I actually agree with you pretty much in all of your examples.
Sometimes we benefit from seeing the context around the subject. In
fact sometimes the context IS the subject. The only one I might debate
is the nun in venice. Personally I would try losing the person bisected
by the frame on the
Hi,
Peter S. wrote:
Only one thing is odd: the automatic exposure check in the viewfinder works
very erratic. It flickers for correct exposure when the reflector is tilted
uppwards, not when its in 'normal position'. In the same position/distance
to a possible motive that
On 11 Feb 2003 at 22:00, Alan Chan wrote:
IMHO, if you use 1 filter only and use a deep hood, it doesn't make any
practical difference. At least none of PLs is coated and I haven't seen any lost
of sharpness.
A hood can't exclude reflections generated by light sources within the angle of
Mike, you definitely could be right.
The flashhead of the Metz protudes rather much. More than for instance the
Pentax AF280T. Doesn't solve the problem, but gives an explanation.
Thanks so far!
Peter
Hi,
Peter S. wrote:
Only one thing is odd: the automatic exposure check in the viewfinder
Hi,
[...] Granted they have released a
70-200 f2.8 IF-ED G lens, I don't think most Nikon
owners are worried that Nikon will abandon the F-mount
Nikon has already abandoned the old F-mount. Or is your idea of full
compatibility having to buy the F-100 (price $1000+) ?
If Pentax goes along
Hi all,
I have just learned that the PZ-70 (no 'p' in the camera's name)
features a panorama switch. Could it be that the Z-70 also has the
panorama format, and that the Z-70p does not exist at all?
Owners of any of these cameras (Z-70, Z-70p, PZ-70, PZ-70p), please
check and let me know:
I note also that the charts refer to MZ-S series cameras! SERIES!!!
Almost definitely reading too much into this, but it is intriguing!
-Original Message-
From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 February 2003 16:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FAJ lenses what
I had a lens disassembled and cleaned for less than $100. But it was
affected with only a mile fungus. If your lens is truly full of mold,
it may be a goner as the fungus may have eaten the coatings. But if the
fungus is still fairly mild, it can be cleaned up. Mine is now as good
as new, and the
From Photozone:
According to Pentax Sweden, Pentax will show many new and interesting
products at the CeBit show 12-19 march. This is probably digital photo
products (CeBit is, after all, an IT show :-) ). Perhaps the DSLR will
be officially launched at the CeBit (and showned only for specially
Fred wrote:
You know, this could actually be good news, in a strange sort of
way, since it shows that Pentax does still have some interest (even
if not for serious gear) in K-mount bodies and lenses. Also, it
shows an interest in wooing point-and-shooters away from their
little pocket-boxes
This is a wise move, get all the computer geeks to buy
itlol, they'll sell like hot cakes.
--- Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From Photozone:
According to Pentax Sweden, Pentax will show many
new and interesting
products at the CeBit show 12-19 march. This is
probably digital photo
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This _might_ be the Super Takumar-Zoom 1:4.5 / 70 ~ 150 mm, 224mm long.
This was the first Asahi zoom lens, manuf. 1964-1971. 67mm filter.
14 elements in 11 groups. Wt. 2.34 lb.
Data from The Ultimate Asahi Pentax Screw Mount Guide ~ 1952 - 1977.
I think I
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there
is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me
these photos
Boz wrote:
If Pentax goes along the same way (and they must, if they are to compete
with Nikon and Canon), then our K and M lenses are doomed.
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will work without
sacrificing compatibility.
Pål
Rob wrote:
I note also that the charts refer to MZ-S series cameras! SERIES!!!
Almost definitely reading too much into this, but it is intriguing!
A couple of years ago Pentax said at Japan camera show that they were considering a
MZ-S based camera model placed below the MZ-S and one body
Henry wrote:
My problem is, if Pentax to going to release more lenses with FAJ mount to
match the coming D-SLR, I will be gone to Canon.
The FAJ lenses are not intended for a DSLR but for entry level film slr's.
There's no point for me to
remain staying with Pentax because my existing
Peter,
Finder check goes on with the flash on bounce or with the 85/2 but not with
the 50/1.4 ? ! ! Have you watched the recycle time?
Doesn't the finder check 'flicker' work only while the flash is recycling.
Once the flash capacitors have reached full charge, the light goes on
solidly.
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO, if you use 1 filter only and use a deep hood, it doesn't make any
practical difference. At least none of PLs is coated and I haven't seen any
lost of sharpness.
regards,
Alan Chan
one of my circular polarizers is multicoated and one
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote:
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there is
no tell-tale line
The book did say that later in the production run the lenses were
multi-coated.
This was, I think, the first One-Touch zoom.
The optical performance was rather good, too. g
keith
Mark Roberts wrote:
Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This _might_ be the Super Takumar-Zoom 1:4.5 / 70 ~
Hi Bob,
Well, it doesn't matter if I fire the flash att f1.4 or f22. The behaviour
is the same. Besides that, according to the LX manual it should flicker
anyhow.
???
Peter
Peter,
Finder check goes on with the flash on bounce or with the 85/2 but not with
the 50/1.4 ? ! ! Have you watched
The answer to this question depends on whether I'm shooting for myself
(artsy stuff for which I can impose my own pretentious, anal-retentive
standards...just like everyone else g) or for someone else.
For myself, I can recall only 2 photos that I've cropped in the past 10
years or so. Both were
Mike Johnston said:
Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is contagious.
If it's truly full of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements
have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be,
but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
work without sacrificing compatibility.
IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
Hi All.
I was just looking at an Ilford PDF sheet for times
to develop FP5+ and i noticed a paragraph that stated
NOT to add the harder to the Rapid Fixer.(Aaron said i could)
This contradicts the jug of harder that statesadd the harder
to the rapid fixer at 1:40.
Any comments from the Ilford
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Mike Johnston said:
Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is contagious.
If it's truly full of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements
have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be,
but not
got this book, Rodchenko, photography 1924-1954, from publisher overstock. one word
-- WOW!. spent the whole evening looking at his photos, my jaw all the way down on
the floor. best $20 i have ever spent.
mishka
I think tomorrow that I will
take my most recent lenses (acquired mostly thru ebay)
in to the store to make sure they are clean.
Steve,
Don't bother. Just spend some time with your lenses and a flashlight in a
room with subdued ambient light. Shine the flashlight through the lenses and
The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor to drive it!
keith whaley
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
work without sacrificing compatibility.
IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
However, it may hurt some brand
loyal people to realize that their favorite company is doing some, how
to put it, odd things.
I suppose that MZ-60 with some FAJ zoom attached is operationally no
more complicated that any film PS.
Boris,
Lots of people like to, or need to, use their
What is it?
(By cheapest I mean poorest construction/materials.)
The Vivitar V4000 comes to mind.
Is there anything worse that that?
Collin
-Original Message-
From: Mike Ignatiev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
got this book, Rodchenko, photography 1924-1954, from
publisher overstock. one word -- WOW!. spent the whole
evening looking at his photos, my jaw all the way down on
the floor. best $20 i have ever spent.
On a
--- Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt, thanks for sharing practical and useful info.
It's stuff you wouldn't
pick up in a weekend or two of taking flower
pictures.
Pat White
__
Hey Pat!
Have a good shoot this next flower show! Load up on
film and get
Mike,I looked at a used Bronica RF645 during Christmas
and, despite its size,found it a nice camera to hold.Focus,
controls all smooth.
I then went and tried the Fuji GS645 folder i went originally
to see and felt a big diference right a away.Like the
Bronica much better.
If i can save up enough
Your email has been deleted un-read. I have better things to do then waste my time
with your drivel.
Later,
Gary
--- Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor
to drive it!
keith whaley
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents,
both IS and USM will
work without sacrificing
Then why the hell did you waste even more of your time replying?
Also, how did you know it was drivel without reading it?
-Original Message-
From: Gary L. Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 12 February 2003 15:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cheapest k-mount body
-Original Message-
From: Gary L. Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Your email has been deleted un-read. I have better things
to do then waste my time with your drivel.
Ouch. What was that for?
tv
Isn't that OEMd by Cosina?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is it?
(By cheapest I mean poorest construction/materials.)
The Vivitar V4000 comes to mind.
Is there anything worse that that?
Collin
One thing that keeps puzzling me is how some people seem to be in such
a total lack of selfrespect that they don't hesitatet to, or obviously
don't care if they
even show the whole world what an extraordinary asshole they are.
Lasse
- Original Message -
From: Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL
It was great response, Alan!! Why to change to Canon/Nikon if maybe Pentax introduces
similar technology with any kind of compatibility? If so for many of us it will be
still the best mount. Hope our dreams come true.
Alek
Uytkownik Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa:
My problem is, if Pentax to
Hi Mike,
Mike Johnston wrote:
It is to be hoped that Pentax will not move towards making all
new lenses with no aperture ring. But when many dealers are
successfully selling inexpensive SLRs with one or two zooms in
preference to actual point-and-shoots, that's a good thing--and
it's smart
Ive got to comment here. After reading Bobs post, I
went outside (Wednesday, February 12, 2003) with my
camera and Gossen Luna Pro light meter, # 4D51102.
I shot a few scenes to check both instruments, then
shot them in tandem against a solid tan/light
brown/stucco exterior for my own
Bojidar Dimitrov a écrit:
Hi all,
I have just learned that the PZ-70 (no 'p' in the camera's name)
features a panorama switch. Could it be that the Z-70 also has the
panorama format, and that the Z-70p does not exist at all?
Owners of any of these cameras (Z-70, Z-70p, PZ-70, PZ-70p), please
Kalimar K-90.
cheap cheap cheap. But it does do pseudo-mirror-lockup with the
self-timer.
-Mat
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
What is it?
(By cheapest I mean poorest construction/materials.)
The Vivitar V4000 comes to mind.
Is there anything worse that that?
Collin
Peter,
You may want to check your Metz Flash manual instead of the LX manual. I believe that
the automatic exposure check function is different between Pentax TTL Flashes w/LX
and Metz TTL Flashes w/LX.
I will check my manual later and make certain.
Regards,
Jose R. Rodriguez
From:
The PDML is different. Very different. Usually.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 12. helmikuuta 2003 3:02
Paul:
After seeing your post, I called the owner just now.
Apparently after I left the store, the guy behind the
counter pulled out some kind of special light. When
he looked inside the lens, he said it is full of mold.
He said it is basically a paper weight. So,
tomorrow, I am getting the
This just in from Chris Brogden:
A friend of mine is looking to buy or rent a Pentax stereo adapter, the kind
that fit onto the front of a lens to allow for stereo photography. He
doesn't need the stereo viewer, just the adapter that fits on the lens.
He's working within a pretty tight
Jose,
Indeed the Metz has its own exposure ckeck function (a red light). However,
why does the LX automatic exposure check function sometimes at all?
?:-|
Peter
What my TTL Metz flashes (CT-4 CT-5) do with my LXs: they don't
flicker so I have to check outside on the flash. I have not
noticed
--- Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:08 PM 2/11/03, Mafud/Matt/Kirkland/Whoever
wrote:
Make friends with your local Florist**.
**With the caution that many of them are Gay and
may
take your approach as a come-on. Keep it
business-like
inthat case or just back-off.
Do
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the mount can be backward compatible doesn't mean it will be. That
takes an act of will. There is nothing to prevent KAF3 mounts to be on J
lenses only.
So you think they'll make new high-tech lenses that are incompatible
with their
We're still on for 2/24 at 7:30, but we've changed the location to The
Hard Times Cafe:
http://www.hardtimes.com/collegepark.htm
It's about 30 seconds from the 495/Rt. 1 interchange. I'll try and get
a big table in the room to the left as you walk in the door.
Those coming from Baltimore need
Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole thing is about people claiming Pentax will abandon
compatibility because they have released two lenses with
limited compatibility. It is absurd. Theres no basis for any
such conclusion. Pentax have released bodies with the same
limitation years
The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
Goto --Lenses--SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The
quote is on page 36 (I think).
In the new FA Lenses manual is written, that all limited lenses have this
green point to find the right lens position
Putting an uncoated or single-coated filter on an SMC lens is like putting
all-season tires on a Ferrari.
Or, to put it another way, putting any filter in front of the lens will
cause _some_ image degradation (loss of contrast or sharpness). An SMC
filter will cause the least degradation. In
Begin Original Message
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave,
You ought to buy it now if you can. Bronica is offering a $450
rebate until
March. That makes the RF645 and the 65mm normal lens cost about
$1150, which
is a screaming bargain.
Thanks Mike.
This works out to about
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gary L. Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Your email has been deleted un-read. I have better things
to do then waste my time with your drivel.
Ouch. What was that for?
Probably he's just in a bad mood because of being hit on
Thanks Tim.
We use the same stuff in class with good results,so
for saftey i'll pick up some and use the Ilford dev.
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:05:37 -0800
To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Any filter that has some color tint to it does not pass all the light
entering it. The color tint is due to absorption of some color light.
Your light meter does not measure the difference because it is not
sensitive enough for these small differences. If you had a color temp.
meter it
At 12:41 PM 2/12/03, Mafud wrote:
I used to be a photographer at dog shows. It took
about two shows for me to discover that most of the
male professional handlers and groomers, even a vet or
two, were homosexuals. A lot of Hair Stylists,
barbers and Cosmetologists are Gay;
but you already knew
At 01:20 PM 2/12/03, Mark wrote:
Probably he's just in a bad mood because of being hit on by a gay
florist. And because Pentax is about to switch to a
totally-non-backwards-compatible lens mount and send special agents into
all our homes to confiscate all our old-style k-mount gear.
Tempers get
If Pentax takes away the aperture ring at the same time when
introducing the new technologies like ultrasonic motor and image
stabilizing, that's the end of my investment on Pentax equipment. I feel
betrayed for my long patience on Pentax.
Henry,
With all due respect, I think you may be
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
I don't know if you read about Bethlehem Steel cutting off its former
workers' pensions. I'm sure it never expected that it would be down to 20%
of its peak workforce.
Read about Bethlehem Steel?
You should try LIVING here.. I think every male member
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02/12/03
at 09:41 AM, Matt Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
|Nothing like making an issue of an innocent
|observation.
nothing like pretending homophobia/hate is anything other than what it
is; anything but innocent.
Bran
--
Mike wrote:
But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
what I've heard, both those technologies are closely controlled by Canon.
Maybe for USM. For IS, however, there are several patents holders. The optics seems to
me mostly Asahi patents. The only thing Canon
I also predict I won't be proven wrong for a few
years, and then nobody here would remember, so it's like a freebie for me.
*chuckle*
... is to make cheaper starter kits.
There's nothing for the user of the nicer lenses to fear.
Didn't Canon Nikon did this ages ago on some lenses?
Pentax, as always it seems, is last.
Collin
Okay by me, Matt! I stand corrected! g
Thanks for the correction.
keith whaley
Matt Greene wrote:
--- Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor
to drive it!
keith whaley
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Huh? Nothing preventing them to releadse them with Canon mount ether! The
whole thing is about people claiming Pentax will abandon compatibility because
they have released two lenses with limited compatibility. It is absurd. Theres
no basis for any such conclusion. Pentax have released bodies
Or, to put it another way, putting any filter in front of the lens will
cause _some_ image degradation (loss of contrast or sharpness).
...Allegedly. However, Ctein's Law applies: If you can't see it, it
doesn't count.
--Mike
...anyone who has recently come into my crosshairs for off-topic behavior
is now free to take advantage of this one-time offer to take me to task for
my recent savaging of Mafudkirklandmatt, if you so desire.
order before midnight tomorrow.
operators are standing by
yr hmbl svt
Doug
Thanks Mike.
This works out to about $1900 Can.:)Not bad
Unfortunatly i spent most of my camera saveup cash on a new,
to me, AF body on the weekend.Have to start fresh now.g
Dave
Come on Dave, what did you just buy?
Or did you tell us already and I missed it?
Or worse - it wasn't Pentax and
Hi!
I usually enjoy reading your longer posts. This one was no exception.
MJ It's hard for US to believe, but many people just need to take pictures, and
MJ are not interested in the camera equipment or how all the camera controls
MJ work!
Here I agree, but still, I think that if I paid
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
But where have you heard about Pentax introducing USM or IS lenses? From
I was under the impression that IS patents were put out by Pentax many
years ago, and further more that the current IS and VR lenses were based
on these patents?
I won't fight if
Mike Johnston wrote:
[...]
Perhaps it is human nature to extrapolate.
Well, it sure is on PDML, pilgrim! g
keith whaley
g
--Mike
Pål wrote:
Rob wrote:
I note also that the charts refer to MZ-S series
cameras! SERIES!!!
Almost definitely reading too much into this, but
it is intriguing!
A couple of years ago Pentax said at Japan camera
show that they were considering a
MZ-S based camera model placed below the
I thought I'd share this with the group. I just actually read the Canon
advert. on the
back of this months Pop. Photography, not only does it start out
condescending but it
get's worse. I found this statement to be especially hilarious.
[cannon lenses are] all forward compatible too. So a
Peter Alling wrote:
To fungi everything is nutritious, I'm not kidding.
I understand the thrust of your comment, but please see below...
At 09:07 AM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Mike Johnston said:
Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is contagious.
If it's truly
I'd say it's a minor variation. I have two smc-m 50 1.4's they have minor
variations
in cosmetics. Most would not ever notice the difference. I do like the
idea of a
finger index for mounting the lens.
At 06:44 PM 2/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:
The information is here:
Hah! found something right away!
Look at this rather comprehensive site on lens fungii:
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fungus.html
keith
* * * *
Keith Whaley wrote:
Peter Alling wrote:
To fungi everything is nutritious, I'm not kidding.
I understand the thrust of your comment, but please
Re the photo contest -
after seeing Karen Johnson's spectacularly
beautiful Dahlia on usenet I think
I had better just put my flowers
back in my drawer. Can't compete.
I've gotta get off list for a few days, though may
not
actually leave until late tonight. Be nice to
each
other while I'm
I don't think you can get a Canon lens in EOS that has a f-stop
ring, I could be wrong but I've never seen one. (I stopped caring
about Canon when they screwed their user base).
At 02:08 PM 2/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
... is to make cheaper starter kits.
There's nothing for the user of the
I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. I
found a Phoenix 650-1300mm f/8-16 zoom for $260, which seemed like a
wonderful new toy, but someone that had used the lens complained of poor
contrast and a bluish tint, and declared it a turkey.
With some modern computer
Come on Dave, what did you just buy?
Or did you tell us already and I missed it?
Or worse - it wasn't Pentax and you're too embarassed to tell us ;-)
I cannot submitt PUG themes with it Wendy, sorry. Kept all my mf stuff though,
SP,K1000 SP500 SP1000
Why do responses come before causes in my digest?
Is there a problem with the quantum flux alignment?
:)
Collin (still unemployed, but an interview is on the horizon) Brendemuehl
*
Re: Best cheap telephoto? [ gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
.
.
.
Best cheap telephoto?
I've never heard of ANY patent lasting only 7 years,
17 is about the minimum isnt it?.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Gregory L. Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: End of K-mount?
Mike Johnston said:
But
--- Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No, it´s the other way round, skylight blocks blue
light - like the light coming from the blue sky .
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Matt Greene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:03:46 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #40
--
Content-Type: text/plain
pentax-discuss-d DigestVolume 03 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Re:
I wouldn't think of disputing him...
keith
Peter Alling wrote:
Keith I have a friend who's a Mycologist. This is his attitude
from what I saw of some of his experiments I believe him.
At 11:45 AM 2/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Peter Alling wrote:
To fungi everything is nutritious,
Hi Jose,
I have no manual for my SCA 372 module (it's from ebay), so your mail was
extremely helpful. I will test the flash with this in mind! I already
recognize the patterns.
Thank you very much!!
Peter
Peter,
The following is from my Metz SCA 373 Module's Manual that I use with my
Metz 45
Hi Peter,
on 12 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
[cannon lenses are] all forward compatible too. So a lens bought today
can be used on the EOS camera of tomorrow.
Maybe they mean *really* tomorrow :-)
Cheers, Heiko
Hi Arnold,
So maybe it really is better not to unveil product news until
the products can really be bought.
PATHETIC SECTION
I believe that a company should have a strategic vision for the future.
At least this is what all those economics and management books say. I
believe that once you
All,
I went backcountry skiing this weekend and took my MZ-S, BG-10, and FA*
28-70 F2.8 lens. While huffing puffing up the mountains, I had plenty of
time to muse on my Pentax equipment. In particular, you may recall that
there is a difference of opinion regarding the FA* 28-70 F2.8 lens. I
He's been gone for months
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Canon Condescension
[cannon lenses are] all forward compatible too. So a lens bought today
can be used on
the EOS camera of tomorrow.
They said the same thing in the 1970's about the FD mount.
Back then, it was the Canon of
- Original Message -
From: Matt Greene
Subject: Re: of topic that grew out of Re: While were on tubes and
flowersg
Instead of asking me,
snip .
Wow, that didn't take long.
WW
- Original Message -
From: Doug Brewer
Subject: incidentally...
...anyone who has recently come into my crosshairs for off-topic behavior
is now free to take advantage of this one-time offer to take me to task
for
my recent savaging of Mafudkirklandmatt, if you so desire.
Nah, I
- Original Message -
From: David Brooks
Subject: OT:Ilford Chemical Confusion
Hi All.
I was just looking at an Ilford PDF sheet for times
to develop FP5+ and i noticed a paragraph that stated
NOT to add the harder to the Rapid Fixer.(Aaron said i could)
This contradicts the jug of
me too.
Christian
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 16:53, Ed Mathews wrote:
I'm planning on it.
Ed
-Original Message-
From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:08 PM
To: pdml; Cesar Matamoros; Christian Skofteland;
Dglenn@Radix. Net; Ed Mathews;
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
