Friends,
I have to tell you something. Sometimes I just get so fed up with the level
of CRAP all around us that I start to melt down. I spent a good hour tonight
on a thing called PhotoSig.com, where I was subjected to near-fatal doses of
treacle in the form of endless #$%! cat pictures, sunsets,
> i see you haven't made it to the $1K/meter pairs yet.
>
> Herb.
>> Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm connecting two computers to our "good"
>> speakers. The setup requires several pairs of cables, and the more I read,
>> the more I realize that a cheap cable can nullify my investment in good
> There was and continues to be a large German population in
> Berlin/Kitchener. I had many friends whose families originated in
> Schwabia. "Economical" is a very polite description of them.And
> yes, more "economical" than the Scots, I'd say...
I feel compelled to defend the ethic honor o
>>> That I agree with. For Pentax to go anywhere with this digital, it
>>> must be SIGNIFCANTLY cheaper than the Canon 10D.
>
> PJ> But I don't agree with it! I don't think pentax will be cheaper than the
> Canon unless Canon deliberately would want to rip their customers off. Canon
> have far
> I also need cameras that I can shoot with
> when I just want to play with something wonderful.
Man, isn't the Leica MP simply the apotheosis of that? What a lovely thing.
I'd kill for a black one.
Well, not really, but you know what I mean.
--Mike
> How can you call it original when it looks exactly like its ZLR models?
> Whether the lens is interchangeable or not, people can't tell without
> close examination. To most people's eyes, this is NOT an original design.
> We saw it before in Minolta Dimage 7, Nikon Coolpix 5700, FujiFilm S602...
Yeah, Nikon hasn't made a good 50mm for many years. That's what drove me to
Pentax, incidentally.
--Mike
> The bokeh on my 50mm AF f/1.8 Nikkor made my eyes hurt.
>
> Mike Johnston wrote:
>
>> yellow varnish over the Nikon's viewfinder screen.
>>
&g
> 1. I can probably use an Asahiflex lens on the DSLR. If not, it will work
> fine on an MZ-S.
>
> 2. The joy of focusing almost any Pentax M, K, or screwmount lens.
>
> 3. The LX. 'Nuff said.
>
> 4. The 6x7II. Wow.
>
> 5. The Limited lenses. I don't shoot AF any more, but *someone* should
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15240&item=2914332704
> &rd=1
>
> See center photo.
> There's a big ol' Asahi logo on the front of the prism !
How can you tell?
I swear, it's AMAZING to me how people selling PHOTOGRAPHIC equipment can do
such a God-awful job taking
>> The equipment is periodically inventoried by forces outside of our group.
>> But it doesn't have a NIST number, it has an NBS number (the National
>> Institute of Standards and Technology used to be the National Bureau of
>> Standards), and a tech I talked to said she thinks they threw out the N
> My favourite lens for use with a 35mm SLR is a 35mm F2.
>
> From the Pentax prime lenses available at present which is the most
> suitable for use with the *ist D that will give me more or less a 35mm
> equivalent.?
About a 24mm. But if you don't want to buy the 24/2 FA, wait till next
Fall--
alists.
--Mike
> Not this one - the original MP was professional, though. From the Leica list I
> remember it means Maximum Precision or something like that.
> All the best!
> Raimo
> Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
>
> -----Alkuperäinen vi
> I honestly think that Pentax would be shooting themselves in the foot
> with a lens mount which is not backwards compatible.
They've already announced that it will be compatible. They even specified
that it will be compatible with _screwmount_ lenses, which I got a real kick
out of (the average
> That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were
> higher, Pentax would have said so.
It isn't determined yet. As I said elsewhere, don't read tea leaves...lots
about this camera is not yet set in stone one way or the other. Wait for the
production models.
--Mike
> That's why I
> say, that these lenses presented by Olympus aren't as small as they could
> be, taking in consideration, that they produce smaller circle of light.
My guess is that these Olympus lenses will cover APS and probably 35mm as
well. Olympus is hedging its bets. If it commits an entire
> I had thought MP might stand for 'Magnum Photos', but probably not. So
> what does the P stand for? Pretty? Professional? Primitive?
> Pretentious?
Photojournalist.
--Mike
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046271605.html
--Mike
(And thanks again, Ken T.!)
> That´s going to be expensive. Rarish collector´s item, 1.000-1.500 USD I
> guess.
Yes, Leica prices are notoriously subject to the winds of fashion. The IIIg,
because it was the last and considered therefore the "best" of the
screwmounts, was for many years the preferred body of shooters who ch
> It's 'the dog's bollocks' as we also say.
>
> As opposed to the Contax N1 which is the dog's dinner.
>
> :-)
Cotty,
[insert secret Hundred Percenter handshake here]
Isn't a "bollock" a large lumpen bovine creature of some sort? How can a dog
have one of those?
There are two cam
> Hm, not a sin...
> In my case I'm not shure about that. I've long been using the M 85/2.0
> and now have the FA*85/1.4 - do I still need the M 85/2?
> Not shure...
> What would one get for such lens?
One could get as much as $50! Send me your M85, I'll send you a check
immediately!
No?
> You may think what you like but the fact is that never have there been
> released a DSLR that created less interest.
That's just not true. It's creating a LOT of interest.
--Mike
>> I'm old enough to remember when the Canon EF system was released. There
>> was no pro body. Only two amateur bodies that was in no manner better than
>> the competition. And only 12 lenses.
> Utter nonsense. You need a fact checker on this one.
> The EOS 650 was the first of the EOS cameras.
> Mike,
>
>>
>> I beg to differ. Having taken two photograph classes
>> recently, everyone is
>> interested in digital. Why? It's new. The color
>> comes out sharp. And one can
>> print one's own prints -- that is extremely
>> attractive. Not just women are
>> interested in that.
>>
Again, I d
> When Canon introduced the EOS, it
> was VERY ground breaking; no one had anything like it,
> and AF was in it's infancy.
No it wasn't. The first EOS was the EOS 650, introduced in March 1987. Canon
was the third major manufacturer to switch to AF, after Minolta and Nikon,
not the first. I would
> I am considering selling the following lenses; most in very good condition
> unless otherwise noted:
>[snip]
> 85/1.8 TBD Still not sure I can bear to part with it.
Johnston's Seventh Law of Photography: "Never sell a good lens."
--Lawbreaker Mike
> Oh, oh, oh, I know exactly how you feel!
> I have a 77 ltd an M85/2 and an 85/1.8
> I know that one has to go and that it has to be the 85/1.8 but I just can't
> make myself do it.
Well then DON'T! It's not a _sin_ to have three different medium telephotos,
you know.
--Mike
> Nope. Some of the most respected Car magazines world-wide call these cars
> utterly pointless and only for those with aversion to money. This is of course
> taking it a bit too far, but according to the japanese car manufacturers what
> sell well Europe sells well everywhere. Nobody in their righ
> Dodger/Chrysler who have attempted to
> make such radically different looking cars are not
> doing so well now in the market. Why? All show & no
> go. The quality of Dodge stinks, and people catch on
> quick. A funky image can only go so far.
Amen, brother. I bought a Dodge Neon Sport on the bas
> I thought his major assumption was that consumers won't buy a product if
> something else out there looks kind of the same.
> I suppose it's unfair of Pentax to make the think look like a camera.
> It's so unfair to confuse people that way.
The thing that gets me is that Pål is flooding the lis
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2915319475&category=4688
Wow, that's interesting. Could be a very rare transition sample from the
changeover to the rubberized ring.
More likely, it's just had its front ring replaced
--Mike
> Well it's like it's always is on the PDML. People asks for a DSLR, otherwise
> they're going to jump the ship. Pentax shows the DSLR, and people still
> consider to jump the ship, because the *ist D "can't compete with Canon
> anyway". Come on, the product isn't finished yet. The final specificat
> i currently use the 43mm limted and love it
> however it "becomes" a 65mm with 43mm perspective on the new dslr.
Again, where did this idea come from? Perspective doesn't change as long as
you're standing in the same place. The 43mm on the DSLR becomes a 65mm,
period. There is no change in pers
Again, this is from Marnie, not from me:
>>
In a message dated 3/2/2003 7:59:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So here my thoughts.. People who buy a digital *ist
would already have a net connection as a minimum
reason, have a Pentax film body with several Pentax
len
> You missed the 90/3.5. http://www.cosina.co.jp/90sl/
>
> I think Rob is the only one the PDML has one of this lenses. You want one?
> Try this http://www.cameraquest.com/.
Nope, I owned the 75/2.5 SL in Pentax K mount. Sold it to a PDMLer, although
I regret I've forgotten who.
--Mike
> Many years ago (1978) I got my first camera - Pentax MX. (This was love at
> first sight.) Then came the 6x7. Initially I used transparencies almost
> exclusively until I discovered Fred Picker and took his Zone VI workshop in
> Vermont. Since then I have been photographing and printing in B&
> "...For those of you who may not know, I was responsible for introducing
> the term _bokeh_ to photographers in America"
>
> WoW! Blow me down! That's GREAT minutia, Mike! Bless you - I'll
> treasure this knowledge till I die!
Thanks, John, it was my forty-five seconds of fame.
--Mik
> I would say there's no reason to be afraid of a lens
> with fungus (as long as the shop knows what they're
> doing). Just my thoughts...
Steve,
Just your thoughts for NOW. Talk to us in another two years when the fungus
is coming back...and four of your other lenses also have it
Be carefu
> soft focus lenses as well as shift lenses are obsolete
> due to photoshop IMHO.
Except soft-focus lenses and shift lenses have ALWAYS been obsolete.
Well, actually, soft-focus lenses have only been obsolete since about 1910.
But view cameras have always been better than shift lenses.
--Mike
> Yup. I am thinking of trying my hand at hand coating my own sheet film this
> year.
...While wearing his hair shirt and flagellating himself with a cat o' nine
tails. And every now and then, bonking himself on the forehead with a wooden
psalter tablet
--Mike
> Lets just assume that in the case of APS vs 35mm sized sensors similar physics
> pixies are at work that make 67 a more resolute and higher quality yielding
> media than 35mm film (all else being equal of course).
But I'm saying, let's not assumebecause all things are never equal. With
sens
NOW FORMING
The PDML Hundred Percenters Club, for those netizens who shoot 100%
black-and-white.
We have two members already. Anybody else wanna join?
--Mike
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> 100% black and white film. Ilford Delta 400.
Cotty,
We should form a "Hundred Percenters" club.
I already belong to a club called the "Blackliner Society" (we like the
initials) here in Milwaukee. This consists of me and my friend Nick meeting
for lunch every so often to chat
> Sometimes, they drop a couple of
> features from the U.S. models, although I do not know how much they could
> save the money by doing so, and they might lose some markets by doing so, I
> do not know.
Ken,
This is done for patent reasons. Features that infringe on U.S.
patentholders' rights ha
> Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 05:14 PM 3/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>>> Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:27 PM 2/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> A Pentax LX, adapted to a Nikkor lens. It does take pictures.
>
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/pentikon.
> Bokeh, as I understand it, is controlled mainly
> by the aperture blades
No, not really. The aperture blades have an effect on the shape of specular
out-of-focus highlights, but the essential characteristics of _bokeh_ have
more to do with off-axis aberrations and correction of spherical aberra
> You aren't going to get
> full-frame quality from an APS-sized sensor no matter what lens you
> stick on it.
This statement contains a premise that I don't think has been demonstrated
yet. It's still an assumption, and may not be correct. We only have two
full-frame DSLRs. One is 11 mp and the o
Not to ignore the content of Shaun's message, however--I agree with you
Shaun. The fact is, when you have only one product, you need to make sure it
is mainstream. If you try to make it too "different," it will probably
appeal to too few people. The *ist D looks to be very well-judged in this
regar
> Let's wait and see how thongs pan outshall we?
I love typos.
The other day a friend of mine wrote to me about a new limited-edition Leica
and he typed "costmetics" instead of "cosmetics." Talk about an appropriate
mistake!
--Mike
> Almost totally B&W. Agfa APX 100 maining. Other then the fact it's almost
> free here in Canada it also looks great.
I haven't shot that film in years, but it really does look great.
Oddly, it makes a really nice match with Kodak T-Max P3200 shot at E.I. 1000
and processed in T-Max Developer.
> Must be over ten years ago but Radio shack one year sold a portable CD
> player. Some one noticed that it came with a digital output. Soon enough
> this $100 player got written up in the high end audio rags. Radio Shack
> stores all across North America sold out. All over high end setups used a
> What percentage of film do you use in B&W?
100%
--Mike
> 21,000 Optio S' ordered already? Holy *ist!
>
> I'd be curious how many *ist film & digital cameras
> get ordered after the PMA.
Well, for the *ist D, the number will be "none." The *ist D's aren't
available for ordering. It's announced only, with release for July. I don't
know about the *ist
>> Observation: the more famous the organization/publication, the worse the
>> loupes are that they use there. I remember visiting a studio in NYC where
>> they must have had $400,000 worth of equipment, and they were using cheap
>> $8
>> Agfa loupes to check transparencies.
>
> Could it be peopl
> I disagree (respectfully). Canon changes their body line too fast for out of
> date equipment to be worth anything in more than a couple of years. Add to
> that their history of orphaning their customer base entirely, and their junk
> optics (bokeh that makes Yassir Arafat look like a beauty quee
> Am I the only one wondering when $2k became a budget camera? If I was going
> to spend $1500 right now [forget $2k] I'd be trying to decide between the
> Pentax 6x7, the Mamiya 645e and the Fuji 6x9 and not really thrilled with any
> of them. I wouldn't be looking at a camera that on a good day m
> If there is sufficient light, I usually stop down to somewhere between f2.8
> and f5.6 with the 85mm lenses. Wide open the depth of field often is simply
> too shallow. Also there is light fall-off at open aperture, and some lack of
> contrast - which on the other hand is nice with kids and espec
> Mike what do you know that we don't ( we all know you
> know )
Well, I think it's okay to say this now, that Olympus will be debuting the
4/3rds system at the PMA show, with several new purpose-built lenses,
including a 600mm-equivalent fast telephoto. Since the 4/3rds sensor size is
smaller th
> I'm a newbie to the list. Why? - the ist-D of course.
Greg,
That's cool!
Welcome.
--Mike
> I didn't expect a Nikon copy. I expected something with built in lust factor.
> Something that made peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they
> had to check out.
Pål,
One little thing you're overlooking--it *has* a built-in lust factor, it
*is* causing people to say wow at first
> Ultraradical styling is really
> dangerous. Inevitably, more hate it than like it.
Steve,
I agree.
--Mike
> Well, for one the Pentax users who doesn't mind a Pentax looking like a Nikon
> would probably bite. Fine.
I think you're overreacting in your contention that the *ist D "looks like a
Nikon." You could just as easily say that an ZX-7 looks like an N65, or that
a PZ-1p looks like an EOS-1. Many c
x27;t identify
any significant flaws. I think the Pentax team that put this together did an
outstandingly good job.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See "The Sunday Morning Photographer," my weekly online column about
photography at any of these three locations:
http://www.luminous-l
First of all, re this thread title, it's not D10, it's 10D. "Pendant" I may
be, but these errors are potentially confusing. (For instance, the D1 is a
Nikon, the 1D is a Canon.)
> And then there will be the interminable PDML threads a year or so
> from now when we will all (some more than others)
> I don't think that you'd find it was the case if you check back the E forum
> histories of the time. For obvious reasons I was watching these lists and it
> was generally suggested that there wasn't sufficient advantage in the E-20 to
> make most realistic E-10 owners too concerned.
Not only th
> I think it is very well specified camera in small body but its presentation
> and design is very derivative. You could remove the Pentax name with Nikon or
> perhaps Minolta and no one would have noticed. In this is the real point; no
> one except those with K-mount lenses will notice. I had expe
> The issue isn't quality, it's lenses. All of a sudden that nice 24mm lens
> is a 36mm lens, and if you want a lens that gives you the field of view
> that a 24mm lens on a film body does, you're going to need to get a 16mm
> rectilinear lens, which don't come cheap.
That's just the point, Chri
> Sorry that should be:
>
> Pedant.
I liked "pendant" much better.
--Mike
Har! Good one.
"What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?"
--W.S.
--Mike
> Pendant.
>> Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the
>> start.
>>
> So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why
> not?
I would if I could afford to. Probably won't, though, the reason being cost.
--Mike
>> It wouldn't be half bad if it sold like F80s.
>
>
> But why should it? It is not that the *Ist D is bad in any way. But it is an
> also ran looking like a F80 with sensor of a one year old Nikon DSLR. The only
> selling point will be price. Lets just hope that the compettition does not put
> o
>> Who the hell cares?!?!?! We got a DLSR to use with Pentax
>> lenses!!! WAHOOO!
>
> This has been my number one (photo) thought for the last day or so.
>
> ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Wow, thirteen winks! That's gotta be a new record!
--Mike
> There are certainly a lot of us who'll be royally p*ist off if our huge
> investment in glass (including my 15mm f/3.5) is made obsolete or
> irrelevant; that is, if we have to have two different lenses to serve
> the same purpose on a DSLR and a film SLR. Not everyone is going to
> *abandon* fil
> They are quite reserved after the warm welcome they made to the
> - later aborted - digital MZ-S. We should all take example.
I'll tell ya, if the *ist D never materializes, Pentax is going to buy
itself some real problems. In fact, if I were them, I'd make sure it hit the
market BEFORE its
> Hardly intuitive, is it.
> In what parlance/language does "1" stand for "on?" Binary? On an A/C
> line power switch?
> And, if it was meant to be a zero, it should have had the slant bar
> thru it, like '0', to avoid just this sort of ambiguity.
> Hmmm. The electrical symbol for current is 'I'..
> The way it makes the most sense to me is to think in terms of the film
> moving. You've got a cone coming out of the back. The further back the film
> plane the wider the lens.
>
>
>
>
> x
>x x
> x x
> xx
> x
> Canon has announced EOS 10D.
I'll go look at it tomorrow. Today I'm just going to enjoy the news about
the *ist D.
--Mike
> Canon has a 28mm f/1.8. A nice, small Pentax version of that lens would
> be perfect (42mm f/1.8)
>
> Michael
>
>> Mike Johnston wrote:
>> I already have the perfect portrait lens--the "75mm effective" (a.k.a. 50mm)
>> f/1.4 lens. Now just give me a
> Don't count on ISO 50 - if this is the same chip as the D100 slowest
> ISO is 200. But I believe it does go to 1600.
That's not chip-dependent, that's circuitry-dependent, I'm pretty sure.
--Mike
> Not really. The fact that the 50 has a field of view more like a 75 is
> created by cropping, not optical zooming. In effect, the
> less-than-24x36 image sensor size means that there's a permanently
> enabled digital zoom feature on the camera.
>
> All you're doing is cropping. The perspectiv
> Mike I have not even started, but I'll refrain since
> you did ome thru.
>
> Now whats the word on it's image quality? I know you
> know.
It's absolutely stunning, capable of outstanding capture at ISO 400 even on
"HQ" type .jpeg compression; eminently usable at 800; noise suppression for
lon
> Comrades!
>
> http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-1L.jpg
>
> http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2003-02/27/ist-D-2L.jpg
>
> Wow!
Wow is right--it's a lot better looking than I thought it would be.
Satisfied now, Bob B.? They must have heard you talkin
> I know. Really now, K-mount lenses and bodies are _already_ less than
> 100% compatible: I've heard about old Ricoh lenses that will
> permanently jam into place on a new AF body
Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's NOT an incompatibility. I'm not saying your overall
point is wrong, but Pentax is under NO
>
> Knew
>
>
> :))
>
>
> Admit
>
>
> It:))
>
>
> Regards
> Artur
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wedne
>> * Choice of JPEG, TIFF and RAW recording formats
>> * Comes complete with software compatible with RAW format data
>> * Special battery grip (expected to go on sale at the same time as
>> the *ist D)
> One would hope so, the biggest expense with digitals is batteries.
It is?? N
>> * Convenient playback functions, such as nine imageand 12X
>> magnification-display
> gimmicks
Far from it (have you used a digital camera yet?). What this refers to is
that in replay mode, you can view nine frames at once on the LCD screen,
which greatly speeds up editing and reviewing,
> I'd kick the tyres of that 'effective' word in front
> of megapixels, though.
This is standard digital sensor terminology. It refers to the fact that not
all of the megapixels of any sensor are used for capturing the image-forming
light. It has nothing to do with Pentax in particular. All the d
> Throwing away compatibility to a really huge extent, like building
> small-image-circle lenses for the DSLR, would *really* go against Pentax
> history. I'm feeling more confident they won't do something that dumb.
Mark,
I really beg to differ. This would not be dumb at all, it would be SMART.
C
> I hear ya Cotty.I have to much money
Brendan and Dave are trying to get back at me for teasing everybody
yesterday.
It's _too_.
--Mike
> Re: What the D*ist REALLY MEANS...
Since we're the Pentax list, we should probably get this correct from the
start.
The camera is apparently called:
*ist D (lower-case "i", since it's a suffix)
Not
D *ist (which would sound like "deist," a believer in deism, the
rational belief in
> I suspect this means lenses with less-than-full-frame coverage, made
> specifically for the DSLR. Hope this doesn't affect plans for the
> full-frame digicam so many of us are holding out for.
I'm sure not holding out for it. A smaller-than-35mm sensor is one of the
primary advantages of the ne
> Does this mean no more flower/cat photos?
*whew*
--Mike
I'm sure y'all have noticed this little codicil on dpreview.com:
"In its quest for ever higher performance combined with compact dimensions,
PENTAX has been developing lenses compatible with the new PENTAX digital SLR
camera. PENTAX aims to launch these in fall 2003."
Oh, goody, goody, yummy, y
>Unfortunately - still no photos...
One thing at a time, gang. You only have to wait a few more days for the
photos. The prototype will be showed under glass at PMA, and we will get
photos from the show floor to share with the PDML. I'm sure the reason there
are no official photos with the press
More on the DSLR--
I haven't gotten a Digest this morning so I'm assuming I'm incommunicado
from the PDML again, really piss-poor timing for THAT.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/pentax_02262003_istD_pr.html
And
It's
HERE!
http://www.letsgodigital.nl/webpages/events/PMA-2003/news/pentax/SLR-IST_uk.
html
> The 77mm ltd that escaped us all got me to thinking. If I had seen it, would
> I have bought it? In order to do so, I would have at least considered
> selling my K85/1.8. I have a couple of other options as well, but this is
> the first that came to mind. Classic old lens vs. "classic" new lens.
> Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Awwright! Another Stephen Wright joke.
--Mike
Hey guys?
It's
still
coming.
Be of good cheer, tomorrow's another day.
--Mike
Illinois Bill wrote:
> Assuming a lens factor of 1.5, the ideal lens to replace the 50mm lens,
> should be right smack dab in between 25 and 50 mm. That means that 25 +
> 17.5 is 42.5, which means that those of use with the pancake or 43mm
> limited are right on target . . . . uh oh, does anyone n
> OK, I'm in...tell us Mike or I'll post the other 498 images I have just
> like this one...
>
> http://www.heritageservices.com.au/images/too%20cute.jpg
Oh, but I *LIKE* doggies!
Ruff, ruff, little feller! Daz a goo doggy. Ruff! Can you say, "ruff"? Azza
god boy!
--Mike
1 - 100 of 1539 matches
Mail list logo
