtains. On these curtains you can print the dot pattern, that is obviously necessary. The later (vertically travelling) shutters where curtains do not 'roll up', might not allow to do this. Sven Zitat von Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: Technical limitations were few (at the time), the system had a ridiculously wide latitude with spectacular sensitivity however as it implemented via single SPD mounted at the base of the mirror cavity it could only offer CW metering. The style of implementation also meant that the only option for exposure offset in auto was by the exp comp dial around the ISO switch which has limitation when working with very slow or fast films. I suppose now it looks pretty feature poor these days, it still works remarkably well though. But why does only the LX support the feature, even though every modern Pentax body has the necessary sensor already (for TTL flash metering)? S
Re: 43 Limited Pre-computer?
Pål, I have mixed feelings about stories like the one you told below, about the old lens designer who towards the end of his life sets out to design the ultimate lens like in the old days... I can say, that in the industry I work in, similar stories are often used to motivate and entertain dealers and customers as they pretend to give them a look behind the curtain - but they are made up by marketing agencies for exactly that purpose and have very limited (if any) facts behind. If Mr. H. really is the chief lens designer then he most probably has not much to do with actual lens design but is spending his day reviewing Powerpoint presentations on business strategies... I don't know how close you are (or have been) to Pentax so I could be completely wrong and your story is entirely true... it just rang a bell. Sven Zitat von Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tom wrote: So how images from a particular lens can have a pre-computer look versus an 'absence of computer look' is simply beyond me. An how that can be blanketly stated, considering all the variables that will go into producing an image, is even more beyond me. Computers are used in order to eliminate various aberations in optical design among other things. Unfortunately, aberrations are giving lenses certain desireable (for some that is) characteristics. Some of these characteristics are related to bokeh (thats why some of the best corrected lenses, macro lenses, often show nasty bokeh characteristics). In the good old days the look produced from various lenses were very much in the hands of the lens designer (not the computer), in many ways a kind of art. With the 43 Limited Mr. Harakara (Pentax chief lens designer; the one who design all(?) the classic * lenses) and a famous japanese photographer (who's name I've forgotten but he was 77 years old when the 77 Limited was presented as a gift to him), set out to try to reproduce the pleasant image quality characteristics produced by pre-computer designed lenses (the good ones I assume); particularly the three dimensional feel of the images. In order to achieve this, they turned off the computer. Fine tuned various aberations and judged the results from the images themselves produced by the lens; not curves produced by test equipment. Hence the 43 Limited, and also the 77 Limited (to some extent at least), are designed very differently from normal lenses. Incidentally, the 31 Limited is not designed by Harakawa and is per! haps a more traditional lens. Pål - Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -
Re: off-brand lenses they didn't make
Zeiss even list the true focal length in their data sheets - the Planar 1.4/50 is 51.8 mm focal length! When I received my 24-90 I noticed that the long end was actually shorter than my M 2/85. In the 'communication' I then had with Pentax Europe about this, they admitted (regretted) that the lens designation could be way off (with the exception of the Limited lenses where they said it would be correct). Sven Zitat von Raimo K [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 85 mm lenses are not really 85 mm - there´s 5 % tolerance. Pentax could have named it 85 but they decided to use the true focal length instead. The 31 mm could be the same. Some Leica M lenses have small numbers engraved on the lens barrel and they tell what the actual focal length is - e.g. my 50 mm Summicron is really a 52 mm. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho - Original Message - Boy, that 85 sticks out like a sore thumb, doesn't it! I wonder if the 77ltd was aiming at 80mm but ended up 77. I'll bet the 31 was essentially aiming at 30 or 28. Leica made an 80 IIRC, so it's not unheard of. snip DJE
Re: The public and Pentax
Rollei did that with the first series of the later world-famous Rollei 35: To acknowledge the contribution of the suppliers, these cameras had the words Rollei-Gossen-Compur-Zeiss engraved on the rear. Those cameras are now very rare and valuable for collectors. Sven Zitat von Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... However, that does suggest a resolution badge the camera in the usual place (with a mutually agreed upon name) and then on the bottom plate have a nameplate with the other maker or associate's name on it. That way both get recognition. I can imagine the board room arguments before that happens, tho'! :-) keith whaley Alan Chan
Re: a 'family' photo
This is the Pentax 'Efina', a small APS PointShoot, a funny little thing. Sven Zitat von Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Great Portrait! What is the smaller, grey and white camera to the right of the MZ-5n?
Re: Looking for 2nd hand pentax
A Z50 or a Z20 could be a good choice for you (the Z70 has a plastic bajonet). SFXes do not show the aperture in the finder - something I find important. Sven Zitat von Thibs [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm looking for a second hand AF Pentax body. For now, I have a P30/P3 and very soon a K1000 but would like to have an AF one for the usual family stuff. Any clue? Would an SFX or Z70/PZ70 do the trick? I really do not a have a budget for sqomething like PZ1P/Z1P. Anyone with feedback on this subject? Thanks Thibouille
AW: Metz 60CT2/45CT5 conversion kits
Those older (pre SCA 300) flashes will not work with the later SCA 300 standard adapters. They need their dedicated C** adapters. Vice versa, the C** adapters do not work on later SCA300 compatible flashes. If you *have* the correct adapter, everything works fine. I think the one for the LX is C80 but I could be wrong. These sometimes turn up on Ebay but you will need some patience. Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 26. Juni 2004 06:18 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Metz 60CT2/45CT5 conversion kits Gill asked: i have Metz flashes 60CT2 #036574 and 45CT5 #065195 which required up gradation as per Metz werke for certain systems like Pentax and Contax/Yashica. During eighties such kits were being provided by Metz but at that time i did not have the LX and C/Y gears to use with SCA 500C. Unfortunately Metz and dealer/agent for Pakistan are now unable to upgrade the flashes. I intend to use these workhorses for Pentax LX/ZX5 with SCA 372 and for C/Y AX/103P with SCA 380. Seeking guidance/advice from my Pentax colleagues if such kit was installed by a member and still this job is being carried out by a techanician in their vicinity I suggest that you contact Bogen and ask if the upgrade kits are available. You can e-mail them at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] this website indicates that some repairs are available for those units: http://www.bogenimaging.us/service/repair_pricing_metz.html I hope this helps. Tom Reese
Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?)
I fear manufacturers development departments are not good at thinking 'outside of the box' and the short product cycles have cut down available time to let foreigners test prototypes - to make the developers aware of things they just did not 'see'. If we leave behind the 'film based' thinking, then ISO, aperture and shutter speed have a comparable influence on the final image and all three values should be equally easy to adjust and be equally displayed. What was a combination of two values now is a ISO-speed-aperture triangle (well, it always was...). If it gets darker I can adjust ISO to get the best noise/shutter speed/aperture compromise, if I need shallow DOF I decrease ISO so that I can shoot wide open, if I need a very high shutter speed I can increase ISO until I get 1/6000 and so on. I don't think it is an adequate solution having to turn two dials to adjust ISO and then afterwards not even being able to see what was set (without hitting another button). Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Neither my Nikon D100 nor my Nikon D1H display ISO in any of the normal displays. It'd be real tempting to say manufacturers didn't anticipate the desire to see the freely-changeable ISO number in the normal displays of a digital camera, except that my Nikon F5 DOES show ISO in the rear display. Still, perhaps the amateurs use DX coding mentality is to blame. Does the *istD have an auto ISO feature? Some of the other low and/or mid-level DSLRs do, presumably because film speed confuse tyros. OTOH, I rarely shoot more than a couple of frames at an inappropriate ISO before my brain tells me that the settings are fishy and I check to see where the camera is set. I'd expect most of you have good enough eye-meters that you aren't going to shoot at 1600 ISO by accident for long. DJE
FA 4/28-70 - something for the technically minded
I just found something interesting (at least for me) when trying to fix a FA 4/28-70 lens that wouldn't autofocus properly. On focal lengths longer than 50 it would not stop at precise focus but run past it and back the full travel, then stop, blinking 'unable to focus' in the finder. It did that on several Pentax AF bodies, so definitely the lens was at fault, not the body. On shorter focal lengths, everything was fine. Using the *ist D I found that the reported focal length was completely wrong for 50 and above (e.g. 31mm was reported for actual 70mm), so I took the lens apart and cleaned those contacts on the barrel that report the position of the zoom ring. Now both the transmission of the focal length and the AF work well again. So apparently, the the AF system takes into account the focal length, when calculating how much it has to displace the lens (or parts of it) to achieve focus. Somewhere in the lens the displacement/distance curve for each focal length must be stored, so when the AF system determines that the focus needs to be corrected from say 10m to 5m, the lens reports back as I am set to 50mm, you need to turn the AF shaft x turns... ...or something to that effect. Sven
Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?)
That really is a bright idea! If I had a menu option Do you want 'ISO' or 'remaining pictures' displayed in the finder? I would certainly go for ISO! And then being able to adjust it (as you described) while looking through the finder - brilliant. Sven Zitat von Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: on 24.06.04 14:27, Nenad Djurdjevic at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I was right the first time because ISO goes to 3200 (4 digits) and remaining number recordable images display only has 3 digits - so it can't be done. That's no problem :-) It is enough that you would see 16 or 32 for 1600 or 3200 respectively + h symbol (for hundreds or high if you want :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: *istD firmware wishlist (open letter?)
16h and 32h would work fine for me... Sven Zitat von Anders Hultman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: ND Actually, I was right the first time because ISO goes to 3200 (4 digits) and ND remaining number recordable images display only has 3 digits - so it can't ND be done. Ugh Ogh. How about 1.6K or 3.2K ? Is it too hard to understand ? ;-) Or similar... 1.6K and 3.2K still are four symbols, but 1K6 and 3K2 may fit. If the display isn't figures only, and actually can show a K at all... anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
RE: Paw - Only Reeds
Very beautiful! Looking at it longer, I probably would like to see a little more detail (only a little!). Maybe a good print can provide this. Without the one vertical reed it would definitely be too plain, too abstract. Sven -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2004 7:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Paw - Only Reeds Reeds in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html Comments - likes/dislikes - what would you have done differently Thanks in advance for looking /commenting Kenneth Waller
AW: *ist D survey
5512***, bought October 2003 in Cologne Germany. ... good luck in figuring out what the secret behind the numbers is. Rollei once was kind enough to tell me what their numbering system (of the newer cameras) is. Their number contains a sequential part, but also codes for technical revisions and for the build date. Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juni 2004 16:52 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: *ist D survey Hi all, In my effort of understanding (guessing?) something better about the *ist D, I'll ask all *ist D owners to post the main part of the serial No. of the camera they own, together with date of purchase. The two cameras I used and tested are both 5646*** (tested October 2003). Mine is 5512*** (bought April 2004), As you can notice, there's something odd in above figures, the higher ones beig apparently older than the lower one. Thanks to everyone who will kindly participate in this survey. Cheers, Dario Bonazza
Re: A-lenses aperture indication
Nenad, as explained below, the seventh pin makes the difference between 'A' and 'F' in this respect. http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ has all this and much more - not quite easy to find, though. From the main page you select 'Technology' on the left, then 'K-Mount Evolution, Features and Operation'. On the bottom of this page you can then click on the various K-mount variants and you get thorough explanations and diagrams. Sven Zitat von John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: William Robb wrote: When the lens is off A, the electrical contacts are disabled, and the lens has no electrical communication at all with the camera. It's not just AF cameras. The Super Program is the same way. Having switched to digital and no longer having any film camera bodies I can't check this - but I could have sworn that F and FA lenses on an AF body gave an aperture readout on the camera at all times (but A lenses didn't). But that's because they communicate this information via the digital readout pin, not via the mechanical aperture coupler. As far as I know Pentax have never made a camera that used the maximum-aperture value (read from the A-mount contacts) and the aperture-delta value (from the aperture coupler) to calculate the actual lens aperture setting. ...
Re: What battery for the Spotmatic F
... a PX 625, unfortunately. Sven Zitat von Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, what kind of battery does the Spotmatic F require? Arnold
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
Boris, some remarks to add to your confusion ;-) o It seems that lenses from Canon/Nikon and the likes are often closer to what test procedures ask from a lens (contrast/sharpness), so Pentax lenses often get less good results - at least it looks like that in my part of the world and yes, it could well be that this is only so because Pentax advertises less in the magazines that publish the tests. We don't know what Pentax is thinking. If they really have a different take on what a good lens is, a more holistic approach instead of a 'scientific' one, based on measured sharpness and contrast, then they are certainly not good at 'selling' it. o We cannot be sceptical enough regarding our own perceptions and test procedures. I believe it is plain impossible to say anything about a lens based on a set of 4x6 prints. Even if you look at slides you need to always be aware that the loupe or the projector lens also is part of what you see. If you try to compare pictures taken of identical subjects you still have a whole bunch of issues that may make the results worthless. You just don't know whether somebody claiming a lens to be 'less sharp' in reality is talking about his shaky tripod... A person may also just not telling the truth - half of what is written on the internet is wrong. o We don't know if and how much sample variation there is. I personally have not been able to show much of this when comparing lenses of the same series but a) I do not have a testing laboratory and b) it is certainly possible the the particular lens that the owner claims to be less good is a lens that deviates fom the rest. I personally have concluded to stop 'testing' more or less. I have my personal lens favourites (my M 4/20, my FA 24-90, my M 2/35 my 3,5/35-105 stopped down) and I would go as far as recommending to give any of these a try, but no further. Sven Zitat von Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi! It would appear from the most recent talk that Sharpness is more or less __the__ most important characteristic of the lens. However, from previous talks it has become my understanding that Pentax do not optimize their lenses specially for sharpness (except may be macro lenses and such). Pentax, AFAIU, optimize their lenses for plasticity, or overall smoothness of the picture. OTOH, Nikon are known for having their lenses tack sharp all over the frame. At least this is what I have accumulated in my small knowledge bag so far. Please unconfuse me - why all this talk about sharpness? I do realize that for digital lenses should be very sharp. Or at least, it would be a reasonable thing - to want one's lenses to be sharp. But sharpness is not all, right? Most recently I've sold my Soligor C/D 70-222/3.5 lens in favor of my Pentax SMC F 70-210/4.0-5.6. It could very well be that Soligor is sharper on some apertures. It is faster too. However it has rather ugly bokeh - at least to my taste, and general zoomish taste on the pictures I've been able to take with it. Pentax lens however is very smooth, very 3D, very pleasant. It is also lighter, has AF and is of course fully compatible with my MZ-6's electronics. It also allows for use of built-in flash at least for some of the focal distances. But this is already tech-talk. Still, why to be so aware of sharpness? I mean, if one wants sharpness, perhaps one should look for 3rd party lenses specially optimized for sharpness. Please unconfuse me. Thanks. Boris
AW: Fully manual SLR
One of my most exciting camera repair undertakings was with a friend's sticky mirror LX. This camera spent a lot of time in the deep freeze in various stages of my repair attempts, always in a large bag that allowed shutter operation without taking it out. I remember being frustrated many times after changing some detail on the camera and trying it out successfully in the warm - and then again that infamous delay after taking it out of the fridge... Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 31. Mai 2004 00:53 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Fully manual SLR ... One of the local newsboys I used to know had a low temp Nikon. It spent half the year in the deep freeze, the other half working. William Robb
AW: Street Portraiture
Paul, those are very good photos! I generally don't like photos of people eating but everything else is so pleasing. Smooth colours, precisely framed - beautiful. The kid with the dog makes me feel good - thanks! Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Mai 2004 23:17 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Street Portraiture ... http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399802 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399804 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399807 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399808 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399810 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2399829
AW: Fully manual SLR
I don't think it is a good idea to use *any* camera that relies on a motor to transport film. FWIW, the LX is specified to work electronically between -20 and +50°C. The mechanical shutter speeds are specified to work up to -30° C (thats quite cold but can happen in Russia). The MX is specified to work between -20° and -50°C. I have not found any specification for the MZ-S but I wouldn't consider it anyway. The *ist D - surprise surprise - is not specified to work below freezing at all (!) and only up to 40° C. Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Mark Dalal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Mai 2004 17:05 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Fully manual SLR From: Brett Mckay [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks to the people who have replied so far. Just adding some details. I am after a Pentax camera that takes K-mount lenses. I assumed people would talk about Pentax as it is on the Pentax mailing list. These I have for my MZ-S. My worry is when I visit Russia at the end of the year that the MZ-S will not work at the low temperatures. I also have a P30, which is my normal backup, but it may have the same problems with needing a battery to function. Would the MZ-S falter in those conditions? I recall having a conversation with Mark Cassino about his PZ-1p working just fine in cold weather. Mark
AW: Fully manual SLR
...still available: LX external battery chamber, Pentax order No 37352, EUR 39,00 Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. Mai 2004 17:38 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Fully manual SLR I've always wondered. Is the main problem with electronic cameras in cold weather the batteries? If so, why not just make something (I'm thinking of a company not your personally) that lets you keep the batteries in your pocket and runs a cable to the camera? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners
I think there really is no need to make children familiar with computers any longer... In general, they spend too much time in front of a screen already. In that sense EVERYTHING that offers a hands-on experience rather than a virtual one is positive. So if it is possible to explain a subject *without* using a computer I would always vote for that. The children *I* know will transfer and use the knowledge they have gained to computers anyway. Also, there is the thing with *understanding* a subject rather than knowing how to use a tool. With some effort in teaching optics and chemics you can come close to give a 14 year old a good understanding of *why* there is an image developing on that paper in that soup... I doubt the same level of understanding is possible with a computer or a bubble jet printer. They may be very skilled in using these and still don't have a clue... Sven ... On May 25, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: My childrens school is to be offering photography as a subject. I have talked to the principle about this and he is very keen about an all digital photo lab type set up. He stated that with a darkroom there was could be problems with Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) with the use of chemicals and children with asthma. Also as the world was going digital this would be a real world solution. The school is well equipped with computers, so there would be no need to build another (dark)room for processing. Added to this there is no cost of film. He did say he could be swayed if there was a compelling arguement in favour of film. If you have any reasons why children should be learning in a darkroom, I would love to hear them and pass them on. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Loose front on 50/1.4
I use strips that I cut from an old mouse mat and tension over my fingers. That usually provides enough friction. Sven Zitat von William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Michel Carrère-Gée Subject: Re: Loose front on 50/1.4 The right tool: http://www.micro-tools.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PRODStore_Code=MTProduct_Code=LR-KIT I would check out a wine making store to see if a carboy bung would work. That seems like a lot to pay for what it is. William Robb
AW: istD preferred lens survey in archive?
Yes it would - I'll put that one on the wish list as well, as an alternative ;-) I still think that a DA 1.4/35 (priced below the 31 mmm Ltd.) is one of the possibilities for the 'next' DA lens. Or a 50 to 200 zoom for those who like it a little longer... Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Mai 2004 15:35 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: istD preferred lens survey in archive? On 25 May 2004 at 9:56, keller.schaefer wrote: My everyday lens was and is the FA 24-90. For portraits I use a F 1.4/50 now instead of the M 2/85. I miss a real wideangle, so I am saving for the DA 2,8/14. I would also like to have a fast 'standard' lens again, so a DA 1,4/35 would be nice for Christmas. Would the 31LTD not be a good current option? I can assure you it shows no signs of CA right to the very edges when used on the *ist D, as I mentioned it's become my defacto standard lens. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Future Practicality of Film
I'll try to avoid the general opinion and will limit this to my personal experience... I do not photograph for a living - but I do take photographs almost every day. Over the years I have acquired some ;-) cameras with a variety of film formats (including a Minox and a Plaubel 4x5). I use many of them - not at random, but I often pick a different camera for the next film, sometimes even knowing that it might give 'inferior' results. Anyway, I just like it that way. What I have found since I bought the *ist D (my second digital camera) last October, is that I hardly use *medium format* any more. I didn't expect that (even though I sold a 40mm Distagon to fund the *ist D...) but my 35mm usage has not changed that much - I still do slides and happily continue to put negative film into a Spotmatic or a Rollei 35 or whatever, every now and then. As for less (almost no) medium format film use, I dont really know why this is so. One idea is that it is so *easy* to produce good quality prints with digital. True, you can match that quality with 35mm film, but everything needs to be right : The right film, the right lens, the right framing the right exposure, the right lab... I had always found it *easier* to produce a really good 12x18'' print from medium format as it has more reserves, but now digital has made this even simpler. Sven Zitat von Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I realize this list has a number of clairvoyants and unlicensed psychologists (hahaa), but I'm still interested in a general opinion. I have planned to buy a 67II for a number of years. I am now trying to determine the practicality of that course. What if in five years most photography is being done digitally as opposed to film? What if it's impractical for amateurs, even pros, to use MF/LF photography for any but the most eliteist of applications? Even considering the potential quality of MF over 135, it seems history may tell us that potential quality is not the sole factor in longevity and success. Both 620 and 828 saw their demise, even though they were a larger format than 135. If major players (camera and film manufacturers) are/were to move away from 135 film, how long is it until they move away from larger film formats which currently represent a smaller portion of the market than 135? For a fraction of the price of the price of a decent/complete MF system, there are other things... hot tub, SCT telescope for astrophotography... a surgery my wife has always wanted... I'm curious, what people think... is it possibly throwing money down the drain to 'invest' in additional film equipment? I'm not making a case for this, just wondering. The world is currently changing at a faster pace than most imagined was possible. Tom C.
Re: K2 DMD.
That would depend a lot on the optical appearance. Most of these have been used extensively, so an example that also looks good, will cost *much* more. I have bought mine only some months ago in heavily used condition (but working, except for a sticky exposure correction ring that had to be cleaned) - and I paid the equivalent of $ 85. I like it a lot, BTW. Short from TTL flash it has everything you would want, even exposure lock - a feature I always missed on the LX. Sven Zitat von Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Can anyone suggest a realistic price to pay for one of these, in fully functional condition. Thanks. Malcolm
RE: K2 DMD.
That would depend a lot on the optical appearance. Most of these have been used extensively, so an example that also looks good, will cost *much* more. I have bought mine only some months ago in heavily used condition (but working, except for a sticky exposure correction ring that had to be cleaned) - and I paid the equivalent of $ 85. I like it a lot, BTW. Short from TTL flash it has everything you would want, even exposure lock - a feature I always missed on the LX. Thanks. I'll live with one or two scrapes, but I don't want one that looks as if it has fallen out of a pick-up on a building site! I have just sold a K2 to a good home and would like to use the DMD version, whilst I still have a good stock of slide film. Malcolm ... that is exactly how mine looks. The feature I like best (apart from the exposure lock) is that an orange filter is put over the aperture readout window if an exposure correction is set, to remind you. Simply brilliant! I am always amazed what beautiful solutions Pentax engineers have come up with for certain functions ... only to forget about them for the next camera. There is a whole array of such things, like the one mentioned above. After the K2 DMD had this reminder, the ME did not have anything like that and would let you carry on shooting with 'corrected' exposure until the end of the film. As if these were developed by different departments that were not allowed to communicate... Sven
AW: Further Adventures with *ist D Flash
I can't believe that the sensor reflectivity is a function of the set ISO??? Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Dr. Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Mai 2004 08:08 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Further Adventures with *ist D Flash ... But it seemes, that the reflection of the CCD differs depending on the chosen ISO setting. The exposure will be correct only at ISO400 as the development and testing of the TTL-measurement was apparently made at ISO400, only. At ISO settings below 400 the camera will under-expose, at setting above 400 it will over-expose.(*) This problem can probably not be solved by a firmware update as there is no upgradeble TTL-software but some kind of hardware solution. The problem does not exist if you use P-TTL. -- (*) In the meanwhile I could confirm this behaviour. Maybe changing to ISO400 will solve you problem. Hope it helps... Cheers, Heiko
AW: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom?
May I question why you are looking for a zoom anyway? I can't believe that whatever zoom is there is *very good* at f 2.8 so other than in an emergency you probaby will not use it at 2.8. The AF doesn't need the extra stop either - other than in an emergency... But if you *are* in an emergency, in really low light and still want to continue shooting (or, in brighter light, *really* need that extra shallow DOF), then you would be even better off with TWO stops extra, on top of the 2.8, that you can get from a 1.4/50 (if you don't have one already). Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Mai 2004 13:25 An: Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom? Woohoo! I'm back in business, so here is the first of the posts I've been trying to send all day... I notice a few people posting that they are looking for a constant aperture auto focus zoom available in a Pentax mount, that is around the 28-70mm (or 28-80, 28-75, 24-70, 24-90, 28-105 etc) mark. So, I was wondering - aside from the Pentax FA 28-70 f2.8, which lens is generally thought of as the best in or around this range? So, I am referring only to the latest AUTO FOCUS models available, as I know that there have been many variations over the years. Or if you have a particular favourite of a certain model that exceeds what is currently on the market, please feel free to name that one too. (eg, Tokina ATX Pro II etc). The Tokina 28-70 f2.8? The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or ? The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 macro? And, I just discovered that Sigma has two lenses available - they are 28-70 f2.8-4, and a 28-105 f2.8-4. They are only USD$119 and $199 respectively at BH. Anyone have any experience with these? I particularly like the 28-105mm focal length (I have the Pentax 28-105mm FA Powerzoom, and I love it, but at f4-f5.6, it is just too slow), and the Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 would certainly address the issue of speed that I have with the Pentax FA 28-105, but with these two Sigma lenses being so inexpensive, it makes me wonder why it is the case... Also, how many of the above have macro capabilities? And why is your particular choice your favourite? Bokeh? Sharpness? Flare (or lack of it)? Build quality? AF Speed? Price? Value for money? etc... Also, is f2.8 the fastest anyone has ever seen in a zoom lens of constant aperture? Is there any record of anything faster ever being produced? So, here is my wish list for such a lens - a sharp, nice bokeh'd AUTO FOCUS lens, focal length of 28-105mm, f2.8 constant aperture, less than usd$400. I'm not asking for much, am I?!? lol. Then, after this one peters out, I'll post another similar topic covering the f2.8, 80-200-ish zooms. I don't own any of the above lenses, so I can't really participate here, but I am leaning towards possibly purchasing the Tamron (when I can afford it!)... tan.
AW: PAW - That Darn Ball!
I had started to write something about this picture being so timeless and that it could have been taken 50 years ago - and now Frank has said it so much better... I think you can be relatively sure that in another fifty years people will still enjoy looking at it if they find it during an excavation ;-) Will a picture taken of some kids staring at a computer screen look charming or interesting in fifty years time - or will it look just as boring as it does today? Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Mai 2004 14:55 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: PAW - That Darn Ball! Shel, Stop it, you're killing me! g Where to start? Well, first off (and I know I've mentioned this at least once in relation to others in this series), it's so timeless! Wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, this kid could be from any era in the last 50 or 60 years! There are no other time cues in this photo that tell us when it was taken. It's a photo of Youth. Kids are kids, and they never change their essence. Well, maybe one thing's changed: these days, do kids still go out and play with balls? I guess they do, but unfortunately they're more likely to be seen in front of a screen playing the latest Jet Li computer game, making blood spurt all over the inside of a computer, but I digress... ... From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW - That Darn Ball! Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 04:32:27 -0700 It's that ball again ... it's appeared in so many photos of the kids from the old neighborhood in San Francisco. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/paw/boy_with_ball.html As always, comments, criticisms, and the tossing of tomatoes are welcome. Shel Belinkoff _ http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=htt p://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
AW: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom?
Tan, I realise that those are busy moments and that maybe the ability to change the focal length/frame a little indeed can make the difference. I have only bought my first AF camera fairly recently and I have never really worked professionally as a photographer. I do however remember from the occasions that I did photograph a wedding or similar events (are there any?) that I used either the 2.0/35 or the 1.4/50, depending on how cramped the location was. I could have *never* focussed quickly enough with a slower lens (and I would have loved to have a 1.4/35). Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Mai 2004 19:28 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom? Hi Sven! Unfortunately, when shooting Weddings, I find that zooms area necessary evil. Sometimes it is just very impractical to physically walk in closer or move further away from a subject. They become indispensible in many situations. Off the top of my head - an example is the wedding party walking down the aisle. If they are walking toward you, it is not usually possible to take a shot and then turn around and run up the aisle to ensure that you don't crop their heads off as they come closer. The speed issues are for a number of reasons - currently, both of my zooms of this range have apertures of f4-f5.6. Slow. So usually, to achieve the blurred background that I need for most shots, I need to shoot with the lens wide open. Most people will know that when you shoot any lens wide open, it usually results in a softening of the image. So, I am looking for a zoom that is a tad quicker than say f5.6 so that I may shoot at like f4 and know that it isn't going to be completely soft, or wide open. Secondly, most churches are really poorly lit, and despite usually being able to use flash, I like to stop down and use a slow shutter speed to allow much of the ambient light to sneak in. That extra stop or two could make all the difference here in the bride and groom looking as though they have been blasted with a flash, and standing in a black hole, or having them appear to be naturally lit. I do have the FA 50/f1.7 but sometimes it just doesn't cut it when I need that bit of extra reach, or if I need to go wider in a pinch. Another instance is when I am shooting kids - I generally work outside with them, and they tend to run around with me chasing - a nice, fast zoom would be fantastic to have sometimes. I have a fashion photographer friend in NYC who absolutely refuses to buy any lens that is slower than f1.8!! Mostly for the reasons I have mentioned above. He only owns one zoom - it is a 28-80 f2.8 (a Canon of some sort), and he rarely uses it, but for emergencies. When I told him of my lens line up, most of which are quite slow in comparison, he actually laughed and told me that I need to start building a kit like a professional and not like some kid who likes to wave a camera around. He is a harsh, cynical New Yorker (lol!), but I love him for it, as he doesn't mince with words, and he has often expressed things to me that have helped me to improve my work and which normal group of friends and family would never be game enough to come forward and say. I thought about his words for some time, and realised that he is completely right. This is why I have decided that from now on, I will only buy the best lenses that I can possibly afford, and I will wait UNTIL I can afford the best before buying any at all. I do need a zoom of this calliber, but I will be waiting for as long as I need to be able to save the $$$ and buy the best that I can. Hope this explains things to you a little better?!? :-) tan. -Original Message- From: keller.schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 15 May 2004 10:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom? May I question why you are looking for a zoom anyway? I can't believe that whatever zoom is there is *very good* at f 2.8 so other than in an emergency you probaby will not use it at 2.8. The AF doesn't need the extra stop either - other than in an emergency... But if you *are* in an emergency, in really low light and still want to continue shooting (or, in brighter light, *really* need that extra shallow DOF), then you would be even better off with TWO stops extra, on top of the 2.8, that you can get from a 1.4/50 (if you don't have one already). Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Mai 2004 13:25 An: Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: The best 28-70 f2.8 zoom? Woohoo! I'm back in business, so here is the first of the posts I've been trying to send all day... I notice a few people posting that they are looking for a constant aperture auto focus zoom available in a Pentax mount, that is around the 28-70mm (or 28-80, 28-75, 24-70, 24-90, 28-105 etc) mark. So, I was wondering - aside from the Pentax FA 28-70 f2.8
AW: *istD focus point anomaly
I have tried back and forth to reproduce this but no, if I have set a particular focus point, the camera will rather blink unable to focus than switch to another sensor. The MZ-S has this feature that allows the neighboring sensor to be used if the desired one cannot focus... [trying to be funny] Maybe your *ist D has even more hidden features? Can you open the rear door? What is behind? [/trying to be funny] Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Mai 2004 16:42 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: *istD focus point anomaly I've noticed an odd problem with the *ist D. Very minor and easily fixed, but odd. I keep my camera on central AF sensor mode since I always prefer to focus and recompose. Occasionally, however, it will start flashing the sensor to the left of center. (Maybe my camera is just a Democrat) A little experimentation also shows that it's actually using this sensor to focus. Just resetting the selector switch doesn't seem to help, but shutting off the camera and resetting the switch does. Has anyone else seen this? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: AW: Stll confused *ist D
Frankly, I find these differences overrated anyway. Maybe that is due to the fact that I am no professional - but then if I was one, I would hopefully be able to train myself enough to master the particular oddities of *any* (one) camera's user interface. I do find these differences interesting, sometimes amusing, part of the fun - but really nothing that would stop me using a camera. What I find annoying is when the layout of a camera (combined with my own forgetfulness) leads to mistakes - like setting an exposure correction factor on an ME and not to reset it for the rest of the film. Or switching the *ist D to ISO 1600 and forget about it... I'd still say that compared to my other favourite brand (Rollei), Pentax cameras are very straightforward to use. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. April 2004 19:23 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: AW: Stll confused *ist D On 22 Apr 2004 at 18:56, keller.schaefer wrote: ... but don't let this stop you. A much as I like the elegant and simple layout of the MZ-S - adjusting the aperture with the thumb-wheel (with an A or FA lens mounted) also works very well. Not for all of us. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
AW: DSLR slide duplicator
I believe a 'Pentax only' solution has yet to be found. My current setup is as follows: From right to left: Camera - extension ring - M42 to K adapter - 4/50 Macro Takumar - reverse ring - bellows (reverse mounted) - a slide holder (cannibalised from an old slide copier and machined to fit the bellows). Here is how it looks: www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/187.JPG I doubt the Soligor copier is nearly as good optically as is the Takumar, but certainly easier to handle. Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. April 2004 07:47 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: DSLR slide duplicator - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr William, I remember that thread. The pertinant remark in your message was that the execution of the theory was still (at that time) in the future. Results are still to be shared AFAIK. I think the best lens I have for this at the moment is the 100mm bellows. I will dig out the duping equipment in a day or so and see if I can't make something work. Mostly what I want to know is how long an extension I need for the duplicator, and if I can pirate a long bellows from another peice to make it light tight. However the Soligor option is on the market, at least in Germany, as I write. For some reason, I didn't makage to see that page. William Robb
RE: Name that capture?
There are some grey spots that look like dust on a sensor - but there is also dust like from scanning... Could it be a digital reproduction of a MF or LF slide? Sven Zitat von J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: OK, I'll throw another hint. You cant get grainless scans this big with 35mm film in black and white, let alone color. It is not 35mm film. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Name that capture? Not a pretty shot but the image quality is up there: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/macro01s.jpg Film or digital?, lens? Cost of equipment? Anyone care to guess? JCO This could be from one of your setting with an enlarging lens (reversed?) on a 35mm film camera. One of the best way to do macro. If this is the case, the cost of an old enlarging lens should be under $40. Andre
Re: OT: Cleaned by first leaf shutter
I have also cleaned some grease from shutter or aperture blades with a cotton swab and some solvent. This works well, as long as you do not soak the whole thing and as long as you understand that you are curing a symptom not the cause. The grease did not just materialise on the blades, but came from inside the lens - from helicoids, rings, levers, whatever. If some has found its way onto the blades, there is more to come... So a real repair requires the whole thing to be taken to pieces. And there is no feeling like seing a bunch of disassembled shutter blades in front of you... Sven Zitat von Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It takes about an hour. The Ikonta's shutter leaves were oily and sticky. So I grabbed some cotton swabs, and the lighter fluid, and tweezers. The lighter fluit dissolves the oils and the swabs pick it up nicely. The tweezers are for pulling out the little cotton fibers (or fibres for EUs CNs) so that they don't bind up the mechanism. It's really not a bad job. You can get bargains and fix them cheaply. Got it loaded with Acros. Next stop, Cincinnati. Collin
OT: Photoshop question
I have a question regarding Photoshop - I hope it is not too silly... If I want to crop an image but wish to retain a (or arrive at a) certain aspect ratio - how can I do this? If I select a frame to crop to, I will most certainly change the aspect ratio a little bit (even if I try not to) which will then lead to prints of slightly different size. Don't shout, if the answer is all to obvious, just laugh at me... Thanks, Sven
AW: Photoshop question
Now that works VERY nice - thank you! Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 2. April 2004 17:15 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: Photoshop question Sven, when you click on the cropping tool, the menu bar above will change. All you have to do is type in your required dimensions and your resolution there. ie it says width and height and resolution. For eg, for a 5x7, just type in 5 in in the width, 7 in in the height, and say 300 in the resolution and use the drop down menu to choose your preferred measurement ie pixels per inch, or per cm. When you go to crop the image, it will show a box as you drag the mouse but you won't be able to deviate from the dimensions that you entered above. The second option is to use the image/image size tool and when you type in your new dimensions select constrain proportions but that is only for resizing and not actually for cropping. Hope this answers your questions! tan. -Original Message- From: keller.schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 3 April 2004 12:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Photoshop question I have a question regarding Photoshop - I hope it is not too silly... If I want to crop an image but wish to retain a (or arrive at a) certain aspect ratio - how can I do this? If I select a frame to crop to, I will most certainly change the aspect ratio a little bit (even if I try not to) which will then lead to prints of slightly different size. Don't shout, if the answer is all to obvious, just laugh at me... Thanks, Sven
April PUG
I would like to be the first to say that IMO, of all the good ones, Amita Guha's 'Over the river...' is a truly great photograph. And Mark Stringer's South Coast Sugar Mill comes next, so to speak. Thank you! Sven
strange Pentax-like camera
Here is an Ebay auction (3806025838) that has a strange Pentax-like camera. The seller says in the auction text that exposure control is via three LEDs in the finder (!). Any idea what it could be? An MX prototype? A K1000n? Sven
Re: Pentax EI-100
Resolution actually isn't the problem - 1.3 M is enough for small prints and for web applications. But that camera is still not worth the money (much noise, weak flash), even my 8-year-old does not want to use it... I only keep it to somewhen show it to my grandchildren. If you are looking for a cheap, used digital, Pentax probably isn't the best choice. OTOH, I doubt that better photos help an Ebay auction. The opposite may be true. Sven Zitat von Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Does anyone have this digi-camera? I understand it has very low resolution, but I can buy it used from a shop for 35 pounds. Will it be OK for ebay ad photography? Will the flash cope? Thanks, Kostas
Re: OT: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera
I really think there is no way around a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord. Later Rolleicords with Schneider Xenar taking lens can be found in that price range and have much to offer: supreme build quality at relatively low weight and size, a sharp (coated) lens - but there always is the danger to fall in love... Sven Zitat von Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've got an Olympus Stylus Zoom 130 and a Canon GIII QL17 for 35mm carry-around bodies. But I'd like something for 120 as well. At this point I'm looking at Frank Rolfix perhaps also an Ikonta. Both are reasonably compact and modest in weight. (I tried an old Agfa folder but was not satisfied with the results. I'm not too picky about sharpness, but am just a little.) What other options might there be for inexpensive carry-arounds? Budget: $100us. (I've not seen a Fuji GS645 this cheap--yet.) Other: I prefer a single-coated lens over uncoated. TIA, Collin
Re: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera
Coating started to become common after WWII. No pre-war lens on any publicly sold camera will have coating - unless applied later. Sven Zitat von Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ... I think that any camera lens made since the about the 1920:s will be coated. Lasse
AW: OT: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera
A Rolleicord is roughly 800 g (including two lenses ;-) Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. März 2004 19:53 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: OT: Looking for a 120 carry-around camera Collin said: An decent Rolleiflex Automat for around $100us is common. And desirable. Especially with the Schneider. BUT -- I want something just a *bit* more lightweight. BESIDES -- having an affair with a *German* is not my idea of a fling :) YashicaMats, while they are about the same size, are lighter in weight. I think. I'm pretty sure. Just my 2 cents' worth. ERN
Re: My own DOF confusion
Collin, I feel it would be appropriate if you changed your sig to some short, brilliant, funny or weird thought, quote or whatever, as others do it. The way it is now, it is a list of very, very offensive statements - and I think that you are aware of that. In this sense it is not 'just your sig' but rather provocative and impolite. I don't think that a pissing contest can help here, but hopefully reason can. Do you really *need* this signature line? Best Regards, Sven Zitat von Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 20:57 2004.03.22 -0500, you wrote: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:08:35 + From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: My own DOF confusion Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lasse: Agreed, Collin's political stance appears to be a little right-wing, even by American standards, but if you don't like his posts you can always instruct your client to filter them out. :-) S And that was just my sig. Not even a discussion point. Collin
Re: DOF and angle of view or focal length (long)
My rule of thumb is that when I use a lens designed for film cameras on the *ist D, I get one stop less DOF as what is engraved on the lens. Example for a 55mm lens: DOF indicator says infinity to 9m for f=11. On the *ist D this will become infinity to 12m as indicated for f=8. However, you get one stop more DOF than using the 'equivalent' focal length on a film camera at the same aperture. Sven Zitat von [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fra: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Some say, that smaller formats have greater DOF (Photonet). They say that in order to get comparable images, I must use shorter focal length to go with the smaller format, thus achieving greater DOF. They are using circle of confusion (COF) theories to support their point of view. If you want the same field of view, that is correct. I (and Photozone) say, that smaller formats only show a part of the image, captured by a specific focal lenght. If I shoot the same scene twice with the same camera, same lens (focal length( and same aperture and focus point, you will get identical images on let's say APS and 35mm film - that is for the part, that is covered by the smaller format (e.i. APS). I say that the DOF of these two identical images - is exactly the same. I say that focal length, aperure and focal distance determins the DOF. If field of view is unimportant, that is correct. The APS size sensor simply crops the image. IMO COF theories are somewhat subjective, because the point to where a point looks like a disc, depends on the degree of enlargement. I think that the smaller image, captured by a shorter focal length needs more enlargement, thus less appearing less sharp. What is right and wrong here? Both, depending on you priorities. If angle of view is important you say the first, if DOF is more important you say the latter. In addition, as you say, the degree of enlargement also plays a part, along with resolution/diffraction limits etc. This image: http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=13611 is impossible to make with an APS size sensor, because of the combination of shallow DOF and field of view. This was made using a 28mm @ 1:2.0. A corresponding 18mm will not be able to make the large difference between COF in focus and in the background. Compare images made with MF and APS formats and this is much more evident. DagT
Re: European PDML Meeting 2004
I could offer to find a nice place to gather in the afternoon, after the Photokina visit - to put some cameras on the table and do some Pentax-talk. Sven (from Cologne, Germany) Zitat von Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, ... This year, for European PDML members, the most attractive place that comes to my mind is Cologne from Tuesday, Septembre 28th to Sunday, Octobre 3rd. Let us join and be there when Pentax unveils more DSLRs and lenses, and let us get some special attention from the Pentax staff! What do you think? Who would join? Greetings from Hamburg, Arnold
AW: daddy-D
Another way would be (or have been) to incorporate the current 'green button' function into the shutter release, IOW to stop-down-and-meter in the instance before the shutter is released. This would add a small delay between pressing the shutter release and the actual shutter operation but would give automatic (stop down) metering. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Marz 2004 21:17 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: daddy-D John had a complicated method for getting a *istD successor to correctly operate K and M lenses with camera-aperture-control. Nikon has a similar scheme in the D2h to allow matrix metering and such with older CPU-less lenses, which is odd since the FA of 1983 could do it without the manual input of information. Wouldn't it be simpler to build a daddy-D with an aperture-tracking-tab so that it could meter correctly at full aperture, but NOT attempt to overcome the difference in aperture-lever travel between K/M and A/F/FA lens lines. It would let you use your K and M lenses in aperture-priority and manual just like you always did, and more modern lenses with all the newfangled modes. Pentax could top this off by re-issuing some of the older lenses in FA variants for people who just have to have P mode with their 18/3.5. If the camera knows when it's got an A or better lens mounted due to electronic communication, it could refuse to go into advanced exposure modes unless it found a modern lens attached--just give a snippy error message. DJE
Refconverter M
The postman yesterday brought a nice Refconverter M to my door. A cute little thing... The manual says that once the diopter is set to match your eyes, the setting does not need to be altered when magnification is switched between 1x and 2x. This I think is either a mistake in the manual or the one I have is not as mint as it looks... I have to turn the diopter A LOT to get a sharp picture in both settings. Does anybody use this accessory and can confirm? Thanks, Sven
AW: Refconverter M
Yes manual is wrong or yes refconverter is defective?? Thank you anyway - now I at least know it is either of those two possibilities ;-) Sven -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Hal Sandra Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Samstag, 13. März 2004 14:22 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Refconverter M Yes! - Original Message - From: keller.schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:29 AM Subject: Refconverter M The postman yesterday brought a nice Refconverter M to my door. A cute little thing... The manual says that once the diopter is set to match your eyes, the setting does not need to be altered when magnification is switched between 1x and 2x. This I think is either a mistake in the manual or the one I have is not as mint as it looks... I have to turn the diopter A LOT to get a sharp picture in both settings. Does anybody use this accessory and can confirm? Thanks, Sven
Re: Rolleiflex Knowledge
That would really depend on the model also (DB8/9 does not indicate the model
... and Rollei made various TLRs with 2.8 Planars from the early fifties to the
mid seventies). Could you quote the camera serial number?
Sven
Zitat von Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I wouldn't call this real knowledge but I just did a quick look at
www.keh.com to see what they had available
in Rolllie TLR's. Assuming you're right and the condition is excellent
then your are looking at values in excess
of $1500.00
Chris wrote:
Does someone on the list have any info/knowledge about Rolleiflex TLR
cameras?Dear friend's deceased partner's hidden('til now)locker has revealed
a Rollei in excellent (to my eye)condition black with a brown case with dual
lens cover and nicely functioning hood/focussing/knobs/functions etc
etc.Lens reads 2.8 80mm planar,and the only model info is DB8 or 9.I have
tried a couple of sites(Mr.Robb take note)via web ferret/google etc to no
avail.Could someone give me an idea of worth(approx.)and so on.
Regards Chris K
Links to 'My PAW' sites
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a web page with a compilation of links to all the sites where list members store their PAWs (something like an extra column to the PUG list of member's sites)? I then could bookmark only this page and browse from there through all the PAWs every week. Good examples would certainly continue to be mentioned and discussed here, but this would remove the need to mention every single one every week (and this would remove some traffic). What do you think? Sven Zitat von David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi all, After putting my last couple of PAW images up, I decided to set up a script-based site to make it easier to add pictures. I'm getting lazy and editing HTML is boring :) I'd appreciate it if a couple of people could take a look at the new pages to make sure they work for you. Here's a direct link to one of them: http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=26-Feb-2004 ...
PAW - a nice flock of shoats
... no artistic value and the focus is not quite where it should be and it wasn't even dangerous (because of the fence) but still: www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-kellersv2/546.jpg Sven
Re: Digicam Slide Duplicator / Scanner
Do you remember which setup gave you the full frame? I have also spent an evening juggling with 35, 40, 50 and 55 mm lenses, reverse rings and extension tubes and did not find a good setup (using the x1 slide copier). I thought the only way would be to use the slide holder that attaches to the bellows (that I don't have). Sven Zitat von William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Michel Carrère-Gée Subject: Re: Digicam Slide Duplicator / Scanner (and 1.8/55, screw, normal or reverse) + Pentax Slide-Copier Its good ! Are you able to get full frame with that? Not full frame, approximately 20x30mm with 1.4/50mm Thats the problem I have been having with the set up, since it is designed for the full 35mm frame. I managed to get full frame, but it took a lot of trying. William Robb
AW: Long exposures on auto
I have also used the LX for long time AE night shots, up to probably 4 or 5 minutes and I have also wondered whether Pentax has built in some compensation for the reciprocity error that no doubt exists for such long exposures. As the Impresa is a print film and from your description of the 'milky look' I guess that you judge camera exposure from the prints that you got - which might not tell you the true story... What you have to keep in mind, is that the camera exposes for an 'average grey' exposure and for a typical night shot you do not want this, usually. In a scene with a lot of 'black night' and some bright spots the camera meter would probably be mistaken by the black and overexpose - to keep the night impression you would need to correct the exposure by -1 or so. Now with print film this becomes even worse, as the printer will 'automatically' underexpose (leave grey) the areas that you exposed to be plain black. Correct prints from such a negative you will only get after complaining - or if you pay for a hand print up front. Sven -Ursprungliche Nachricht- Von: Stephen Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2004 17:28 An: Pentax List Betreff: LX: Long exposures on auto A question for the LXers: What's the longest (ballpark figure) successful exposure you've made using the LX's automatic, direct-metering mode? Although I've grown to trust the AE mode in conventional photo situations, around New Year's I tried out its low- light capabilities for the first time. I was using Konica Impresa 50 and a Vivitar Series 1 105/2.5 macro at f/8 to shoot the Christmas tree and some of its ornaments. During the day, with tree lights on and some daylight selectively let in through drawn drapes, the LX was choosing exposures on the order of 10-20 seconds and producing very good images. After dark, however, using only the tree lights, times were running to 4-5 minutes, sometimes more. Also tried some whole-tree shots, using a flashlight to paint the tree and selected ornaments. All these shots came back with a severe case of that milky underexposed look (but, in tribute to the Impresa 50, not at all grainy.) The light-painting shots were better, but still spoiled by the underexposed background. So, did I run into reciprocity failure? Is there any way to let the LX still do its thing yet avoid the problem? Any other LX-specific low-light tips would be much appreciated. Thanks, Stephen Moore
