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
The information that the Sf-10 two segment meter used
distance information for exposure evaluation is from
the sales brochure. It was also confirmed by a Pentax
employee I talked with (I have no experience with the
Sf-10).
Alexander
It had access to distance information. No
For my part, for snap-shooting a 85mm and 35mmm/2 two
lens outfit works great.
Besides, I understand that you prefer the
characteristics of the 50/1.4 (or 50/1.2) over that
of the 43/1.9 ltd. So I am almost sure you will like
the FA* 85/1.4 (more than the 77mm).
Enjoy,
Alexander
Mike Johnston
I mean yould you do that: sending your credit card
information to a foreign seller, who has a feedback
rating of only 9 and who says this is the only paying
method he is willing to accept?
Probably not. And speaking about insurance (in an
other ebay posting) does this protect me from a
possible
Pål wrote:
If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other
people find it helpful
to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it
interesting to deconstruct
composition ex post facto, fine. They can do
whatever they want. I can do
whatever I want. You can do whatever you want.
You
Pål wrote: --
Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be
interpreted litterally; more of an AF
camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up.
Yes, that is how I have meant it.
Both Nikon and Canon sell well of
their upper level bodies. When a company like
Kyocera
See interspersed comments below
Pål wrote:--
I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x
as
expensive as it initially was.
Too expensive.
The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices
increase.
Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how
long you can sell
Rob Studdert wrote : -
On 17 Dec 2002 at 0:15, Scott Nelson wrote:
Has anyone tried this before? I'm curious, but I
think the second
option would be much easier to implement and is
reversible. Oh yeah,
and does anyone have any beat up, broken A series
lenses with f/2.5 or
The MZ-S camera body gets into the way with the
bellows. Insert an extension ring between bellows and
camera body.
Alexander
Feroze Kistan wrote : ---
Hi Andre,
All the manual says is Note that Auto bellows A
cannot be used with this
camera because it cannot be fitted to
The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is
that they are AF lenses; loose,
rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately,
I've discovered that initially
tight AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may
well be that some newer AF
designs are potentially beter optically, but
I agree with all those positive comments about the
30mm/2.8 lens (particularly about it's great range of
tonality). I just want to add that it also delivers
remarkably high quality over-life size macro shots (in
reverse mode on a bellows or extension rings). I have
used this lens for 4x or 5x life
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
lens. The question is rather if you like it's
characteristics or not. But that is a totally
different matter ...
Guess I just can't stand the bright-edge bokeh of the
43. :)
Is it just me, or does the bokeh on this Noctilux
pic remind you of the 43 Limited?
http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/images/noctilux/mimi4.htm
R
I am not sure. Unlike those those seen on this picture
(maybe an effect of scanning?) out of focus highlights
produced by the 43 mm ltd. lens seem
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and
really like
I would consider the 43 is not particular great
optically while the 77 is very good imho.
regards,
Alan Chan
Hi Alan,
I disagree with almost everything you say about the
43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur
for portrait
shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length
(plus f1.4).
85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the
FA* 85/1.4 is
~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances,
so that the
difference between the autofocus 85/1.4
Hi,
Does anybody have experience with both of these
lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly
rated by those list members who have used it, but I
would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? How good is
the image quality when it is used with a converter
(A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)?
Thanks,
Alan wrote: --
I have found the M50/1.4 has better bokeh than the
FA43/1.9. Aperture are f2 f1.9 respectively.
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/50.jpg
regards,
Alan Chan
-
These sample pictures are very interesting. Good or
bad lens
- Original Message -
From: Jose R. Rodriguez
Subject: RE: Lenshood for FA 50mm
I also use a 52mm Nikon Hood (HN-3) for my K 50mm
f/1.2 which
works great.
Is that what that thing is? I would like to find a
couple more,
and if so, then I know what to look for.
Thanks
William Robb
If in the past or now the Pentax boss owed you a
favor, what prime lens would you have asked him to
make/would you ask him to make
Lens name: FA 400/4.5 ED IS
Length: 25cm
Diameter: 10cm
Weight: maximum 2kg
Filter Thread: 95mm
Other: image
There are excellent unterwater housings for Pentax
from uk-Germany:
http://www.uk-germany.de/english/uwg_pentax.html
http://www.uk-germany.de/english/main.html
--
On 4 Oct 2002 at 5:15, Brad Dobo wrote:
I highly HIGHLY doubt there is one for the
ERNR wrote: -
Bought an AF 1.7x converter some months ago -- used,
without an instruction manual. I notice that sometimes
it just won't AF. (I generally use it with a
fast 50, so it's not the speed). Is this a known
weakness of this device? or is there something in the
instructions that
Bruce wrote: -
Also, the bellows can handle mounting a lens reversed
for further magnification. In that case, you do have
to stop the lens down - the double cable release
doesn't help much.
--
I don't think that is quite correct. I have the
A-bellows unit and I can confirm
andre wrote:
The biggest issue with the NiCd packs is not
overcharging (a full
charge is 16 hours)
Other post says 6 to 10 hours. 16 would be a max ?
.
No, about 8 hours is right. There is a real chance to
ruin the batteries when charging them for 16 hours
Paul wrote: .
The Pentax 18 did very well. And by the way, Pal
Jensen (spelling? sorry) and others have confirmed the
18/3.5K's warm color cast.
Paul Franklin Stregevsky
Because the lens has 4 built-in filters: 1A skylight,
cloudy (81A?) warming filter, yellow and
someone wrote:
K and M has a *lot* better build in my view. A has
better coating. If the design is the same (check the
Boz's site -- I think they are), I can't see why K
should be more expensive.
---
Depending on the price range, the built quality of the
A-lenses differ.
Jonathan Donald wrote:
The 18/3.5 isn't really that poor
Anyway, I
recommend the 18/3.5. A drawback for some will be the
very warm color rendition.
Is it possible that this is a sample variation? Have
other owners noticed this? One poster on Stans lens
comment site said it was identical
Evan Hanson wrote :-
I live in the flight path of a local Air Reserve Base,
so I've become accustomed to seeing large planes skim
over the tree tops. Last night however, I missed a
great photo opportunity because I had left my camera
in its bag. As I was walking my dog around dusk I
heard
I wrote:
However, the apparent viewing distance of the f-stop
window is such close (by far closer than the viewing
distance of the screen) that the f-stop number is
factually invisible during shooting.
Lukasz replied: -
Your post is really puzzling to me, for I see the
There seems to be a bit confusion about this issue
(the manual is not very clear in this aspect).
But the LX works like this:
1) The LX has an auto sync feature, i.e. sync speed is
set automatically.
2) Clearly, the sync speed cannot be set automatically
when the shutter is set at any
Frantisek wrote:
BTW, if anybody has the Motor Drive MD (made for
K2DMD) and is willing to sell, please mail me offlist.
I am even interested in just the motor alone without
the big AA battery grip (I can improvise my own power
source).
Good light,
Frantisek Vlcek
...
I really doubt that our existing Pentax
lenses will ever be useful on a full frame Pentax
digital camera.
Why? What would prevent these lenses from being used
on a full frame digital camera?
Alexander
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
Bruce wrote:
2) I have the Pentax Auto Bellows A and I can report
that the MZ-S does not mate to it. The base of the
camera (no BG-10) hits into the frame of the bellows
and won't allow a solid mating. I don't know if
there are any 3rd party bellows that would work.
Insert a narrow extension
It works, but the disadvantage is you can't move the
rear part (where the camera is mounted) along the
rail. Yet focusing works by moving the front part and
the entire camera-bellows along the rail.
Alexander
Bruce wrote:--
Alexander,
You are probably right. I just don't have any
Jason wrote: ---
Alexander,
You are right. That is a good idea and would provide
some (which is more than I have now!) albeit limited
functionality. Given the length of the distance
between the bottom of where the lens attaches and the
base of the camera (even w/o the BG-10), this
Geoff wrote:
...
I was planning on traveling with this lens, even
though taking it goes against my travel light
philosophy.
---
You will barely find a lighter all-metal made 300mm
lens. The major disadvantage of the A/M*300/4 is the
minimum focusing
Fred wrote:
From memory (maybe a year ago), Alexander, I think I
decreased the close focus distance with this lens
dramatically with even just a short (maybe 10mm-12mm)
extension tube. Someplace around here I've got one of
those short, medium, and long set of stacking tubes,
and I think that
Daphne wrote:-
i've been meaning to ask about that. half my K
lenses dont have the 'mm'at the end :
my SMC -K 24/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 dont have
'mm' written.
my SMC-K 17/4, 18/3.5, 50/1.2 and 135/2.5 have an 'mm'
engraved. does that mean thateach of those is first
Arnold wrote:
...
Whether the coatings of the different versions differ
much I am not sure, but the coating of my SMC Pentax
1:1.2 50mm surely looks different from the coatings
of the SMC Pentax 1:1.8/85 and of the SMC Pentax
1:3.5/135.
Arnold
--
I think also lenses
Shel wrote:
and Alexander Krohe wrote:
From what I have seen these second versions have
constantly higher serial numbers
Actually I was not referring to the serial numbers of
the K-series 50 mm lenses (which are different from
the serial numbers other K-lenses). I was referring to
the serial
Rob Studdert wrote:
Michael Henry wrote:
http://www.cosina.com/125_Voigt.htm
This lens looks rather cool.
I hadn't realised before, though, that Voigtlander
was made by Cosina.
These two brands have completely different
connotations for me:
Cosina the manufacturer of cheap 3rd-party
Bob S. wrote:---
The ratio of noise (OT posts) to signal (on topic
camera/photo/Pentax posts) is getting out of hand
here. We have had bouts of trouble or flame wars in
the past, and we will have them in the future, but
control yourselves folks!
AK:
If
Since I've had a need to know the metering patterns
for the MX and theLX, and put them up on a web page,
it might be nice to get the metering patterns for
other models as well. So, send me a good copy of a
pattern, or a pointer to a metering pattern, and I'll
make a home for them.
--
Shel
Patrick wrote:
I could live with a larger body. I think advantages of
having an interchangeable back far outweighs the
disadvantage of the extra bulk. Just think of the
possibilities switching film types quickly, fast
reloading without having to fiddle with film, digital
backs (I
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicholas wrote:
I know you've said bad things about this lens
before, which surprises me
since you are such an outspoken Pentax person. :)
Does the plastic barrel
really make that big a difference with this lens?
Its really more
Look these links;
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/metering.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/exposure.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/flash/options.htm
--- Shel
--- Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Krohe wrote:
The LX measures light in two different ways:
-- For the viewfinder indication, the LX measures
the
light that is reflected from a secondary mirror
onto
the metering cell (this value is stored in the
camera
CPU
--- Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
...
Now, I can't find the back-up for my claim about AEL
and IDM, so I may
be talking complete balls, but there was a good
reason for Pentax not
putting AEL on the LX. They didn't just forget about
it.
---
Certainly not, as the LX
--- Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just looking at the lens info and pictures on
Boz's webpage and I
noticed that the A35-135 3.5-4.5 lens appears to
have the same look as the
A35-210 3.5-4.5. Does this mean that it is also a
rebadged Tokina? (I note
that the 35-135 was
--- Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I tried - and was quite impressed by - the Pentax
SMC filters. Even
the photogs and sales people at the local camera
shop were impressed.
I'm now in the process of getting one of every
Pentax filter in every
size they
Pål wrote: --
A couple of years ago Trevor Wiebe posted that the
Pentax flagship was going to be the LXII. It doesn't
seem far fetched anymore in light of the recent
interview with the boss of the camera division.
Anyway, Trevor posted a set of specifications and
claimed he had a
Nenad Djurdjevic wrote-
Does anybody know anything about this lens? I think
it would be a very interesting lens to use and own.
Also where can I get one? I imagine that it's very
rare.
---
As far as I remember, the construction of this lens is
identical to
you should also take a closer look at the Elmo
Omnigraphic projector series. They are great machines
and accept Kodak round magazines.
http://www.elmousa.com/industry.asp?sec=Productsind=Education
(you may copy and past the link; scroll down to Film
and slide projectors)
or try
-
From: Alexander Krohe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:20 PM
Subject: Circular fish-eye lens for pentax-k -- Peleng
or Sigma EX?
Hi,
In my knowledge there are two circular fish-eye
lenses
for Pentax-k available: the Sigma 8mm EX and the
Peleng 8mm lens
Hi,
In my knowledge there are two circular fish-eye lenses
for Pentax-k available: the Sigma 8mm EX and the
Peleng 8mm lens from an Ukrainian company.
Does anyone have experiences with one of these lenses?
How do they perform optically? Are they any good?
Any comments are highly appreciated,
Terence wrote:---
Hi.
I use a motor drive on an LX now and then, and I was
using it the other day for something in quite a small
closed room. When I reached the end of the roll, and
rewound the film, I was horrified at how loud the
rewind was (The MD is none too quiet anyway), but it
was
Ken wrote:
I also understand that Pentax would be investing more
resources in the digital arena and medical optics etc
according to their mid to long range plan recently
indicated on their web site. They have dropped the
E-3000 project but just released today the smallest
digital
Raimo wrote:---
Hi all,
what´s the best way of carrying your camera when
riding a motorbike?
All the best!
Raimo
---
Hi,
have a look at Tamrac Sport Convertible (model 704,
706). I have the 704, which works fine for me.
These bags are light and have a
Does vibration ever cause problems for the camera
body?
No, most vibrations of the motorbike are absorbed by
the camera bag (Tamrac, Loewe pro, etc) and by the
body (when the camera bag is carried on the body).
The biggest threat for the camera
Arnold wrote:-
Raimo Korhonen schrieb:
Interesting! What´s the price in Germany?
Foto Magazin says 1300DM, but I'd rather wait for real
prices in real shops. The new
FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 is sold by
http://www.technikdirekt.de/ for 629DM
Arnold
Nick Snowdon wrote:
I am looking for a zoom to replace my old 35-80 and I
am casting my eyes over the new Tamron 24-135 SP. Has
anyone seen any reviews of this lens? I am going to
use it on my PZ1p. I suspect it will be quite a bit
cheaper than the Pentax 24-90 and has a more range but
I have no
Hi,
I am not Rob but I think he's right.
I my (also limited) understanding the elongation of
objects near the edge of the image produced by
rectilinear super wide angle lenses is not related to
optical aberrations of these lenses. It is inherent in
how the image is projected on the film by
Hi, thanks to all who share their MZ-S impressions.
How do you rate the noise of the motor drive? Is it
particularly quite or is it more on the noisy side?
Alexander
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
Engelmann wrote:
"Versatility and freedom of choice isn't their thing.
They want that everybody thinks like they do."
--
Actually ìt's *you* who lashes out against those who
don't agree with you. But who cares...?
A.
__
Do You
Ralf wrote:
Besides the fact that Bill didn't understand the
exposure mode
interface of the camera (somehow a bad thing in case
this happens to
dealers), I think this is how the non Pentax fans
will see the
camera.
The dealer did not even understand the philosophy
behind this camera. As
Roland Mabo:
"What happened to the Tamron collaboration?
28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't
the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as
Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)."
-
No. A quick comparison of the specifications shows
that the Pentax and Tamron 28-80s
Pål Jensen wrote:
What are reasonable used prices on the FB-1 system
finder, FC-1 Action
finder, FD-1 and FE-1 finders for the Pentax LX?
Steve Larson replied:
I would say around $US125-175 for the FB-1 system
finder and FC-1 Action
finder, if you
shop ebay,
-
Weiland wrote: ---
"I am wearing glasses, and I have ABSOLUTELY NO
problem with the MX viewfinder. I can see the aperture
very easily. And everything else. Either you folks
have a different MX, or never had an MX or you have
very different glasses. :-)
Best wishes
Wieland
I still don't have an exact idea how the "hold"-switch
on the back of the MZ-S works. It is not a hyper-mode
button. Did anybody find out how it works?
Thanks,
Alexander
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
Frantisek wrote:
"It's quite new brochure, it has the not-so-old
EL-2000 (the digital pseudo-slr. Pseudo because it's
not mirror-pentaprism design, it just has a small LCD
in the viewfinder. KS! Phew)"
-
This is not exactly true. The camera has a true TTL
--- Wieland Willker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I WANT TO BELIEVE!
... it's science! ;)
I was thinking about obtaining the 100mm macro, but
now I am hesitating. I actually don't
buy a 100mm macro but a 60-70mm macro. Is this worth
the money? Hmm..., hmmm
Enablers, speak up please!
--- tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Krohe wrote:
--- Wieland Willker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I was thinking about obtaining the 100mm macro,
but
now I am hesitating. I actually don't
buy a 100mm macro but a 60-70mm macro.
Only at magnifications of 1:1 the focal length
Yoshihiko Takinami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
At 5 Feb 2001 08:56:50 -0800 (PST),
Alexander Krohe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote;
The 15mm/3.5, the 18mm/3.5 and the 28mm/2 (K-series)
designs are (almost) identical to those of the
corresponding Zeiss/Contax
--- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pål Jensen wrote:
I remember that Pentax advertized in National
Geographic in the 70's for the 15/3.5. They claimed
it sold 7 a year world-wide.
I saw the same advertisement in Popular Photography
in the beginnig of
the 80's, 81 or 82, I
--- "barry c." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am currently trying to decide between the Pentax
100mm f2.8 Macro Autofocus SMC-F and SMCP-FA
versions.
Optically, are they similar?
Yes, they share the same optical design. The FA has a
clamb for adjusting damping of the focusing
At 10:16 AM 2/1/01 -0800, BW wrote:
There may not be an exact definition of a Tessar
lens. One optics text
does call many of these "Tessar form" lenses, but
the classic Tessar lens
is a 4-element lens, with a max aperture of f/2.8
or f/3.5. An example
of a lens that is not a
--- Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
There have been a number of you who have written to
me, asking that
they be able to be on the list without getting all
the email,
.
Well, I did it.
.
Thanks, Doug! You are the great one!
Alexander
The part about
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ralf wrote:
As long as they don't do, the existing
press releases and hands on reports in magazinew
are valid, at least
much more valid than any kind of speculations.
What the magazine prints is whats in the press
release. The press
--- SETH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Aaron Reynolds" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos
Sadly, Pentax is not making 52mm filters.
They do. They do make filters
--- Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, BYRON BUTLER wrote:
snip
I just picked up a "K" 30mm f2.8
yesterday, and I can't wait
to try it out. Is there anyone else on the list who
has this lens? I
gather they're relatively rare, but there must be
*someone* who's
79 matches
Mail list logo
