Another great flash system was used by the inventor of flash, Doc
Edgerton. He once took a picture of Cambridge, MA at night from a
plane. The power was so great it melted the giant quartz xenon tube he
had made for that purpose. The tube and the picture are on display down
the hall at MIT
Thanks! I knew the site, but only looked at it for body and lens
information till now. ...
Groeten,
Vic
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Vic Mortelmans wrote:
Does anyone perhaps know a comprehensive resource on the web about
flash photography (with Pentax, if it could?). I
On 6/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
he idea of
carrying a camera around for quick shots and stopping to check what mode
it's in, and maybe having to change the mode, seems like a self defeating
exercise. Leaving the camera in MF mode makes the most sense for me based
on
On 6/8/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
You know, just once it would be really nice if somebody could discuss
a style of photography, or a technology, that differed from the one they
chose for their own particular niche without being insultingly dismissive.
I'll second that.
Hi all,
I just checked my MZ-5n with an A* 135 f1.8, and yes it shows f1.7 in the
viewfinder for max. aperture.
Frank
I spent the afternoon with the camera and an AF lens. Mostly I used spot
AF. It's OK, but there are clearly limitations, and they pop up (for me)
unexpectedly. Perhaps
On 7/8/05, Frank Wajer, discombobulated, unleashed:
I just checked my MZ-5n with an A* 135 f1.8, and yes it shows f1.7 in the
viewfinder for max. aperture.
Some people really know how to rub it in.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: Re: First attempt with auto focus
On 7/8/05, Frank Wajer, discombobulated, unleashed:
I just checked my MZ-5n with an A* 135 f1.8, and yes it shows f1.7 in the
viewfinder for max. aperture.
Some people really know how to rub
I don't know anything about flash, so how can I remember anything about a
TTL system. I still don't know what a flash system might be. To me, a
flash is just some kind of light that goes off when the camera shutter is
tripped. It's not a part of my photography.
Shel
[Original Message]
I've heard you assert I don't know anything about flash many times
now, Shel. Given that the question of flash usage comes up so
frequently, why don't you read up about it, both the basics and the
Pentax flash system notions on Bojidar's site? The information is
useful to know whether or
I don't like flash. I don't have a need for it. It doesn't fit with the
type of photography I do. I don't want to learn something new right now. I
think flash is intrusive and annoying. I don't want to carry more
equipment around with me. The world is already lit well enough for me. I
enjoy
On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[snip...]
Does that answer your question?
So then why do you persist in responding to people with I don't know
anything about flash? You might simply say, Thanks, but I'm not
particularly interested in knowing much about flash. rather than
I don't consider the comment dismissive or disingenuous. Just reiterating
my position. I've read John's comments. In this case someone says that I
should remember something about a flash system. Replying that I don't
know anything about flash, and therefore have nothing to remember, seems a
lot
Shel -
The answer to this is actually quite simple. A flash system is
approximately 1.5 times the price of a simple flash. It's also very
likely that it will have a couple of extra buttons that you'll never
remember how to use.
Guys from our generation probably referred to them as fancy flash
This is a flash system:
http://www.linkmuseum.org/index-1.html
Wish I could find a better pic on the net. I've a big print of this here
at home. Amazing!
Shel
[Original Message]
From: George Sinos
The answer to this is actually quite simple. A flash system is
approximately 1.5 times
Ahhh ... here's a better pic ;-))
http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/exhibitions/link/link_thom.html
http://tinyurl.com/exj5c
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Shel Belinkoff
This is a flash system:
http://www.linkmuseum.org/index-1.html
Wish I could find a better pic on the net. I've a
On 7/8/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Ahhh ... here's a better pic ;-))
http://www.soulcatcherstudio.com/exhibitions/link/link_thom.html
http://tinyurl.com/exj5c
*love* the tilly lamp
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
my position. I've read John's comments. In this case someone says that I
should remember something about a flash system.
I started a response to this, but decided that someone or other is not
worth it.
Kostas
... I don't consider the comment dismissive or disingenuous. ...
Obviously, our opinion differs.
Saying time and time again I don't know anything about flash when
the information has been presented and is easily available to you
means you don't WANT to know anything about the subject and,
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: First attempt with auto focus
On Aug 7, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
[snip...]
Does that answer your question?
So then why do you persist in responding to people with I don't know
anything about flash? You
to be better informed
about the things that do interest me - which, incidentally, go way beyond
photography.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 8/7/2005 11:00:53 AM
Subject: Re: First attempt with auto focus
... I don't consider
I don't follow the beer discussions either.
Amen!
Fred
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Of course, using it that way means there's no need for an auto focus body.
IAC, the whole point of this little experiment is not to revert to using
the camera and lens manually, but to use auto focus and learn it's benefits
and limitations.
IMO, the benefits of auto
On Aug 6, 2005, at 4:37 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Flash!?! For a moment let's forget about all else associated with
flash,
wouldn't using it slow things down as the camera computes how much
flash is
needed, and goes through all the mechanical and electronic stuff it
has to
go through
That's pretty much exactly where I've found it to be too slow
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom Reese
IMO, the benefits of auto focus come into play when shooting candids and
you have to work quickly. I don't much like it otherwise. It too often
focuses on the wrong damned thing.
I don't know what a flash system might be. I'm ignorant about flash.
Never used it. I was thinking of the flash that's built in to the camera,
where it needs some time to physically pop up and then do whatever else it
does.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: David Mann
Some flash systems do
It depends on the focal length in my experience. Telephoto lenses are
pretty slow but the normal to wide angle lenses focus quickly enough to
do the job.
Tom Reese
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That's pretty much exactly where I've found it to be too slow
Shel
[Original Message]
From:
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: First attempt with auto focus
Flash!?! For a moment let's forget about all else associated with flash,
wouldn't using it slow things down as the camera computes how much flash
is
needed, and goes through all the mechanical
On 6/8/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
The computations happen pretty fast, generallt during exposure
The auto focus assist beam can speed things up by allowing the AF to see
better, allowing it to lock on faster.
Having said this, I don't own a flash with AF assist, and in
Does anyone perhaps know a comprehensive resource on the web about flash
photography (with Pentax, if it could?). I still feel very unfamiliar
with all concepts of flash metering.
Maybe you can check if my understanding so far is correct about the
different existing metering types:
- fully
The camera is the MZ-5n, which is on loan from a local list
member, and the lens is a Pentax short tele 1.8 aperture. When using the
lens on the A setting it will sometimes show the aperture in the viewfinder
as 1.7 ;-)) I didn't check to see if that's the case in aperture priority
mode as
Hi,
The 5n here has the grip, which is nice. It wasn't the 135/1.8 lens.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Andre Langevin
In a Pentax booklet, they mention that the A135/1.8 will be shown as
a f/1.7 lens. I understand the camera cannot show 1.8.
If this the lens you tried, it must be
Flash computation is pretty much instantaneous. TTL flash computation
happens at time of exposure.
IR assist will speed up focusing, when it works...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Tomorrow I'll take the camera and the lens for an outting. I suspect that
in daylight the AF will suffice, and for a
On Aug 6, 2005, at 3:48 AM, David Mann wrote:
Flash!?! For a moment let's forget about all else associated with
flash,
wouldn't using it slow things down as the camera computes how much
flash is
needed, and goes through all the mechanical and electronic stuff
it has to
go through before
Mostly when I'm shooting candids, I'm working with a wide to wide-
normal field of view lens and find that focusing by zone works best.
Soon as I reach up into the portrait-tele range, however, the AF
proves to be quicker most of the time, particularly if the lens is
stopped down enough
I wouldn't own a camera with a built in flash that decided for itself
when it should be used...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't know what a flash system might be. I'm ignorant about flash.
Never used it. I was thinking of the flash that's built in to the camera,
where it needs some time to
Why do think european profi-photographer prefer MF-bodies till now? With
autofocus you will take some nice pics, with manual focus you can create a
picture. It's the big error that autofocus is a must for cameras, in reality
autofocus is less exact in metering and in many cases of picturing it
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 07:05:57 -0400
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: First attempt with auto focus
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Of course, using it that way means there's no need for an auto focus body.
IAC, the whole point of this little
I spent the afternoon with the camera and an AF lens. Mostly I used spot
AF. It's OK, but there are clearly limitations, and they pop up (for me)
unexpectedly. Perhaps after using the camera for a while I'll be able to
anticipate when AF will work to my satisfaction. But then, the idea of
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Cotty wrote:
The flash calculates the amount of light needed to expose the scene
properly with a pre-flash, and then fires the main flash instantly.
For Shel's (and others' enlightenment): the -5n does *not* preflash.
Kostas
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Vic Mortelmans wrote:
Does anyone perhaps know a comprehensive resource on the web about flash
photography (with Pentax, if it could?). I still feel very unfamiliar with
all concepts of flash metering.
http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/hot-shoe/index.html
Boz is your
On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 10:17:27PM +0200, Gerhard May wrote:
Why do think european profi-photographer prefer MF-bodies till now? With
autofocus you will take some nice pics, with manual focus you can create a
picture. It's the big error that autofocus is a must for cameras, in
reality
On 8/6/05, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, just once it would be really nice if somebody could discuss
a style of photography, or a technology, that differed from the one they
chose for their own particular niche without being insultingly dismissive.
Auto-focus is useful for
Hello Shel,
Two comments here. First, you are using an AF camera that has a
liveable viewfinder - not great, but ok by AF camera standards. That
means that it is possible to MF with the camera. Some of the AF
cameras have such lousy finders that you are pretty much stuck with
working with the
Hi Bruce ...
I agree about the finder. It is pretty nice and it does allow manual
focusing to be pretty easy. I've started compiling a compendium of
features and attributes that I like and dislike about the camera, and the
finder, especially the diopter correction, is in the OK category.
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, P. J. Alling wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't know what a flash system might be. I'm ignorant about flash.
Never used it. I was thinking of the flash that's built in to the camera,
where it needs some time to physically pop up and then do whatever else it
does.
I
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't know what a flash system might be. I'm ignorant about flash.
Never used it. I was thinking of the flash that's built in to the camera,
where it needs some time to physically pop up and then do whatever else it
does.
That flash does not have a
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Prophets of the one true way just show they are stuck in a limited rut.
Amen, brother ;-)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
John Francis wrote:
You know, just once it would be really nice if somebody could discuss
a style of photography, or a technology, that differed from the one they
chose for their own particular niche without being insultingly dismissive.
What a revolutionary idea!! (and a good one)
I own a -5n that was my point.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, P. J. Alling wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I don't know what a flash system might be. I'm ignorant about
flash. Never used it. I was thinking of the flash that's built in
to the camera,
where it needs some time
Today I received my first auto focus lens to be used on an auto focus
camera. The camera is the MZ-5n, which is on loan from a local list
member, and the lens is a Pentax short tele 1.8 aperture. When using the
lens on the A setting it will sometimes show the aperture in the viewfinder
as 1.7
I don't know anything about the MZ-5n AF performance. All I can tell
you is that the *ist DS AF works pretty well with lenses from f/1.7
to f/5.6 maximum aperture: it's mostly pretty accurate under a wide
variety of conditions. Of course, critical focus in demanding
conditions I do best by
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: First attempt with auto focus
Anyway, does this mean that the actual aperture of the lens is a bit wider
than 1.8, or that the way the software in the camera is set it just reads
out an aperture that's closest to whatever it's
Tomorrow I'll take the camera and the lens for an outting. I suspect that
in daylight the AF will suffice, and for a lot of shots will be fast enuf.
But, having used the AF on Market Street in San Francisco a few weeks ago,
I've a feeling that for some of what I enjoy photographing the 5n is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: First attempt with auto focus
Today I received my first auto focus lens to be used on an auto focus
camera. The camera is the MZ-5n, which is on loan from a local list
member, and the lens is a Pentax short tele 1.8 aperture. When using
Hi!
Today I received my first auto focus lens to be used on an auto focus
camera. The camera is the MZ-5n, which is on loan from a local list
member, and the lens is a Pentax short tele 1.8 aperture. When using the
lens on the A setting it will sometimes show the aperture in the viewfinder
as
It's quite OK - I've used it before on the MX and another manual Pentax.
It's no K-mount or Super Tak, but it's pretty good.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman
I'd agree with you. But, unless I am mistaken that short tele lens
you're talking about is built in such a way that
Of course, using it that way means there's no need for an auto focus body.
IAC, the whole point of this little experiment is not to revert to using
the camera and lens manually, but to use auto focus and learn it's benefits
and limitations.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Boris Liberman
That's unacceptable to me. Anyway, I'll soon learn it's abilities and
limitations. Right now it seems fairly limited. Thanks.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Igor Roshchin
Having said that, I've been rather happy with the autofocus of ZX-5n.
It worked fine with the aforementioned
58 matches
Mail list logo
