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
********************************************
.
