On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Mishka wrote:
NO!
NO!
NO!
the filter is NOT an integral part of optical formula of MIR-47!
just read the damn instructions!
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I can't read Russian, but I gave the
manual to a Russian colleague who told me he couldn't find a mention of
i did that when i had one, and found no difference whatsoever. i wold be curious
to see your results.
best,
mishka
On 7/28/05, Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I am going to run a damn test this w/e with and without the
filter. I should have done that in the first place, eh?
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
I have one, not yet tried it on digital, but plain photos on 35mm film
look nice. Have you also considered MIR-47 2.5/20? I just ordered one,
Thank you again for all the tips and links relating to wide lenses :-)
Bob Atkins has written a nice introduction called: Wide angle lenses
for small sensor APS-C Digital SLRs that compares the new lenses
from Tamron, Tokina, Canon, and Sigma. A second page adds thoughts on
fisheyes. He
Bob Atkins has written a nice introduction called: Wide angle lenses for
small sensor APS-C Digital SLRs that compares the new lenses from Tamron,
Tokina, Canon, and Sigma. A second page adds thoughts on fisheyes. He also
offers a review of the Zenitar with example photos!
Kostas Kavoussanakis escribió:
Not sure you got what I mean, Vid: the MIR-47 is a bit too long and the
mirror of some Pentax cameras (you may need to check which does so) hits
it when taking a picture. The end result is that the camera mirror
breaks. Because the filters (at the back) are
On 27 Jul 2005 at 10:22, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
The other thing to note (that the atkins article mentions) is that
the conversion from fisheye-rectiliner isn't a simple geometric
transformation. The fisheye is effectively wider (i.e. will cover
more angle of view) than an equivalent
In other words, they're completely different. If you can get away
with the barrel distortion from a fisheye, you'll tend to get better
results than trying to defish it all the time.
Not in my experience.
Of course it's subjective on what an individual likes. I guess
what I was trying to
NO!
NO!
NO!
the filter is NOT an integral part of optical formula of MIR-47!
just read the damn instructions!
OTOH, on the 16mm fisheye, it is. I think this is the source
of the confusion (but 16mm zenitar is very mirror-friendly)
mishka
On 7/27/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:28:15AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
I have one, not yet tried it on digital, but plain photos on 35mm film
look
On 25/7/05, Doug Franklin, discombobulated, unleashed:
That's a great place! If it had a four car garage, I'd almost be
willing to move to Jolly Old Blighty just to buy it. :-)
I can go better than that Doug. It has parking for 10 cars!
All out on the street :-(
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
I have one, not yet tried it on digital, but plain photos on 35mm film
look nice. Have you also considered MIR-47 2.5/20? I just ordered one,
it seems to be rectilinear lens...
http://rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm
Is this the one that
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
I have one, not yet tried it on digital, but plain photos on 35mm film
look nice. Have you also considered MIR-47 2.5/20? I just ordered one,
it seems to be rectilinear lens...
http://rugift.com/photocameras/mir_47_k_lens.htm
On Tue, 26
On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:56:33AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Vid Strpic wrote:
I have one, not yet tried it on digital, but plain photos on 35mm film
look nice. Have you also considered MIR-47 2.5/20? I just ordered one,
it seems to be rectilinear lens...
Very nice images, great looking house too, thank you for the
housewarming!
Paying dearly for a [used] Pentax lens and then only using part of it
for the rare shot that needs these extreme angles seems a bit silly
to me. So I'm considering the Zenitar instead that can be had brand
new for
William (Quasimodo) Robb wrote:
I dunno, I have a fisheye too.
And a hump.
Tom Reese
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:18:03 +0200, Bertil Holmberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the field-of-view calculator link! This does not explain the
180 degrees claimed for some fish-eyes though. Are these a special case?
Yes. Fish-eyes different from rectilineair lenses. See for instance
- Original Message -
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Re: K15mm for House Interiors
I dunno, I have a fisheye too.
And a hump.
I'm getting that from lookin down at all the little people.
William Robb
On 25 Jul 2005 at 12:18, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
Paying dearly for a [used] Pentax lens and then only using part of it
for the rare shot that needs these extreme angles seems a bit silly
to me. So I'm considering the Zenitar instead that can be had brand
new for $105 + SH from Russia.
On 26/7/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
The Pentax fish-eye lenses are what is generally referred to as full-frame
fisheyes in that their image circle doesn't fit within the frame but is
designed to provide 180 degrees across the diagonal of the frame. A full-
frame
fisheye lens
On Jul 25, 2005, at 3:18 AM, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
Paying dearly for a [used] Pentax lens and then only using part of
it for the rare shot that needs these extreme angles seems a bit
silly to me. So I'm considering the Zenitar instead that can be had
brand new for $105 + SH from Russia.
Yep, I use it as a ~22~24mm equivalent sometimes, (alright Bill where's
that scream). I've always liked it on
film. On digital it's not quite so magic.
Cotty wrote:
On 26/7/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
The Pentax fish-eye lenses are what is generally referred to as
Paying dearly for a [used] Pentax lens and then only using part of it
for the rare shot that needs these extreme angles seems a bit silly
to me. So I'm considering the Zenitar instead that can be had brand
new for $105 + SH from Russia.
I'm sure you've already looked, but if you're truly
They say buying a house is one of the
most
stressful activities possible.
http://www.cottysnaps.com/houses/cornstreet.html
(Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about 80 kb each, z.)
I loved the house but my SO didn't, Cheers,
Thank you all for the info on fish-eye lenses! The photo.net article
is just what I needed!
I think I have seen the Pelang lens on eBay but there does not seem
to be one there now, and pitifully little information on the web at
large.
So I will get a Zenitar and see if that fulfill my
On 25/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
Now wonder she did not like it. The walls are crooked, the yard has not
been cut for years
and there
is someone hiding in the bathroom. :-)
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
At 01:42 PM 25/07/2005 , you wrote:
Thank you all for the info on fish-eye lenses! The photo.net article
is just what I needed!
I think I have seen the Pelang lens on eBay but there does not seem
to be one there now, and pitifully little information on the web at
large.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
The Pentax roadmap lists a fish-eye zoom of about 10-20mm but there is
already the 12-24mm zoom to buy.
These do not compete with each other, the 10-20 FE will be FE on
digital too.
Hopefully, we will see a Pentax version of the Sigma 10-20mm
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:41:51 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They say buying a house is one of the
most
stressful activities possible.
http://www.cottysnaps.com/houses/cornstreet.html
(Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 10:42:41PM +0200, Bertil Holmberg wrote:
Thank you all for the info on fish-eye lenses! The photo.net article
is just what I needed!
I think I have seen the Pelang lens on eBay but there does not seem
to be one there now, and pitifully little information on the
Heya Cotty,
Just got a chance to look at the pictures. Nice place. I'm not a fan
of the bedrooms with those pitched ceilings, though.
I moved apartments recently and know what you mean about selecting a
place. Sometimes it seemed I and my partner had diametrically opposed
notions of what
Thanks, Cotty, for sharing the photos. I've been looking for a number of
15/3.5 shots taken on one of the Pentax DSLR's, to see just how wide the
15/3.5 is with the crop effect. (I'd say it's still pretty wide, but just
not extremely so.) Thanks again.
Fred
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005, Fred wrote:
Thanks, Cotty, for sharing the photos. I've been looking for a number of
15/3.5 shots taken on one of the Pentax DSLR's, to see just how wide the
15/3.5 is with the crop effect. (I'd say it's still pretty wide, but just
not extremely so.) Thanks again.
On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Fred wrote:
Thanks, Cotty, for sharing the photos. I've been looking for a
number of
15/3.5 shots taken on one of the Pentax DSLR's, to see just how
wide the
15/3.5 is with the crop effect. (I'd say it's still pretty wide,
but just
not extremely so.) Thanks
On 24/7/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
Just got a chance to look at the pictures. Nice place. I'm not a fan
of the bedrooms with those pitched ceilings, though.
I moved apartments recently and know what you mean about selecting a
place. Sometimes it seemed I and my partner
Thanks, Cotty, for sharing the photos. I've been looking for a number of
15/3.5 shots taken on one of the Pentax DSLR's, to see just how wide the
15/3.5 is with the crop effect. (I'd say it's still pretty wide, but just
not extremely so.) Thanks again.
Cotty's camera has a 1.3 crop
- Original Message -
From: Fred
Subject: Re: K15mm for House Interiors
So, I guess I'm still on the lookout for some 15/3.5 on a Pentax DSLR
images...
I'll get a crew on that for you.
William Robb
just curious: why not a fisheye? (i suspect the answer would be
because I have 15 ! :)
best,
mishka
just curious: why not a fisheye? (i suspect the answer would be
because I have 15 ! :)
Hi, Mishka.
If that's directed at me, well, I do have both an A 15/3.5 (rectilinear)
and an A 16/2.8 Fisheye. But, I don't yet have a DSLR, so I'm still left
imagining what it's like to use it - g.
Fred
- Original Message -
From: Mishka
Subject: Re: K15mm for House Interiors
just curious: why not a fisheye? (i suspect the answer would be
because I have 15 ! :)
I dunno, I have a fisheye too.
William Robb
They say buying a house is one of the most stressful activities possible.
They're not kidding, and we haven't even chosen the damned thing.
We're house-hunting at the mo, and at the risk of jinxing any potential
purchase, i go to viewings with a camera and do some quick and dirty
snaps so I can
- Original Message -
From: Cotty
Subject: K15mm for House Interiors
They say buying a house is one of the most stressful activities possible.
They're not kidding, and we haven't even chosen the damned thing.
Try renovating one when you don't know what the hell you are doing
Nice shots of a nice house. Somewhat cave like though with all that
stonework ;-)
Given the pitched ceiling of the master bedroom you could have been in
real danger of knocking your self out though VBG
Dave.
On 7/24/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They say buying a house is one of the most
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Cotty wrote:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/houses/cornstreet.html
(Don't bother if on dial-up - two dozen shots at about 80 kb each, z.)
I loved the house but my SO didn't, and after an almighty row a few hours
Sorry Cotty, but Alma is right: judging from the angles in
On 23/7/05, Kostas Kavoussanakis, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sorry Cotty, but Alma is right: judging from the angles in those shots
you are too tall for this house.
The height is not a problem. The downstairs celings are nearly 8 feet.
One bedroom door is 5 feet, no problem. She doesn't like
45 matches
Mail list logo
