Hi,
Bob R wrote:
I have seen them appear numerous times. For a real trip, check and see his
present Pentax offerings. If I were a bidder, I would be happy to know that
no one could see how dumb I really was g.
The whole list is a classic example of how not to offer products. The
prices are
Hi folks,
Remember the Tamron 90/2.5 that I bought off ebay and turned out to be
a lemon? The seller thinks that fogging of internal elements and an
unresponsive iris are normal for a lens of this age, that it is is
good working order and that there are risks associated with buying
from ebay (I
This one time, at band camp, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one with such
an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has anybody ever filed
a complaint against a seller? Is SquareTrade the one and only option?
I have
At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote:
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:26:04 GMT
From: Donald A. Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello all,
Today I managed to get my hands on an absolutely pristine example of the
above lens - glass perfect, cosmetically it looks as if it has never been
used and at a price I
At 05:18 2003.12.19 -0500, you wrote:
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:33:03 + (GMT)
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi folks,
Remember the Tamron 90/2.5 that I bought off ebay and turned out to be
a lemon? The seller thinks that fogging of internal elements and an
unresponsive iris are
Hi,
there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the
other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens, and the rubber grips on
the focus/zoom ring are different - the non-SMC version has longer
gnurls (or are they knurls?).
The non-SMC version has an enormous amount of slip in it -
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
As I have kissed my 60 pounds goodbye, I think that some one
with such an attitude should not be left to deal on ebay. Has
anybody ever filed a complaint against a seller? Is
SquareTrade the one and only option?
I've lost a fair bit of faith with eBay as a
there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the
other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens
Isn't the SMC A version marked as a 70-210/4 lens, while the non-SMC
version is marked as being something like 70-200/4 ?
Fred
Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately Mark Roberts is a much more common name so I'm only the
5th web site listed. Even more unfortunate is what happens to be the
*first* one listed...
I don't know Mark, it sounds like good exposure to me :0) (someone had to
say it)
Yeah. Looks
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Dec 2003 at 9:45, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
You guys are the biggest bunch of SOOKS!!! vbg You think it gets hot down
there, you wanna live up here during the summer, it is now 9.43am, and has
already hit 36 degrees! Estimated to be around 42
on 18.12.03 18:57, graywolf at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nikon belong alongside Mitsubishi already.
Asahi Glass is now subsidiary of Mitsubishi too ;-P Actually it has been
since 1944 :-)))
http://www.agc.co.jp/english/company/history/history.html
But I doubt if this company has anything in
Alan.
I have this lens too and it seems to me that the focus is a bit loose too.I palm hold
my
zooms and it
would take nothing at all to move focus. Someone mentioned a few years back there were
several
small screws on the lens that could be tightened.The only ones i saw were up close to
the
k
At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote:
A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine.
I have one and had to do the same fix to it.
Take off the rubber surround.
There are some screws under it which hold the barrel in place.
Just tighten them.
The more contrtasty ones look best on my screen. I'm not sure which
were subjected to auto levels. However all of them would print just
fine with a tweak in PS.
Paul
On Dec 18, 2003, at 8:59 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Are you saying that the ones that look alright are the unmanipulated
ones or the
Hi,
could be - I can't remember what was on mine. I have neither of them
now, but I seem to remember them both being 70-210. Kilpatrick's book
describes a Takumar A 70-210/4, which is not what I had, as well as
the SMC A 70-210/4. In the description of the SMC lens he writes 'A
previous Pentax-A
It's a one-touch zoom so this is slightly irksome - the ring will
slip and change focal length according to gravity rather than
staying put as the other lens does.
This is a personal preference issue, it seems to me.
If you want to use the lens pointed up or down on a tripod, then I
can see
Someone mentioned a few years back there were several small screws
on the lens that could be tightened.
I have used a couple A 70-210/4's quite a bit over time, and one of
them (due to much use in very dusty conditions, including wind-blown
sand) actually started to develop a gritty feel when
This is for everyone too.
Taking your que Ann, i decided to try my hand at a calender for the farm owners were we
board out
our horses.Spent a bout 16-18 hours compiling photos,scanning those that were not from
the
D1 and
doing a
http://classifieds.yahoo.com/display/merchandise?ct_hft=detailnpintl=cc=merchandisecr=cids=76081e6fbc11a19cbca56d3b88dd0e81refsrc=search
Looks like a set of repair guides.
Hi,
Bob W. wrote:
there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the
other is not SMC. This is marked on the lens, and the rubber grips on
the focus/zoom ring are different - the non-SMC version has longer
gnurls (or are they knurls?).
Knurls. Gnurls are female 8-)))
mknurl
I'm having an odd problem. I'm trying to submit my PUG entry for Jan.
The image was taken on the *ist D at high quality JPG at 2000X3000. I
cropped the image and reduced it to 500 x 360 pixels. My compression
algorith is saying the image is about 46 K (20x) compression but the
file is actually
We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's
a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll be passing a couple of
your places on the way but I don't intend to stop the Xterra much ;)
It occurs to me that we have a bunch of USA-PDML folks on the East coast and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:leaving today
We're going up to Michigan for Christmas (Shhh! Don't tell my parents, it's
a surprise EG) and leaving this afternoon. We'll
Really Bill?
CW
- Original Message -
From: Bill Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: RE: leaving today
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: December 19, 2003 9:56 AM
To:
Cory,
I hit the send button a bit too fast on the other post - sorry to all.
There are four members of the Michigan PDML that I know of. Mark in
Kalamazoo on the west side of the state. Ken Waller, Paul Stenquist and
myself all live in suburban Detroit, on the east side of Michigan.
And we'll
Wasn't much concerned about Mark robbing my house...it's those Lurkers you
have to watch out for ;)
well, you'll have to wave towards the west then, we're the Yellow Xterra
hurtling towards parts North.
Happy Holidays!
Cory
- Original Message -
From: Bill Sawyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
bethegotthepointthough... :-)
-
Pictures at: http://oksne.net
-
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
I think with the Pentax software you can only batch process the same changes
to a group of RAW images. That's the way I've done it anyway.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:57 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Santa
Have you seen Pet Cemetery?
Oh my god it is already the 19th!
I have to go dig up an animal
annsan
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom,
As I have played around a bit, the photo lab will convert from raw to
jpg/tiff with one set of settings. If you only have loaded one image,
it applies to the single image. If you have a group of them, they
will all get the settings applied during conversion. So for a group,
you would use
Obviously this is going to be a bad day The *ist D is not working with
a few lenses. In particular:
can't read aperature or AF w/
FA 50, FA 135, FA100 2.8 macro
Works just fine w/
FA20-35, A50.17, Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6
I'm assuming this body has just won a trip to Colorado.
Steven Desjardins
Hi,
people often say that the PDML is like a bar that a group of friends
drop into regularly to chat about photography and other things. Here
is that bar:
www.web-options.com/PUG.jpg
It's in Chiswick, London.
(For a clue as to the correct explanation of the bar's name see this
self-portrait of
Steve,
Do you have another ZX type body to try them on? I found that my FA
80-320 acted like it was not set to 'A' when I put it on the *istD.
After putting it on the ZX-10 it behaved just the same. Pointing to a
problem with the lens, not the body. After pressing and hold on the
aperture ring
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does this make sense to you? Other questions?
I think that covers it.
I think that method would double the time it takes me to edit a
wedding.
tv
I'm going to bring in my zx-7 for testing, although I know the FA 50
works fine on my MZ-S. I have cleaned the contacted, made sure they're
on A etc. What's so odd is that three lenses now fail and that AF won't
engage. OTOH, I have an FA, A and Sigma lens that work fine, both
aperture and AF
I just tried this with phtoshop 6 and got files of the same size. I'm
not sure why I'm suddenly having this problem. Must be bad karma. . .
.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ann wrote:
I haven't used Automate -- I know the create for web stuff in Elements is pretty
ugly.
My covers were done by bringing each image in on top of a background one at a time.
Hey,me too :-)
Will be itnerested to see how ACDC works, though I'm
Tom,
I would be very curious to find out your general workflow of editing a
wedding after downloading from the cards. What tools, what order,
etc.
Also, I have been trying to decide if it is worth using raw when
needing to process a large number of files - thinking jpg or tiff
might be better
On 18/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Yes, Mr. Cottrell! :-)
Ryan
No need to stand on formality. Please call me sir.
:-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads
P. T. Barnum was right.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727category=48539
William Robb
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question still stands:
Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR?
--
Best regards,
Bruce
I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than
over,or so
i've
been told by
Hey Wheatfield, $981.00 total so far. He's saved $18.00 over retail!
Bill
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:32 PM
Subject: there's one born every minute
P. T. Barnum was right.
Hi,
some minutes it's rather more than one, apparently.
--
Cheers,
Bob
Friday, December 19, 2003, 7:32:18 PM, you wrote:
P. T. Barnum was right.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973510727category=48539
William Robb
It is still a scam and the guy should be shut down. It is like someone
selling a camera box.
Regards,
Robert
Dunno if it's technically a scam; he says right up front that you're not
getting an actual Rebel.
If I were that kind of jerk, I'd put up a bunch of auctions for this
alleged URL with a BIN of say $50 or $100. I'd be rolling in cash...
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leigh Woerner
Holy shirt! That must be the stupidest person still able to use eBay.
To pay that much just to get the URL.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:32 PM
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject:
He probably could have googled for the URL directly.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: there's one born every minute
Hey Wheatfield,
A scam? He's selling information and he made it perfectly clear what he's
doing.
And, if the buyer can really purchase the camera for the noted price, with
reasonable shipping, it would be possible to buy a few for resale and start
turning a profit.
Buying a camera or lens box can be a very
Well, the seller did say that with the information the buyer could turn a
profit. You've seen that quite clearly ...
Amita Guha wrote:
Dunno if it's technically a scam; he says right up front that you're not
getting an actual Rebel.
If I were that kind of jerk, I'd put up a bunch of
Yeah, just look at the list of bidders! You've got to admire the
audacity of the seller. He's done nothing illegal. Unethical? Maybe.
There've been bunches of these kinds of autions pulled before. Usually
works best with new released gear that is hard to get at the stores.
But, I see EOS 300D
Collectors buy camera boxes.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
-Original Message-
From: Robert Leigh Woerner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: there's one born every minute
It is still a scam and the
http://www.streetprices.com/Electronics/Digital_Cameras/6.3_Megapixels/SP1197239.html?sortdetail=sortdetailbylowprice%2F
Len Paris wrote:
He probably could have googled for the URL directly.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
That's cool Collin, I have exactly the same issue with my newly acquired
one!
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: A 70-210/4 - Focus Ring Looseness
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Donald A. Morrison wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 23:10 2003.12.18 -0500, you wrote:
A lens maintenance has become a specialty of mine.
I have one and had to do the same fix to it.
Take off the
I'll have to look into my lens shen i get home.I still cannot remember any rubber.
Dave(senior moments R us)Brooks
I tried this and it worked superbly, I was quite surprised how little
tightening the screws required to achieve the desired effect. The
Hello Pieter,
Thanks for pointing that out. The idea makes lots of sense.
Something to test and try out for sure.
Certainly, potential issues are the opportunity to shoot/review/shoot
may not be there in faster moving situations. Also the need and
amount of post-processing may increase. On a
Nate found a thread about this auction on DPreview:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031message=7000753
Someone posted a link to the actual website, which is
ExpressCameras.com, and others said that it is an awful dealer that
tries to make a profit on things that should be
-Original Message-
From: Pieter Nagel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question still stands:
Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR?
--
Best regards,
Bruce
I think so Bruce.You have a
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom,
I would be very curious to find out your general workflow
of editing a
wedding after downloading from the cards. What tools, what order,
etc.
- Use BB Downloader Pro to download the cards, renaming along the
Yes it is best to slightly underexpose on the DSLR. Keeps the threat of
blown out (over-exposed) highlights down. Blown out highlights
translate to no ink on paper, completely lacking in detail.
Under-exposure can usually be made to print normally with a little
correction.
Len
* There's no
According to Epson, and the pros that run their Print Academy, if you
shoot in RAW, you can squeeze out an 11 stop range. I'm trying but it
does take some work to get that good. By the way, they get those results
using Photoshop 7 and the Epson 2200.
Len
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same
thing. don't overexpose in digital.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Pieter Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
A dissenting
Been there, done that with Jessops. Never again...
I feel your pain!
-Original Message-
From: Peter Jordan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 December 2003 23:15
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: OT: Lousy Printing
I had a sad task to carry out last week.
My neighbours 20
i doubt power was the problem with solar powered chargers.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:46 PM
Subject: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
Folks,
A week ago I saw a projected show by a Norwegian PJ
on 12/19/03 2:59 AM, Bruce Dayton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My question still stands:
Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR?
Well, according to what I read on Luminous Landscape (dot-com) you want to
expose to the right of the histogram, or to greater exposure side, but
without
If the buyer was a little more astute, he could have saved himself heap of
money with a BIN
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=48539item=2973781218
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Len Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Holy shirt! That must be the stupidest person still
Kids? I didn't see any kids! Where were they? vbg
Bruce
Thursday, December 18, 2003, 3:42:06 PM, you wrote:
TMP Bruce, I just looked at that site - are ALL of those kids in your FAMILY?!?!
TMP OMG, the Daytons are a very busy mob aren't they?!?!
TMP tan.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:20:42PM -0500, Herb Chong wrote:
you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same
thing. don't overexpose in digital.
The article says: get as close as you can to overexposing, cause that is
good, but don't burn out the highlights, cause
who said that?
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Pieter Nagel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Santa Picsy
Other people in this thread said; burning out the highlights is very bad,
so stay as far away as you can
Will be on vacation on the road for a while.
See you next year!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Dude I was going to but I couldn't get past your poster ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:29 AM
Subject: Re: Bloody Aussies and their long posts
On 18/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Yes,
As all Poms, they can get arrogant! Especially after England finally won a
Rugby Word Cup - of course there in no mention of the Rugby League side.
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 20 December 2003 3:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right, but they are similar enough to confuse lots of people. In fact, there
are 3 versions:
- SMC PENTAX-A 70-210/4
- PENTAX-A 70-200/4
- TAKUMAR-A 70-200/4
Yours regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
there are 2 versions of this lens. One is an SMC version, and the
other is not SMC.
73 matches
Mail list logo
