David J Brooks wrote:
My current back up includes transfering files to one external HD,
Maxtor, and to either a CD or DVD depending on the files sizes.
I'm thinking the CD's and DVD's may go, and add another external and
back up on both. [ ... ]
Any one see any potential problems other
Scott Loveless wrote:
It's been a whirlwind the last couple weeks, but the PUG is finally on
line. http://pug.komkon.org/
These are all nice, and I *really* like the footballer (Voetballer Niels.)
- T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Derby Chang wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Derby Chang wrote:
[ ... ]
There is less noise across the entire ISO range.
That makes more sense, yes...
But when you don't have
to amplify the signal (i.e. when you are in low ISO), the noise is less
apparent to begin with. Only when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To get serious about this, the ISO number doesn't just multiply the signal.
There are other factors, most notably heat, that determine how much noise
will acompany that multiplication.
I'm not sure I understand that. You mean, the gain stage adds noise?
Well
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I don't know why it works from a technical point of view, but it
works:-). The K20D yields very good high ISO pics with noise control
set to the minimum. If I get the results I want, I don't worry a lot
about why I got them.
If you are just a happy user of a
P. J. Alling wrote:
Some sensors handle the boost much better than others,
Yes, but wouldn't that be because there is less noise to begin with? I.e
they have better performance at *all* ISOs?
and the choices
in processing made by the manufacturer, (as well as hardware), can
affect the
Derby Chang wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Indeed. But one of the questions I was asking was really, is the output
on the poorer performers just a result of bad processing choices that
might be fixed on the outside?
- Toralf
Not quite. The voltages coming out
Paul Stenquist wrote:
No, it's not the result of image processing you could apply in
PhotoShop. I shoot only RAW. The RAW data is far superior.
Isn't some of the noise reduction logic applied even in raw mode?
It's
apparently the result of a sensor that generates less heat at high
ISO
John Francis wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 01:38:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Underexposure and correction in conversion always results in severe noise.
Don't kow why. But I know it happens, so I avoid it . . .
It happens because noise is (by definition) pretty much random.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
In truth, the K20D is an excellent high ISO performer, [ ... ]
I've been meaning to ask some questions about this for a long time,
since it doesn't really make sense to me when people say that a certain
camera is has a good high ISO performance. I mean, doesn't the ISO
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I indulged myself in some people shooting last time I was at the
Legion of Honor in San Francisco. I'm not certain why, but I like
this photo of a little girl waiting for her father to finish talking
to someone.
I like it, too... And I also think it's in a way
Cotty wrote:
On 8/5/08, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Insufferable Snideness?
Increased Spending?
Illusions of Superiority?
Irrational Sensations?
I'm stumped.
Itinerant Snappers.
This thread must be, yes you guessed it, incredibly stupid!
--
Toralf Lund
Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Cotty wrote:
On 8/5/08, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Insufferable Snideness?
Increased Spending?
Illusions of Superiority?
Irrational Sensations?
I'm stumped.
Itinerant Snappers
Mark Roberts wrote:
Bob Sullivan wrote:
John,
Several points...
1) Don't buy some 3rd party lens and then whine about it not working.
2) The Pentax A1.4X, A2.0X, and AF1.7X don't transmit focal lengths.
You set them at the appropriate multiplied lengths.
I've used the A200/4
wouldn't bet that nobody else has come up with the same idea...
- T
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another insignificant shot from that new building in the harbour area:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=opera1
Comments
.
- Toralf
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Opera...
Another insignificant shot from that new building in the harbour area:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=opera1
Comments welcome
frank theriault wrote:
VERY cool! Love that sun (good flare resistance, eh?).
Yes, it's not bad at all. And I was only using my humble M-28/2.8.
Terrific shot!
Thanks.
cheers,
frank
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another insignificant
[ ... ]Or I could perhaps scan it with slightly different parameters...
And, yes, I'm still using actual blackwhite film. T-Max 100, this time.
Developed by me, too, so maybe we shouldn't expect a perfect result in
terms of contrast etc. ;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
P. J. Alling wrote:
I find this strangely compelling. It could use a bit more contrast in
the middle tones, but not to the point of losing the detail in the sky.
Still it is really nicely done.
Thank you.
I guess I could always play around with the curves a bit to get a better
result.
, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another insignificant shot from that new building in the harbour area:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=opera1
Comments welcome, obviously...
--
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Another insignificant shot from that new building in the harbour area:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=opera1
Comments welcome, obviously...
--
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
Thibouille wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/184452-post1.html
Really not that bad. The 40D is a bit better, even at 1600 I do not
see much of a difference.
The ISO3200 is clearly better on the 40D.
I've been meaning to ask; is it just me, or does a picture with the info
shot at
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left
shoulder
Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
Hmm... Hard to tell...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIxWB_R7Ucc
- T
--
PDML
Toralf Lund wrote:
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/2/14, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
angel on the left shoulderYou know you want to.../angel on the left
shoulder
Left shoulder... Is that the feathery one or the pointy one?
Hmm... Hard to tell...
http
Adam Maas wrote:
On 2/12/08, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille
Subject: Samples, samples and... alternate K20D (K10D?) handgrip !
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/20506-few-k20d-samples.html
From
P. J. Alling wrote:
The DA 40mm is said to be the same optical formula as the M 40mm which
is soft in the corners on 35mm. It is however eminently pocketable.
There were few Pentax 35mm cameras that could set the aperture from the
body so I still say the 70mm not a FF lens.
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/2/7, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm reminded of certain Norwegians selling black metal merchandise
myself, but perhaps I shouldn't reveal their big secrets like this.
Aaahhh!!!
Sputnik, right?
That's one of the best BBS scams ever.
Definitely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/7/2008 7:00:32 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's always funny to see people with Chinese writings on them not
knowing what's really tatooed onto them. I learned Chinese for a short
time and my teacher said she
Derby Chang wrote:
Scott Loveless wrote:
February PUG is up. See it at http://pug.komkon.org/
The theme for March is Macro and Close-up. So break out the bellows,
macro lenses, reversing rings, fish-eyes and have some fun! Submit your
photos here: http://pdmlpug.org/?p=23
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/1/31, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I can't wait for the DAF Teleconverter.
... to see if it reads assembled in The Netherlands? :-)
No, he just wants SDM with a Variomatic gear box...
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consumers would wait for it if Chevrolet marketing said next year's model
will come with 200 horsepower more than this years.
The way I read the original text, that wouldn't be the same thing at
all. It would be more like saying that next year, there will also be a
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
How many people still believe Pentax wont ever go FF?
This is what I want in my next pentax DSLR. 25Mp is
not overkill in FF, it is NEEDED to capture the full
res of the best Pentax FF lenses
And the fun begins...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Doug Franklin wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Not always. SDM lenses hunt a lot less because they won't overshoot
the mark, they are in effect stepper motors, and are told how far to
turn the lens, screwdriver AF tends to overshoot more.
Are the in-body motors on the screw-drive cameras
.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard)
http://www.procaptura.com/ +47 66 85 51 01 (fax)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard)
http://www.procaptura.com/ +47 66 85 51 01 (fax)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http
Adam Maas wrote:
On 1/28/08, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
He was talking about hunting. Surely the motor does
not affect that?
Ah, you're right, he was. My bad! Yeah, that's a
function of the AF sensors themselves
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
[ ... ]
W
Banning the studs here would be a mass murder. We know quite well how to
drive in bad conditions but I think driving without studded tires can be
compared to planning a suicide ;-).
I've used studless tires for several winters now, and found that
Timber wrote:
A friend ask me a few sample shots with older manual lenses and this
shot happened during the shots ^.^ I already liked the original 'out
of camera' version but today I decided to load it in Photoshop and
here's the final result:
I definitely prefer the original. I don't
Just thought I might show you the other end of the old Chevy in the
January PUG:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=belair6
Comments are always nice...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
Derby Chang wrote:
Doug,
I'm sorry, but even for a live and let live kind of guy I am, I have my
limits. Should PDML have a charter against really offensive posts? I
read a post from a PDMLer who has probably been blocked by most members.
But I have been lazy and have been letting them
surprised that f/8 gave you that DoF. Not knowing any
better, I would have set f/22 and probably sacrificed some
resolution.
Jack
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just thought I might show you the other end of the old Chevy in the
January PUG:
http://www.toralf.net
it had been
renovated.) But others here claim that there was indeed an estate
version of the Bel Air, I think...
Nice BW rendition. Is the grain added?
Thanks.
No, this is a scan from actual BW film; cheap film from Eastern Europe
with lots of grain in it ;-)
- T
Walt
On 1/12/08, Toralf
Christine Aguila wrote:
Toralf: Very nice. I like the grain. Good composition. Cheers, Christine
Thanks!
- Toralf
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:30 AM
Subject: PESO
P. J. Alling wrote:
A very nice BW conversion. (I don't know, sometimes comments can be
downright nasty).
Good point ;-)
Toralf Lund wrote:
Just thought I might show you the other end of the old Chevy in the
January PUG:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=belair6
Comments
. Alling wrote:
A very nice BW conversion. (I don't know, sometimes comments can be
downright nasty).
Toralf Lund wrote:
Just thought I might show you the other end of the old Chevy in the
January PUG:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=belair6
Comments are always nice
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jan 12, 2008, at 6:30 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=belair6
Very lovely, both framing and rendering.
Thanks.
I do wish it was just the
smallest bit sharper on the highlights.
Yes. I think I agree with you... Not sure
Cotty wrote:
On 24/12/07, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hey, gang! The January PUG is up. We have a small field this time, but
they're all very good. My own favorites are the offerings from Boris
and Thomas Wannenburg. Take a look here: http://pug.komkon.org/
Derby Chang wrote:
Probably old rumours to most here.
Ah. It's speculation-about-new-cameras time again. So apparently Scott,
who thought the aperture simulator discussion was up next, was wrong ;-)
We could combine the two, of course...
But I like the idea of AF trim. And a
little K200D
Inner Focus wrote:
Yes, interesting posts by the engineer who started that thread. The
conclusion is that ultrasonic motors CAN be faster, it's just that Pentax
have chosen a poor implementation (SDM) which doesn't make full use of the
technology, and thus it's results are far from optimal
[ ... ]
OK, I also have a question: what's the advantage of ultrasonic motors? I'm
interested in AF speed, since I've had a lot of trouble with my camera and
it's kit lens (annoying AF hunting or even impossible AF in not-so-low :(
light).
It's sort of been pointed out by myself and
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:58, Toralf Lund wrote:
I've also suspected (or experienced) that the Pentax AF isn't really
as
slow as some would have it, or not slow at all in relative terms if
you
compare fairly (as Mr Robb points out), but that's a different issue
Mark Roberts wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mike wilson wrote:
He eliminated (many of) those in-camera. The point is still that
3000 files is not the same as 3000 prints or slides. Produce
equal numbers of the same end product before you tell me
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 08:56:16AM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
I don't know. I've heard many people talk about how they miss their
family album now that they've switched to digital.
By talking about people who have *switched
Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
I don't know. I've heard many people talk about how they miss their
family album now that they've switched to digital.
By talking about people who have *switched* to digital you've
automatically excluded the age group I'm talking about
mike wilson wrote:
Although their grasp of English and presentation skills are somewhat lacking,
he/she asks a pertinent question, in a pleasant manner, in an apparent
attempt to increase their knowledge of the subject. I would give them a
proper, courteous answer.
Seriously?
Well,
.jpg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura
Adam Maas wrote:
Right now, with the lowest-priced 35mm dedicated scanner being over $500
(Nikon Coolscan V), and Epson 4490's available refurb for $98, the choice
isn't so obvious.
There are actually (considerably) cheaper dedicated 35mm scanners -
from Plustek, Pacific Image etc. Not
directly above
and follow the directions.
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard)
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf +47 66 85 51 01 (fax)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
David Savage wrote:
On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: The theme I had in mind is related to halloween, so I was hoping to
start
the thread tonight if possible.
Sounds fine to me, but Halloween isn't a big deal in this corner of
the world. I'd have
Adam Maas wrote:
I doubt it, from everything I've seen, Pentax has been shipping K10D's
out to stores about as fast as they can get them in.
K110D's on the other hand...
I'd be willing to help them get rid of one, if it was written down
anyway and thus valueless, I mean ;-)
- T
--
[ ... ]
--
Maybe those bargain basement camera prices in N.A. aren't that great after
all. Selling a lot more things that aren't worth as much.
This thread's going in the plonk file right now. I just can't handle
the speculation anymore. g
I believe you may
Tom C wrote:
I said alot more because the article said Sales at the company, which also
makes medical
equipment rose 15 percent.
I suspect alot of those sub-$700 K10D's are in the writedown.
No, I don't think it works quite that way. You don't include equipment
that's sold a short
Bob W wrote:
Hmm.
http://www.vogue.co.uk/vogue_daily/story/story.asp?stid=48097
'Hand-finished'?
And 'ergonomically designed', too. I wonder how other manufacturers
design their bikes.
£6,200?
And here I thought the light alloy, disk brake, 28-speed bikes at
£2000-3000 had
Scott Loveless wrote:
Holy cow! It's early for a change. http://pug.komkon.org/
A lot of nice pictures, there. Including some that makes me want to say,
I should have thought of that (since I couldn't come up with anything
for this theme.)
My favourite is Upstairs, Downstairs.
- Toralf
Tom C wrote:
I just learned a new word. A friend asked me to scan some slides. The box
he gave me has the phrase diapositives Kodak.
Learning all the time ;-)
I believe the word was explained here in a not too distant past, when
some (other) Norwegian referred to his slides as dias, and
Adam Maas wrote:
Tom C wrote:
With the caveat regarding who knows about Pentax?...
I'd take a full frame sensor that did very well between 200 - 400 ISO any
day (ISO 800) w/b nice, over any sensor that had marginal high ISO [ ... ]
I get results at ISO1600+ on film that I would
graywolf wrote:
Or something like a 24x30 or 24x32 frame?
Or 24x28, even?
Yes, a change of aspect ratio would be interesting. I wonder what the
reaction would be...
Toralf Lund wrote:
On the other hand, as perhaps someone mentioned earlier, there's a lot
between 1.5x and 1.0x. It's
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Possibly with 14bit RAW's
Do you think that would be possible?
I know you (or was it someone else?) have been saying the light
collecting capability of sensors has been improved lately, but in
order
Adam Maas wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Adam Maas wrote:
Roman Melihhov wrote:
I remember how it all started with K10D. Lotta rumors, unrealistic
expectations, [ ... ]
Roman.
Good bet?
12MP, 5fps, improved AF system, ~20 RAW buffer, 1-2 stops better
David Savage wrote:
On 10/20/07, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd actually be surprised if they went for a 12 or 14 bit variant from
Sony, or any 3rd party producer, seeing as the K10D has a special A/D
converter designed by Pentax.
I don't believe they designed the A/D
David Mann wrote:
Its already been a week since I broke my left collarbone and it's
feeling a lot better than I would have expected. I cut the
painkillers down to bedtime-only after a couple of days (I was only
taking about half of what I was allowed to in the first place). A
couple
Adam Maas wrote:
Roman Melihhov wrote:
I remember how it all started with K10D. Lotta rumors, unrealistic
expectations, [ ... ]
Roman.
Good bet?
12MP, 5fps, improved AF system, ~20 RAW buffer, 1-2 stops better high ISO
noise. ISO200-6400 native. New shutter with 1/8000 and
jtainter wrote:
It's been reported here that the DA lenses generally cover very nearly the
image circle required by 35mm film, so
perhaps they would be perfect for something like 1.3x. Or, I believe someone
talked about 1.2x, too;
-
Some do, some don't.
Don't what exactly?
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It wouldn't be logical from a marketing point of view to introduce a camera
that can't use the lenses that you've just introduced.
The Nikon mentioned *can* use the smaller format lenses; it will
automatically crop the picture to the appropriate size, as far as I
For a second rate company, they do pretty well.
Try shooting with a mid range or higher Canon somtime.
Have a look at the D40.
In 1972, Pentax was still more or less a big player in the marketplace,
though they were already at least a generation out of step.
People want decent
Scott Loveless wrote:
PUG's up. Sorry for the delay. http://pug.komkon.org/ November's
theme is opposites. You can submit photos at http://pdmlpug.org/?cat=4.
We have a large field this month. 35 damn fine photos.
Indeed.
I think I agree with most of what's been said about it already.
ann sanfedele wrote:
TIA if you can tell me how to use the search mechanism to find the
unread message in my 3000 plus message inbox...
Well, I'm using Mozilla Thunderbird rather than Netscape Communicator,
but since these essentially different variants of the same product I'll
give it a
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 20/09/2007, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did get a pretty firm the f/1.7 variant has been discontinued when I
asked the local distributor about the availability of normal lenses
before I bought the one mentioned earlier. I'm not sure, however
[ ... ]
Honest question:
Does Pentax announce it when they cease production of any item, no matter
what?
Very good question.
I did get a pretty firm the f/1.7 variant has been discontinued when I
asked the local distributor about the availability of normal lenses
before I bought the
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 19/09/2007, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've said this many times before (it's a pet peeve of mine around here
you, may say), but it seems to me that the rumours of the death of the
old Pentax line-up are highly exaggerated. If you check the Pentax
David Savage wrote:
On 9/19/07, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like I said, I know for a fact that you may easily get the FA 50/1.4
new, yet those too have been selling for ridiculous prices. Or, not
quite as ridiculous as some other items, including the teleconferences
you mention
:-)
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard)
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf +47 66 85 51 01 (fax
Tom C wrote:
Where will Pentax end up at though?
Ficticious figures pulled out of air.
Canon sells 500,000 low end cameras at 20% profit.
Pentax sells 100,000 medium-high end cameras at 5% profit.
Case in point. Linux is a free operating system (nothing to do with whether
it's good,
Tom C wrote:
Maybe it used to Adam.
From today's www.bhphotovideo.com:
Canon Digital Rebel XTI (400D): $599.95
Pentax K10D: $699.95 - $50.00 rebate = $649.95
Nikon D40x: $635.95
My point is that Pentax's 'best' DSLR costs about what others low-end does
(looking at only 10MP bodies).
Tom C wrote:
Peter,
I wasn't trying to make a perfect analogy, as seems to be the
expectation around here.
My point was that low prices alone, don't necessarily lead to
increased market share, which is probably so obvious it was pointless
for me to state it. :-)
Market dominance and
Patrick Genovese wrote:
Lets face it Pentax lags behind on a number of fronts namely: [... ]
Up to now I can't for the life of me
understand why they killed their old lens line up without having
replacements rolling off the production line.
I've said this many times before (it's a pet peeve
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
It is an interesting gallery, and I enjoyed all the potographs.
I thought of Toralf's shot of the shoes on the wire when I saw this
article in our Sunday newspaper:
http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1189917390313570.xmlcoll=1
Snopes has
Peter Jordan wrote:
It's a bit like my dog explaining quantum mechanics.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mtf.htm
So, he's got a BS degree in Engineering, Mathematics or Physics.
Certainly explains a lot ;-)
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
an expensive lens for one particular system, I really do think I would
choose a body matching it.
- T
Tom C.
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentaxian.com Contest
Date: Thu, 13
Tom C wrote:
No why would I have a problem with anyone receiving a nice prize? You
obviously chose to ignore my first two sentences.
I'm just pointing out the irony of a *camera company* having legendary
products not giving some of those legendary cameras away in a 'contest'.
Actually,
Scott Loveless wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Hello, everybody... [ ... ]
Anyhow, based on this I can safely say that Agefix can keep for at least
10 years, don't you think?
Yes.
Good ;-)
Or is there *some* way the fixer can change so that it doesn't fix the
film
Has anyone here tried the Takumar-A 2X teleconverter on the digital
bodies? I'm referring to this unit:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/Takumar-A_2X.html
I'd like to know if it works in all metering modes. I mean, I think it
should since it should have full A coupling, I'm just
the focal length for lenses where it otherwise would, when they are
connected via this converter.
But as long as all exposure modes work, everything should be all right.
Thanks,
- T
-Adam
Toralf Lund wrote:
Has anyone here tried the Takumar-A 2X teleconverter on the digital
bodies
Hello, everybody...
A few weeks ago, I asked the list if some Agefix fixer that someone gave
to me, and that must be at least 10 years beyond its sell-by date, could
still safely be used. The answer was essentially, do a clearing test...
A couple of days ago I finally got around to doing this
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
[ ... ]
Some habits don't go away. Looking at the 21000 digital capture
photos in my current work in progress Lightroom catalog, only 700
of them are at any exposure time shorter than 1/1000 second. I am
using ISO 800 and 1600 a bit more frequently (about 3000
Rebekah wrote:
The only way to do it would be to have a mount custom made. I saw just
such a lens on eBay a few weeks ago, I think it was a 20 or 24mm Pentax
with a Nikon mount, fully useable with open-aperture metering.
crazy stuff. Nikon cameras confuse me; every time I've ever held
Adam Maas wrote:
Actually, the mounts are approximately the same diameter, and that has
nothing to do with focusing (which is controlled by the register, which
is longer on F mount).
Correct, but if it were wider, it might have been possible to make an
adapter even if the registry
Glen Tortorella wrote:
I agree with whoever replied (I think PJ) that dust or dirt in the
viewfinder is somewhat irritating. To reiterate, I have checked over
the various relevant parts (including the mirror) of my Super Program
and cannot find the specks I see in the viewfinder. Is
I'm thinking about selling some Pentax equipment that I don't use much.
Not sure I'll actually be able to part with it, but I will at least
mention it here and see if there's any interest at all. The items are...
1. FA 100-300/4.7-5.8
2. M150/3.5
3. A50/1.7 or M50/1.7, if anyone will
have
both caps.
But, I suddenly realise I need to take a closer look at the aperture
ring on A-50 (which is the weak spot on these designs.)
Where are you located?
Norway
Regards,
Glen
On Sep 7, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
I'm thinking about selling some Pentax
301 - 400 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
