Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
My lens is solid. The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. You probably have a 28mm around, what's the big difference of 4 degrees? That much money? I'd get as wide as I can. Within reason. That FA* does kick butt, no doubt. But mine is also a 58mm, which I have plenty for if I want to use a filter. Cheaper to buy too. I don't know the crap about build quality or where it came from or care, is it just because it's a heavy tank it's 'good' build, it's still plastic right? Here build quality come down to simply is it metal or plastic? Nothing sloppy with mine, and it isn't a feather weight either. Anyhow, what am I yapping on about, I like my lens, I guess, defending her honour? :-) The FA* I would have bought if the fix wasn't in on the one I have, now I see the cheaper price. Here I speak of two great lenses, and even say I would have bought.FA*, but I'm gonna get some bitching coming my way about metal vs. plastic, I can see it now. Hehe. Same rules as before, first on my list is cranky gets the reply and then I'm out and something about using my thumb in some way. Maybe not though, it's not a big issue really, so perhaps nothing well come of it but instead my comments in this paragraph? ;-) If so, be adult, bite your tongues, hit delete fast before you can get to the reply button.! :-) Love all of you except 2. g Brad! - Original Message - From: Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:36 AM Subject: RE: Wideangle Dilemmas I'm not sure how all these lenses stack up either Scott, but I know that the FA* is pretty good (as indeed are the others). I have got rid of most of my 52mm filters, as I now use a predominantly 77mm set. The 77mm sound like they can be used on the FA*, but this is not the sole reason for purchasing this lens. Mainly, I am interested in outright performance. If it doesn't perform up to my expectations, I will look at something else. However, all the indications are that this is a cracker of a lens. Cheers Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia. Ph: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Scott Nelson [mailto:senelson;interchange.ubc.ca] Sent: Thursday, 14 November 2002 03:54 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Wideangle Dilemmas Shaun, You might want to consider looking for a used Pentax K 24/2.8 or A 24/2.8. I have the former, and it's quite good and quite small. I can't say how it stacks up against the FA* 24mm, but it take 52mm filters in case you already have some that size. -Scott On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 14:07, Shaun Canning wrote: Thanks Bruce. I am truly torn on this. I know the Tokina's are all pretty good lenses as I have three other ATX-Pro series lenses, and am generally very happy with them. I also know from my research that the FA*24mm is going to be a brilliant lens. I am still not convinced on the Tokina by any means, and may still go with the FA*. The difference in price between the FA* and the Tokina averages about $150.00 USD. That more that pays for the extra 2 or 3 filters I would carry (circ.pol, Grad ND, and an 81a probably). The question is whether I want to cart around duplicate filters or not.
Oops - I did it again
Yes, I spent more money :( Today's purchase is a nice little secondhand F*300mm f/4.5 lens. Its previous owner is doing a photography course, and since everyone else was using Nikon he sold his Pentax kit. And who am I to complain? Some other lenses he was selling were quite tempting but I eventually decided against them. The previous owner had modified the tripod shoe a bit as he thought it stuck out too far, so he had it shortened both in height and length. Looking at the photo on Boz's site it does look a bit like overkill. Whoever did it made quite a tidy job, and it still balances perfectly with the Z-1p attached. I still needed to modify it slightly so my own modified Manfrotto hex plate would fit nicely. 10 minutes with the drill and it was sorted. Don't worry folks, the shoe is detachable! I really like the handling of this lens; it seems less front-heavy than the A*300mm f/4, and it focusses a lot closer. The tripod shoe is well worth having. The built-in hood is quite interesting: you unscrew it, slide it out, then screw it into place. It actually makes sense; it seems a bit better than the bayonet-fitting hoods of the FA* lenses. The AF is very very quick with the Z-1p in bright sunlight. I don't like the MF/AF selection; you have to change the setting on both the lens and the body. Also you don't slide the whole focus ring: there is a separate ring at the camera end of the focus ring. I'm too used to the FA* lenses which disengage the body automatically when you set the lens to manual (and the clutch mechanism is much nicer in general). However it is still quite a fast operation as my fingers know where the body's focus selector switch is. I'll just need to mentally switch over when swapping between this lens and the 400mm FA*. Now if I end up liking this lens I may have to sell the beloved A* 300mm f/4 due to lack of use :( Tomorrow is a public holiday so I'll put some film in this body and have a play. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan As such, the camera may be more similar to Pentax's EI2000 digital SLR (BJP, 29 November 2000). But the DSLR is intended to have interchangeable lenses. The EI2000 looks and operates no better than a bulky compact camera. Hmmm, why have I a strange feeling that the new camera may look like E-10/20p or Dimage 5/7? Naaa, that's impossible... Regards Artur
Re: Oops - I did it again
- Original Message - From: David A. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:38 AM Subject: Oops - I did it again Yes, I spent more money :( Today's purchase is a nice little secondhand F*300mm f/4.5 lens. Its previous owner is doing a photography course, and since everyone else was using Nikon he sold his Pentax kit. And who am I to complain? Some other lenses he was selling were quite tempting but I eventually decided against them. I'm jealous Dave, I'm keeping my eye on that focal range now. Spending money is what it's all about, or we'd be rock collectors or something like that ;-) Would it be rude to ask the price you paid for it? Shame on the person that switched. I was surrounded with Nikons and Canons and Minolta, a Leica and even a Contax in my course. I wasn't fooled by the names!
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
At Photokina 2000 the digital SLR was to have been based on Pentax's flagship MZ-S film body and was to feature a full-frame six million pixel chip. Pentax User editor Peter Bargh reports that the full-frame chip is now likely to be displaced by an APS-size (24x16mm) sensor, and Pentax has confirmed that the MZ-S body is no longer the intended host platform. This is in agreement with what my source tells me. It is said that this digital camera will have a film sibling as well. And again, it is supposedly stunningly good looking. As such, the camera may be more similar to Pentax's EI2000 digital SLR (BJP, 29 November 2000). I doubt this is to be taken litterally; the EI2000 is certainly not a stunning looker. Anyhow, I suspect (but don't know why!) that the camera(s) have design clues taken from Pentax current digital efferings. Pål
RE: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
I think this was just a guess and an excuse to link to another of their articles. Interesting your idea that they may take design clues from these cameras though - will have to study them and try to build a composite of these crossed with a film SLR to see what the mind conjures up! -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] As such, the camera may be more similar to Pentax's EI2000 digital SLR (BJP, 29 November 2000). I doubt this is to be taken litterally; the EI2000 is certainly not a stunning looker. Anyhow, I suspect (but don't know why!) that the camera(s) have design clues taken from Pentax current digital efferings.
Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
My lens is solid. The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. You probably have a 28mm around, what's the big difference of 4 degrees? That much money? I have used both the FA 20-35mm f/4 AL and the FA*24/2 and the FA*24/2 is another league in regards to optical performance.
Re: Re[3]: Christmas cards
Hi herb, I installed the AIM XL profiler, downloaded from the link you provided and found, as expected, that the solver didn't work. I copied the two files to the directory where I had unzipped the other files, but still no go. But if the solver is started *before* the profiler it works fine. Welcome etc ... Now all I need is a target for my scanner. I'm using Excel version 10 (2002). Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
for sale
my grandpa and his friend have retired and gave me first look at their gear. I am selling their pentax gear on ebay. since a donot want to offend anyone email me off list for the link or if it is ok to post it
SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
Gang! I've heard different. An unimportant matter, but look at the cost is there a price difference, I emailed Pentax Canada after I was told here the FA* was cheaper, they gave me their list prices and they reflected that. Another, you see a lens, a bunch, you look a the lowest f-stop number, it's a seller despite what some may admit to. Many also group the SMCP FA 28-70mm f/4 AL with the SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. I have received different word from Pentax, they are quite apart. The price between them is vast. I got a hood with Pentax on it and a case, you get neither with the other. Also, weight, despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger is better (unless you really have to travel light, then that's another story) I know many here that are into digital technology, computers, printers, and really know their stuff. But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, nothing wrong with that, but it's there. And really, when it really comes down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More money and everything above. There's no ED glass, they probably designed and made the two AL elements at the same time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, all that stuff above, and a colour change too. Add a star and you can suck in the big buyers. I said, what's a star (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. Just ponder things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. Perhaps related or perhaps not, someone educate me. Is a SMC the same as an SMC? No working backwards, FA vs FA, they using a special SMC but don't tell you it's a ESCM (Extra)? Also, concerning the SMCP FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL [IF], a Pentax Rep I talked to said the formula/design/manufacture of this AL lens is a completely new and higher quality. Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? My thoughts open for complete debate, no put-downs, insults, but nice civil talk, chatty, friendly. Brad - Original Message - From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:10 AM Subject: Re: Wideangle Dilemmas My lens is solid. The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. You probably have a 28mm around, what's the big difference of 4 degrees? That much money? I have used both the FA 20-35mm f/4 AL and the FA*24/2 and the FA*24/2 is another league in regards to optical performance.
fa20-35 vs the fa 20mm
anyone used both, how does the zoom compare to the 20mm in terms of contrast and distortion. which is sharper? i tend to use 20mm more often but the range would be handy
tamron 70-210 sp 3.5 with pentax heliocoid extension ring as a zooming macro
i am currently thinking this maybe a good thing as it is a close focusing zoom anyone tried this lens before, is it sharp, how does it compare to the pentax 70-210 f4 macro and vivitar series 1 70-210 3.5. i already aquired a tamron 90mm 2.5 but the zooming convenence sounds good i can get it cheap wayne
Re: Oops - I did it again [A* vs F* 300's]
Dave: Some interspersed comments: Today's purchase is a nice little secondhand F*300mm f/4.5 lens. Congratulations. You picked up a really fine lens. The previous owner had modified the tripod shoe a bit as he thought it stuck out too far, so he had it shortened both in height and length. Looking at the photo on Boz's site it does look a bit like overkill. Perhaps you can post a photo of the modified mount? I really like the handling of this lens; it seems less front-heavy than the A*300mm f/4, and it focusses a lot closer. It definitely is less front heavy than the M*/A* 300/4 (that 77mm front element of the M*/A* lens ~has~ to weigh more than the 67mm front of the F* lens, of course). (However, the M*/A* lens actually weighs less in total than does the F* lens.) And the closer focusing (2m instead of 4m) is indeed a plus. However, The F* 300/4.5 is also larger (longer by about 3cm) than the M*/A* 300/4 - it's not a huge difference, but it's enough so that the A* (focused at infinity) does fit neatly in my camera bag, while the F* is simply too long (too tall) to fit (although your mileage may vary) (and it's heavier to lug around, too). And, despite the smaller front element in the F*, it is just as wide as is the M*/A* (due, of course, to the extra girth of the built-in hood - I'm assuming that this is not true with the FA* lens). (By the way, and not too surprisingly, the lengths of the M*/A* 300/4 and the IF-style F* 300/4.5 end up being almost exactly the same when focused close.) Of course, the F* lens looks nothing like the A* lens, and, subjectively speaking, I still prefer the looks of the A* (or, even better, the M*) 300/4 over either of the 300/4.5's (but your mileage may vary). The tripod shoe is well worth having. Indeed. As huge as the shoe is (especially compared to the nice A* 200/4 Macro tripod mount that can replace it), it is still nice to have. I would say that the tripod shoe is the main reason why the F* 300/4.5 still often sells for close to what the FA* 300/4.5 does. The built-in hood is quite interesting: you unscrew it, slide it out, then screw it into place. It actually makes sense; it seems a bit better than the bayonet-fitting hoods of the FA* lenses. It is better, in my opinion, than both the bayonet hood of the FA* and the sliding mini-hoods of the M*/A* (even though it took me a while to figure out how to fully use it - I had trouble securing it while extended at first - doh! - g). By the way, the separate screw-in accessory hood for the M* 300/4 (which obviously also fits the A* 300/4) is definitely worth having - it's not only longer than the M*/A*'s sliding hood, it's also a lot more secure in use. I don't like the MF/AF selection; you have to change the setting on both the lens and the body. Also you don't slide the whole focus ring: there is a separate ring at the camera end of the focus ring. I'm too used to the FA* lenses which disengage the body automatically when you set the lens to manual (and the clutch mechanism is much nicer in general). Owning mostly manual focus lenses (and only one FA lens, the FA* 85/1.4), I don't have any already-learned habits to break - g. I do wish that the gear train was disabled when using the clutch set for manual focusing (as it is, I understand, in the FA* 300/4.5), but I don't find the whirring feeling of the F* 300/4.5 to be as objectionable as on many of the clutchless autofocus lenses I have tried. Now if I end up liking this lens I may have to sell the beloved A* 300mm f/4 due to lack of use :( Well, I plan on keeping both the A* 300/4 and the F* 300/4.5. The F* is ultimately a sharper lens (as much as I hate to admit it - g), with a very effective hood, with pretty good manual focus feel, and with a solid if bulky tripod mount. However, it is also a bit slower, which is sometimes significant, and it is less portable due to its extra length. Fred
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas
on 14.11.02 13:58, Brad Dobo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, [cut] But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I think you are right. SMC-FA 20-35/4 is very good lens. According to prestigeuos German's magazine Foto Magazin this is one of the best super wide angle zooms on the market, superceded only by Nikkor 17-28/2.8. It has grade 9.6 (of 10) for optical performance and 9.0 for build quality. FA* 24/2 had only 9.0 for opticals, and 9.6 (as I remember) for mechanics! -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
-Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Gang! I've heard different. An unimportant matter, but look at the cost is there a price difference, I emailed Pentax Canada after I was told here the FA* was cheaper, they gave me their list prices and they reflected that. Price does not necessarily dictate quality when you are comparing apples with oranges (or primes with zooms). A lot more elements, gearing or whatever gubbins is needed for a zoom which puts the cost up. Also, a wide zoom is a very popular buy so they can get away with charging more perhaps. Another, you see a lens, a bunch, you look a the lowest f-stop number, it's a seller despite what some may admit to. Many also group the SMCP FA 28-70mm f/4 AL with the SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. I have received different word from Pentax, they are quite apart. The price between them is vast. Every lens is quite apart. The 28-70 F4 is a cracking little lens and was priced way below what it was worth. But as I said, these are different lenses - I would expect the 20-35 to be better at 28mm, but the 28-70 to be better at 70mm. Face it, standard range zooms sell cheaply unless they are F2.8 lenses. Wide angle zooms are accepted as being expensive and the aperture as being a compromise. That's just the marketplace and has nothing to do with the quality of the images created. Plus the 28-70 F4 was an old design dropped some time ago - the 20-35 is still for sale. I got a hood with Pentax on it and a case, you get neither with the other. Bully for you - does that make your lens take better pictures? Perhaps this accounts for some of the price difference you made so much of. Also, weight, despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger is better (unless you really have to travel light, then that's another story) Sorry, but that's complete tosh. Look at the use of new materials such as carbon fibre and magnesium these days, plus many modern plastics are very good. Granted there is often a correlation but that is largely coincidence and cannot be used as a guide to quality either of build or optics. I know many here that are into digital technology, computers, printers, and really know their stuff. But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, nothing wrong with that, but it's there. No opinion on this and not sure of its relevance here? And really, when it really comes down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More money and everything above. There's no ED glass, they probably designed and made the two AL elements at the same time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, all that stuff above, and a colour change too. Add a star and you can suck in the big buyers. I said, what's a star (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. Just ponder things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. This is just made up mumbo jumbo. The model name is the model name - no big deal. ED glass or whatever is just a marketing label. You get good glass and not so good glass whether the manufacturer labels them differently or not. But to the core of the matter. At last. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I disagree here. While the 20-35 is very good for a zoom, the 24 is unbelievably good for a prime. Night and day. Look at photodo for the mtf tests if you want. Perhaps related or perhaps not, someone educate me. Is a SMC the same as an SMC? No working backwards, FA vs FA, they using a special SMC but don't tell you it's a ESCM (Extra)? Not all SMC is the same - there are different flavours. I don't know the details so I will let someone else fill this in. Also, concerning the SMCP FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL [IF], a Pentax Rep I talked to said the formula/design/manufacture of this AL lens is a completely new and higher quality. The lens formula/design/manufacture of most lenses is different. OK so some may have general family resemblances but that's about it. If you mean the SMC formula, then yes it is different. The limited lenses (I think all of them, certainly the 77) and the 24-90 all have a 'ghostless' SMC coating. This is the latest flavour and is supposedly better for contrast and flare resistance. I cannot tell you if the coating lives up to this, but the 24-90 and 77 are very good in both these and all other respects. This is despite the fact that the 24-90 is light and has a high minimum F number which in your book would make it rubbish! Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? Do you need to ask that question? My thoughts open for complete debate, no put-downs, insults, but nice civil talk, chatty, friendly. Hopeully that's what I have done. If any of this comes across
Re: for sale
Hi WW, How are the Dixie Dance Kings doing? :-) On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:07:27 +1030, ww wrote: [...] I am selling their pentax gear on ebay. [...] Since you're the seller, go ahead and post it if you want. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Doug Franklin wrote: just use the monitor calibration in Photoshop, and I use the Epson Where is monitor calibration hidden in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Re[3]: Christmas cards
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:00:33 -0500, Herb Chong wrote: Beginning Color Management For Photographers Hey, Gary, put that one in the FAQ! :-) I dunno about that, but if he's got a series of writings on digital workflow, there's definatly a link to be had. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Re: Oops - I did it again
Even though my course is developing/darkroom, i know for sure we have 1 Canon Rebel,1 Minolta ?? and 2 K1000's (one from me:))So far the K1000's are producing nicer enlargements IMNSHOg Dave Begin Original Message From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was surrounded with Nikons and Canons and Minolta, a Leica and even a Contax in my course. I wasn't fooled by the names! End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada 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
Re: Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards
Good Quiry.I 'd like to see if they can do anything different than Adobe adjustments.I have calibrated my monitors several times,they are older 15 ones,and the print seems just a tad off from what i see on the screen.The print gives me what i think is the more natural looking colour,sere the monitor is off just slightly. Dave Begin Original Message From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:55:39 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Doug Franklin wrote: just use the monitor calibration in Photoshop, and I use the Epson Where is monitor calibration hidden in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com - photography and portfolio. End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada 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
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas
It appears we can all come up with reviews to support our views. This is part or the problem with reviews. There is sample variance, personal bias, different testing methods, different conditions during the tests, different rating systems for interpreting the results and so on... The figures you quote cannot be easily compared between a prime and a zoom. If they are subjective ratings then no comparison can be made as factors other than the quality at 24mm may be considered (eg the advantage that the zoom has by being able to shhot at 20mm and 35mm etc). If the ratings are calculated, then for a zoom this calculation will be totally different than for a prime as it has to take into account various readings at different focal lengths - therefore you cannot compare easily. Also, how does a calculated figure weight the readings at different apertures? If the apertures used are min, F8 and max for example then the fact that the 24 has a min of F2 which will likely be softer than the 20-35 at F4 would not help it. You need far more detail if you are to draw anything from these figures. The only true comparison is if you shoot both at 24mm of the exact same subject at the same exposure settings on the same camera at the same time. I doubt if any group test would have put these two back to back. However the FA*24/2 is semi-legendary in the industry and there must be a good reason for that. Its not like it can be due to Pentax marketing, is it? -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:sylwek;ozon.com.pl] Sent: 14 November 2002 13:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas on 14.11.02 13:58, Brad Dobo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, [cut] But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I think you are right. SMC-FA 20-35/4 is very good lens. According to prestigeuos German's magazine Foto Magazin this is one of the best super wide angle zooms on the market, superceded only by Nikkor 17-28/2.8. It has grade 9.6 (of 10) for optical performance and 9.0 for build quality. FA* 24/2 had only 9.0 for opticals, and 9.6 (as I remember) for mechanics! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Disaster strikes!
Pity! Take more care of you equipment. Alek Uytkownik Pl Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pl
RE: Disaster strikes!
I cant express how much I feel for your anguish. Much of my stuff is covered by my house insurance, but I keep thinking about getting proper specialist insurance. Was it the Nii? If not then at least you may now have an excuse to upgrade! Hard to find the positives in this one, sorry. Let us know how it works out. -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] Sent: 14 November 2002 15:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disaster strikes! My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål
RE: Disaster strikes!
-Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Ouch. Been there. I was not insured :-( Double ouch. Been there too. tv
Re: Disaster strikes!
My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Ooh, I'm very sorry to hear that, Paal - you have my condolences. ;-( Fred
Re: Disaster strikes!
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 09:07 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål That bites! I hope they can fix it for you. Time to get some insurance. Dan Scott
Re: for sale
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 06:37 AM, ww wrote: my grandpa and his friend have retired and gave me first look at their gear. I am selling their pentax gear on ebay. since a donot want to offend anyone email me off list for the link or if it is ok to post it Hi, I'll take a look. What's the URL? Dan Scott
Re: Disaster strikes!
In a message dated Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:07:44 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål Egad! Bummer. This is why I fear tripods. Admittedly I only have a K-1000 (so far) and a cheap tripod. And I've only used the tripod twice so far. But this is exactly the sort of thing I could see happening to me. Sympathy. Sympathy. Doe aka Marnie Parker
RE: Wideangle Dilemmas
Now this is more like it. Someone with actual experience. My opinion may differ from yours, but at least you have made your own opinion. What may affect my view is that I scan at 4000dpi - this makes you VERY aware of any differences. Also, how big are your prints? There is a world of difference between comparing 6*4 prints and comparing slides projected to 4 foot wide. -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:thomas;bigdayphoto.com] I own both and think you're wrong. I can't tell the prints apart. Maybe a test with an optical target would show the 24/2 to be slightly better at f4 or 5.6, but I certainly wouldn't say it's in another league. The 20-35/4 is amazingly sharp, and has excellent color and contrast. The 24/2 is obviously better suited for low-light work, which is where I use it. If I've got some light, I use the 20-35. tv
Re: OT Channel 4 Faking it
...pushing 50 means he might be only 46 or 7? Hmmm, you're showing _your_ age, Peter! I'll bet half the folks whose photos I've seen on this list are hovering around that pivotal age. Heh, heh... keith whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if any UK Pentaxidermists managed to watch this CH4 thing last night? The sight of a (pushing 50) cutting edge fashion photographer dandied up to the nines and professing disgust at field sports. HAR! Entirely watchable apart from the old buffoon. Let's hope I learn to grow old gracefully. ...now where's my cardy slippers. Kind regards Peter
Re: Disaster strikes!
on 14.11.02 16:07, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Very sad incident :-((( I hope you will get all repaired at lowest possible prices! -- Best Regards Sylwek
RE: Wideangle Dilemmas
-Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:Robert.Brigham;badger.co.uk] Now this is more like it. Someone with actual experience. My opinion may differ from yours, but at least you have made your own opinion. What may affect my view is that I scan at 4000dpi - this makes you VERY aware of any differences. Also, how big are your prints? There is a world of difference between comparing 6*4 prints and comparing slides projected to 4 foot wide. I agree. It also depends on how you shoot. Most of my shots are handheld available light sort of stuff - technique and film play a much more important role than resolution in these cases. If I'm using a tripod, I'm using the 645. Having said that, I've made a lot of 11x14's from each lens shot wide open that I've printed myself. The only difference that I can see is that the the light is lower when I'm shooting the f/2. I get great results from both lenses. On another note, someone said the 24/2 is big and heavy. I guess compared to a pancake lens it is, but it seems pretty light and compact compared to most of my other lenses. tv
Re: Filter Systems
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Dave Kennedy wrote: F 70-210 - 49mm (just got this used yesterday) F 50mm/1.7 - 49mm FA 28-70 - 52mm FA 28-200 - 77mm. Is the Cokin P system recommended? I bought a P holder and some filters for it because it was the only way for me to effectily filter my large format lenses. They don't have filter threads, I either had to use Series 6/7 push on rings or the COkin universal adapter. The Cokin system has teh added benefit of fitting on every thing I own with the universal ring. This ring makes it a little difficult to work with,, though, so I did end up buying a 49, 52, and 58mm rings. Should I buy into 77mm system ($$$) with stepup rings? (I'm more apt to go to a 52mm or 58mm and not use filters on the big lens) That's probably the easiest way, especially since between the 28-70/4 and the 70-210 you'll have the same lengths covered by a lens of lesser reputation. If you buy them all in the same size, with step up rings, you can cover it better.. I'd probably buy into either 52 or 58 if I were going with round. What would you do? Stick with the P series, and the few 49mm filters I have laying around, still. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re[2]: Disaster strikes!
Hi, Very bad luck to Pål - what a horrible thing to happen. If it had fallen into a crater of lava, or been swallowed by a duck, but this! Much of my stuff is covered by my house insurance, but I keep thinking about getting proper specialist insurance. It may not be necessary - you should check your house insurance first (if you haven't already). When all my stuff was stolen I was amazed, and very happy, to learn that I had a new-for-old policy which covered single items up to £1500-. On checking further I learned that it covered it anywhere in the world provided I wasn't using the equipment professionally. Hard to see how specialist insurance could beat that, except for professionals. --- Bob
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 05:42 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: This is in agreement with what my source tells me. It is said that this digital camera will have a film sibling as well. And again, it is supposedly stunningly good looking. Maybe this new body will take design cues from classic rangefinders, but marry that with k mount lenses. I can't see Oly 10/20 styling if the body is to have film counterpart. If it does look like a rangefinder, I hope it looks as cool as the Contax G2. My $ 0.02, Dan Scott
Re: fa20-35 vs the fa 20mm
I got some slides I shot back yesterday, on Provia 100 F, sharp as a tack, beautiful colours, any distortion that may or may not have been present didn't catch my eye. A Zoom to boot. Of course, zooms aren't bad are they? They're cheap, that's why everyone owns the FA* 250-600mm lens, cause manual zooms suck. HAR HAR! ;-) - Original Message - From: ww [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: fa20-35 vs the fa 20mm anyone used both, how does the zoom compare to the 20mm in terms of contrast and distortion. which is sharper? i tend to use 20mm more often but the range would be handy
RE: Disaster strikes!
Really sorry to hear it, Pal. Don't blame yourself too much. If you can buy your way out of a problem, it's not a problem, it's an expense ;=) I guess all of us will be watching cameras on tripods very closely any time it's windy. Best Regards, Alex -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disaster strikes! My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
In a message dated 11/14/02 8:03:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I agree. I would go for the 20-35mm myself and try to pick up a K24/2.8. Although I love primes, I tend to use zooms more often... The difference in quality really does not matter for most of us... (Oh boy I can't wait to see the responses on this one.) Vic
RE: Wideangle Dilemmas
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:thomas;bigdayphoto.com] I agree. It also depends on how you shoot. Most of my shots are handheld available light sort of stuff - technique and film play a much more important role than resolution in these cases. If I'm using a tripod, I'm using the 645. Ah, just about everything I use wides for is on a tripod or monopod - usually the former. Having said that, I've made a lot of 11x14's from each lens shot wide open that I've printed myself. The only difference that I can see is that the the light is lower when I'm shooting the f/2. So are you saying the 24 at f/2 is as good as the 20-35 at f/4? I get great results from both lenses. I don't doubt it, they are both fabulous. On another note, someone said the 24/2 is big and heavy. I guess compared to a pancake lens it is, but it seems pretty light and compact compared to most of my other lenses. I agree there. I see it as light compared to everything else I own.
wideangle dillema-Tokina 20-35
Shaun I was not referring to the 19-35. Tokina made a 20 -35 which is much better than the 19-35 in my understanding.. It is the one with the Yellow stripe on the lens. There are a few listed on E-bay I believe. These have gotten very good reviews. They came out before the 20-35 At-X /2.8. I had one and kick myself for selling it but I wanted cash for a SMC 15mm. Vic Hi Vic, Yep, been there done that. I have just sold a 19-35mm Tokina F/3.5-4.5. It was a solid little performer, however there was a little bit too much light fall-off in the corners. I am looking for a little bit more performance, and am prepared to pay for it. At this stage, I think I will go for the FA* 24mm, as everyone raves about it. Cheers Shaun Canning
Re: Oops - I did... Note on Fred's comments
In a message dated 11/14/02 8:39:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, I plan on keeping both the A* 300/4 and the F* 300/4.5. The F* is ultimately a sharper lens (as much as I hate to admit it - g), with a very effective hood, with pretty good manual focus feel, and with a solid if bulky tripod mount. However, it is also a bit slower, which is sometimes significant, and it is less portable due to its extra length. Fred Fred I would just like to say that I appreciate all your very knowledgable comments on the PDML. You do add a great deal to our collective knowledge. Keep up the great work. Vic
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
Price does not necessarily dictate quality when you are comparing apples with oranges (or primes with zooms). A lot more elements, gearing or whatever gubbins is needed for a zoom which puts the cost up. Also, a wide zoom is a very popular buy so they can get away with charging more perhaps. What I really hate is the prime crap that goes on in lists and groups. Fixed-focal or Zoom. No, wide zooms are in fact largely unpopular. It's only people like us that may but them and we don't make up much of Pentax profits. Everyone likes to think I don't know anything, too bad for you, I talk to those that do, a number of them. A quality wide zoom is just as good as a fixed one. Every lens is quite apart. The 28-70 F4 is a cracking little lens and was priced way below what it was worth. But as I said, these are different lenses - I would expect the 20-35 to be better at 28mm, but the 28-70 to be better at 70mm. Face it, standard range zooms sell cheaply unless they are F2.8 lenses. Wide angle zooms are accepted as being expensive and the aperture as being a compromise. That's just the marketplace and has nothing to do with the quality of the images created. Plus the 28-70 F4 was an old design dropped some time ago - the 20-35 is still for sale. Both you can still order. Both are being discontinued. I got a hood with Pentax on it and a case, you get neither with the other. Bully for you - does that make your lens take better pictures? Perhaps this accounts for some of the price difference you made so much of. Hardly on the price, and yes, I hood does help take better pictures, you aren't going to debate that are you?, tells you something of the value the company places the lens at. Also, weight, despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger is better (unless you really have to travel light, then that's another story) Sorry, but that's complete tosh. Look at the use of new materials such as carbon fibre and magnesium these days, plus many modern plastics are very good. Granted there is often a correlation but that is largely coincidence and cannot be used as a guide to quality either of build or optics. Tosh back at you, we have a large group that wants metal and something heavy. I know many here that are into digital technology, computers, printers, and really know their stuff. But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, nothing wrong with that, but it's there. No opinion on this and not sure of its relevance here? Goes with the statements above it. And really, when it really comes down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More money and everything above. There's no ED glass, they probably designed and made the two AL elements at the same time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, all that stuff above, and a colour change too. Add a star and you can suck in the big buyers. I said, what's a star (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. Just ponder things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. This is just made up mumbo jumbo. The model name is the model name - no big deal. ED glass or whatever is just a marketing label. You get good glass and not so good glass whether the manufacturer labels them differently or not. Hardly. Do you know the price on the FA* Zoom 250-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF]??? Or the A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] or the M Reflex 2000mm F/13.5? Could you afford one of them? Does that Zoom lens above suck? ED glass is not a marketing label. It's very different from all the cherished lenses mentioned in here with God-like status that are 20 years old. But to the core of the matter. At last. Now now, you don't just start with the core. Where is the core of the Earth? The centre? Middle? Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I disagree here. While the 20-35 is very good for a zoom, the 24 is unbelievably good for a prime. Night and day. Look at photodo for the mtf tests if you want. See, I put no value at all on thinks like this photodo mtf stuff. Sorry. Too many unanswerable questions come up from looking at that, if you think beyond the pixels on the screen, examine the source, how they did it, what equipment tested these, what statistical procedures were used and are they suitable, press me and I'll come up with a hundred more, and they're all valid :) For a zoom. Zooms of old got bad names because they were not good, consumer zoom now are much better, better than you fixed 20 year lens guys would like to admit, and the higher end zooms are just as good as a quailty fixed. I've had that drilled into my head from a few hard expert (or close) sources, none here, certainly not on the web! Perhaps related or perhaps not,
RE: Wideangle Dilemmas
-Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:Robert.Brigham;badger.co.uk] Having said that, I've made a lot of 11x14's from each lens shot wide open that I've printed myself. The only difference that I can see is that the the light is lower when I'm shooting the f/2. So are you saying the 24 at f/2 is as good as the 20-35 at f/4? It's kind of apples to oranges due to DOF and the sort of light you have at f/2 vs. f/4, but yes, more or less. tv
Re: Re[2]: Disaster strikes!
Bob, I just check with my Insurance Agent and it works the same with my insurance policy. How are equipment values assessed for older equipment? Would they replace a K 85mm f/1.8 with a FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited; an LX with a MZ-S? I am just wondering how it worked for you... Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2002/11/14 Thu AM 09:51:33 CST To: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: Disaster strikes! Hi, Very bad luck to Pål - what a horrible thing to happen. If it had fallen into a crater of lava, or been swallowed by a duck, but this! Much of my stuff is covered by my house insurance, but I keep thinking about getting proper specialist insurance. It may not be necessary - you should check your house insurance first (if you haven't already). When all my stuff was stolen I was amazed, and very happy, to learn that I had a new-for-old policy which covered single items up to £1500-. On checking further I learned that it covered it anywhere in the world provided I wasn't using the equipment professionally. Hard to see how specialist insurance could beat that, except for professionals. --- Bob
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
Brad, One big factor you are forgetting is speed of lens and for the zooms, constant aperture. Your new lens is constant aperture whereas the 24-90 is not. Also the FA *24 is a stop and a half faster than your new lens. Also, generally speaking, when you start going wide, zooms have more barrel and pincushion distortion than primes. For many applications this does not matter, but for some it might. The cost to gain a stop is significant and the cost to correct for distortion is significant. It drives the price up faster on a lens than would seem logical. HTH, Bruce Thursday, November 14, 2002, 4:58:32 AM, you wrote: BD Gang! BD I've heard different. An unimportant matter, but look at the cost is there BD a price difference, I emailed Pentax Canada after I was told here the FA* BD was cheaper, they gave me their list prices and they reflected that. BD Another, you see a lens, a bunch, you look a the lowest f-stop number, it's BD a seller despite what some may admit to. Many also group the SMCP FA BD 28-70mm f/4 AL with the SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. I have received different BD word from Pentax, they are quite apart. The price between them is vast. I BD got a hood with Pentax on it and a case, you get neither with the other. BD Also, weight, despite what some may admit to, heavier the better. Bigger is BD better (unless you really have to travel light, then that's another story) BD I know many here that are into digital technology, computers, printers, and BD really know their stuff. But this is a sort of 'old-fashioned' group. Now, BD nothing wrong with that, but it's there. And really, when it really comes BD down to crunch time, what's a star (*) worth? More money and everything BD above. There's no ED glass, they probably designed and made the two AL BD elements at the same time practically (that I cannot back up at all, but a BD suspicion). A star (*) is a Nikon or Canon, etc, basically, all that stuff BD above, and a colour change too. Add a star and you can suck in the big BD buyers. I said, what's a star (*) worth? I didn't say it's worth nothing. BD Just ponder things and don't pull up web tech specs. and all that. BD But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL BD or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't BD comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. BD Perhaps related or perhaps not, someone educate me. Is a SMC the same as an BD SMC? No working backwards, FA vs FA, they using a special SMC but don't BD tell you it's a ESCM (Extra)? BD Also, concerning the SMCP FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL [IF], a Pentax Rep I BD talked to said the formula/design/manufacture of this AL lens is a BD completely new and higher quality. Anyone? Or are Reps just stupid? BD My thoughts open for complete debate, no put-downs, insults, but nice civil BD talk, chatty, friendly. BD Brad BD - Original Message - BD From: Paul Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BD Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:10 AM BD Subject: Re: Wideangle Dilemmas My lens is solid. The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL. You probably have a 28mm around, what's the big difference of 4 degrees? That much money? I have used both the FA 20-35mm f/4 AL and the FA*24/2 and the FA*24/2 is another league in regards to optical performance.
OT Channel 4 Faking it
I wonder if any UK Pentaxidermists managed to watch this CH4 thing last night? The sight of a (pushing 50) cutting edge fashion photographer dandied up to the nines and professing disgust at field sports. HAR! Pseuds corner, anyone? Entirely watchable apart from the old buffoon. Not a Pentax in sight but even so Let's hope I learn to grow old gracefully. ...now where's my cardy slippers. Kind regards Peter
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas
Hey Rob! - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:15 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas - It appears we can all come up with reviews to support our views. --snip-- (and fair remarks) You need far more detail if you are to draw anything from these figures. The only true comparison is if you shoot both at 24mm of the exact same subject at the same exposure settings on the same camera at the same time. I doubt if any group test would have put these two back to back. Well, I had another MZ-S and the FA* 24/2, I would, and I have just the guy who can tell us what is what. (uh-oh ;)) Well, it wouldn't be hard to find someone to use them side by side, having a trusted pro that both agree on do the work, all equal, take the shots. Then look at them. Pro looks. Same? Differrent? Go high power mag? Difference now? Blow the suckers up, difference? If the guy says well, one is better this way, the other herewhat do you have, like I said, basically the same thing. One's cheaper, but they are close, so want that f2 or fixed, or want the zoom and wider angle? Choose on that. However the FA*24/2 is semi-legendary in the industry and there must be a good reason for that. Its not like it can be due to Pentax marketing, is it? Is there such a thing as Pentax marketing? ;-) Comes down to I never said the Zoom was better, was throwing out thoughts, ideas, considerations, biases in the group. If you pressed me to buy just for quality even if it only shows with an electron microscope), with my limited knowledge, I'd go with the FA* 24/2. It's nice, I would have had it now if I hadn't got Pentax Canada involved in getting me the lens like I did. I found out after that it was cheaper. I figured it would be a heck of a lot more money. Why is it so cheap anyhow? (innocent question) anyone know? Regards, Brad -Original Message- From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:sylwek;ozon.com.pl] Sent: 14 November 2002 13:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas on 14.11.02 13:58, Brad Dobo at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad, [cut] But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I think you are right. SMC-FA 20-35/4 is very good lens. According to prestigeuos German's magazine Foto Magazin this is one of the best super wide angle zooms on the market, superceded only by Nikkor 17-28/2.8. It has grade 9.6 (of 10) for optical performance and 9.0 for build quality. FA* 24/2 had only 9.0 for opticals, and 9.6 (as I remember) for mechanics! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Photoshop collages on Web site
Great stuff Vic.I can see some usefull applications at the horsey end.I'm sending my yearbook to the copiers Monday,i dont think i can fiqure that out in a couple of days.Have to stick with what i got for now. I quess thats what cold Canadian winters are for eh:) Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:53:16 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Photoshop collages on Web site In an earlier discussion about different ways to use photoshop, I mentioned that I enjoy doing collages of my daughter's skating team. I managed to put a few on my web site for anyone who is interested Here is the site. Click on thumbnails for bigger shots. http://hometown.aol.ca/pentxuser/collagethumbs.html PS - the Chocolat collage was done at the end of last year. The team skated to the Chocolat soundtrack so I incorporated some of the graphics from the movie into the image along with medals they won and tickets to get into some of the events. The shadows on the tickets etc. End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada 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
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
Vic, I think everyone is pretty sensible on this. They both appear to all of us from all our various sources and experiences and whatever, to be really very much the same. If you're a fixed guy, you know the one you want, or if you want low light, the same. If you want wider and have some room to move, you've got the other. The pics are gonna be the same for all/most intents and purposes. Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:12 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas In a message dated 11/14/02 8:03:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I agree. I would go for the 20-35mm myself and try to pick up a K24/2.8. Although I love primes, I tend to use zooms more often... The difference in quality really does not matter for most of us... (Oh boy I can't wait to see the responses on this one.) Vic
OT: Stereo Realist
Now that I've gotten into shooting 35mm print/slide film (using a Pentax -- see I am keeping it slightly on topic ;-)), it got me wondering about the old Stereo Realist I have packed away. From the 1950's, the last time that I used it it still worked. (It may not now, of course). Anyway, I was wondering, didn't it use 35mm slide film? Couldn't I just pop some into it to try it out? Course then I would have to find some place to develop the slides. Probably Longs (the local drugstore chain) or most of the local mid-priced photo labs couldn't do it. I doubt there is a lot of call for it these days. TIA, Doe aka Marnie Parker :-)
FS : AF360FGZ Flash
After getting back the last couple of rolls taken with the 67II and my portable lighting setup, I have decided that I need more power to deal with DOF issues with MF. In order to help finance some new Alien Bees, I am selling one of my AF360FGZ's. Aside from the power of the AF500FTZ, this is the most versatile flash from Pentax. It has Manual (multiple power settings), Auto (f-stop selectable - not just one or two ranges), TTL for PZ series and later and PTTL for MZ-S and MZ-6, wireless operation and built in slave functionality. The flash is in LN condition including case, original box and Lumiquest SoftBox. Asking USD $150.00 or best offer. Bruce
Re: Photoshop collages on Web site
You said it Dave.. In a message dated 11/14/02 12:05:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great stuff Vic.I can see some usefull applications at the horsey end.I'm sending my yearbook to the copiers Monday,i dont think i can fiqure that out in a couple of days.Have to stick with what i got for now. I quess thats what cold Canadian winters are for eh:) Dave
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm long boring ramble
Brad I agreed with you that I would buy the 20-34/4 over the 24/2 but not because they are equal and that modern zooms are equal to primes. Life is a compromise and so too are lenses. The problem photographers get into (I think) is getting too anal about the quality of the lenses. You can have the greatest lens in the world but if you don't use it, it is not much good. (Bear with me here folks) An average performing lens in the hands of a capable photographer with good technique will result in better pictures than a great lens with poor technique. In addition, if you are taking pictures for yourself, or even for publication at no bigger than say 11 by 14, I don't think it really matters. Good technique is the more important factor than the quality of the lens. Okay, the 24/2 will give a better image (all else being equal) than the 20-35f4. But I doubt anyone could really see the difference anyway so who cares. Now the zoom is much more useful than the straight 24, so in my book it wins out. I will use it more than the straight 24 and I wouldn't care about the slight increase in quality I would get from the 24mm. But to say the zoom is equal to the 24 is going too far. It might be as sharp but distortion would likely be more, contrast probably would not be as good etc etc. Does it matter, in 95 per cent of the time no, in 5 per cent --maybe. Now the other issue is photographers always wanting the best possible lens. Why? Because we feel that, all else being equal, we do not want inferior images because we cheaped out on the glass. It's a good argument providing the photographer's technique is flawless. If technique is not perfect we might as well use cheap, third rate glass. The final argument of course is the whole low light argument where the 24 gives you that extra stop. I say fine if you want to shoot wide open and accept softer images great. The main reason I like fast lenses is not to shoot them wide open, but the nice bright view through the camera's finder... My rambling is getting out of hand... Vic
Re: Filter Systems
Rob Brigham wrote: The Cokin P size should just about be OK for you, although 77mm lenses is about its limit. Cokin only sell grey(ish) grads though - they are far from neutral IIRC, the reputedly very good Singh-Ray grads are sized for Cokin P (84mm) and Lee (100mm). http://www.singh-ray.com/table.html Regards, Stephen
Re[4]: Disaster strikes!
Hi, I had to deal with a photo equipment supplier nominated by my insurance company. The supplier provided me with a list of items that he thought were equivalent to my stolen items (which were LXs and A, A*, M and K manual focus lenses). This established an approximate figure for the replacement value (retail). Based on this value I came up with my own list of preferred replacements, which were significantly cheaper. The supplier put it to the insurers, the insurers agreed and before you could say 'Cheese!' 2 enormous boxes full of shiny things arrived at my house. My preference is for manual focus equipment. Because Pentax didn't do a full range of manual focus lenses, and no current body that was even close to the LX, and because I don't in general like the Pentax AF equipment, I changed brand. I don't know how things would have worked out if my stolen gear had been more current. --- Bob Thursday, November 14, 2002, 4:34:01 PM, you wrote: Bob, I just check with my Insurance Agent and it works the same with my insurance policy. How are equipment values assessed for older equipment? Would they replace a K 85mm f/1.8 with a FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited; an LX with a MZ-S? I am just wondering how it worked for you... Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez
Re[2]: SMCP FA 20-35mm long boring ramble
Vic, Quite reasonable rambling. I would add to it two things. 1) The other factor of zooms vs. primes is purely what one enjoys using. Much like saying that a PZ-1p or MZ-S can run circles around a SuperProgram or MX. Some just prefer the style and handling and subsequent flow that goes with one or the other. I personally find that using a prime helps me (forces me) to be more conscientious about my shots (including better technique). This doesn't mean that the zoom couldn't be used identically, just that I tend to be more sloppy and quick. Ideally it would be nice to have a set of primes and good zooms and pick the right tool at the right time. Unfortunately for me, I can't justify both - too many other things taking up my funds. 2) Faster lenses as you say gives you the ability to see in the viewfinder easier. When I shoot weddings, I find frequently that receptions are in very dim lighting. Focusing is a real issue and any speed here helps - not shooting aperture, just viewing aperture. However, the other big advantage of a faster lens is the ability to have a greater range of DOF control. There are times when I like to be able to open up to blur the background more. 3) Sorry, just thought of another. Many times there are compromises in zooms where closest focusing is not anywhere near the equivalent prime. Not always true, but quite often. Bruce Thursday, November 14, 2002, 9:08:08 AM, you wrote: Pac Brad I agreed with you that I would buy the 20-34/4 over the 24/2 but not Pac because they are equal and that modern zooms are equal to primes. Pac Life is a compromise and so too are lenses. The problem photographers get Pac into (I think) is getting too anal about the quality of the lenses. You can Pac have the greatest lens in the world but if you don't use it, it is not much Pac good. (Bear with me here folks) Pac An average performing lens in the hands of a capable photographer with good Pac technique will result in better pictures than a great lens with poor Pac technique. In addition, if you are taking pictures for yourself, or even for Pac publication at no bigger than say 11 by 14, I don't think it really matters. Pac Good technique is the more important factor than the quality of the lens. Pac Okay, the 24/2 will give a better image (all else being equal) than the Pac 20-35f4. But I doubt anyone could really see the difference anyway so who Pac cares. Pac Now the zoom is much more useful than the straight 24, so in my book it wins Pac out. I will use it more than the straight 24 and I wouldn't care about the Pac slight increase in quality I would get from the 24mm. Pac But to say the zoom is equal to the 24 is going too far. It might be as sharp Pac but distortion would likely be more, contrast probably would not be as good Pac etc etc. Does it matter, in 95 per cent of the time no, in 5 per cent --maybe. Pac Now the other issue is photographers always wanting the best possible lens. Pac Why? Because we feel that, all else being equal, we do not want inferior Pac images because we cheaped out on the glass. It's a good argument providing Pac the photographer's technique is flawless. If technique is not perfect we Pac might as well use cheap, third rate glass. Pac The final argument of course is the whole low light argument where the 24 Pac gives you that extra stop. I say fine if you want to shoot wide open and Pac accept softer images great. The main reason I like fast lenses is not to Pac shoot them wide open, but the nice bright view through the camera's finder... Pac My rambling is getting out of hand... Pac Vic
Re: OT: Stereo Realist
My local drugstore sends E-6 slide film out to kodak for development. A week and $8 later, you have 36 mounted slides in a box. -Mat On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Course then I would have to find some place to develop the slides. Probably Longs (the local drugstore chain) or most of the local mid-priced photo labs couldn't do it. I doubt there is a lot of call for it these days.
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:Wideangle Dilemmas
-Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Well, I had another MZ-S and the FA* 24/2, I would, and I have just the guy who can tell us what is what. (uh-oh ;)) Careful - you may just get 'enabled'! Well, it wouldn't be hard to find someone to use them side by side, having a trusted pro that both agree on do the work, all equal, take the shots. Then look at them. Pro looks. I may not be a pro (or even a good amateur), but I have used both on my MZ-S and drew my conclusions from slide projection and 4000dpi scanning. Same? Differrent? Go high power mag? Difference now? Blow the suckers up, difference? If the guy says well, one is better this way, the other herewhat do you have, like I said, basically the same thing. One's cheaper, but they are close, so want that f2 or fixed, or want the zoom and wider angle? Choose on that. Yeah, one is better at 24mm, the other is better at all other focal lengths between 20 and 35 ;-) However the FA*24/2 is semi-legendary in the industry and there must be a good reason for that. Its not like it can be due to Pentax marketing, is it? Is there such a thing as Pentax marketing? ;-) My point exaclty! Comes down to I never said the Zoom was better, was throwing out thoughts, ideas, considerations, biases in the group. Ah, it appears I misunderstood you then. I hope you don't see me as biased against zooms either - I have 8 of them to 2 primes. If you pressed me to buy just for quality even if it only shows with an electron microscope), with my limited knowledge, I'd go with the FA* 24/2. You see I already had the Sigma 17-35 which while not as good as the 20-35 is very good and goes wider. Most of my wide shots tend to be at either 17mm or 24mm. So it made sense for me to get the best 24mm and stick with the sigma for a versatile 17! FWIW I wouldn't buy the 24 without also having a wide zoom, but 20 is not wide enough for me. It's nice, I would have had it now if I hadn't got Pentax Canada involved in getting me the lens like I did. I found out after that it was cheaper. I figured it would be a heck of a lot more money. Why is it so cheap anyhow? (innocent question) anyone know? Its not that cheap in the UK! The 24 is £539 and the 20-35 is £439!
RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
If I was starting from scratch to cover the wide end and could only have one, then I might go for the 20-35. However I already had the Sigma 17-35 and to be honest I like this too. For a wideangle zoom the 20-35 just doesn't go wide enough. My compromise was for ultimate quality at the most used length, and a pretty good ultra wide zoom. I would not class the 20-35 as ultra wide. There are many pics that a 17 can make really well that a 20 just couldn't even attempt. See http://www1.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=94777 for an example or the type of thing I am talking about. To summarise: The 20-35 is the best available one box compromise, but is not the master of either scenario - for optical quality you want a prime and for versatility you want to go wider. I await with interest the new ultra wide zooms from Pentax next year... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser;aol.com] Sent: 14 November 2002 16:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas In a message dated 11/14/02 8:03:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But to the core of the matter. Which is better? The SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL? I know the general opinion, and I just won't comment. Except that any difference in image quality is small, very. I agree. I would go for the 20-35mm myself and try to pick up a K24/2.8. Although I love primes, I tend to use zooms more often... The difference in quality really does not matter for most of us... (Oh boy I can't wait to see the responses on this one.) Vic
Re: Disaster strikes!
What an awful fate for a good camera, Pål. Hope they can fix the lens at least. Fingers crossed for the camera too. If it's just the plastic that broke, there may be hope. Check if you can get something back on your innboforsikring insurance. Jostein - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:07 PM Subject: Disaster strikes! My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål
OT: Slide Storage
I have slides that need proper storage. Presently they are in their original boxes, numbered and titled. I have two rolls of slides in plastic sleeves. The processor sent them that way. Over time I think the slides in the processor plastic sleeves have acquired some scratches from removing them and putting them back. I would like to find a plastic sleeve storage system that doesn't result in scratched film from the lip of the sleeves. Any recommendations? DG
Re[2]: OT: Stereo Realist
Best to check around for a local lab. Even pro labs aren't that expensive for slides. My local lab does E-6 and 2-3 hours and $7 later, I have 36 mounted slides in a box. Everywhere I have lived, I have found some labs that do E-6 and all have been reasonably priced. Just don't use someone that sends it out. They will send it to the lab you would have taken it to and charge you something extra for their trouble. Bruce Thursday, November 14, 2002, 9:28:29 AM, you wrote: MM My local drugstore sends E-6 slide film out to kodak for development. MM A week and $8 later, you have 36 mounted slides in a box. MM -Mat MM On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Course then I would have to find some place to develop the slides. Probably Longs (the local drugstore chain) or most of the local mid-priced photo labs couldn't do it. I doubt there is a lot of call for it these days.
Re: Re[2]: SMCP FA 20-35mm long boring ramble
Hey Bruce, wasn't that long! This to me is a big feature. Not because I can say 'that's a lot of glass' or want it for low-light, but a bright viewfinder, yes! You are so right! That's why I love to turn to my SMCP FA 50 f/1.4 it's great! Howeverwhat do you shoot at these events? First, I'll tell you mine. I'm there to drink and see if I can pick up a very hot woman/girl. Second. Obviously, I'm shooting just for fun. I trust the AF on my MZ-S, so having the f/4 is fine. I in those cases always use the centre/spot focus. Can't go wrong. I tried it. Shoot 2 cheap 24 exp rolls outside in backyard and inside. One was my best at manual focus, turning off the audible alert and trying not to look at the focus indicator (which in these cases, I find unreliableanyone else?) Some were not sharp, one was really blurred. The other roll with AF and centre/spot every one sharp and crisp. So I trust it. (plus I where eyeglasses) 2) Faster lenses as you say gives you the ability to see in the viewfinder easier. When I shoot weddings, I find frequently that receptions are in very dim lighting. Focusing is a real issue and any speed here helps - not shooting aperture, just viewing aperture. However, the other big advantage of a faster lens is the ability to have a greater range of DOF control. There are times when I like to be able to open up to blur the background more.
RE: Disaster strikes!
What is that? -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:jooksne;online.no] Check if you can get something back on your innboforsikring insurance.
Re: Filter Systems
Thanks for the info (to all who replied), sounds like the Cokin P filter system will be going on to my Christmas list :-) So are there any must-have filters? dk --- gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Dave Kennedy wrote: I bought a P holder and some filters for it because it was the only way for me to effectily filter my large format lenses. They don't have filter threads, I either had to use Series 6/7 push on rings or the COkin universal adapter. The Cokin system has teh added benefit of fitting on every thing I own with the universal ring. This ring makes it a little difficult to work with,, though, so I did end up buying a 49, 52, and 58mm rings. What would you do? Stick with the P series, and the few 49mm filters I have laying around, still. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. = Dave Kennedy Arnprior, Ont. Canada. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Re: OT Faking it
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/14/02 at 01:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: |Does having women around you with their boobs out put you off your |work? |Rob |Send some round I will tell you. I have no objections to womens' husbands and boyfriends my self Bran -- --- Any Discordian is expressedly forbidden to believe what she reads. -Discordian Catma [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: OT Faking it
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 11/14/02 at 01:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: |Does having women around you with their boobs out put you off your |work? |Rob |Send some round I will tell you. I have no objections to womens' husbands and boyfriends my self Bran -- --- Any Discordian is expressedly forbidden to believe what she reads. -Discordian Catma [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: Re[2]: Disaster strikes!
On Thursday 14 November 2002 18:40, Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Thursday, November 14, 2002, 5:46:45 PM, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:jooksne;online.no] Check if you can get something back on your innboforsikring insurance. What is that? it's an arrangement for the payment of a sum of money, or replacement, in the event of loss or damage to his innboforsikring. g --- Bob I gamble that sikring is insurance, so it would be damage or loss to his innbofor? -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
RE: Disaster strikes!
I am so sorry Pal. That is such a sad thing to happen. I dropped my PZ1-p and my 80-320 a few weeks ago and had to buy a new lens. I have no idea how I would feel losing my 645n. My heart goes out to you. I hope it can be repaired. Good Luck, Glen O'Neal -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Disaster strikes! My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål
Re: Re[2]: Disaster strikes!
On Thursday 14 November 2002 20:06, Frits Wüthrich wrote: On Thursday 14 November 2002 18:40, Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Thursday, November 14, 2002, 5:46:45 PM, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:jooksne;online.no] Check if you can get something back on your innboforsikring insurance. What is that? it's an arrangement for the payment of a sum of money, or replacement, in the event of loss or damage to his innboforsikring. g --- Bob I gamble that sikring is insurance, so it would be damage or loss to his innbofor? No, surely forsikring must be insurance, so it is about his innbo. -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
MZ-S: great body and performance, shame about the back cover
Hi everyone, I've been working with the MZ-S for over six weeks now - I did two fashion shoots and used it on a project that I'm doing on strip clubs, where it took a pretty nasty knock on the top plate (courtesy of a rather irate customer) and survived it without any obvious problems. I've put eighty six rolls through it - somehow with this camera you just know ;-) - and I am very happy with the way it performs. This camera was criticised by some magazine reviewers in this country for not having enough bells, whistles, dials and push buttons, but for someone who wants a lightweight and inconspicous metal body with only the relevant features, its possibly the only choice unless you consider rangefinders. I find the six zones metering, in particular, to be fantastic. It really makes cameras with five hundreds zones lightmeters look like James Bond/ Fisher Price technology. I've also been using the BG-10 grip, which I find to be very well designed and solid and the (excellent) AF 360 FGZ flash. The only (minor) criticism of the MZ-S's performance I would have is that the winder is a bit slow: an extra 0,5 fps shouldnt have been impossible to squeeze in. However, I'm fine with it now that I got used to its rhythm. The build quality is very good, but, IMHO, with one (major) exception - the back cover. The back cover of the MZ-S is of the same quality of those found on £ 200 entry-level slrs. Its completely made of lightweight plastic, including the hook of the lock. The corresponding hook on the body is also made of plastic, whereas the back plates of other upper range cameras have rock solid components, often with a double locking mechanism to prevent accidental opening and ensure that if the camera is dropped, the back will not open and fog the film - which is the worst that could happen to a working photographer. I suppose that for general use it does the job, allthough it still feels flimsy (it clicks and creeks slightly when squeezed) for a £700 camera. I wonder if Pentax have a Nikon or Canon saboteur in their design team :-), - and I reckon that they should address this issue by bringing out an alternative pro back, made of metal or and without the date function, because, again IMHO, the present back plate disqualifies the camera from the slr upper echelons - which, considering how good the rest is, is silly. Andrea London, UK.
Re: Pentax K2 and K1000 dimensions
They are not the same. The K1000 and K2 are two different camera platforms. [snip] Yes. I think that you'd find the KM and the KX both share the same basic body framework with the later K1000, while the K2 is a whole different critter, Bruce. And, obviously, the K2DMD is a modified K2, the KM MOT a modified KM, the KX MOT a modified KX, and the K1000 SE a modified K1000. The K2's basic guts morphed into the innards of the ME and especially the ME Super, despite their diminutive size. The KX (and the KM, to a lesser degree), perhaps evolved into the MX (also with a moderate shrinkage). The K1000 didn't really evolve - it basically lumbered along until probably the dies in the factory for making its parts plumb wore out - g. It was eventually replaced with the ZX-M/MZ-M, which more or less filled its niche, even though built entirely differently. Gee, I miss my KX and my K2 black beauties - sniff. But I digress... Fred
OT: Einbausicherung! (was Re[4]: Disaster strikes!
Hi, surely forsikring must be insurance, so it is about his innbo. as in 'vorsicherung' or whatever the Dutch word is - sounds plausible. 'Sicher' being related to security and safety and, I suppose '-sikring'. Perhaps 'innbo' is related to 'einbau', which means 'installation', 'bau' being to do with building (or farming? bauer, boer etc.!). So innbosikring must be building insurance. How dull - I thought it might be something to do with pubs (inn), arms merchants (bofor) and curry (sikring). --- Bob Thursday, November 14, 2002, 8:27:48 PM, you wrote: Check if you can get something back on your innboforsikring insurance. What is that? it's an arrangement for the payment of a sum of money, or replacement, in the event of loss or damage to his innboforsikring. g --- Bob I gamble that sikring is insurance, so it would be damage or loss to his innbofor? No, surely forsikring must be insurance, so it is about his innbo.
Re: for sale
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?MyeBayItemsSellinguserid=da_facultypass=oPGYxEpeMLF7Cdtp5UuJA12first=NsellerSort=3bidderSort=3watchSort=3dayssince=20 Dan Scott wrote: On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 06:37 AM, ww wrote: my grandpa and his friend have retired and gave me first look at their gear. I am selling their pentax gear on ebay. since a donot want to offend anyone email me off list for the link or if it is ok to post it Hi, I'll take a look. What's the URL? Dan Scott
Re: for sale
http://cgi6.ebay.com/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?MyeBayItemsSellinguserid=da_facultypass=oPGYxEpeMLF7Cdtp5UuJA12first=NsellerSort=3bidderSort=3watchSort=3dayssince=20 Doug Franklin wrote: Hi WW, How are the Dixie Dance Kings doing? :-) On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:07:27 +1030, ww wrote: [...] I am selling their pentax gear on ebay. [...] Since you're the seller, go ahead and post it if you want. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Fw: Leonid Observing Tips
- Original Message - From: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Leonid Observing Tips NASA Science News for November 14, 2002 The 2002 Leonid meteor storm is due on Tuesday, Nov. 19th. A NASA expert offers practical advice to meteor watchers who wish to observe the display. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/14nov_leonidtips.htm?list44343 9
Re: Disaster strikes!
Sorry to hear that, Pal! :-( Hopefully some of the damaged equipment is salvageable or repairable. regards, frank Pål Jensen wrote: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: Leonid Observing Tips
What is the best aperture to set for photographic such celestial events??? Glen -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:jooksne;online.no] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Leonid Observing Tips - Original Message - From: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Leonid Observing Tips NASA Science News for November 14, 2002 The 2002 Leonid meteor storm is due on Tuesday, Nov. 19th. A NASA expert offers practical advice to meteor watchers who wish to observe the display. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/14nov_leonidtips.htm?list44343 9
Re: Photoshop collages on Web site
Nice work. Did you do all the photograpy as well as the PhotoShop compositing? And congratulations as well on your daughter's achievment. As I mentioned earlier, my daughter is also a synchronized skate team member. It's proved to be a very valuable experience for her. The physical activity is, of course, rewarding in itself, but learning to perform under pressure while working with a group is an extremely valuable life lesson. Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an earlier discussion about different ways to use photoshop, I mentioned that I enjoy doing collages of my daughter's skating team. I managed to put a few on my web site for anyone who is interested Here is the site. Click on thumbnails for bigger shots. http://hometown.aol.ca/pentxuser/collagethumbs.html PS - the Chocolat collage was done at the end of last year. The team skated to the Chocolat soundtrack so I incorporated some of the graphics from the movie into the image along with medals they won and tickets to get into some of the events. The shadows on the tickets etc.
Re: Disaster strikes!
I am sorry to hear of your misfortune. I lost a Speed Graphic many years ago when I was trying to photograph a jet engine powered drag race car. I got my shot as the car was leaving the starting line and let go of the camera just in time to have the exhaust blast blow my tripod over. Good luck with your repairs. Paul Pål Jensen wrote: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål
Pentax Posters
Hey folks, Anyone have a link or links of the poster? The bigger the better, wanna show it to someone without having to take mine out of the tube until it's mounted. Thanks, carry on, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: great body and performance, shame about the back cover
- Original Message - From: Andrea Rocca [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: MZ-S: great body and performance, shame about the back cover . The back cover of the MZ-S is of the same quality of those found on £ 200 entry-level slrs. Its completely made of lightweight plastic, including the hook of the lock. The corresponding hook on the body is also made of plastic, whereas the back plates of other upper range cameras have rock solid components, often with a double locking mechanism to prevent accidental opening and ensure that if the camera is dropped, the back will not open and fog the film - which is the worst that could happen to a working photographer. I suppose that for general use it does the job, allthough it still feels flimsy (it clicks and creeks slightly when squeezed) for a £700 camera. I wonder if Pentax have a Nikon or Canon saboteur in their design team :-), - and I reckon that they should address this issue by bringing out an alternative pro back, made of metal or and without the date function, because, again IMHO, the present back plate disqualifies the camera from the slr upper echelons - which, considering how good the rest is, is silly. Andrea London, UK. Ya, I love my to pieces, but the back cover was a disappoint the moment I saw it. My MZ-5n QD cover with an AF button. Weak, doesn't seem to fit the rest of the camera. As well, while it's a very rare time I use the date feature, but I thought perhaps they'd update it a bit, it's exactly the same as every other, would have liked to see something along the lines of what Nikon or Canon has. Brad
P-3 vs ZX-M
Any reason why a user should prefer one over the other in equivalent used condition? Dan Scott
Portfolio Presentation?
Hi, I have to put together a folio of around 12-15 images, the prints will be 8x10s, i've got that far! But now my next hurdle is how to display them, so i'm after assistance from the group! My current thought process is to make them into some sort of book (spiral bound). With all the images mounted in black card (12 square?) and the mounts used as the book pages,. I though i'd make the pages square so that it would allow for some shots to be horizontal and some vertical. (i'm just throwing ideas out here). Any ideas greatly appreciated? Thanks, Paul Jones
Re: P-3 vs ZX-M
I'm not familiar with the P-3, but I recently replaced my dead ME-Super with a near mint P-30t and have been very pleased with it. Bill - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:58 PM Subject: P-3 vs ZX-M Any reason why a user should prefer one over the other in equivalent used condition? Dan Scott
Re: Pentax Posters
On 14 Nov 2002 at 17:48, Pentax Guy wrote: Hey folks, Anyone have a link or links of the poster? The bigger the better, wanna show it to someone without having to take mine out of the tube until it's mounted. Try here: http://digilander.libero.it/pentaxday/pday7/poster7b.jpg Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Portfolio Presentation?
-Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] My current thought process is to make them into some sort of book (spiral bound). With all the images mounted in black card (12 square?) and the mounts used as the book pages,. I though i'd make the pages square so that it would allow for some shots to be horizontal and some vertical. (i'm just throwing ideas out here). What are you showing? How often will it change? I think the slickest way to do it is with a print box. You can get them from http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/ Find the link to portfolio boxes. People like to pick things up and look at them. If you're meeting with several people at once, they don't have to crowd around a book. tv
RE: Leonid Observing Tips
The 2002 Leonid Meteor Storm - how to photograph it on Monday Nov. 18-19 (by luminous landscape) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/leonides-2002.shtml -Original Message- From: Jostein [mailto:jooksne;online.no] Sent: 14 November 2002 22:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: Leonid Observing Tips - Original Message - From: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NASA Science News [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Leonid Observing Tips NASA Science News for November 14, 2002 The 2002 Leonid meteor storm is due on Tuesday, Nov. 19th. A NASA expert offers practical advice to meteor watchers who wish to observe the display. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/14nov_leonidtips.htm?list44343 9
Re: wideangle dillema-Tokina 20-35
I have this particular lens, and I've been very pleased with it. It's build quality is a few steps above their typical consumer stuff -- it's pretty solid, and the price on it used was very reasonable. It is a little bit mushy around the edges at 20 wide open, otherwise I've been happy with its sharpness. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:25 AM Subject: wideangle dillema-Tokina 20-35 Shaun I was not referring to the 19-35. Tokina made a 20 -35 which is much better than the 19-35 in my understanding.. It is the one with the Yellow stripe on the lens. There are a few listed on E-bay I believe. These have gotten very good reviews. They came out before the 20-35 At-X /2.8. I had one and kick myself for selling it but I wanted cash for a SMC 15mm. Vic Hi Vic, Yep, been there done that. I have just sold a 19-35mm Tokina F/3.5-4.5. It was a solid little performer, however there was a little bit too much light fall-off in the corners. I am looking for a little bit more performance, and am prepared to pay for it. At this stage, I think I will go for the FA* 24mm, as everyone raves about it. Cheers Shaun Canning
Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards
- Original Message - From: gfen Subject: Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards Where is monitor calibration hidden in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? In Photoshop, it is called Adobe Gamma, and ends up in the control panel on Windows machines. I don't know about Adobe Elements. William Robb
Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation?
Hi Tom, Thanks for the link they look perfect! and i will be showing it to a number of people so it would be better if they could pass the images around. I just have to work out how deep i need the box to be, i'm guessing 1inch deep, 2 might be over kill. Thanks, Paul - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: RE: Portfolio Presentation? -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] My current thought process is to make them into some sort of book (spiral bound). With all the images mounted in black card (12 square?) and the mounts used as the book pages,. I though i'd make the pages square so that it would allow for some shots to be horizontal and some vertical. (i'm just throwing ideas out here). What are you showing? How often will it change? I think the slickest way to do it is with a print box. You can get them from http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/ Find the link to portfolio boxes. People like to pick things up and look at them. If you're meeting with several people at once, they don't have to crowd around a book. tv
Re: P-3 vs ZX-M
I would go with the ZX-M. It has more shutter and aperture priority that the P-3 does not have. It also has a built in motor drive. A quick look at Boz's web sit will give the full list of features on both. The main distracion on the ZX-M is it does not have a metal lens mount. Jim Fellows - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:58 PM Subject: P-3 vs ZX-M Any reason why a user should prefer one over the other in equivalent used condition? Dan Scott
Re: Re[2]: Christmas cards
Hi William, On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:27:57 -0600, William Robb wrote: In Photoshop, it is called Adobe Gamma, and ends up in the control panel on Windows machines. That's the one I was thinking about ... I don't believe it's included with Elements. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
I try to envision an OPTIO body with my SMC-A 400mm/f5.6 on it. Hum... On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:45, Rob Brigham wrote: I think this was just a guess and an excuse to link to another of their articles. Interesting your idea that they may take design clues from these cameras though - will have to study them and try to build a composite of these crossed with a film SLR to see what the mind conjures up! -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:paaljensen;sensewave.com] As such, the camera may be more similar to Pentax's EI2000 digital SLR (BJP, 29 November 2000). I doubt this is to be taken litterally; the EI2000 is certainly not a stunning looker. Anyhow, I suspect (but don't know why!) that the camera(s) have design clues taken from Pentax current digital efferings. -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
RE: Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation?
Get them professionally matted, and make sure they put on those little metal corners. Tell them what you're doing, otherwise they might leave the edges a bit rough. -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085 -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation? Hi Tom, Thanks for the link they look perfect! and i will be showing it to a number of people so it would be better if they could pass the images around. I just have to work out how deep i need the box to be, i'm guessing 1inch deep, 2 might be over kill. Thanks, Paul - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: RE: Portfolio Presentation? -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] My current thought process is to make them into some sort of book (spiral bound). With all the images mounted in black card (12 square?) and the mounts used as the book pages,. I though i'd make the pages square so that it would allow for some shots to be horizontal and some vertical. (i'm just throwing ideas out here). What are you showing? How often will it change? I think the slickest way to do it is with a print box. You can get them from http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/ Find the link to portfolio boxes. People like to pick things up and look at them. If you're meeting with several people at once, they don't have to crowd around a book. tv
Re: Pentax K2 and K1000 dimensions
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The K1000 didn't really evolve - it basically lumbered along until probably the dies in the factory for making its parts plumb wore out - g. It was eventually replaced with the ZX-M/MZ-M, which more or less filled its niche, even though built entirely differently. BTW: Bernie's Camera here in Pittsburgh still has a new, in-the-box K1000 on the shelf! It's one of the late, Chinese made (plastic top and bottom plates) models and I didn't ask about the price, but if anyone wants one it's there. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation?
How big do you go for the prints and matts in your folio? Paul - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: RE: Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation? Get them professionally matted, and make sure they put on those little metal corners. Tell them what you're doing, otherwise they might leave the edges a bit rough. -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.bigdayphoto.com 301-758-3085 -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Q!Re: Portfolio Presentation? Hi Tom, Thanks for the link they look perfect! and i will be showing it to a number of people so it would be better if they could pass the images around. I just have to work out how deep i need the box to be, i'm guessing 1inch deep, 2 might be over kill. Thanks, Paul - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:18 AM Subject: RE: Portfolio Presentation? -Original Message- From: Paul Jones [mailto:pdml;nrg666.com] My current thought process is to make them into some sort of book (spiral bound). With all the images mounted in black card (12 square?) and the mounts used as the book pages,. I though i'd make the pages square so that it would allow for some shots to be horizontal and some vertical. (i'm just throwing ideas out here). What are you showing? How often will it change? I think the slickest way to do it is with a print box. You can get them from http://www.lightimpressionsdirect.com/ Find the link to portfolio boxes. People like to pick things up and look at them. If you're meeting with several people at once, they don't have to crowd around a book. tv
Greywolf stuff
I think I screwed up my address book's Greywolf mail list. I accidentally deleted a few names from the list. I think I replaced them all, but if you didn't recently receive an e-mail from me with the subject line Greywolf PayPal Update, please contact me so I can get your name back on the list, and send you info about the PayPal account, or my address, or whatever you need. Sorry to be such a pain, but I'm not really very good at this computer stuff! :-( -frank -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: P-3 vs ZX-M
Sure, the P3 has a sharper and bigger viewfinder, if not brighter. The viewfinder of the MZ-M is horrible imo. regards, Alan Chan Any reason why a user should prefer one over the other in equivalent used condition? _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
Hey Bruce, I mentioned the speed, in the form of everyone wanting a lower f number and the larger, heavier glass. Your second paragraph I'm reading two ways. The increase in speed costs, we all know that, so it drives the cost up. So it's funny that an FA* with f/2 is cheaper than mine. You would think, it being an FA* (whatever * really means) and an f-stop of 2 instead of four would make it considerably more? Or I read it as to correct for the distortion, as you talk about in the first paragraph, also costs money, which would drive mine up. I don't know the exact difference in price, but the FA* is cheap, by a bit, how small a bit or large, cannot remember. So, where does this leave us? Brad, One big factor you are forgetting is speed of lens and for the zooms, constant aperture. Your new lens is constant aperture whereas the 24-90 is not. Also the FA *24 is a stop and a half faster than your new lens. Also, generally speaking, when you start going wide, zooms have more barrel and pincushion distortion than primes. For many applications this does not matter, but for some it might. The cost to gain a stop is significant and the cost to correct for distortion is significant. It drives the price up faster on a lens than would seem logical. HTH, Bruce
