Toralf Lund wrote on 01.06.05 11:57:
Hmmm... I've been thinking that camera producers are bound to increase
the sensor size soon because the megapixel race won't stop, and sensor
elements much smaller than the ones used today are quite pointless (as
far as I understand - not due
with the AF points at least...
Is there anything in this text about AF system? Sorry, I don't
understand
Swedish so I couldn't find this info :-)
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Boris Liberman wrote on 01.06.05 14:12:
Sylwek, I think the main issue here is like this. Imagine for a
moment, just for sake of this discussion, that Pentax or Minolta are
considering investing into development of FF DSLR, but still on the
marketing level. Now
Graywolf wrote:
BUT!
The top-end camera is what people compare to. It is the one that shows
your capability. If Nikon and Canon did not have that top-end camera
their low-end sales would be much curtailed. As are Pentax's.
Strangely car companies who have a winning race team sell more cars
What would you pay for it? (See subject)? Is this a lense built by
Cosina or whatever? And *not* an 1:1 macro?
- Toralf
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Had I not so many Pentax lenses, I'd be looking seriously at a Canon, in
part because with an adapter it'll take Leica glass, but also because there
are lots of lenses and accessories for it, just like there was for Pentax
about fifteen years ago. The 20D seems like a
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 26 May 2005 at 0:44, Alan Chan wrote:
My observation is that the success of Pentax back in the Spotmatic and M series
period was due to their unique yet affordable SLR bodies. However, since the A
series, the lack of these quality has failed to capture the attention
PDMLers,
With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little
DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you get
bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it:
How to make your own FA-J lens in 10 simple steps (using equipment you
can find
mike wilson wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
PDMLers,
With another holiday coming up, I thought I might publish this little
DIY project I developed last Christmas. I mean, in case some of you
get bored and need an amusing activity to fill the time. I call it:
How to make your own FA-J lens in 10
Martin Trautmann wrote:
On 2005-03-17 10:37, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Supposedly they are replacing most of the FA lenses with D-FA
equivalents. We'll see.
I doubt so: I'd expect other signals then.
Since the only replacment or upgrade where the two DFA macros, while they
created six new
Scott Loveless wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:14:37 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Un, no.
It's vaporware.
I'm doing my research now. It is, indeed, vaporware. They've been
around since '98 with at least three different parent companies, have
actually taken orders for
Isaac wrote:
Hello all. I'm wondering what everyone's opinion is on this. Is it worth
using? It is certainly much easier to acquire, but would I be happy with the
results? Also, are filters needed like with real bw film?
I tried one film a while back. Konica VX400, I think it was called. The
Fred Widall wrote:
Yes, I do. It came as the kit lens with my MZ-7.
I've never done any testing of it, but I find it just fine for my needs.
Popular Photography reviewed it back in August 2002.
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2article_id=362
OK. Thanks.
So, have you tried any of
Regarding my other post about zoom lenses, how about the FA28-70 AL? I
mean, what experiences do you lot have with it? How does it compare to
that other lens I mentioned, i.e. the FA28-90?
Actually, the consensus on Stan's Pentax site seems to be that this (the
28-70 AL, not the FA28-90) is a
Has anyone tried the FA28-90, i.e. this one, I would assume:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/FA28-90f3.5-5.6.html
?
Just found a used one for sale, and I've considered getting myself
another short(ish) zoom after I did a little trick involving my 28-80
and superglue, that means I
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 at 16:00, Toralf Lund wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that, though. If there's one thing the development of
digital technology has taught us, it is that, well, it *develops*.
Again it comes back to economies, the relative cost of silicon per area remains
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because of the quality problems,
and not the design or concept itself, and thus the idea hasn't really
been tried
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: SV: The film is dead
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: SV: The film is dead
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 at 14:44, Toralf Lund wrote:
No, I don't think so either. Or, it would at least have to some kind of
setup where the same camera could use BW *and* colour sensors. But I
guess the situation might be somewhat different in a few years' time
when (I'm assuming
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 23:28, Toralf Lund wrote:
I guess you have a point. However, a CCD is a very specific piece of
equipment and transistorized products a vast field of products, so
your analogy isn't entirely valid. Also, I really don't think CCDs have
been changed much
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 22:14, Toralf Lund wrote:
Quite likely, but the digital sensors havent *really* changed a lot
lately, have they?
The CCD technology is some 30 years old...
LOL, that's like saying transistorized products haven't changed a great deal
since the point
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 23:44, Toralf Lund wrote:
I think something that's missing from digital cameras, is some way to
make true distinctions in the way the data is captured - analogues to
the way you can choose between BW and colour film, choose different
kinds of film
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both for sale for a while, and I'm a bit tempted...
- Toralf
Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
You are quite possibly correct. The technology is changing rapidly,
however, and within two years digital photography will be able to more
things and do them better than today,
Quite likely
Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
You are quite possibly correct. The technology is changing rapidly,
however, and within two years digital photography will be able to more
things and do them better than today,
Quite likely, but the digital sensors havent *really* changed a lot
lately, have they?
The
meddelande-
Från: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 december 2004 21:00
Till: pdml
Ämne: Reasonable price for an LX? And K2?
What would you guys pay for an LX these days? How about a K2?
A guy here in Oslo (same person who sold me the M40, actually) has had
both for sale
I just got this email from a french email address that says I won a
million dollars in US currency from an Austrailian Lottery that I
never entered. Unfortunately a check on Google shows it is a known
scam. Anyone else on the list this (un)lucky?
Let me see... Damn, I've deleted all of those..
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
It could be worse. Most of the spam I get talk about increasing my
breast size confused
Alex Sarbu (in case you don't know, I *am* a male. No, I don't intend
to change that grin)
He, he...
Personally, I'm still not sure how to react to all those offers to buy
[ ... ] MZ-5, and claiming that there are just cosmetical differences between
the two. Just in case I'm the one who's it wrong, isn't that quite
wrong, or downright dishonest? Doesn't the MZ-5n have a number of
updates to the *functionality* compared to the MZ-5? (Bojidar Dimitrov's
So, this guy is trying again... See
http://my.qxl.no/accdb/viewItem.asp?IDI=13556944
I've mentioned the item before - fortunately it would appear that there
were no bidders at the time. The price is somewhat reduced, now, but
he's still including the picture of an MZ-5n even though he's selling
Any opinions on the FA 100/3.5 Macro? i.e this one
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html
I would assume... Not mentioned on Stan's site, I think.
- Toralf
Frantisek wrote:
TL While we're at it: Do you happen to know something about the Jupiter-9, too?
Is it the 2/85mm lens?
Yes.
I did use for a short time the Leica version on
a rangefinder, but I had problems with focusing accuracy (which was a
bit off due to different focusing cams for Leica and
Paul Stregevsky wrote:
Alan is correct. Get the 77 for all-around use.
If the 77 disappoints you for portraits, spend another $150 and get a Helios
85/1.5 (M42, preset, huge and heavy, but a great portrait lens).
Hmmm. I'm tempted to get one of those, now. I must admit I have a
strange liking
Frantisek wrote:
TL Hmmm. I'm tempted to get one of those, now. I must admit I have a
TL strange liking for slightly odd equipment of this kind... Any other
TL opinions on it (besides the usual
TL it's-Russian-so-it-must-be-crap)?
I tried one in shop (and seen few examples from others), and it's a
Mishka wrote:
http://dantestella.com/technical/helios.html
mishka
Interesting... Thanks!
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:28:23 +0200, Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Stregevsky wrote:
Alan is correct. Get the 77 for all-around use.
If the 77 disappoints you for portraits, spend another
Frantisek wrote:
TL Hmmm. I'm tempted to get one of those, now. I must admit I have a
TL strange liking for slightly odd equipment of this kind... Any other
TL opinions on it (besides the usual
TL it's-Russian-so-it-must-be-crap)?
I tried one in shop (and seen few examples from others), and it's a
Steve Jolly wrote:
Mishka wrote:
in other words, i'll have to pay ~$2K and have an inferior system. how
is that cool?
oh, and if i were to shoot bw, iwould have really great 2MP pixies
(from which i will
be able to make 144M files). wow.
No, your bw photos would still be 6MP. I don't think
Steve Jolly wrote:
Mishka wrote:
but of course!
and if you are at it, i would really want to understand how 6 million
pixels (36M of information)
can be grown to 24 (to get a 144M file).
care to explain (i'll do my best to understand)?
It's the process of resing-up an image to a resolution
Hi.
I think I promised someone (Jostein?) that I would tell more about my
experience with Norwegian mail-order developers Fotolabo, and Kodak
Norge. I've now tried them both. In the case of Kodak, I actually sent
the film to Ulles Postfoto (http://www.postfoto.no/), but apparently
Kodak does
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Or maybe he does. Of course, most of us know by now that 6MP colour
photos also really have only about 1.5 million-pixel's worth of
unique information, since there are 6 million sensor elements, of
which each captures just one colour component
Don't know about the formal definition, but some advertising lines
certainly are instant classics ;-). I'm still recovering from the
Official digital camera of the Internet slogan in that other thread
(and, in fact, wonder whether Al Gore approved of that statement -
given he's the Inventor
Keith Whaley wrote:
Words don't have much meaning any more, do they? It falls in line with
an increasing lack of respect by those in the first 1/3 of their
allotted life span.
Superlatives have long since attained mediocrity status. Little or no
need for the word anymore, in fact!
When one has
Frantisek wrote:
Toralf, there is one significantly wrong thing with your math.
As far as I recall, I didn't do any math. I just said that someone who
argued that he would only really get 2MP BW data was perhaps not
completely off the mark.
Bayer
array has twice the G pixels as the other ones.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I thought I might post a link to a net auction because I thought it was
a bit too much, in several ways. Here it is:
http://my.qxl.no/accdb/viewItem.asp?IDI=13247386
1. It's an MZ-5 with starting price NOK5400,- = 650 Euros or US$780.
2. OK, so a battery grip, a
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: The meaning of letters in lens names?
Zenit is an old Soviet brand (for those of you who didn't know.)
I named one of my dogs Zenit.
He, he.
I started wondering if these cameras are actually still being
Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--
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)
The Diabolical Dr Z wrote:
Well, AFAIK it's an MZ-6 with a data back. So, if you disregard the
data back, this recent thread might be useful:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg198866.html
I might perhaps add that I didn't buy the camera, or at least haven't
done so yet, but I had
Johan Uiterwijk Winkel wrote:
keller.schaefer wrote:
M lenses will work just fine on the MZ-5 (in M or aperture priority
mode) -
because the MZ-5 has the aperture coupler that tells the body how
much the lens
has been stopped down. Even if you don't like doing that ;-) I
recommend you
take the
Anders Hultman wrote:
Toralf Lund:
They give decent results on prints, though. I have twice ordered
prints
from digital cameras, transfered them via the Internet and gotten them
in the mail.
Do you know anything about their film development service?
Nope. The only contact I have had
And now a question that will reveal my status as a complete novice:
What exactly do the different letters in the Pentax lens designations
mean? I've been looking for an explanation on the K mount info page and
other places, but not found anything...
I understand the difference between an M and
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dan wrote:
Sorry I got that wrong - AF was an early foray into autofocus.
F is an FA without MTF information and power zoom capability.
Although all PowerZooms are FAs (or FA*s), not all FAs are PowerZooms
(thankfully).
Why not let the
Caveman wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
And no matter which way you look at it, you cannot extend the
bandwidth. Which is why I say interpolation doesn't change the
resolution.
Depends what your definition for resolution is. If you define it as
the size of the smallest details that can be recorded
Caveman wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
I think the real situation is that the camera does not capture
according to the sampling theorem, i.e. the data has a frequency a
lot higher than half of your sample rate, so you're not going to be
able to reproduce the input accurately (according to Nyquist
Toralf Lund wrote:
Caveman wrote:
[ Long and meaningless discussion... ]
- the real formula computes level at point x,y based on the values
of *all* the samples of the image
What you are talking about here is probably an n-degree polynomial,
where n is the number of pixels or samples.
Or maybe
John Francis wrote:
On Aug 28, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:09:45 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
[...] to get real picture quality, you ought to have enough
information to print at 1200dpi [...]
Most paper can't hold more than 200-300 dpi
Antonio wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that
cannot support film?
Where exactly where you thinking of?
Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's?
Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said
earlier. I'm sure there
this mate who
used it a lot, and mourned its loss... I've forgotten its name, though,
although I seem to remember it was made by Kodak.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Sometimes I like
Toralf Lund wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that
cannot support film?
Where exactly where you thinking of?
Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's?
Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is
going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely
there are still many
a few that believed the marketing (about simplicity
etc.)... And also, it seems like many people bought their digital camera
for no other reason than that it was digital, if you know what I'm saying...
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
graywolf wrote:
Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take
to make those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show
it on the Internet?
Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me.
I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to
Dan wrote:
Quoting Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And that's 4 times more for equipment that faster becomes obsolete, too.
Of course, the camera won't be less usable just because something better
has been released, but I don't like the idea of spending that much money
on something that's worth
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory
card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of
the ones that you took
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off
frank theriault wrote:
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another slightly OT question:
Does anyone here have any experience with C41
process BW film?
Yes.
HTH,
frank
Okay, I guess I wasn't the first one to try to be
funny
[ I had commented some other stuff here, then I killed the mailer by
mistake... I don't think I'll bother to write it down again, as I didn't
really say anything of consequence (as usual.) ]
Heheh. You should see the other 99% of my photos. Those would clarify
my comments to an extent that
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Another slightly OT question:
Whoa, questions about photography are OT now? ;-)
It may well be an urban legend, but some people say that there are
straaange equipment out there that uses this medium known as film, yet
is in no way related to Pentax...
Does
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
There an image calculator at www.shortcourses.com
whuich can be downloaded here: http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/index.htm
This will explain, not only about pixels etc., but it can calculatet the
file size (Mb) as well.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL
Cotty wrote:
On 22/8/04, The Diabolical Dr Z, discombobulated, offered:
Later,
Zed (33, male, Amsterdam, NL)
Hi Zed, welcome aboard. Film is obsolete, chuck your MZ-6 in the bin ;-)
Yeah. And film is sooo much work. Better to handle your pictures the
digital way. I mean, you may find
The Diabolical Dr Z wrote:
Hello,
After several weeks of newbie lurking, this seems a good moment to
drop in (and introduce myself to the list while I go along). Anyway:
I'm a complete technophobe who generally refuses to use anything made
after ~1980,
Good :-) Our modern society needs more
John Whittingham wrote:
I would guess that the viewfinder info is the same as on the MZ-3/5n,
but I could be wrong...
Probably, but could you make all necessary adjustments to settings without
taking your eye from the viewfinder? The control layout is very different,
for example I find
Alan Chan wrote:
The major issue is that all scans require some degree of enhancement
using photo editing softwares. Straight scans are almost always
disappointing.
Really? Why? I've always thought of film as a fairly consistent medium,
and it shouldn't be too hard to scan it accurately, but
Another slightly OT question:
Does anyone here have any experience with C41 process BW film?
- Toralf
What are you people's opinion on the MZ-6? I found a new one with a
much-reduced price, so I'm a bit tempted... Seems to me that it's rather
similar to the MZ-5n, but its list price is lower, so there must be
something missing, but what exactly is it? Actually, based on the
specs, it looks
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Manual focus lenses cannot talk to the camera. If the mechanical
linkage to read the lens aperture isn't
present then the lens isn't really usable on the camera.
Like someone else mentioned briefly, that's not quite true; the lenses
would require extra work, but aren't
of the 360fgz.
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MZ-6?
John Whittingham wrote:
Build quality?!
Quite possibly.
Actually, now that you mention it, I noticed that the MZ-6 is
slightly
Antonio wrote:
Im holding off on a DSLR for a while, a bit too pricey for me still and do
really enjoy using film. When I do buy a DSLR though I willl be looking at a
FF system (or at least a 1.3x crop) where I can use MF and AF lenses on both
film and digital bodies. I believe Nikon currently
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know if there is a film scanner that
will operate without a PC connection - and save the data on
CompactFlash, SD card or whatever? I know HP makes a flatbed for 10x15
prints, but I'm assuming that scanning the film would be better.
I've been wondering about
Hello again.
I just found an advert for a used a Pentax body with an M40 lens. I'm
wondering if I should try to talk the guy selling it into giving me the
M40, and selling my M50/1.7 instead along with the body (I'm assuming he
wants to have *some* lens to go with it.) What do you think about a
Tim Sherburne wrote:
Toralf wrote:
I had a closer look at this teleconverter today, and unfortunately it
turned out to be the other variant - or at least it had nothing about
macro on the box, and didn't look like it had as much as 7 elements
- so I didn't buy it. Maybe the offer was still
[ ... ]
Be aware that there is an Auto version that includes KA couplings, as
well
as a non-Auto version that will be slightly cheaper.
Looks like this is the auto version, too. I'm wondering about how the
aperture setup works, though. Seems like there is a bit of an
inconsistency between
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Which one? There were a number of vivitar TC's.
Good question. How many have there been? All I know is that it's
(unfortunately) not the 7-element macro focusing one mentioned by
someone else on the list.
Toralf Lund wrote:
I also saw a used Vivitar 2X teleconverter
Regarding teleconverters (again), how about the Takumar 2X and the
Teleplus 2x APK MC7? Any experience with those?
- Toralf
OK. I just subscribed to this list. Thought I might start by telling you
about my most recent acquisition. I just bought an ME Super and a couple
of lenses at a net auction, on a time of the year when not a lot of
people care to place bids at such sites, I'm assuming, so the price was
not very
Toralf Lund wrote:
OK. I just subscribed to this list. Thought I might start by telling
you about my most recent acquisition. I just bought an ME Super and a
couple of lenses at a net auction, on a time of the year when not a
lot of people care to place bids at such sites, I'm assuming, so
Mark Roberts wrote:
Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herb Chong wrote:
you're assuming that cameras stores will outlast film.
I think that is a safe assumption.
I don't. What we're seeing all the time is people coming into camera
stores, picking the brains of the
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
TL OK. I just subscribed to this list. Thought I might start by telling you
TL about my most recent acquisition. I just bought an ME Super and a couple
TL of lenses at a net auction, on a time of the year when not a lot of
TL people care to place bids at such sites, I'm
lenses; which too keep?
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. I
just subscribed to this list.
Hi, Toralf,
First, welcome to the list. Hope you enjoy your stay,
and stay for a long time. Actually, you may not know
it, but you're in for life. One can't actually
unsubscribe from
Jostein wrote:
Hi Toralf.
Welcome aboard.
Thankyou...
I agree that one of the 50mm is an obvious candidate to sell. Also,
your two telezooms have overlapping ranges. Seems a bit redundant to
keep both of those, unless the 70-210 gives very much better quality
than the 100-300 within it's range.
frank theriault wrote:
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. I
just subscribed to this list.
Hi, Toralf,
First, welcome to the list.
Thanks.
Hope you enjoy your stay,
and stay for a long time. Actually, you may not know
it, but you're in for life. One can't actually
unsubscribe from
Jens Bladt wrote:
A 28-80mm (power)zoom - you know, the one a lot of people seem to
hate.
No reason to hate it. It's not as sharp as (my) Tokina 2.6-2.8 ATX PRO II
28-70.
But befor I bought the Tokina I tested the two lenses Petnax 28-80 vs Tokina
28-70.
I could not see the difference in
I also saw a used Vivitar 2X teleconverter today. Apart from the
conventional wisdom about teleconverters in general, can anyone tell me
anything about it?
- Toralf
901 - 994 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
