Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
>The retractable flash on my Zx-5n seems to have lost it's spring. It pops >up, >but no longer locks in the "up" configuration - a not unheard of problem. >For >the folks who have experienced this before, what did you do to fix this >problem They have a pill for this. Bill Lawlor > ------------------------------ > > Content-Type: text/plain > > pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 284 > > Today's Topics: > Re: YA New User [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Tripping up north soon. [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Red Ink over digital [ Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: eBay-strategies [ Illinois Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F [ Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Identical optical formula - inde [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > cleaning focusing screen / pentapris [ Hugo Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Camera performance, formerly RE: [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good an [ Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: 500/4.5 for 6x7 [ Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good an [ Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: PSLR - more fireworks [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > Re: Paw Out of service [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good an [ Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > Re: cleaning focusing screen / penta [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > PAW: Reflections of Fall [ "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F [ "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] > Re: PAW: Reflections of Fall [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] > RE: Broken pop-up flash [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:33:13 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: YA New User > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > format=flowed; > charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lon Williamson" > Subject: Re: YA New User > > > > People don't trust themselves to do it. > > I spent a lot of time checking my focus on "ground glass" vs > > microprism and rangefinder type thingies in the viewfinder. > > Eventually, I could pretty much agree, and sometimes disagree. > > Disagreements are usually in my favor. I now abhor any focusing > > aid that takes up a lot of space. Suckers blank out in dim light. > > I'm glad I did my experimenting, but I did not trust myself at > > first. > > I'll bet anyone with a long memory didn't, either, if they can > > remember > > that far back. > > I remember my first zoom lens, a Tamron 80-300mm f/3.8. > The split image in my Nikon FM blacked out with it, so I went to a > microprism screen. > No improvement, really, the microprism was too dark to be useful. > Unless they have gotten a lot better in the past while (very > possible), I don't really see much point in them if a person is using > a consumer speed zoom lens. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:13:57 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Tripping up north soon. > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > Keep doing this, Cesar. Next time you're in the unwashed > MidWest (Ohio), I'd love to meet ya. Snake skin and all. > > C�sar wrote: > > > Well, I am finally getting my trip north. The funny thing is that I > > will probably be making the trip again in January. When it rains it > > pours... > > > > I will be flying to NYC on 30 November. I will be in Baltimore and its > > environs on the 1st and 2nd of December. > > I will drive back to NYC on the 3rd for the weekend. > > I will be back in Baltimore on the 6th and 7th. Probably driving back > > to NYC on the 7th. > > I will then actually be taking some vacation time in NYC - woohoo! > > I should be in NYC from the 8th until I fly back down here on the 13th. > > Whew! > > > > So, any takers on the PDML on getting together? > > My time in the Mid-Atlantic area is somewhat limited, but I am always up > > for meeting up with people. > > > > Wondering if I should look for 67 gear while up in NYC, > > > > C�sar > > Panama City, Florida > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:31:14 +0100 > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > It seems they are both rated 2.5 (F) and 2.7 (A) at Photodo.com > Not very good. This is only a litle better than the Pentax SMC-FA > 28-80/3,5-4,7, which I have owned. It was certainly not outstanding, but > still quite usable. I don't know if MTF test can be trusted at all or even > taken seriously :-). > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 22. november 2004 20:04 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > it really stunk when the > > sun was anywhere near the front of the lens. > > Thats the smell of melting plastic. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:10:52 +0000 > From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Red Ink over digital > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Steve Jolly wrote: > > > > It works then? > > Yep. I didn't get the chance to examine prints or anything, but it > reduced the blur on photos taken at 70mm and 1/10s shutter speed to > negligible, as far as I could judge by zooming on the LCD. The camera's > owner reckons it gives him an extra two stops when shooting hand-held. > > Of course, it's only really useful if you regularly shoot hand-held in > insufficient light. :-) > > S > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:20:59 -0600 > From: Illinois Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: eBay-strategies > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > My personal strategy is one that combines the first two: > > I decide how much I am willing to pay for an item, and put it on my > watched items list. Then when it comes as close as I dare, I place my > maximum amount that I'm wiling to pay and let it go. > > IL Bill > > Note: This method usually is 'successful' when I bid in the last 1 min > of bidding, in that I usually win. > > Note2: This method is always successful because I don't get caught up > in a 'bidding frenzy' and wind up paying more than I wanted to just > because "I can't let them have it". > On Nov 22, 2004, at 11:18 AM, Peter Smekal wrote: > > > Hi all, slightly OT maybe, but what do you think is a good > > eBay-strategy: > > 1. Decide for a maximum bid, place it early, and then stay cool and > > just > > wait and see if you win, or > > 2. Observe the bidding "from outside", and get involved in bidding > > just at > > the end, with the risk of getting infected by "bidding frenzy" (rising > > your > > maximum bid several times, like the gambler who just wants to play > > just one > > more time to hit the jackpot)? > > > > Peter, Sweden > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:18:27 -0500 > From: Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > I've had both, and I liked both lenses. The F version is much better > suited to autofocus, since it has a pretty loose manual focus feel, > and it has that particular bulky yet durable feeling plastic feel > that some of the F zooms have. The A lens is the one I kept (and my > only zoom right now) -- it's very compact, has a very nice focus feel > for an A zoom, and more than acceptable results. It may be a bit more > prone to flare, especially at the wide end, than some other Pentax > zooms and primes, but it's very useable. I also had the M 24-35, > which is probably a better zoom and has a slightly nicer feel, but > the zoom range was too limited for me. > > I also like the A zoom because to me, at least, it's about as large > as a lens can get without starting to feel too front-heavy on the > compact bodies without winders, like the Super Program. > > Joe > > > > > >A question to the PDML knowledge base: > >Any comments on these two lenses, please. Are they optically identical, > >apart from the MF/AF issue? Any experience with either of these two Pentax > >lenses? > >Thanks > > > >Jens > > > > > >Jens Bladt > >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:50:52 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Identical optical formula - indentical quality? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > My impression of Pentax lenses is that, since the A (or mebbe the F) > days, they've been dumbing down. The glass just ain't what it used to > be, apparently. I've been happy with the older stuff, in general, > though. > > Joseph Tainter wrote: > > > "Would you say that for instance the F 135/2.8 [IF] and the FA 135/2.8 > > [IF] also have identical optical quality?" > > > > According to Photodo, the F lenses often yield higher mtf values than > > the FA versions with the same optical formula. We do not know why this > > is. In a couple of instances the FA lens is apparently better. > > > > I have considered the FA 135 f2.8. The F version, however, rates better > > on Photodo. Looking closely at the numbers, the main difference is that > > the F is sharper at f2.8. Why? Anyway, if I decide to get one, I will > > look for a used F 135. > > > > Joe > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:33:37 -0800 (PST) > From: Hugo Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: cleaning focusing screen / pentaprism > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello dear people, > > I'm currently doing a long postponed job, namely exchanging focusing > screens between two MX-es. Reasons for postponing are of course the > trickiness of the procedure. I know of some of the dangers of touching > the screens and such. With pentaprisms I have none experience > whatsoever. I'm searching for people who have experience with this > dirty job because I'm afraid I screwed things up. > > What I did is this: > Removed screen, parked it in the holder of the plastic screen box. Next > I looked through the viewfinder to notice some dusty particles. I > thought it to be a good idea to remove these too. So I gently moved a > special micro-fibre lens cleaning cloth over the pentaprism. Looking > through the viewfinder didn't make me happier, to say the least. I > don't know how to describe what I saw; it resembled most a trail of > very tiny oily drops. I wonder where these drops come from: the cloth > or is was it already on pentaprism? Anyway, not being able to remove > the phenomenon I proceeded to place the focusing screen from my other > MX in this camera. Looking through the viewfinder made me sigh a little > (of relief, that is) because there was no visible trace of the oily > substance to be found back on the image in the viewfinder. But still, > there were the dust particles. These are annoying and now I localized > them to be on the focusing screen and not on the pentaprism. Rubbing > with a lens brush did not help; it merely moved the dust from one place > to the other. > > This longwinding story comes to an end now, because I'm nearing my > current state of misery; I finally tried to get rid of the dust by > using the lens cloth. I gently moved up and down ONCE. And now I can > see something that is best described as a trace of liquid. It's not > dark but transparant. > > My question: is there anybody who has done this job before who can > provide for some suggestions regarding the whole procedure? Think it > would be of help for anyone facing the same situation. One of my > questions is for example: what the hell is going on with this special > lens cloths? There was no mention of it containing any sort of stuff > and I NEVER experienced someting like this (I use the cloth for a > considerable time to clean my lenses (front and back). > > Anyway, Hope you guys have some ideas. > > BTW: the focusing screen in the above story is a wholly matted one with > an extra fine matted centre circle - so no attached focusing aids on > the screen.. > > Yours, > Hugo > > > ===== > Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone > - > Joni Mitchell. > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:55:14 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Camera performance, formerly RE: Pro cameras again.....SHEESH. > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I do occasional "foul weather" photography with, usually, K-series > bodies. I put them under a bit of chamois. Not the Photo Chamois, > just an old, well washed, CAR chamois. Better, AFAIK, than a towel > or two. Ain't had a problem yet, but I'm not a Pro. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part: > > > > And then there was the comment about the PZ-1's lack of sealing. Someone's > > camera quit in a drizzle. I've had my PZ-1 since Christmas 1995 and used it > > professionally in various weather conditions and at least twice in > > situations > > near waterfalls where I had to wipe the spray off the front of the lens > > between shots (all shots). Rain. Freezing cold. Humid tropical beaches. > > Delivery room ... (OK, nothing there to bother the *camera*!) It's never > > quit > > or gone crazy. The only problem I've ever had with that camera was a little > > crack on the baseplate. The local dealer (there was one at the time) easily > > replaced the baseplate. It truly was news to me that it's not well sealed > > -- > > I've never noticed stuff getting in. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:58:31 -0500 > From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good and what lasts? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Let the experts Now Rage Forth > > Well, I'm no expert, but I do have my "expert opinions" anyway... > > > So, you A lovers, which ones are built to last and have good > > optical quality? Mind you, I'm an "M" fan despite them being > > regarded, generally, as the worst optically. Size, weight, > > and build quality makes me hang on to M's. My KA 50/1.7 might > > be a good optic, but that there plastic aperature ring is NOTCHY, > > and I tend to shoot in aperature priority or manual. I ain't shot > > Program or Shutter Priority in Lordy Nose How Long. > > Many of the A lenses are ~nearly~ as well built as their M > predecessors. "Going the other direction", most of the A lenses > seem better built than the "typical" F lens (although some of the F > lenses are better built than others, of course). > > The A 50/1.7 is a known "lemon" for its aperture ring, but not all > of the A lenses have that problem at all (although, admittedly, not > all of them ~feel~ quite as nice to use as their M counterparts). In > fact, the A 50/1.7 may be the "low water mark" for "plastickyness" > for A lens designs. I'd say that all of the other A 50's (even > including the "budget" A 50/2) are better built. (This is all too > bad, inasmuch as some Pentaxers - although I'm not one of 'em - > dearly love the 50/1.7 design optically.) > > > I've got the KA 35-70 F4. Despite people disparaging it's build, > > it seems sturdier to me than my KA 50/1.7, which has a _very_ > > dicey aperature ring. I therefore just don't use it often. > > The A 35-70/4 is probably my own "cheesiest" A lens for what its > build quality feels like, but it does seem to be built solidly > enough to be adequate in its construction (despite its "plasticky" > feel). In any event, its aperture ring does seem adequate (and not > overly "notchy" feeling - <g>). > > > Another question: is the KA 35-105/3.5 either a) as good as, > > b) about the same, or c) not quite as good as -- the KA 35-70/f4? > > The build quality of the A 35-105/3.5 is very high (as is the build > quality of its sibling, the A 28-135/4, which I do prefer to it). > The 35-105 is a lot heavier, of course. (Hmmm... I guess a couple > of users have had problems with the 35-105/3.5 staying parfocal when > zooming, but I had never noticed that problem with the samples that > I had used.) > > The 35-105 has a better telephoto range than the 35-70. <vbg> > > The A 35-70/4 has a much nicer "macro" function than the A > 35-105/3.5. > > There is less barrel distortion at the wide end with the 35-105/3.5 > than with the 35-70/4 (whose 35mm barrel distortion is its worse > trait, in my opinion). > > Fred > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:59:35 -0500 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 500/4.5 for 6x7 > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > >Just in case you missed it there was a 500/4.5 Takumar with 6x7 mount on > >eBay (auction now ended) > > > >http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3852266761 > > > >I've heard about this lens but it doesn't appear in any of the catalogs that > >I have seen. In experiments with my own SMCT 500/4.5 I couldn't get the > >image circle to cover 6x7 so I thought it might be a myth. But no, here it > >is. The final price of $1725 is about three times what I would expect for a > >500/4.5 Takumar (i.e. no SMC) so somebody looks to have paid a great deal > >for a rarity. > > > >Paul Ewins > >Melbourne, Australia > > It is the 500mm lens for 35mm cameras fitted with an appropriate 6X7 > adapter. This 500mm lens can fill a 6X7 film without vignetting but > its angle of view would be much larger than on a 35mm camera. Very > versatile lens. But here you need the proper adapter(s). > > Andre > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:03:12 +0000 > From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good and what lasts? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hi, > > > Another question: is the KA 35-105/3.5 either a) as good as, > > b) about the same, or c) not quite as good as -- the KA 35-70/f4? > > > Let the experts Now Rage Forth, far... far.... better, than > > ever before. > > I'm not an expert any more (if I ever was one), but I'll give it a > try based on personal experience of those I owned: > > A 20/2.8 - excellent, well built, easy to handle > > A 24/2.8 - excellent but some very obvious fall-off wide open > > A* 85/1.4 - quite large, can intimidate subjects, superb optically, > excellent to handle, well built > > A 100/2.8 macro - superb in every way; a real pleasure to use > > A* 135/1.8 - same as the A* 85/1.4, but perhaps slightly less easy to > handle because of its size > > A* 300/4 - compact, very well built, easy to handle. Some people tell > me that other 300s are better optically, but I never had cause for > complaint. > > A 400/5.6 - superb, very easy to use, excellent optical quality, best > possible build quality. > > I used most of these with LXs. I found that with the larger lenses it > was pretty much essential to have a winder on the body to get the > weight distributed in a way I liked. > > A 35-105/3.5 very well built and optically very good, but large and > heavy so not particularly easy to use. I've never used an A 35-70, but > I have handled some. They are not as well built as the others I've > used, and had quite a plasticky feel. In general it felt to me like a > grade below the A 35-105. But - and this matters - it is much smaller > and seemed a lot easier to handle, as well as being more discreet > > A 70-210/4 another very well built lens, with excellent optical > quality and very easy to use > > A 35-135/3.5-4.5. Garbage. > > Another zoom which is worth looking out for is the A 28-135/4. I never > used one, but again I've played with one and it is very well made - as > good as any of the others. It is almost exactly the same size and > weight as my Contax 28-85 lens - so it's big and heavy. But it's > manageable, and it seems like a pretty good lens if you're only using > one body, and I would like to have owned one. > > Another one I would like to have had is the SMC A 28-80. I only ever > had a non-SMC version, which was pretty good, but the SMC one seems to > be an order of magnitude better. However, I've never even seen one. > > Remember that some of the A lenses are the same as their M > counterparts. At least according to Cecchi these are the same as the > M: > > 28/2.8 > 35/2 > 35/2.8 > 50/1.7 > 50/2 > 100/2.8 > 100/4 macro > > 24-50/4 > A* 300/4 > > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:19:44 -0500 > From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: PSLR - more fireworks > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I don't think that's a problem, Henri. Those that want > to respond, will. Those that don't include you and I. > > Henri Toivonen wrote: > > Not through mail. PDML is just too active for me to read and look > > through everything. > > So I get my picture-fix elsewhere and just read the interesting stuff. > > I have about 100 mail just when I wake up, then after school that number > > has increased to 200. > > > > Sorry, the PAW-stuff just has to go. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:12:45 US/Eastern > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Paw Out of service > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi Paul. > > I'm not offended. I rather liked the effect,maybe a bit to much cloud but > nice > none the > less. I also liked > what Mark did to. The reason i left it in colour is. > A- changing to B&W never occured to me.LOL > B- I liked how the roughness of the wood came through after playing with PS > to > get the > scan close to > the original slide.With a 8x loop you can see the detail in the wood on the > slide,and it > has a bleached > out look from the years. > > Feel free, at least on my Paws,to make any adjustments you think will help. I > am > open to > all help.:-) > > Dave Brooks > > > Sorry - I didn't mean to offend > anyone by > making those changes - just wanted > > to produce a sample of what another possibility is in BW. I'll take it down > > w/in 24 hours - sooner if Dave would like. > > > > -P > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 6:11 AM > > Subject: Re: Paw Out of service > > > > > > > "Paul Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >Or maybe this - played with it a little in PS Elements. > > > > > > > >http://home.earthlink.net/~allaround6/images/kinmount3.jpg > > > > > > Yes, the sky is what it really needs. I considered doing that but > > > thought it might be going a bit too far. > > > > > > -- > > > Mark Roberts > > > Photography and writing > > > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:17:45 -0500 > From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pentax KA lenses: what's good and what lasts? > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > >Remember that some of the A lenses are the same as their M > >counterparts. At least according to Cecchi these are the same as the > >M: > > > >28/2.8 > >35/2 > >35/2.8 > >50/1.7 > >50/2 > >100/2.8 > >100/4 macro > > > >24-50/4 > >A* 300/4 > > 28/2 is also in this category. > > But 24-50 M is different from the A version > > Cheers, > > Andre > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:18:07 -0600 > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: cleaning focusing screen / pentaprism > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > format=flowed; > charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hugo Kok" > Subject: cleaning focusing screen / pentaprism > > > > Hello dear people, > > > > <tale of woe snipped> > > Anyway, Hope you guys have some ideas. > > Try drying the bottom of the prism with a cottom swab (Q-Tip). You > might leave a few strands of cotton on the prism, but they can > usually be blown off. > The screen is easy to clean, once out of the camera. > Get a small bottle of distilled water (not purified, but distilled, > there is a difference). > Put a half litre or so of fresh water (distilled isn't necessary) > into a bowl with a drop of dish detergent, and mix well. > Use this solution to clean the screen, in much the same way you would > wash dishes. The screen goes into the water, and use your thumb (well > wetted and under water at all times) to "scrub" the screen. > Be gentle. > Rinse the screen several times in distilled water, and allow to dry. > When everything is dry, all you will have to do is blow off whatever > dust has accumulated on the screen, blow off the underside of the > prism and reinstall the screen. > Use canned air for dusting, as it is clean. > It's pretty difficult to remove all traces of dust from a viewsceen, > it is pretty pernicious stuff. > > William Robb > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:22:40 -0500 > From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: PAW: Reflections of Fall > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Please check out > Check out http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html > > MZ-S, 70-210mm F, Velvia @ 50. > > Would have been my December PUG if I could get a round tuit. > > Comment: Yea, Nay or otherwise. > > Thanks in advance for looking & commenting. > > Kenneth Waller > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:26:58 -0800 > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > I'm ignorant, Jens. I don't even know what an MTF thing is or means. I > just look at the results over a period of many photos and negatives. Get a > feel for how the lens operates, its construction, etc. Truly a worthless > approach for those who like and believe in numbers. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > It seems they are both rated 2.5 (F) and 2.7 (A) at Photodo.com > > Not very good. This is only a litle better than the Pentax SMC-FA > > 28-80/3,5-4,7, which I have owned. It was certainly not outstanding, but > > still quite usable. I don't know if MTF test can be trusted at all or even > > taken seriously :-). > > > > Jens Bladt > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sendt: 22. november 2004 20:04 > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Emne: Re: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > > Subject: RE: Pentax-A 4/24-50mm vs. Pentax-F 4/24-50mm > > > > > > > Hi Jens, > > > > > > it really stunk when the > > > sun was anywhere near the front of the lens. > > > > Thats the smell of melting plastic. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:34:01 -0800 > From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: PAW: Reflections of Fall > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Ken, > > I say Yay overall. Love the reflections and color in the water. The > composition is very nice. Minor wish that the foreground lillypads > were just a tad sharper. Nice job! > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Monday, November 22, 2004, 1:22:40 PM, you wrote: > > KW> Please check out > KW> Check out > KW> http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html > > KW> MZ-S, 70-210mm F, Velvia @ 50. > > KW> Would have been my December PUG if I could get a round tuit. > > KW> Comment: Yea, Nay or otherwise. > > KW> Thanks in advance for looking & commenting. > > KW> Kenneth Waller > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:40:44 -0800 > From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Broken pop-up flash > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Quite likely the plastic pin which holds the spring is broken. You can > either drill a hole and install a brass pin yourself, or have that part > replaced by Pentax. > > Alan Chan > http://www.pbase.com/wlachan > > >The retractable flash on my Zx-5n seems to have lost it's spring. It pops > >up, > >but no longer locks in the "up" configuration - a not unheard of problem. > >For > >the folks who have experienced this before, what did you do to fix this > >problem > >(besides using a shoe flash)? I am not a mechanically able person. Is this > >something that Pentax-Colorado fixes and what might it cost? > > -------------------------------- > End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #284 > *********************************************
