----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:03 AM
Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #729
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 05 : Issue 729
Today's Topics:
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Pentax 645 [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: Macro Extension Tubes [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idi ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ Billy Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
OT: Cat pictures [ mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Adapotall enabled [ "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: PESO - Reality [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: Macro Extension Tubes [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no soften [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: OT: Cat pictures [ Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
RE: PENTAX M 30/2,8 [ "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: OT: Cat pictures [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Re: OT: Cat pictures [ Marco Alpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: Pentax lens review site gone? [ Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Re: LONDON PDML 2005 [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:33:32 +0100 From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
BTW after having another look, IMGP7183ns is now my favorite.
She's definintely got "the look" there. Show it to her, get her to do it again and step back a bit, Bill. 8-)
She wanted a tight head shot, so i spent most of my time within a few feet of her. I was actually just at the edge of minimum focus on the 77. I got an email from her this AM, she likes 7188 for her poster..
I wonder what appeals to her about that one. If I _had_ to choose from the ones available, it would be a choice between 7182 and 7152. Apart from facial expression (which is why 7183 is the winner for me) the others have a crop that is neither one things or another. Not H&S and not tight face. Not to put too fine a point on it, they irritate me. Must be becoming a grumpy old man.....
William Robb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:50:56 -0400 From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The London Eye is now booked. 2045 for a 2100 flight. Fast boarding. Private capsule. Posh.
<http://www.cottysnaps.com/londonpdml2005.html>
If anyone has any update for the web page, please let me know off list, ta.
In case I haven't mentioned it, Lisa and I are booked at the County Hall Marriott. Within easy staggering distance of tube stations, pubs and the London Eye ;-)
-- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:38:46 +0100 From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cotty wrote:
The London Eye is now booked. 2045 for a 2100 flight. Fast boarding. Private capsule. Posh.
<http://www.cottysnaps.com/londonpdml2005.html>
If anyone has any update for the web page, please let me know off list, ta.
What about the DUKWs? Need any commitment funds?
m
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:43:41 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Pentax 645 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/4/05, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, unleashed:
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP1979.jpg (~121kB)
Studdsy you bloody great show-off!
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:47:16 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/4/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
Try this one instead..... http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7220.html
Jumping Jupiter
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:51:33 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp.
Wait a minit. I thought the 77 was supposed to be extremely sharp - some
saying even too sharp for portraits. Perhaps what you're getting is in part
the effect of the softness digital brings to an image, not so much the
quality of the lens by itself?
Shel
> [Original Message] > From: William Robb
> > Hi Bill ... > > > > My favorite is: > > > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb//pictures/flannery/sharp/IMGP7182ns.html > > > > The degree of softness on these pics is, imo, just right. > > > > Thanks Shel. Thats the native softness of the 77 at f/8. > > William Robb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:55:15 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Taking, Making, Creating Images Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Patrick Schneider was the featured speaker at the Grandfather Mountain Camera Clinic in August of 2003, just days after all this went down. He was very open and forthcoming about the whole business and it made for some interesting discussion.
Here's an interesting editorial from ZoneZero about the controversy. It includes all three of Schneider's disqualified photos, both in their original and altered versions: http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html
Interesting reading, thanks Mark.
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:58:14 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
What about the DUKWs? Need any commitment funds?
Nope - it needs booking but I think you pay once submerged .....
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:59:30 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 7/4/05, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
The London Eye is now booked. 2045 for a 2100 flight. Fast boarding. Private capsule. Posh.
<http://www.cottysnaps.com/londonpdml2005.html>
Incidentally, sunset time on the 7th is 2034, and the twilight should be a good 45 mins. Unless it's snowing....
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:17:49 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot)
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Macro Extension Tubes
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wow. Thank you for the information Mark, it helps a lot. I am definitely going to get myself of extension tubes now.
Thanks again for the help and the enablement,
Derek
I use extension tubes all the time - a few basics:
1. A lens's focal length is that distance at which that lens will focus at
infinity. Multiple element lenses complicate this a bit, but in the most
simple terms a 100mm lens, for example, will focus at infinity 100mm from
the film plane. That's why it is called a 100mm lens. :-)
2. As you move the lens further from this point, you move the plane of focus
closer. A lot of lenses focus by just moving the a bit further out from the
film. This moves the lens off infinity focus, and lets you focus closer.
3. The point at which the extension of the lens equals the lens's focal
length results in a magnification of 1:1 - i.e. the image on the film is the
same size as the object itself. So - with a theoretically simple 100mm, that
is focused at infinity when it is 100mm from the film, if you add 100mm of
extension, the lens will now focus very close, and the image on the film
will be the same size as the object photographed.
4. When you focus closer, you magnify the image. Understanding the optical
effects of magnification is they key to understanding macro and close up
photography. Everything else is just derivative from the impact of
magnification.
5. Every lens has aberrations and distortions. When you add extension and
magnify the image, those aberrations and distortions are also magnified. In
theory, macro lenses have been designed to overcome these problems. I have
yet to see a situation where a non-macro lens matched a macro lens in
performance at high magnification (greater than 1:1). That said, some
lenses - like the Pentax 50mm f1.7 M, A, F, or FA, (all the same optical
formula) do work very well with extension.
6. There's no problem using tubes with Digital SLRs. I use Vivitar tubes
that have the full contacts, and with A or later lenses I loose only
autofocus. I also use tubes and bellows for snowcrystal photos - lots of
tubes. In that case I rely on the TTL flash to control the exposure. Pentax
does not make tubes with contacts needed for auto exposure / aperture
control, but third parties do. The thing with tubes - you can buy just plain
tubes with no contacts and no mechanical connector to stop down the lens,
you can get them with just the mechanical connectors to control the aperture
but no electronic contacts, or you can get them with both mechanical and
electronic contacts. The latter will result in an A or better lens working
fine with a digital SLR, except that you will have to manually focus.
7. A less noted use of tubes is to allow you focus more closely with telephotos, where the minimum focusing distance may not be close enough.
I'd see buying a set of extension tubes as a good first step into macro /
close up photography. You can always use them later, even if you buy a
dedicated macro lens. But a _good_ macro is worlds better than a regular
lens on tubes, especially as you move away from the center of the image. I
have used an M 200 f4 on tubes, and an A* 200 f4 macro without tubes. Guess
what? The $1000 macro outperforms the $75 regular lens! Similarly, a $200
100mm macro will outperform a zoom or even a regular 100mm lens on tubes.
If you have only zoom lenses, I'd recommend getting close up filters for macro work - but there again, good ones are not cheap.
HTH -
- MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message ----- From: "Village Idiot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:39 PM
Subject: Macro Extension Tubes
>I have questions about macro extension tubes. Does anyone use extension
>tubes? On what on what lenses do you usually use them? What is the
>difference between using extension tubes and using a macro lens? Also, >why
>do extension tubes not work on DSLRs?
>
> I have always been curious about extension tubes and was thinking of
> purchasing some (maybe on eekbay). I thought I might try them out on
> flowers and bugs.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
>
> Derek
>
>
W
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:33:37 +0100 From: Billy Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Apr 7, 2005 3:58 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:On 7/4/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>What about the DUKWs? Need any commitment funds?
Nope - it needs booking but I think you pay once submerged .....
As soon as you can't get away without scuba gear...
-- Billy Abbott Photography - http://www.cowfish.org.uk/paw/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 08:40:00 -0700 From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I'd have thought the result would have appeared sharper. IAC, I like what I see
Shel
[Original Message] From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about theunadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp.some
> Wait a minit. I thought the 77 was supposed to be extremely sharp -> saying even too sharp for portraits. Perhaps what you're getting is inpart> the effect of the softness digital brings to an image, not so much the > quality of the lens by itself?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:48:23 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp.
I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em.
Sometimes I forget to breath.
Here is a detail from one of the pictures.
Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100%
My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting
in the converter at 25.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html
I have no sharpness issues with the 77.
I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did
on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than
the digital sensor.
William Robb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:45:57 +0100 From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: OT: Cat pictures Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Cats, Captain! Bloomin' thousands of 'em!"
http://www.infinitecat.com/
Interesting concept. Rather similar to PDML lens tests.... 8-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:57:03 +0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Yup, it doesn't get much sharper than that.
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
>I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the >unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness >conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest >that these are quite sharp. >
I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em.
Sometimes I forget to breath.
Here is a detail from one of the pictures.
Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100%
My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting
in the converter at 25.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html
I have no sharpness issues with the 77.
I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did
on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than
the digital sensor.
William Robb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:07:48 +0200 From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Adapotall enabled Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Today I got the Adaptall 2 mount I bought from Jim Colwell. It's great - with userguide and all. Now, my two adaptall lenses (2.8/28mm and 3.5/70-150mm) both work like A-lenses. Especially on the "D" this is a huge advantage, since I don't have to use stopped down metering anymore. The lenses are now up-graded from "K" to "A" lenses.
These are very nice lenses, which I have been testing during the last week.
I especially like the 3.5/70-150mm - it's an excellent performer and will
serve well for candid portraits etc., because of the convenient focal lengt.
Now I can only hope to find a nice Tamron MF 200-500mm Adaptall (rare) for concert shots!
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:09:43 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Kenneth Waller <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PESO - Reality Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Much like your recent crane picture, I used the only lens I had available to me at the time. I just had the body and that one lens. My intention was to take a sunset and my feeling was that I should remove the wires. But with the discussion going on, I thought that it would be interesting to see what others thought.
Thanks for your comments.
-- Bruce
Thursday, April 7, 2005, 4:56:56 AM, you wrote:
KW> Bruce, KW> I guess it depends on why you took the image. If you wanted KW> to show the sunset, you used the wrong lens. If you wanted to show KW> the wires you succeded.
KW> Kenneth Waller
KW> -----Original Message----- KW> From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KW> Sent: Apr 6, 2005 10:48 PM KW> To: [email protected] KW> Subject: Re: PESO - Reality
KW> Bruce Dayton wrote:
In light of the discussion of how much post processing one does, I have submitted a photo that obviously could have used a clone job on the wires. It was taken in a parking lot while getting ready to go into a nearby building. I could see the sun was setting so hung around for a bit to see what I could get.
I left it as shot to see what you all think.
Pentax *istD, Tamron 28-75/2.8 DI ISO 400, 1/350 sec @ f/5.6, handheld
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_1599.htm
Converted from Raw to Tiff using Capture 1 LE and sized/sharpened for web using BreezeBrowser.
-- Best regards, Bruce
KW> my 2 pennies... KW> Well, I like it "real" - KW> leave it alone bruce :)
KW> ann
KW> ________________________________________ KW> PeoplePC Online KW> A better way to Internet KW> http://www.peoplepc.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:21:23 -0400 From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Macro Extension Tubes Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Village Idiot) wrote:
Wow. Thank you for the information Mark, it helps a lot. I am definitely going to get myself of extension tubes now.
Thanks again for the help and the enablement,
When Mark Cassino talks about macro, people listen! (As well they should)
-- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:20:17 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: William Robb <[email protected]> Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would agree that there appears to be no sharpness problems with the 77. Seems that at least it gives you working room to go softer if you want, but to keep it sharp when needed.
Perhaps the focal length and size also contribute to you liking it as a portrait lens?
-- Best regards, Bruce
Thursday, April 7, 2005, 8:48:23 AM, you wrote:
WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
WR> To: <[email protected]>
WR> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 8:51 AM
WR> Subject: Re: peso: A Small Gallery, no softening this time.
I think Bil was being facetious. I don't see anything soft about the unadulterated images. Although it's impossible to determine sharpness conclusively from a small web-based image, the look of her eyes suggest that these are quite sharp.
WR> I may have missed the focus slightly on a few of em.
WR> Sometimes I forget to breath.
WR> Here is a detail from one of the pictures.
WR> Again, this is a straight RAW conversion with no USM added, and is at 100%
WR> My default settings are on the low side as well, I had the sharpness setting
WR> in the converter at 25.
WR> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pictures/flannery/eye_detail..html
WR> I have no sharpness issues with the 77.
WR> I find I do like it more as a portrait lens on the digital than I ever did
WR> on film. I think film is more sensitive to some of the lens's abilities than
WR> the digital sensor.
WR> William Robb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:21:34 +0200 From: Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: mike wilson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: OT: Cat pictures Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thursday, April 7, 2005, 5:45:57 PM, mike wrote: mw> "Cats, Captain! Bloomin' thousands of 'em!"
mw> http://www.infinitecat.com/
mw> Interesting concept. Rather similar to PDML lens tests.... 8-)
Ugh. I hope Mike Johnson won't catch this message in the archives. For the sake of his good health. Post a big warning sticker in the subject!
OTOH, very interesting. Mindboggling concept. Try loading as much photos as possible then hold down the "back" button for some fast ride trough cat (un)consciousnes. Better than a trip ;-)
Good light! fra
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:27:46 -0400 From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: PENTAX M 30/2,8 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't think this lens' value is based on its performance, its based on extreme rarity and the price is a collectors thing which is nothing wrong with that but I doubt that you wont be able to find a really good 28mm for much less money if you just want a shooter lens.....
JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Collin R Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 6:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PENTAX M 30/2,8
Get it. But negotiate. It will only get more expensive. @ 30mm it's an ideal normal lens for digital and it's one of the sharpest lenses you may ever own. It's sharper than my A35/2 and as sharp as my FA50/1.4. (With a few different characteristics, of course.)
I currently use it pretty much exclusively for b&w.
Collin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:33:28 US/Eastern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: Cat pictures Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Since when are cat pictures OT.<VBG>
Interesting concept. What a time for Frank to be away from the computer. He' could get the
bunny ears
in there somewere.:-)
Well i have 4 cats.Off to see which one has computer smarts.lol
Dave
> "Cats, Captain! Bloomin' thousands of 'em!"
http://www.infinitecat.com/
Interesting concept. Rather similar to PDML lens tests.... 8-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:34:12 -0700 From: Marco Alpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: OT: Cat pictures Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Apr 7, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Frantisek wrote:
Try loading as much photos as possible then hold down the "back" button for some fast ride trough cat (un)consciousnes. Better than a trip ;-)
Or check this out:
http://www.infinitecat.com/movies/magnificat.html
- Marco
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 12:34:37 -0400 From: Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Pentax lens review site gone? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Can you give us the url of your mirror, the 3rd part primes are missing form
archive.org
I don't have the mirror online - it's sitting on my hard drive (at home,
and I'm at work at one of my jobs right now). I'm not sure about the
legality of putting somebody's web site on my own web site, without getting
their permission to do so, either. However, when I get home, I'll zip up
the mirror and email it to you - I think that'd be OK (after all, it was a
public web site).
(When unzipping, make sure you preserve the directory structure - I don't have the mirror here in front of me to look at, but, unless all the files were originally in one directory, you'd want to recreate the original directory structure when unzipping, just so that all the links would work OK without having to manually edit all the URL's within the files.)
Fred
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:40:32 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: LONDON PDML 2005 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 7/4/05, Billy Abbott, discombobulated, unleashed:
As soon as you can't get away without scuba gear...
To be honest, it's �17 per adult, with a discount for ten or more (we probably will have ten or more) but it's yet more money.
It may be better for those that want to go on a tour to just turn up (embarkation point v close to London Eye) rather than commit ahead of time, as this limits options on the day. Frankly i would personally prefer a relaxing time, photographing the Thames and various happenings thereon, than dashing here and yon worrying about times...
What say ye?
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
-------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 Issue #729 *********************************************
