Re: A Small Dilemma
On 2 Nov 2005 at 18:37, Rob Studdert wrote: On 1 Nov 2005 at 14:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Am I obligated not to show anyone the other pics? What about the one she saw and didn't want me to show? Forget that you ever pressed the shutter when she was in front of the camera, leave her to her personal image issues. Unless there's more to it :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Amusing myself with the *ist D
My eployer, the Norwegian Medicines Agency, went online with a new website last night. Not very interesting as such, but on each of the main pages there is a microscopy photograph of crystallised substances from medicines. Unfortunately, it's only in the the Norwegian language version of the site: http://www.legemiddelverket.no The photographer's name is Lazlo Borka, a now retired colleague. His tools of choice was a Pentax SuperA and an old Olympus microscope. :-) Cheers, Jostein Quoting Don Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The dolphin is a discontinuity -- a fault -- in the crystal lattice. Crystals -- perfect and imperfect -- make incredibly interesting 'modern art' images. Making them is an art in itself and a rather hit and miss business. So when I have a good result I need to be able to take dozens of pictures fast and see the results immediately. The digital is good for this. But that's not all, my main projects are microbiological. Don Gonz wrote: I see what appears to be a dolphin show on the thing on the left. What is it? Don Williams wrote: The camera is doing a good job and while its still here and not yet on its way back to the agents for exchange I've been taking a few fun shots. All start as big TIFF files but I've converted one to a small jpg and here it is: http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams/hold/121A.jpg Don -- Dr E D F Williams ___ http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams See feature: The Cement Company from Hell Updated: Photomicro Link -- 18 05 2005 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: OAMPS extended warranty and Phototechnical repairs in Brisbane
When I took out the extended warranty CR Kennedy was the OAMPS repairer, but OAMPS were so slow to pay and caused so many hassles for CR Kennedy that they refused to have anything else to do with them - or so the person at CR Kennedy told me. I finally got hold of the person who is in charge at Phototechnical services who repaired my camera. he wouldn't answer any of my questions and got upset that I was questioning the talents of their technicians and testing procedures even though I have evidence of their shortcomings in my hand. I ended up taking it to CR Kennedy who promised to give it a rush job for me and let me talk to the technician. Their tech suspects (he can't be sure until he takes the camera apart) that a flexible cable was damaged during the repair due to it being worked on in a rush. I'll know more when I get it back from them. They obviously did not test the camera with a flash on it which I would have expected them to do as the problem was related to the hot shoe. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Mann wrote: On Nov 1, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote: At present I am not likely to ever purchase an extended warranty again. That has been my strategy for a while. Mine too. They are a real cash cow for retailers and the limitations/exclusions in the fine-print often make them virtually worthless, despite the astronomical price. - Dave
Re: OT Results - Survey Computer Desk-top Size
On 31 Oct 2005 at 23:47, Rob Studdert wrote: So what about everyone else? http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/Monitor_Survey_2005.htm Of the people who responded (many thanks) it appears that well over half are running a desk-top size of 1152 pixels on the long side or more. I have no problems limiting regular images to 1152 or 1024 pixels in the longest dimension but what's an acceptable size to post a high aspect ratio pano image? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Re: PESO - Aperture Dreams
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed AM 01:14:32 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO - Aperture Dreams On Nov 1, 2005, at 1:17 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/apdreams.html Pretty neat little play with light. :-) Godfrey Missed the original, so clicked on the link from here. For some reason, it loaded very slowly. Absolutely mesmerising. Very relaxing after a hectic hour at work. m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: A Small Dilemma
Shel, it sounds to me like you think they are good -- she thinks they are bad. And that you think if you show them to others they will think they are good. Ergo, she will change her mind and then think they are good too. But I wouldn't count on it. For instance, personally, I rarely like photos taken off myself. Hardly ever. The ones I remember actually liking were taken a long time by my current boyfriend at the time. I felt he took flattering photos of me, capturing my good features and not getting my unflattering features or taking me in unflattering poses. But he knew me very, very well. So when I look back and realize they are about the only photos I have ever really liked of myself, I realize it was exactly because he knew me so well that they were good. His knowledge of me led him to photograph me the way I see myself. He saw me the way I see me. And he also saw me in a flattering or affectionate light. So don't count on a woman liking any photos of herself (unless she is undoubtedly pretty, but not necessarily even then). And certainly don't count on a woman changing her mind. We do sometimes, but other times we never will. So what's more important, proving they are good or retaining her friendship? Especially if she will see them and/or know you shared them. That would probably totally tear it. Your friendship, I mean. It doesn't mean they aren't good. It does mean she really, really doesn't like them (or doesn't like the one which I can guarantee means she wouldn't like the others either). No, I don't really know why you want to publish them. So don't jump on me for presuming, please. Maybe not to prove they are good, maybe because you like them and want them out there. But you also have plenty of other good pictures. More than most do. :-) A lot more. So your inventory doesn't really suffer by their lack. Anyway, I was going to lurk now that I am back on list. So I will. And, yes, this time I really will. Thanks very much for your off-list comment on my PUG picture. (BTW, sort of on topic, I got Mom's permission to show it. Of course, she forgot twenty minutes later, but I did ask. :-)) HTH, Marnie In other words, if it was me, I'd let it go.
Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
http://www.dpreview.com/
RE: A Small Dilemma
Hi Godfrey and Shel She does not have to say anything, the photographer (Shel) has to ask for the permission to publish the photo or even show them to another person IMHO. I wonder why you pose this question Shel, you surely know about the legal side. What curiosity is driving you here? Or does greetings Markus -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:18 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: A Small Dilemma If she explicitly said not to post her photo, take that as generic regarding all photos of her. Unless you just want to piss her off, that is. ;-) Godfrey she didn't like. She specifically asked - in fact told me on no uncertain terms - that the pic not be shown to anyone, be posted on the internet, etc. Am I obligated not to show anyone the other pics? What about the one she saw and didn't want me to show? Shel
Re: Re: OAMPS extended warranty and Phototechnical repairs in Brisbane
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed AM 04:12:21 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OAMPS extended warranty and Phototechnical repairs in Brisbane On Nov 1, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Lucas Rijnders wrote: At present I am not likely to ever purchase an extended warranty again. That has been my strategy for a while. Mine too. They are a real cash cow for retailers and the limitations/ exclusions in the fine-print often make them virtually worthless, despite the astronomical price. My wife was conned into two, despite my objections. Her money, her choice. She convinced herself that, because you got your money back after five years if you didn't claim, they were worthwhile. During the five years, the major retailer went bust (and promptly reopened its doors after a buyout) and the (different) company running the scam invalidated the warranties. No money, no claim on defective goods. She would rather wade through a pool of Tarantulas than buy another one. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Dario Bonazza wrote on 02.11.05 10:09: http://www.dpreview.com/ It seems that all prayers of Nikon users came true: - FULL COMPATIBILITY with manual AI Nikkors including matrix metering and digital aperture display on LCDs (and of course info in EXIF) - big viewfinder, similar to pro D2 series (or *istD ;-) - with complete info - including permanent ISO value display (!) - large buffer (22 RAWs/37 JPEGs) - rugged, weather sealed body construction - 10,5 MPix sensor - 5 fps - new Twin macro flash without cables - new lens with VR II working for shutter speeds even 4 EV longer than normal (at least this is what Nikon marketing claims for) Now let's hope that Pentax listens to its loyal users' prayers and at least we will have fully K compatible body with most of above improvements built-in soon... -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
GESO - Sunset #1
I just finished loading another batch of scans. Rather than doing a PAW I decided to make use of my new galleries setup and create a short gallery of the first sunset I ever shot with slide film. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=27 The gallery is hidden from normal view so it doesn't appear on the index page (I may delete it at some stage in the future). Cheers, - Dave
Re: RE: Little ANZAC
Join the club. Pat Fig From: Trevor Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed AM 06:02:11 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Little ANZAC You Too??? I thought I was to only bubble butt amongst the beautiful people... Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Grafton. Australia -Original Message- From: David Savage [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 1:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Little ANZAC Well I can't comment on that as I'm a rather overweight adult :-) Dave - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: GESO - Sunset #1
very pretty. There's a funny-looking streak in #168 sunset clouds; is that on the negative too? On 11/2/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=27
Re: OT: Big cojones flash metering
On Nov 2, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Derby Chang wrote: http://tinyurl.com/dvgps Wow! Cool photo but it's a shame he didn't have an ultrawide lens :) In these parts we don't get lightning very often, and ground strikes are pretty rare. I wonder what the GN of that thing is. - Dave
Re: A Small Dilemma
Hi! At least this is what I would do... I too have some very nice pictures (to my eye at least) that I cannot show anyone *sigh*. Boris you kinky bugger ;-))) ROTFLMAO... Nothing really kinky, Cotty... Not in a sense you might have thought about it anyway ;-). -- Boris
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I have a QR plate on my lens and I generally just screw a QR compatible ball head on my monopod, but then again I've only got a little lens, 300/2.8 I wouldn't want to use a ball-head with a 600/4. A pan-tilt head would be totally out of place on a monopod. A gimbal head might work OK, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Cotty's suggestion of not using any head. Once that 600mm is moved off-centre, the whole monopod system would be in danger of folding at the pivot point and falling over, especially if the monopod is leaning. And if it gets the chance it'll eat your fingers in the process. - Dave
Re: Amusing myself with the *ist D
Those photos are great! - Dave On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jostein wrote: My eployer, the Norwegian Medicines Agency, went online with a new website last night. Not very interesting as such, but on each of the main pages there is a microscopy photograph of crystallised substances from medicines. Unfortunately, it's only in the the Norwegian language version of the site: http://www.legemiddelverket.no The photographer's name is Lazlo Borka, a now retired colleague. His tools of choice was a Pentax SuperA and an old Olympus microscope. :-) Cheers, Jostein
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Re: OT Results - Survey Computer Desk-top Size
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I have no problems limiting regular images to 1152 or 1024 pixels in the longest dimension but what's an acceptable size to post a high aspect ratio pano image? I'm more concerned about file size than pixel dimensions. I may be on broadband but I'm impatient ;) If a file is more than about 500kb I might not bother. IMO any pic that's posted is only worthwhile if your audience can view the whole thing without scrolling, preferably within the browser window. Otherwise we'll only be able to see a variety of cropped versions unless we go to the effort of rescaling the file. I know it's more work for you, but you could post links to multiple sizes. My browser window tends to be about 900 pixels wide but I'll happily hit the little green button which will resize the window to fit its contents, up to 1600x1200 pixels (the size of my screen). When I get my 30 Cinema Display I'll ask for 2,500 pixel files... but that won't happen anytime soon :) - Dave
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
David, A friend of mine bought a Canon. He had to wait 8 weeks for a 100mm f2.8 macro lens and I'm not sure if they have managed to get his ring flash in yet and that's been 3 months when I last spoke to him. It's not plain sailing for the other brands either. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Savage wrote: Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
Water Molotov screensaver for Tiger
Hello, Take the following as a GESO... I thought the Mac people in the list might want to see this: I put together a screensaver that pulls images from my photoblog. It requires a Mac running Tiger. Download at a http://www.jbuhler.com/files/WaterMolotov.qtz . Put it in /Library/Screen Savers/ if you want every user to see it, or in ~/Library/Screen Savers/ if only you want to use it. Made with Quartz Composer, which lets non programmers (or lazy programmers like me) create programs without writing code. j -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
mostly, they don't. they run up and down the sidelines with a 300/2.8 or a 400/2.8 on a monopod and another body with a 70-200/2.8 since they are a better focal length for typical news coverage of American football. there have been a couple of articles in Pop Photo and Shutterbug recently on various types of specialized photographers do. pro photographers of American football was covered by both. www.robgalbraith.com might be useful. Herb... - Original Message - From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:13 AM Subject: Another Question on Big Bertha What sort of head do sports photographers use when they put their 600/4s on a monopod and run up and down the sidelines? In addition to a good tripod, I'd like to have the option to use Big Bertha on a monopod.
Re: A Small Dilemma
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 03:01:45 -, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom C wrote: From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about a little more relaxed attitude toward sharing the picture. I'll take a shot of my wife, and she'll say, Oh, I hate that one, don't show anyone. I happen to like it. I'll email it to other family members. They all tell her how much they like it, and suddenly she's glad I sent it to them. My wife would say 'they were just saying that to be nice', and I'd still be in trouble. If it's my wife though I know she'll get over it, whereas I don't know that about other people. My wife loves being in front of the camera, but sometimes is unsure of the results. ...complaints like, You can see my pores. Don't show people that one., or I look tired, don't show anyone. and stuff like that. But if I still like the look of the pic I'll still show it off, and when she sees that people genuinely react positively she realizes that she was being too hard on herself. But every wife is different (and even the same wife can be different on different days)... ;) How many wives have you got? John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
Good to hear. Dave On 11/2/05, Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David, A friend of mine bought a Canon. He had to wait 8 weeks for a 100mm f2.8 macro lens and I'm not sure if they have managed to get his ring flash in yet and that's been 3 months when I last spoke to him. It's not plain sailing for the other brands either. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon David Savage wrote: Don't get me started on the lens availability issue. I put in an order for a brand spanking new piece of Pentax glass (I'm not saying which, I might jinx it). CRK told my camera store, 6-8 weeks. After 7 weeks I got impatient and asked my camera shop for an updated ETA (this was yesterday), CRK couldn't give one. For f#k's sake. It's times like this when I envy those Dark Side users, who can go into any decent store and pick up pretty much any lens the desire off the shelf or, worst case, have to wait a few days. I'm not blaming Pentax for this, just CRK for giving inaccurate information. Dave (the mightily pi55ed) On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Saw this as a sponsored link on a Canon forum: http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=465 I was under the impression that they'd usually close one eye and do warranty work on grey goods anyway as long as you can prove when you purchased. Maybe they're starting to really feel the pinch of parallel importers (they seem to markup camera goods lots here down under..). Food for thought? Cheers, Ryan CR Kennedy Company Pty Ltd. operates in a global market place. The lines we represent in Australia are globally competitive in price. The savings by purchasing from parallel/grey importers are small. The risks are even greater. Grrr.. DSLR prices are about comparable in Australia with New York mail order (if you take into account GST and shipping). But lenses are can be 20% to 30% more expensive, if they are available at all in Australia. And over time, you spend many many more dollars on lenses than on bodies. And that's assuming you can even obtain the lenses here. I had no luck getting the 31mm LTD retail, and had to make a special request to CRK to get one from Japan for me (good from a CRK customer service point of view, poor from a retail strategy point of view). D
F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
More importantly, what kind of lenses do they use? The really big glass you see on monopods at sporting events is Canon with image stabilization. You might get away with shooting off a monopod with the 600 at shutter speeds of 1000 or more, but it will be tricky. I've done some of that with a 400/5.6 and A2X-S converter. The hit ratio isn't great, but it's fun and some good shots are possible. I don't think the brand of monopod matters a great deal, because it's basically just helping you steady a hand held shot. Paul On Nov 2, 2005, at 12:13 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote: What sort of head do sports photographers use when they put their 600/4s on a monopod and run up and down the sidelines? In addition to a good tripod, I'd like to have the option to use Big Bertha on a monopod. Thanks, Joe
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
I use a video head on my monopod. It's probably as stable as no head at all and allows adjustment of the tilt. This is handy if one wishes to use it for shooting birds in trees. Paul On Nov 2, 2005, at 3:24 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Nov 2005 at 7:14, Cotty wrote: On 1/11/05, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed: What sort of head do sports photographers use when they put their 600/4s on a monopod and run up and down the sidelines? In addition to a good tripod, I'd like to have the option to use Big Bertha on a monopod. The people I know don't use a head - the screw the lens directly onto the end of the monopod. A head would become a weak point in the chain of monopodheadlenscamera. I have a QR plate on my lens and I generally just screw a QR compatible ball head on my monopod, but then again I've only got a little lens, 300/2.8 Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
On 2 Nov 2005 at 23:01, David Mann wrote: On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: I have a QR plate on my lens and I generally just screw a QR compatible ball head on my monopod, but then again I've only got a little lens, 300/2.8 I wouldn't want to use a ball-head with a 600/4. A pan-tilt head would be totally out of place on a monopod. A gimbal head might work OK, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Cotty's suggestion of not using any head. Once that 600mm is moved off-centre, the whole monopod system would be in danger of folding at the pivot point and falling over, especially if the monopod is leaning. And if it gets the chance it'll eat your fingers in the process. I think that you only ever need to use a long lens on a monopod with no facility to alter the tilt once before you understand that it's pretty impractical. I use a Manfrotto ball, it's fine with camera, lens +TCs, just lock the ball tight and lock the QR so it can't be accidentally un-latched off. I'm not at all concerned using a ball head with big glass, but then again I like Benbo tripods too (haven't got one at the moment, stupidly sold it). :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Photo Vest
Not personally, but these are common in hot industrial environments and work very well. - Original Message - From: Feroze [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Photo Vest Any of you guys tried use this as vest: http://www.stacoolvest.com/applications/ its 2am here, and its 28°C/82°F already, and its not yet proper summer Feroze
RE: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
G'day Greg. I have 2 of these SMC F 35-135 lenses. One lives on the PZ-1p. The other lives on the *ist Ds. I've found it to be a very good lens on both the Ds and the -1p. 35mm focus is about 8 to 10 feet (I haven't actually measured it accurately). 135 mm focus is about the same. What body are you using? It's a shame it doesn't focus closer as it is a very sharp lens with a very usable zoom range. The second lens was CLAed by C.R.Kennedy in Melbourne a few months ago. For a walk around lens, it's great. It allows you to reach further than a 28-105 and be less intrusive in public. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Grafton, Australia -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:33 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
RE: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
Oops. Forgot to mention. The Macro focus also helps for close focus. Some times at 35mm you can actually get close focus 2 to 3 feet by going to macro at 135. Regards, Trevor
Re: OT Results - Survey Computer Desk-top Size
On 2 Nov 2005 at 23:27, David Mann wrote: I'm more concerned about file size than pixel dimensions. I may be on broadband but I'm impatient ;) If a file is more than about 500kb I might not bother. I think a suggested 500k max file size is reasonable, of the images that I've presented over the last few months none were larger than 370k. Panos 1600 on the long side are generally no larger then 350k. In any case when I post a link I generally state file size so the viewer knows what they are in for. IMO any pic that's posted is only worthwhile if your audience can view the whole thing without scrolling, preferably within the browser window. Otherwise we'll only be able to see a variety of cropped versions unless we go to the effort of rescaling the file. I know it's more work for you, but you could post links to multiple sizes. I was under the impression that most current browsers could be configured to auto-size image files so files with pixel dimensions larger than the current screen shouldn't really be an issue. I for one wouldn't be interested in providing a variety of image sizes, it's enough of a task putting up one image. I'll admit that I do enjoy being able to look around at an image in detail after considering it's overall composition particularly in the case of panos. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Little ANZAC
Trev, have no fear. Your butt is not the only bubbly one. vb(ubbly)g Dave On 11/2/05, Trevor Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You Too??? I thought I was to only bubble butt amongst the beautiful people... Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Grafton. Australia -Original Message- Wrom: OQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJM Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2005 1:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Little ANZAC Well I can't comment on that as I'm a rather overweight adult :-) Dave
Re: PESO: Little ANZAC
Try this: http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/PESO/peso_015.htm Dave On 11/2/05, Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave _ I couldnt get those to load at all ann
OT: Congratulations to our UK members
on the resignation of Blunkett :-) Frantisek
Re: PESO: Little ANZAC
On 11/1/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for your well considered comments Boris. You know, I went back had a look at the shots taken from that day, and the very next frame was this same young man looking straight at me, with that same bored look, which covers almost all the points you raised. http://tinyurl.com/daxag I just preferred the one where he hadn't noticed me yet. I also like that little face in the background, but to be honest I didn't notice him looking at me at the time :-) i like the first one. in that one, he just looks bored. in this one, he looks uncomfortable, and one might wonder if that apparent discomfort is because he noticed the camera, rather than mere boredom from being in this parade. this ambiguity dilutes what i see as the main story of the photo. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/ $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: A Small Dilemma
On 11/1/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not long ago an acquaintance came to visit. We were talking about photography and cameras, and ended up using one of my cameras to photograph one another. I got a few nice shots of her, and showed her one, which she didn't like. She specifically asked - in fact told me on no uncertain terms - that the pic not be shown to anyone, be posted on the internet, etc. Am I obligated not to show anyone the other pics? What about the one she saw and didn't want me to show? not having read the other 34 posts on this thread, here's my take: she's forbidden me from showing that pic, so i don't. period. absolute prohibition. knowing she is uncomfortable with one particular pic, i ask permission to show any others that i might have and abide by her answer, no questions asked. now let's see what everyone else says... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
PESO Incidental panos #4
Yet another pano, this one made using 2 images captured turned into pixels by my *ist D on my recent cross country trip. Again these images weren't shot with the intention of stitching. Also I'd prepared this file before the recent monitor/file size discussions so beware it's not pip-squeak. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_80.jpg (~440kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s FA200/2.8 + 1.7AF TC @ f6.3 (working), hand held. Again autostitch was used to create this pano: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html Comments, questions and critiques welcome, there are plenty more but this will be the last pano I post for a while. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: A Small Dilemma
On 11/1/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you show that one pic at this point, she could probably successfully sue you. snip sue for what? she knew the photo was being taken and didn't object to that, she only objected to shel showing it, afaik. assuming shel will not be showing it for commercial purposes, what could she sue for? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
On 2 Nov 2005 at 7:51, Mark Roberts wrote: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/ $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:42:57 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the resignation of Blunkett :-) Frantisek There is a God! There is a God! Best news I've heard for weeks. This is a thoroughly repulsive individual, who appears incapable of acting honourably in either his private or his public life. The next thing I want to read about Blunkett is his obituary. John (mincing his words, somewhat) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: PESO Incidental panos #4
LOL. They look very comfortable. Another neat shot. Dave On 11/2/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet another pano, this one made using 2 images captured turned into pixels by my *ist D on my recent cross country trip. Again these images weren't shot with the intention of stitching. Also I'd prepared this file before the recent monitor/file size discussions so beware it's not pip-squeak. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_80.jpg (~440kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s FA200/2.8 + 1.7AF TC @ f6.3 (working), hand held. Again autostitch was used to create this pano: http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~mbrown/autostitch/autostitch.html Comments, questions and critiques welcome, there are plenty more but this will be the last pano I post for a while. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: A Small Dilemma
Show me the pics and I´ll give you my answer ;-) All the best! Raimo K personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho/ Quoting Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not long ago an acquaintance came to visit. We were talking about photography and cameras, and ended up using one of my cameras to photograph one another. I got a few nice shots of her, and showed her one, which she didn't like. She specifically asked - in fact told me on no uncertain terms - that the pic not be shown to anyone, be posted on the internet, etc. Am I obligated not to show anyone the other pics? What about the one she saw and didn't want me to show? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: PESO Incidental panos #4
On 11/2/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet another pano, this one made using 2 images captured turned into pixels by my *ist D on my recent cross country trip. Again these images weren't shot with the intention of stitching. Also I'd prepared this file before the recent monitor/file size discussions so beware it's not pip-squeak. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_80.jpg (~440kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s FA200/2.8 + 1.7AF TC @ f6.3 (working), hand held. i hope they're just sleeping lol another cool pano, rob. kind of an interesting composition... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Nov 2005 at 7:51, Mark Roberts wrote: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/ $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL If experience is any guide, nothing *can* make Pentax users happy ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
On 2 Nov 2005 at 8:27, Mark Roberts wrote: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Nov 2005 at 7:51, Mark Roberts wrote: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/ $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL If experience is any guide, nothing *can* make Pentax users happy ;-) Ah, but we're not happy with nothing already ;-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 12:42:57 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: OT: Congratulations to our UK members on the resignation of Blunkett :-) Frantisek News to me 8-) Good news at that. Only 650 of the overpaid, useless sods to get rid of, now. m anarchist at large - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Help choosing a file needed.
Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://users.rcn.com/annsan/indexcatcal.html annsan in shameless self promotion (hey, a girl's gotta make a living) How's the Cafepress thing working out for you, Ann? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PESO Incidental panos #4
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 01:57:05 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO Incidental panos #4 Yet another pano, this one made using 2 images captured turned into pixels by my *ist D on my recent cross country trip. Again these images weren't shot with the intention of stitching. Also I'd prepared this file before the recent monitor/file size discussions so beware it's not pip-squeak. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_80.jpg (~440kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s FA200/2.8 + 1.7AF TC @ f6.3 (working), hand held. 8-) Looks like our house after Christmas dinner. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: A Small Dilemma
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: A Small Dilemma On 11/1/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you show that one pic at this point, she could probably successfully sue you. snip sue for what? she knew the photo was being taken and didn't object to that, she only objected to shel showing it, afaik. assuming shel will not be showing it for commercial purposes, what could she sue for? A person can launch a lawsuit for pretty much any reason, if they desire. If she finds the final picture to be defaming, and has given specific instructions to not show it, then she could launch a civil suit under the defamation laws, especially since now Shel had told the world he doesn't have permission to publish. Commercial gain doesn't enter into it, it is a publishing issue, plain and simple. It would perhaps be little more than a nuisance suit, but it would still have to be dealt with. With the political climate in the USA regarding photographers, she migh very well succeed. I recall OJ Simbson was exonerated in the death of his ex wife (criminal law), but was successfully sued by her family under civil law. William Robb
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
- Original Message - From: David Mann Subject: Re: Another Question on Big Bertha I wouldn't want to use a ball-head with a 600/4. A pan-tilt head would be totally out of place on a monopod. A gimbal head might work OK, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with Cotty's suggestion of not using any head. Once that 600mm is moved off-centre, the whole monopod system would be in danger of folding at the pivot point and falling over, especially if the monopod is leaning. And if it gets the chance it'll eat your fingers in the process. Depending on how the lens balances, some sort of head might be required. From the pictures, it looks like the socket is well positioned. My 600's balance point is about 6 inches from the tripod socket (with the istD mounted). If I want it to balance, it has to have the support well away from the mount. I expect on a monopod, I would have to use a Kirk QR directly attached to the monopod. William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) They do not convict you for having counterfeit currency, only for trying to deliberately pass it. They will however confiscate it, which seems fair enough. How about counterfeit Rolex's? William Robb
Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia)
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: CR Kennedy on Pentax grey imports (Australia) Seriously though, the European law puts responsibility on the buyer of the forgery, as well as the creator of it.. Not a bad protection of intellectual property rights, really. It means you have to think for yourself...uh oh! We do things a little differently out here William Robb
Re: A Small Dilemma
On 11/2/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A person can launch a lawsuit for pretty much any reason, if they desire. true. implicit in my question was that the lawsuit not be frivolous or vexatious. If she finds the final picture to be defaming, and has given specific instructions to not show it, then she could launch a civil suit under the defamation laws, especially since now Shel had told the world he doesn't have permission to publish. with the greatest of respect: wrong! defamation is the publication or utterance of an untruth about someone. truth is a complete defense to the charge. assuming that shel hasn't manipulated the photos, he can't be sued for defamation. Commercial gain doesn't enter into it, it is a publishing issue, plain and simple. It would perhaps be little more than a nuisance suit, but it would still have to be dealt with. With the political climate in the USA regarding photographers, she migh very well succeed. I recall OJ Simbson was exonerated in the death of his ex wife (criminal law), but was successfully sued by her family under civil law. she would still have to have a cause of action against him. without that, she can't sue. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: With a fluttering heart...
I did not do scientific testing for this, but I can see the stability difference through the viewfinder, especially with a 2X converter on the 600. What head did you use for this? I would go a step further state get the best there is. With the money investment in a 600, you'd be foolish not to. I thought about saying that, but do not know what his budget is As I said After spending the money for the 600, anything less would be foolish - IMHO Thanks Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: David S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: With a fluttering heart... Kenneth Waller wrote: information that I could find on the web indicates that the Wimberly is the best gimball type head to get I checked available resources before I got my gimballed head back then it was a toss up as to which to get. I'd be curious as to what that info was. I think this issue may be another subjective one. I did not keep URLs on file, but some info was from people who tried both the Wimberly Kirk heads. Some info may have been subjective, due to the mount orientation, that did at least partially affect my decision. The stability difference between the Manfrotto 075 (which is a fairly heavy tripod) and the Gitzo 1548 is incredible. I'm not familiar with the 075, but did you do any testing to come to this conclusion? I did not do scientific testing for this, but I can see the stability difference through the viewfinder, especially with a 2X converter on the 600. Under similar conditions I can use double the exposure time with the Gitzo 1548 then I can with the Manfrotto 075 and have equal image sharpness. I would go a step further state get the best there is. With the money investment in a 600, you'd be foolish not to. I thought about saying that, but do not know what his budget is. -- David S. Nature and wildlife photography http://www.sheppardphotos.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PESO - Heli Logging
Nicely captured. Your dad will most likely treasure it. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO - Heli Logging http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawz/58353764/ This is the final edit of one of the better images from my recent vacation in Southern BC. It certainly was entertaining to capture. I got to tag along with a pro doing a favour for my fathers company. And as part of it, we shot a heli logging operation from the air. We were up in a small helicopter (Bell 206) with the rear doors off, in pouring rain shooting the other helicopter at the site as it made 3-4 lifts. *istD 1/1250 f5.6 ISO3200 18-55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heavy work in Adobe Camera RAW to pull up the background. This one does benefit from size, I'm having a 16x20 made as a gift to my Dad. -Adam PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Can't speak to the design, but I know I looked at that very same lens in the used department of National Camera here in Minneapolis last winter. Fresh off the purchase of my DS, I was dying to fill out my collection of autofocus zooms, and this was sitting in the case with a very low price. The loong minimum-focus distance is what prompted me to leave it there and look for something else. Otherwise, it seemed like an OK lens. So, while I don't have the exact distances marked off to compare against the one you've got, I do recall that you do have to step quite a ways back to photograph someone who is in the same room with you. I get better close-focus results with my Tamron XR 28-200! -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Re: PESO Incidental panos #4
A charming and amusing picture, though I suspect that either of the two(?) pictures which went into making it would be as effective. John On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:23:38 -, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/2/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yet another pano, this one made using 2 images captured turned into pixels by my *ist D on my recent cross country trip. Again these images weren't shot with the intention of stitching. Also I'd prepared this file before the recent monitor/file size discussions so beware it's not pip-squeak. http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/pano_80.jpg (~440kB) Tech: *ist D, ISO200, 1/800s FA200/2.8 + 1.7AF TC @ f6.3 (working), hand held. i hope they're just sleeping lol another cool pano, rob. kind of an interesting composition... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
What I've observed - they bolt the monopod directly onto the lens mount. I don't think you want anymore degrees of freedom with a 600 sitting on the end of a monopod. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Another Question on Big Bertha What sort of head do sports photographers use when they put their 600/4s on a monopod and run up and down the sidelines? In addition to a good tripod, I'd like to have the option to use Big Bertha on a monopod. Thanks, Joe PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: PESO - Heli Logging
On 1 Nov 2005 at 21:12, Adam Maas wrote: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawz/58353764/ This is the final edit of one of the better images from my recent vacation in Southern BC. It certainly was entertaining to capture. I got to tag along with a pro doing a favour for my fathers company. And as part of it, we shot a heli logging operation from the air. We were up in a small helicopter (Bell 206) with the rear doors off, in pouring rain shooting the other helicopter at the site as it made 3-4 lifts. *istD 1/1250 f5.6 ISO3200 18-55 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heavy work in Adobe Camera RAW to pull up the background. This one does benefit from size, I'm having a 16x20 made as a gift to my Dad. Great stuff, I'm sure your dad will really appreciate image as a gift. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Big cojones flash metering
While it would be more technically perfect if the flash was not blown out, in an image as unusual as this, exposure becomes somewhat less important than the actual event. YMMV Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Big cojones flash metering I am way too cowardly to try this. I wonder how you judge exposure for this http://tinyurl.com/dvgps -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: New film from Kodak
Herb, A local shop with which I'm associated was recently told that Agfa, Germany, has declared bankruptcy. This is after recently purchasing $200,000 Agfa D lab. They were, also, notified that chemical containers (?) designed for convenient use will not be available in the near future. I'm not a consistent, thorough list monitor, so this is possibly dated info. FWIW Jack --- Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it all depends on how much it cost to develop this new emulsion. movie film is the last holdout of any consequence, and worldwide regular film sales are declining faster than Kodak forecasts, so anything to hold that off a little longer is worth trying. Fuji is close to being in the same straits. strangely enough, Agfa is suffering least because most of its films in the US are sold as house brands and they are declining the least rapidly. Herb - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Re: New film from Kodak Of course. I misinterpreted your previous post. It's only a matter of time before it all disappears. I'm surprised they're working so hard to prolong the inevitable. Although I suppose there is still profit to be made in supplying the last wave of film shooting cinematographers. Of course this use goes much beyond major motion pictures, since a lot of commercial production is still shot on film. But it's all changing. __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
RE: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
mike wilson wrote: News to me 8-) Good news at that. Only 650 of the overpaid, useless sods to get rid of, now. m anarchist at large Next copy of Private Eye should be good. Malcolm
Re: A Small Dilemma
frank theriault wrote: --SNIP-- with the greatest of respect: wrong! defamation is the publication or utterance of an untruth about someone. truth is a complete defense to the charge. assuming that shel hasn't manipulated the photos, he can't be sued for defamation. --SNIP-- -frank That's not true in many countries. The UK for one (As George Galloway recently proved). Canada and the US do have that provision in defamation and libel law however. -Adam
Re: F35-135 Minimum-Focus Distance at Wide End
I have this lens and regret I bought it, even if I paid very littler for it. Its not very sharp, at least not my copy, and the min focus thing is a real pain. Because of these two issues, I rarely use it anymore, and resort to my 24-90 when I need a range like that. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I picked up an old F35-135/3.5-4.5 for my D to use in places where I wanted to go from normal to wide, like family attending kid's sports game, without a lot of lens swapping (close shots of family on the sidelines, long shots of kid playing on the field). I understood it was sharp lens, though that was based on only one quote at Stan's site. I haven't looked at test shots yet, but I'm startled at the very long minimum-focus distance at the wide end. My rough measurement shows that it's around 15 feet! That makes it useless as a normal for family snaps; I'd instead have to step way back and zoom in closer to 135mm, where it focuses the closest. At 135mm, my rough measurement showed that it focused down to about 4' 9, longer than the official 0.75 meters. It has 3 extra focus markers marked 135, 50, 35. The one marked 35 seems to suggest that the minimum focus distance at 35mm is around 7 feet. The FA24-90 and the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 both let me focus very close at the wide end -- roughly 1.5 feet for both -- even though not quite as close as at the long end. Given this limitation of the 35-135, I'd be much better off using the 28-105 and cropping more at the long end. Is the 35-135 very unusual this way? Is something likely wrong with my copy that wide-end minimum focus is more like 15 feet than the seemingly marked 7 feet? But even 7 feet is really long compared to the others. Is 35-135 a difficult range to design? Many Thanks, Greg
Re: Can Anyone give me some pointers
Sorry it took so long to respond... Is there some way i could get some pointers on how to revise a page. I am just using the page wizards I found on the internet. Is there a book that can teach me to do this right? From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Can Anyone give me some pointers Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:05:01 +1000 On 31 Oct 2005 at 8:42, Sandra Moore wrote: I think the background is way to cluttered. I just didnt' have the heart to argue with my mother and her sister about it. We have years to get this right. Any other pointers would be appreciated though. http://www.rubicongirls.com/kidsingreen.html If you would really like people to comment you should really revise the page, in its current form the page is almost 9MB to open, for this type of document it should be well under 500kB. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: PESO - Aperture Dreams
On Nov 1, 2005, at 15:17, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Made late last night using an M150/3.5 on the istDS. Not being able to sleep, I opened the bedroom window and grabbed a few frames of the lights on the distant hills. This'll go into the collection of abstracts that I'm building. Comments welcome ... http://home.earthlink.net/~shel-pix/apdreams.html Y'know, I think I'd like it better without the outlines around the lights/apertures. I find the red outlines to be intrusive. -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
Faulty Chips in Pentaxes
An article in a local Danish paper says today, that many digital cameras are using faulty SONY chips (CCD's), that will perhaps fail, if submitted to moisture or heat. Does anyone on the PDML know about this? Could the *ist D be equiped with one of these faulty chips? Regards Jens http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: A Small Dilemma
How did George Galloway prove that defamation isn't the publication of an untruth about someone? John On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:56:23 -, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank theriault wrote: --SNIP-- with the greatest of respect: wrong! defamation is the publication or utterance of an untruth about someone. truth is a complete defense to the charge. assuming that shel hasn't manipulated the photos, he can't be sued for defamation. --SNIP-- -frank That's not true in many countries. The UK for one (As George Galloway recently proved). Canada and the US do have that provision in defamation and libel law however. -Adam -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
And some of us are nothing but happy with nothing. Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Nov 2005 at 8:27, Mark Roberts wrote: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2 Nov 2005 at 7:51, Mark Roberts wrote: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/ $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL If experience is any guide, nothing *can* make Pentax users happy ;-) Ah, but we're not happy with nothing already ;-) And some of us are nothing but happy with nothing. ;-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: GESO - Sunset #1
Some nice ones! I notice that one of them, I think it's #168?, has a vertical line of flare or something like that on the left hand side. Godfrey On Nov 2, 2005, at 1:23 AM, David Mann wrote: I just finished loading another batch of scans. Rather than doing a PAW I decided to make use of my new galleries setup and create a short gallery of the first sunset I ever shot with slide film. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=27 The gallery is hidden from normal view so it doesn't appear on the index page (I may delete it at some stage in the future). Cheers, - Dave
Re: Re: OT: Big cojones flash metering
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 02:25:15 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT: Big cojones flash metering While it would be more technically perfect if the flash was not blown out, in an image as unusual as this, exposure becomes somewhat less important than the actual event. ??? It's a lightning flash - millions of volts producing ionisation of the air. If it was not blown out it would be invisible. Wouldn't it? mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Can Anyone give me some pointers
Sandra, the reason your page is so big is that you are using the wrong file-type for your images. Download Irfan view, and then save each image as a JPEG. They will be a fraction of the present size. Use a compression ratio of around 75%. www.irfanview.com It's free. For web page editors, look here: http://www.thefreecountry.com/webmaster/htmleditors.shtml 1st Page 2000 is OK. http://www.evrsoft.com/ John On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:11:07 -, Sandra Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry it took so long to respond... Is there some way i could get some pointers on how to revise a page. I am just using the page wizards I found on the internet. Is there a book that can teach me to do this right? From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Can Anyone give me some pointers Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:05:01 +1000 On 31 Oct 2005 at 8:42, Sandra Moore wrote: I think the background is way to cluttered. I just didnt' have the heart to argue with my mother and her sister about it. We have years to get this right. Any other pointers would be appreciated though. http://www.rubicongirls.com/kidsingreen.html If you would really like people to comment you should really revise the page, in its current form the page is almost 9MB to open, for this type of document it should be well under 500kB. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: RE: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
From: Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 02:45:37 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT: Congratulations to our UK members mike wilson wrote: News to me 8-) Good news at that. Only 650 of the overpaid, useless sods to get rid of, now. m anarchist at large Next copy of Private Eye should be good. Maybe. It's had a real run of bad luck with timing for the last few years. But there's always something new8-((( Or should that be 8- mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: GESO - Sunset #1
You've got some pretty ones there. #167-Sunset Clouds is my favorite. -- Bruce Wednesday, November 2, 2005, 1:23:27 AM, you wrote: DM I just finished loading another batch of scans. Rather than doing a DM PAW I decided to make use of my new galleries setup and create a DM short gallery of the first sunset I ever shot with slide film. DM http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=27 DM The gallery is hidden from normal view so it doesn't appear on the DM index page (I may delete it at some stage in the future). DM Cheers, DM - Dave
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
It seems that all prayers of Nikon users came true: Only five years too late. I sold all my Nikkor AI series lenses and 1970s/1980s bodies in 2001 since it had been apparent that Nikon was no longer going to support them for at least half a decade at that point. Godfrey
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL I'm pretty happy that my second Pentax *ist DS body cost me $576. Godfrey
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Cotty wrote: What sort of head do sports photographers use when they put their 600/4s on a monopod and run up and down the sidelines? In addition to a good tripod, I'd like to have the option to use Big Bertha on a monopod. The people I know don't use a head - the screw the lens directly onto the end of the monopod. A head would become a weak point in the chain of monopodheadlenscamera. That's what I've always done. For lighter lenses, I use the Manfrotto FlexHead gizmo, but for big monsters like that such things are useless with a monopod. Godfrey
Re: PESO -- Brand New Molly
A big Thanks! to all the well-wishers. On 10/30/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to keep photos of my own kids to a minimum, but this one's brand new. Molly joined us very early Saturday morning. Meet Molly: http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=225 Optio 750z. Pretty much auto everything. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: Can Anyone give me some pointers
My only comment is that the colorful background/props tend to distract from the real subject, the people. Not sure how I would minimize them. Small children tend to be scared of me, so I don't photograph them much... :-) -Mat On 10/31/05, Sandra Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the background is way to cluttered. I just didnt' have the heart to argue with my mother and her sister about it. We have years to get this right. Any other pointers would be appreciated though. http://www.rubicongirls.com/kidsingreen.html
Re: Faulty Chips in Pentaxes
On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: An article in a local Danish paper says today, that many digital cameras are using faulty SONY chips (CCD's), that will perhaps fail, if submitted to moisture or heat. Does anyone on the PDML know about this? Could the *ist D be equiped with one of these faulty chips? DPReview.com has the news brief on this in detail if you want to look it up. It only affects a select range of Sony 1/1.8 sensors, as far as I'm aware. None of the DSLR class sensors. Godfrey
Re: Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/02 Wed PM 03:37:27 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL I'm pretty happy that my second Pentax *ist DS body cost me $576. I'm _really_ happy that you folks are doing all this type approval testing for me. mike - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 02.11.05 16:35: Only five years too late. I sold all my Nikkor AI series lenses and 1970s/1980s bodies in 2001 since it had been apparent that Nikon was no longer going to support them for at least half a decade at that point. They've always supported AI(S) lenses in their pro bodies. I can't even recall if there was an exception from this rule. The problem was only with amateur cameras, as they've dropped it quite long time ago. D200 is rather like a digital F100 - semi professional body, that supports AI(S) lenses without any problems (just contrary to D200 F100 has compatibility at analogue Pentax SLR level - no matrix metering, no apereture display - still much more convenient than trick used in current Pentax DSLRs) -- Balance is the ultimate good... Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
The people I know don't use a head - the screw the lens directly onto the end of the monopod. A head would become a weak point in the chain of monopodheadlenscamera. That's what I've always done. For lighter lenses, I use the Manfrotto FlexHead gizmo, but for big monsters like that such things are useless with a monopod. On my monopod, I've used a Novoflex Magic Ball (the big one), which is very sturdy, and its design lets me tip the camera 90 degrees in almost any direction, without having to first line up a slot in the ballhead before tipping the camera over). However, I usually keep the ballhead locked straight up, or, in other words, I treat the ballhead merely as an inline extension of the monopod axis, which, since I am tall and my monopod isn't, gives some added height to the 'pod. However, I've never used the above setup with any lens bigger than the A* 600/5.6, and even that was pushing it a bit. I can't even imagine using a 600/4 on a monopod - g. Fred
Re: PUG open
Hi, Lucas. Thanks for the comments. My original intent was to show the uselessness of the U.S. penny. I find them to be a nuisance, as quite a few others do as well. I usually end up with a pocketful of them, the kid behind the counter always gives me dirty looks when I'm counting them out, and my wife bugs me about leaving little piles of them around the house. However, there were a few unintended elements to the photo which you have pointed out. All of which can obviously impart certain opinions of uselessness. As far as composition goes, I basically took the change out of my pocket, removed everything except the pennies, and then slapped them down a piece of paper. I took about ten or twelve photos from different angles and selected this one for the PUG. Thanks again. Much appreciated. On 11/1/05, Lucas Rijnders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Time to bite the bullet, and write some comments. I decided to comment on every photo, which turned out not to be the wisest course of action. At some point, 'nice' somehow starts to sound derisive, and repetition sets in. I'd like to point out that is not intended. So: -- Scott: Hmmm, is small change useless? Money in general? Or even 'liberty'? And who on earth has the audacity to put '1984' and 'liberty' on the same coin? If all of the above is intentional _really_ like the shot. I only wonder if I would have looked so hard if I were not commenting... -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: GESO - Sunset #1
On 11/2/05, David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just finished loading another batch of scans. Rather than doing a PAW I decided to make use of my new galleries setup and create a short gallery of the first sunset I ever shot with slide film. http://www.bluemoon.net.nz/photo/printsdb/galleries/view.php?g=27 The gallery is hidden from normal view so it doesn't appear on the index page (I may delete it at some stage in the future). Cheers, wow! -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
SV: Faulty Chips in Pentaxes
Thanks very much, Godfrey! Regards Jens Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 2. november 2005 16:45 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: Faulty Chips in Pentaxes On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: An article in a local Danish paper says today, that many digital cameras are using faulty SONY chips (CCD's), that will perhaps fail, if submitted to moisture or heat. Does anyone on the PDML know about this? Could the *ist D be equiped with one of these faulty chips? DPReview.com has the news brief on this in detail if you want to look it up. It only affects a select range of Sony 1/1.8 sensors, as far as I'm aware. None of the DSLR class sensors. Godfrey
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Only five years too late. I sold all my Nikkor AI series lenses and 1970s/1980s bodies in 2001 since it had been apparent that Nikon was no longer going to support them for at least half a decade at that point. They've always supported AI(S) lenses in their pro bodies. I can't even recall if there was an exception from this rule. The problem was only with amateur cameras, as they've dropped it quite long time ago. D200 is rather like a digital F100 - semi professional body, that supports AI(S) lenses without any problems (just contrary to D200 F100 has compatibility at analogue Pentax SLR level - no matrix metering, no apereture display - still much more convenient than trick used in current Pentax DSLRs) Yes, I know that. Combine the fact that I haven't liked any of the Nikon pro bodies since the F3 ... too big, too heavy, etc ... and that their mid-range bodies, aside from the FM3a, had truly awful control ergonomics, and that the D100 was more expensive than I was willing to pay when it came out. I bought the Canon EOS-IX in 2001 after selling all my Nikon gear. I liked the size and control organization and it had a format similar to what I was going to be buying in digital bodies coming up. Moving to the 10D and then the Pentax *ist DS has been a natural thing. Godfrey
Re: OT (cafepress stuff ) was : Help choosing a file needed.
Mark Roberts wrote: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://users.rcn.com/annsan/indexcatcal.html annsan in shameless self promotion (hey, a girl's gotta make a living) How's the Cafepress thing working out for you, Ann? It's still pretty slow - but I was heartened by seeing things sold to people that have no connection with my or anyone I know so far as I can tell (the sales report tells me the name of the folks I've sold to) I'm hoping the calendars will do well - and the color printing is excellent. Unfortunately, if someone wants to buy a bunch of one thing to resell they have to do it my contacting me and my buying them from cafe press for a reduced rate if I order at least 15. I'm torn about doing that. Trying to figure out if I can publish Son of Sign Language with them but it gets complicated technically. ann -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PESO - Guy Looking Down a Hole in the Sidewalk
On 11/1/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip. But personally I hate it when one is looking over my shoulder when I am working... snip shel's not looking over his shoulder, he's looking at his ass. LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
PUG comments
First, I'd like to thank the folks who make the PUG happen on a monthly basis. It seems this month that the question of the PUG's usefulness was answered with a very resounding yes. This makes me glad. Now the photos: I won't comment on all of them. I often find myself at a loss for the proper words. In these cases it's best for me to not say anything (good or bad). Overall, a very wonderful and entertaining PUG. Bad Rack: I really like Ann's choice for the plane of focus. The look of exasperation on the player's face combined with the rack itself made me laugh. Ann's sense of humor is present in many of her photographs, and is something I look forward to. Collapsed Barn: Combining the mountain and the barn concurrently imparts feelings of timelessness and the passing of time. The color is nice and the composition is very strong. Excellent, IMHO. Summer Storm: Tom needs to share more photos with us. Of the few photos I've seen from Mr. Reese, I'm always very impressed. They often leave me wondering if I should just sell all of my photo gear and take up basket weaving. On second thought, Tom, keep your photos to yourself. g Untitled: Quite a bit has already been said of this absolutely amazing photograph. I'm not sure I can add much more. Even without the description, the intent comes across very clearly. This is by far the best photograph of Marnie's I've seen. Pennies: What the hell was that guy thinking? Oh. Crap. Never mind. Slightly Used: Good composition. John's use of the 18-35mm is really nice. You might occasionally hear me gripe about very-wide-angle and fisheye lenses, but when they're used well, they can add much to the composition. This photo reminds me of my home in the Ozarks - I used to frequently find stuff like this miles into the woods with no visible remnants of any road nearby. Very nostalgic mood. Excellent! Before the Storm: That's just cool! Composition is good, mood is better. Luben's photos always speak volumes, and this is no exception. BTW, I really like the distant bird against the clouds. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
Isn't this his second resignation? Third time's a charm, I suppose! *Runs for cover* On 11/2/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the resignation of Blunkett :-) Frantisek -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: PESO 2 panos
On 10/30/05, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All this talk of panos got me trying some myself. The program is pretty simple to use. Here's what it gave me 1st try... (380Kb) members.aol.com/rfsindg/marmo.jpg Here's a 2nd try to develop greater resolution...(3762Kb) members.aol.com/rfsindg/curve.jpg snip quite lovely fall colours, well captured. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Another Question on Big Bertha
Thanks, gang. I guess for safety I will try just attaching Big Bertha directly to the monopod. Early shots will just be to get ourselves introduced anyway. It looks like the lens has three possible mounting points, so one of them should work for balance. Big Bertha has shipped, with arrival Friday. Hopefully I'll get her that day, but it might not be until Monday. I might get a Berlebach for her. And a Wimberly, but I will need a bit more time to finance that. Joe
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 02.11.05 16:35: Only five years too late. I sold all my Nikkor AI series lenses and 1970s/1980s bodies in 2001 since it had been apparent that Nikon was no longer going to support them for at least half a decade at that point. They've always supported AI(S) lenses in their pro bodies. I can't even recall if there was an exception from this rule. The problem was only with amateur cameras, as they've dropped it quite long time ago. D200 is rather like a digital F100 - semi professional body, that supports AI(S) lenses without any problems (just contrary to D200 F100 has compatibility at analogue Pentax SLR level - no matrix metering, no apereture display - still much more convenient than trick used in current Pentax DSLRs) 2000 is about when Nikon started to drop AI support in it's mid-range bodies. Prior to the F/N80 and F/N60, Nikon's mid-range bodies supported AI lenses. I'm another ex-Nikon guy, although I jumped a couple months ago. I do rather wish Nikon had announced the D200 on sept 1 instead of yesterday, although I am loving my *istD (And I'm up to 6 lenses as of last night, when I added a Super Takumar 50/1.4 to the collection). Note also that the Pentax DSLR's actually have better compatibility than the current film SLR's other than the MZ-M (And MZ-6 if you live in a country that still has stock). The *ist doesn't even provide stop-down metering (Although it will do the Aperture Priority bit, making it usable with M42 lenses) and the MZ-60 won't even release the shutter with non-A lenses. -Adam
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes, I know that. Combine the fact that I haven't liked any of the Nikon pro bodies since the F3 ... too big, too heavy, etc ... and that their mid-range bodies, aside from the FM3a, had truly awful control ergonomics, and that the D100 was more expensive than I was willing to pay when it came out. I bought the Canon EOS-IX in 2001 after selling all my Nikon gear. I liked the size and control organization and it had a format similar to what I was going to be buying in digital bodies coming up. Moving to the 10D and then the Pentax *ist DS has been a natural thing. Godfrey Ironically, I found the Canon ergonomics to be truly awful. But then I loved the F90x, I could operate almost anything without moving the camera away from my eye. The later two-wheel bodies were a mild step down (I do still prefer aperture rings) One of the nice things about the *istD and DS is how similar it is to the F80 and F75 ergonomically. -Adam
Re: A Small Dilemma
On 2/11/05, Boris Liberman, discombobulated, unleashed: At least this is what I would do... I too have some very nice pictures (to my eye at least) that I cannot show anyone *sigh*. Boris you kinky bugger ;-))) ROTFLMAO... Nothing really kinky, Cotty... Not in a sense you might have thought about it anyway ;-). Oh, you name it, and there's someone out there who not only finds it kinky, but has a web site devoted to it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: OT: Congratulations to our UK members
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on the resignation of Blunkett :-) Thanks - we'll have Charles Clarke resign next please. S
Re: Nikon D200, 18-200 lens and flash system
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Nov 2, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: $1,849 in the US That price will make Nikon shooters happy. I expect it will also make Canon users happy before long when Canon responds! evil grin And what will make the Pentax users happy? LOL I'm pretty happy that my second Pentax *ist DS body cost me $576. Yes, but you're a fairly recent Pentax user -- not a longtime diehard with a well-ingrained tendency to grumble :D (Please stick around! The change is refreshing.) ERNR longtime Pentax user usually happy with the brand
