http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4688&item=30009543 17 ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:38 AM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #25
> ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 25 > > Today's Topics: > Re: FRANK IN BIG LETTERS [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > What is a ZLR (was long ramble to Co [ "Butch Black" <butchblack@worldnet. ] > Re: DSLR lifspan [ "Kenneth Waller" <kwaller@peoplepc. ] > Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24- [ Andre Langevin <langevin@confluence ] > Re: PUG submission [ "Kenneth Waller" <kwaller@peoplepc. ] > Re: February PUG [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Re: TOPDML - Date Please ? [ "David Brooks" <brooks_dee@canoemai ] > Re: Re: AF Dilema [ "David Brooks" <brooks_dee@canoemai ] > RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: TOPDML - Date Please ? [ Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Re: Vs: Vs: AF Dilemma [ "David Brooks" <brooks_dee@canoemai ] > RE: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon [ "T Rittenhouse" <gray_wolf@charter. ] > Re: Phewwww&thanks folks [ Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax [ Andre Langevin <langevin@confluence ] > Freebie [ "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon [ "Doug Franklin" <jehosephat@mindspr ] > Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints [ "Doug Franklin" <jehosephat@mindspr ] > Re: AF Dilema (now OT) [ Bruce Rubenstein <blivit4@netscape. ] > Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax [ "Steve Larson" <stevenlarson@adelph ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 23:59:32 +0000 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: FRANK IN BIG LETTERS > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > >I've always wanted to go to one of these. How are folks about letting > >you take pictures? Do you bring a fistful of model releases? > > Personally I didn't shoot anything in there, but everyone was taking > pics, and the security was not intervening, despite 'no photography > allowed' on the advertisement I saw, although I saw no signs in the > exhibit indicating no photography allowed. > > AFAIK, it's a travelling exhibit of the permanent one in Las Vegas. > > Cotty > > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:02:27 -0500 > From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax discussion group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: What is a ZLR (was long ramble to Cotty) > Message-ID: <006701c2c1a9$a1962280$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="Windows-1252" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hi Boris > > A ZLR stands for zoom lens reflex. In digital cameras it would have through > the lens viewing but have a non-interchangeable zoom lens. Current examples > of ZLR's would be the Olympus E-10 & E-20, Minolta Dimage &, 7H, & 7HI. > there are others. The advantage to a ZLR is that the CCD or CMOS chip is > sealed so there is less chance of getting dust on the sensor, which is a > problem with all DSLR's to my knowledge. The disadvantage is that you are > stuck with the lens they put on it. Though in both Olympus' and Minolta's > case they built good lenses, with nearly constant aperture in them. The > Minolta's zoom range (about 38-200 equivalent on a 35mm camera) would be > fine for the type of shooting I do. > > BUTCH > > "Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself" > Hermann Hesse (Demian) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:06:18 -0500 > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: DSLR lifspan > Message-ID: <017501c2c1aa$17ddad00$40950242@pavilion> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > I attended a Kodak Seminar last November during which the Kodak Reps stated > Kodak considers the half life of a digital camera to be 9 months... > Kenneth Waller > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anton Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan > > > > Well I missed the original message so Peter's comments about chalk marks > on buildings comes out a little bit cryptic. > > > > Anyway I read in Amateur Photographer that Canon is to phase out the > D60... after a lifetime of less than one year! A taste of what's to come I > imagine. Me? Well my turntable (record player) is still working and sounding > great along with my 6X7 both are circa '74 > > > > AB > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > Freeserve AnyTime - Go online whenever you want for just �6.99 a month for > > your first 3 months, that's HALF PRICE! And then it's just �13.99 a month > > after that. > > > > For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on > > 0800 970 8890 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:05:49 -0500 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > Message-Id: <a05100300ba538f5c49dc@[67.68.129.169]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > From adphoto (then me): > > >24-90mm- quite good... not as contasty or sharp as the vivitar > >35-85mm it replaced... > > I'm surprised because the 24-90 is a very recent design and the > Vivitar an older one. At what focal lenght and aperture was the > Vivitar better than the Pentax? > > >the vivitar was noticeability more saturated through the entire range. > >Especailly at around f3.5 and F11. But from what i have heard that lens was > >a hit and miss affair. Some were good and some were not. However the pentax > >wins out because i can use it for sunsets and when ever the sun is low in > >the sky and for its range. > > Could the difference in saturation be caused by a slight difference > in exposure (because of diaphragm margin of error)? > > Other PDMLers with similar experience? > > Andre > -- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:00:59 -0500 > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: PUG submission > Message-ID: <016501c2c1a9$d1b614c0$40950242@pavilion> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Very good images Vic. I like the variety of subjects and the simplicity I > see. > Didn't see a wolf. Noticed the fox though. > Any of these images would be a fine addition to the PUG. Thanks for sharing. > Kenneth Waller > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:26 AM > Subject: PUG submission > > > > Guys I have been driving myself nuts trying to submit an image to PUG. > Every > > month it is the same thing. I can't understand why it will not accept > e-mail > > from AOL, considering it is one of the largest IPs. But that is the way it > > is. So my submission for the digital Feb PUG will have to stay on my > > Website... If you have a sec... take a look. It is truly a digital image. > The > > Snow scene is on B&W print film. The wolf is on slide film. The wolf has > had > > extensive work done on it in Painter and then combined with the snow scene > in > > photoshop. Anyway here is the link.I am sorry I could not get it into the > > PUG... > > http://hometown.aol.ca/pentxuser/Wolf.html > > > > Vic > > > > Vic > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:10:20 +0000 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: February PUG > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > >The theme is "digital". I didn't see anywhere that it said that it had to be > >taken with a Pentax Digital camera. > > Ah but Frank, the consensus is that for any PUG entry, it has to be shot > with either a Pentax camera or a Pentax lens. > > For 'digital' I would read: shot with a Pentax digital camera, or a > pentax film camera, or a K mount camera with a Pentax lens aboard, and > scanned. > > Dunno what I'm barking for - I missed the boat again! > > Cotty > > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:18:11 -0500 > From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: TOPDML - Date Please ? > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Sounds good.Just found out this Saturday is out,baby showers.So i > was correct in quessing the 1st was better. > > Dave > ---- Begin Original Message ---- > > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:35:11 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: TOPDML - Date Please ? > > > Chinatown sounds good to me. That's if I have any working bodies > and lenses by > then. They're dropping like flies these days! <g> > > -frank > > Jeff wrote: > > > Does impecunious mean getting old and forgetful? Then yes. > > > > Feb 1 seems good > > > > I suggested Chinatown, for the chinese new year. > > > > Jeff. > > > > frank theriault wrote: > > > Well, I'm pretty much impecunious these days, but I guess I can > afford one > > > beer! > > > > > > Feb 1 works for me... > > > > > > We just have to figure where and when. > > > > > > regards, > > > frank > > > > > > David Brooks wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Feb 1 is good for me too.I'v sent a CC to Aaron just incase > > >>he can free up some time<g> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > > > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > > > Oppenheimer > > > > > > > > > > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer > > > > > ---- End Original Message ---- > > > > > Pentax User > Stouffville Ontario Canada > "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art > stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:12:53 -0500 > From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: AF Dilema > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Bruce. > Is there a grip available for the D100 to enable vertical shooting? > This is one thing i have grown to love about the D1. > > Also i thought the F4 was more expensive than the D100 new.Maybe i > misread. > Dave > ---- Begin Original Message ---- > > From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:56:06 -0500 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AF Dilema > > > If you really want AF, I don't know why you're looking at an F4. I'm > seeing quite a few F100s on ebay for only a couple of hundred more > than > the F4, and that will handle much like your D1. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Humm decision time comming up soon.Torn as > >to what to do. > >Current AF Pentax camera is the SF-1 with Sigma 100-300 DL 5.6-6.7, > >and 35-70 4.6 5.7?.Not good in low light obviously. > >Current Nikon AF camera,D1 with 35-70 and 80-200 f2.8 lenses. > >Cannot decide weather to look for a used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or 100- > 300 > >f4 and or something in the 28-105 f 2.8 /f3.5 range OR a F4 > bodyMB21 > >grip to go with the lenses.Economicaly i know what to do.Just need > a > >push one way or the other. > > > >Dave > > > > > > > > > ---- End Original Message ---- > > > > > Pentax User > Stouffville Ontario Canada > "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art > stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:15:25 -0500 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens? > If so that combined with the narrower range could account > for it's better performance. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:06 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > > > > From adphoto (then me): > > > > >24-90mm- quite good... not as contasty or sharp as the vivitar > > >35-85mm it replaced... > > > > I'm surprised because the 24-90 is a very recent design and the > > Vivitar an older one. At what focal lenght and aperture was the > > Vivitar better than the Pentax? > > > > >the vivitar was noticeability more saturated through the entire range. > > >Especailly at around f3.5 and F11. But from what i have heard > > that lens was > > >a hit and miss affair. Some were good and some were not. However > > the pentax > > >wins out because i can use it for sunsets and when ever the sun is low in > > >the sky and for its range. > > > > Could the difference in saturation be caused by a slight difference > > in exposure (because of diaphragm margin of error)? > > > > Other PDMLers with similar experience? > > > > Andre > > -- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:17:52 +0000 > From: Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: TOPDML - Date Please ? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Maybe I can lend you my daughter's (repo'd) Ricoh. They keep on ticking. It'll > take your lenses. > > Or would you like to borrow a YM-LM? Don't use it much. > > Jeff. > > frank theriault wrote: > > Chinatown sounds good to me. That's if I have any working bodies and lenses by > > then. They're dropping like flies these days! <g> > > > > -frank > > > > Jeff wrote: > > > > > >>Does impecunious mean getting old and forgetful? Then yes. > >> > >>Feb 1 seems good > >> > >>I suggested Chinatown, for the chinese new year. > >> > >>Jeff. > >> > >>frank theriault wrote: > >> > >>>Well, I'm pretty much impecunious these days, but I guess I can afford one > >>>beer! > >>> > >>>Feb 1 works for me... > >>> > >>>We just have to figure where and when. > >>> > >>>regards, > >>>frank > >>> > >>>David Brooks wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Feb 1 is good for me too.I'v sent a CC to Aaron just incase > >>>>he can free up some time<g> > >>>> > >>>-- > >>>"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > >>>pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > >>>Oppenheimer > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > > fears it is true." -J. Robert > > Oppenheimer > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:24:09 -0500 > From: "David Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Vs: Vs: AF Dilemma > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Thanks for all the replies Bruce,Brendan,David,Raimo et all.I think > what i would want most of ,at least to start is a short,byut fast > zoom,to enable available light bar B&W shots.I already have that in > the Nikon but maybe if i can find something Pentaxy,not overly > expensive.But it still falls back on the fact i have more non Pentax > fast glass.Hummm.Back to the web/ebay etc. > BTW if someone was selling off his pentax gear,but using stock > photos of eqipment(not Boz's)and did not answer email,and only had 9 > feedback,would you be wary? > > Dave > ---- Begin Original Message ---- > > From: Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:33:41 -0500 (EST) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: AF Dilemma > > > sample variation lol. > > --- Raimo Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > The 2.8-4.0/28-105 AF IF Asph it is. Strange. > Must > > be a misprint. > > All the best! > > Raimo > > Personal photography homepage at > > http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > > > -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- > > L�hett�j�: Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > P�iv�: 21. tammikuuta 2003 17:57 > > Aihe: Re: Vs: AF Dilemma > > > > > > >it's the 28-105mm F2.8-4 , are you sure it's the > > same > > >lens? cause I'd like to know who they improved it, > > >it's not the build but the optics that are > > horrible, > > >with it's patented gumby(tm) distortion. > > > > > > --- Raimo Korhonen > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >wrote: > > > Which one? I used to have the 2.8-4/28-105 and it > > was not good at the long end. Now I got the test > > issue of Foto Magazin (GER) 2/2003 and they have > > given it 9.2/10 of both optical and mechanical > > quality and five stars. Has Sigma improved the > > quality? Pentax 24-90 gets only 8.4 and 8.6. > > All the best! > > Raimo > > Personal photography homepage at > > http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > >> > > >> -----Alkuper�inen viesti----- > > >> L�hett�j�: Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> P�iv�: 21. tammikuuta 2003 14:48 > > >> Aihe: Re: AF Dilema > > >> > > >> >want my sigma 28-105 :-) > > >> > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > _ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > ---- End Original Message ---- > > > > > Pentax User > Stouffville Ontario Canada > "Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art > stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa > http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:17:40 +0000 > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > >To make another comparison to the PC industry - who nowadays really NEEDS a > >PIV 2.4 GHZ system?(i.e. which software apart from games require you to have > >that fast a CPU?) - the same thing will happen with digital SLRs - there > >will be a breaking point at which having more megapixels will not > >necessarily benefit you any further in image quality. > > And from what I have experienced, this point has been reached for me. 6 > MP is all I need cuz when those babies are printed up to 11X8 there ain't > nothin that can beat it. Even bumping up to A3 in Photoshop, the prints > are spectacliar (sic). Hence, I climbed aboard the wagon. In one respect, > Pentax DSLR purchasers will have the advantage here: if the PDSLR is > indeed 6 MP, then there's no waiting. Get the first one that is rolled > out. It'll rock big-time for you. > > Cot > > ____________________________________ > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > ____________________________________ > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > ____________________________________ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:18:44 -0500 > From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation > Message-ID: <00e701c2c1ab$d35f4600$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > I have given your post some serious thought, and find I agree with you, I > should buy now. Please send me $10,000 so I can buy a EOS-1Ds with lenses > and microdrives + PS 7.0. And thank you for making me realize that I can use > your money to do this with. > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:26 PM > Subject: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation > > > > This is quoted from Vincent Oliver's photo-I website. > > > > Presented FYI only, not necessarily to make any particular point. > > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > Canon's response to D60 rumours > > Here is a copy of an email that I received from Canon UK > > > > "Canon has exhausted all supplies of the EOS-D60 with further supplies no > > longer available. This situation has arisen as a result of the enormous > > popularity of this model which has significantly exceeded our expectations > > globally. > > > > As yet, we have not issued an official discontinuation notice because > there > > is still some stock in the channel with some of our dealers and retailers. > > > > Unfortunately we are unable to clarify at this stage when a replacement > > model will be available but as soon as we know, we will communicate > product > > details in the normal manner (i.e press release/launch)." > > > > end > > > > Gone are the days when new camera models would last for at least three > > years, now it seems the shelf life of any digital camera is 12 months > > maximum. As far as the customer is concerned this can be quite > frustrating, > > especially if you like to be seen with the latest gear or need to be > > reassured your equipment will still have a reasonable re-sale value. But > the > > positive side of all this is that manufacturers are producing higher > > specified equipment that utilises the very latest chip technology at an > > affordable price. > > > > I know of several professional photographers who are waiting for the > > ultimate camera to hit the shelves before they take the digital plunge. I > > can hear them all saying, �Don�t buy now, something better will be here in > > six months time�. Well this was said to me at least four years ago and > those > > photographers are still saying the same thing. > > > > So when should you buy? > > > > Buy now, a new model will always be in development and you will never be > > able to keep up with the latest gear. I purchased a digital SLR a couple > of > > years ago, it�s only 2.7 mp and I use it every day. Just because the > > manufacturer has launched three new models since, doesn�t mean my SLR is > > useless � far from it. We are all putting too much emphasis on higher > pixel > > counts, full frame CCDs etc. Perhaps we should accept what is available > and > > produce stunning pictures with our cameras, > > > > What are your views? use the photo-i forum and let us know. > > > > Vincent Oliver www.photo-i.co.uk > > > > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 01:29:08 +0000 > From: Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Phewwww&thanks folks > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hey Dave, how's that 50/1.7? > > Jeff. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi Michael. > > I kept it pretty simply.I used the Super Program and the A 50 1.7 prime. > > Scanning a few tonight.Hopefully get them on Photo.net soon. > > > > Dave > > > > > >>Dave, > >> > >>Congrats on the pics! What lens/lenses did you use? > >> > >>Michael > >> > >>David Brooks wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Got my wedding rolls back last night.Pheww they turned out not to > >>>bad.Thanks to Tom V and Pat White for their off list help and tips.I > >>>used the Lumiquest pocket bouncer & af280t for roll one,the > >>>ceremony,ailse walk,book signing etc.Nice soft light but maybe 1/2 > >>>stop underexposed on a few were i was back a bit. > >>>Roll two i put on a home made diffuser i made froma a windshield > >>>washer jug and shot the flash at 90.These were better,more light on > >>>the subjects from a bit farther away.No harsh face burn etc.This was > >>>made in haste as i could not find a omni bounce in time.I'll retool > >>>it later. > >>>All exposures were with flash in TTL,camera on M and ap. btwn 4 and > >>>5.6 depending on room light and at 1/60 shutter.It was quite > >>>dark,only soft "mood" light and spill off from the bar<g>so most of > >>>the latter were at 5.6 for focus help. > >>> > >>>Just have to develop the B&W candids next week in class.Shot those > >>>with the K1000 and a Vivitar 636af flash.If i did not make any ap. > >>>mistakes they should be ok to. > >>> > >>>Thanks again folks for the help.Truly a great list. > >>>I'll scan a few and post them on Photo.net asap for the "pto" > >>>comments<g> > >>> > >>>Dave > >>> > >>> > >>>Pentax User > >>>Stouffville Ontario Canada > >>>"Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art > >>>stops and the wall begins"--Frank Zappa > >>>http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ > >>>http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses > >>>Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:43:31 -0500 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > Message-Id: <a05100301ba53975f2bab@[67.68.136.219]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > >Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens? > >If so that combined with the narrower range could account > >for it's better performance. > >JCO > > Maybe. But are all zooms varifocal lenses that have their focus > adjusted automatically by another "cam" inside the lens? In other > words, was a zoom made as a varifocal lens because it was easier to > build it this way. Imagine the 35-85 with another internal metal > barrel to change focus automatically. > > Andre > -- > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:50:24 -0600 > From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax Users Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Freebie > Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT > > I have a Pentax SMC-M 50mm f/2.0 lens that is missing the spring and ball bearing on the apeture ring. Everything else on the lens is in good shape. The filter ring has a few marks but a filter will still go on. > > Free to good home. All I'm asking is a few bucks for postage. > > First come, first served.... > > Please reply OFF-LIST if interested. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Later, > Gary > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:53:28 -0500 > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: More about DSLR lifespans: Canon D60 discontinuation > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:26:02 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > > > So when should you buy? > > What are your views? use the photo-i forum and let us know. > > Like computers or any other fast moving technology, you just have to > pick a point that's "good enough" for your purposes and drive a stake > in the ground. If you worry about what's going to come out in six > months, you'll never take the plunge. Yes, you're going to get reamed > on cost-performance. That's life. Jump and get over it or don't jump > at all. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:55:30 -0500 > From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:00:37 -0500, Herb Chong wrote: > > > but the Internet was using smiley faces long before the average BBS user > > was around too. late 70's/ early 80's, i was using them. BBSs took off in > > the late 80s. > > You're right, of course, but the average computer user didn't have > access to the Internet until much later than that. Academic and some > industrial users did, but home users with a (300 bps) modem typically > didn't. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:59:42 -0500 > From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: AF Dilema (now OT) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The MB-15 grip gives a vertical release and a command dial. It also > increases the max FPS rate a little. The F4 was much more expensive when > it was new and that's the reason why it's only a little cheaper used > than a used F100. The F4 is supposed to have very marginal AF. It is > very rugged and works great with MF lenses. I've heard it referred to as > Nikon's best MF body. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Bruce. > >Is there a grip available for the D100 to enable vertical shooting? > >This is one thing i have grown to love about the D1. > > > >Also i thought the F4 was more expensive than the D100 new.Maybe i > >misread. > >Dave > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:56:51 -0800 > From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > Message-ID: <00ea01c2c1b1$26d54b40$0100a8c0@steve> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > It is varifocal. > Steve Larson > Redondo Beach, California > "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film." > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:15 PM > Subject: RE: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > > Isnt the viv 35-85 a varifocal ( not a true zoom)lens? > > If so that combined with the narrower range could account > > for it's better performance. > > JCO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 7:06 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Vivitar 35-85 better than Pentax 24-90? > > > > > > > > > From adphoto (then me): > > > > > > >24-90mm- quite good... not as contasty or sharp as the vivitar > > > >35-85mm it replaced... > > > > > > I'm surprised because the 24-90 is a very recent design and the > > > Vivitar an older one. At what focal lenght and aperture was the > > > Vivitar better than the Pentax? > > > > > > >the vivitar was noticeability more saturated through the entire range. > > > >Especailly at around f3.5 and F11. But from what i have heard > > > that lens was > > > >a hit and miss affair. Some were good and some were not. However > > > the pentax > > > >wins out because i can use it for sunsets and when ever the sun is low > in > > > >the sky and for its range. > > > > > > Could the difference in saturation be caused by a slight difference > > > in exposure (because of diaphragm margin of error)? > > > > > > Other PDMLers with similar experience? > > > > > > Andre > > > -- > > > > > > > -------------------------------- > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #25 > ******************************************** >
