Re: If you left Pentax, what Scurvy Dawg system would you invite into your life?
Firstly Nikon, then Canon --- Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd go Olympus, or mebbe Nikon. This thread should flare on for a while. -Lon __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
Pål wrote: PJ I'm not so shocked by this real possibility at all. After all, the PJ 35mm format doesn't make much sense for digital. Older lenses can PJ still be used whereas newere digital only lenses could be made PJ better, cheaper and smaller. I don't feel that moving to a lower sensor size has anything to do with maintaining a SLR system, which is the whole point with preserving the current 35mm lens mount. Few of the existing 35mm lenses (and most of us have quite a few) will be of any use for their intended purpose - focal ranges will shift, special qualities will be lessened. I can't see what I might do with half of my lenses mounted on an APS sensor camera. I'll have to drop them entirely and have it replaced with APS lenses that fit the original bill. Then I'll end up with 2 different systems, one for film and the other one for digital, so where's the point in staying with Pentax after all? Don't tell me that some specialized photography like sports will benefit - I couldn't care less. Most of us came to build well balanced, optimized systems that fill their needs - breaking it will destroy the very idea of system. Pentax might as well come up with another mount. No difference here from the Olympus four thirds proposition. At least they were outspoken from the very beginning. PJ If the APS sized sensors can achieve results that rivals 35mm PJ film, then I see no reason why such a standard should not be set. PJ Such camera will be far more cost effective compared to full PJ frame DSLR with larger sensors and lenses. Most people won't give PJ rats ass about the size of the sensor; results and $$$ is going to PJ matter. Oh really? Let's see about it: $$$? - having to buying several new APS lenses will defeat the original saving on the body. Of course Pentax will be happy to sell you more and help ypu build a new ssytem. results? - current APS sized 6 MPixel cameras are not convincing at all in a digital versus film argument, at least not to me. Just because today's scanners are poor in exploiting film capabilities (see Nyquest sampling frequency theorem) doesn't mean digital delivers better quality. This is just wishful thinking from digital owners part. I always saw the undersized sensors as a transition stage. I don't see any reason why in the not so distant future the industry won't be able to build full frame sensors, having the adequate potential to surpass film capabilities. All one has to do is to consider optical limitations to see why small sensors are reserved for point and shoot cameras. If Pentax goes this route they will simply content themselves to build substandard cameras, and believe me, sensor resolution will be a more serious argument when comparing cameras than today's ludicrous synchro speed and fps. Servus, Alin
Stupid ad and funny
http://www.epinions.com/Pentax_SMCP_A_400mm_f_5_6_Telephoto_Lens__Lens_24570 /display_~full_specs The SMCP-A 400mm f/5.6 telephoto lens is power zoom and auto focus. It can be manually focused and zoomed on all Pentax bayonet camera bodies. With 6.2 degree viewing angle, it provides all program exposure modes. Power zooms to what? 400mm-400mm?! ;-) And autofocus The google search put the FA* version as the description for this lens toogeez. Anyone want to tell me how to use these features? I seem stuck at 400mm and have only MF!!! It can't be 'zoomed' on my MZ-S or my MZ-5n! ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
KMP Update, updated FS list
Hi all, I have just uploaded the next KMP release. You will find mostly small corrections and additions to the Lenses and Teleconverters pages, and some major changes in the Bodies section. Now there is an individual page for each camera body, just like with lenses and teleconverters. I have updated the To Do list, and now it contains every single piece of missing information on bodies, lenses and teleconverters. Do not be shy, take a look, and see if you can help me fill up some of the holes. Finally, I've also updated my For Sale list. There you will now find a black ME F, a black KM, and a K1000 SE. Also a few interesting lenses. And last but not least, I've updated the Authors list to include all those people who have written to me with corrections and additions. Cheers, Boz http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/ http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/TODO.txt http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/for_sale/ -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: Bruce R
Sorry William but if your coming to his defence or trying to excuse his behaviour than you should apply that kind of response to all members of this list, regardless of lenght of time they've been year or how full their heads are with information. I find it hard to belive that you can react so gentlemanly when and correct me if I'm wrong your were threating to have some members reported to their ISP's for so called pro-nazi behaviour not too long ago. Having the ability to PRESENT much needed information is in my humble opinion so much more important than than actually having the knowledge in the first place. Feroze - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Bruce R For the record, when I was having a knock down flame war with Bruce, I was also having a problem with an MX. I posted a question to the list regarding said problem. Within a half hour, I had my answer, in an easy to follow format. From Bruce Rubenstein. No one else on this list had a clue, or if they did, they couldn't be bothered with answering. To me, that makes up for a hell of a lot of abrasiveness, especially when we, as a group, have asked for it. William Robb
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Hi William, If the employer owns the work, does that include the negs as well or just the right to reproduce the images and the negs stay in the photographers possession? Feroze - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:29 AM Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. - Original Message - From: Dan Scott Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. What if someone else fires the shutter, but you design and set up the shot? Are you the photographer or is he? What if it's his camera and he's getting paid for the shot? What if ... Well, lets look at this sewiously. If you design and set up the shot, you are the photographer. The person tripping the shutter is a pawn, the same way the make-up person or any other assistant would be. I have been on many shoots where I am the person behind the camera, operating as a technician, for others who are employing me in that capacity. From an ownership perspective, you need to go back to the employment and copyright laws in your country. In my country, copyright is generally held by the person who is paying for the job. In your example, I presume the person taking the picture is an employee of the photographer. In all cases of an employee employer relationship, the employer owns the work of the employee, whether the employee supplies the tools or not. William Robb
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
- Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?) I don't feel that moving to a lower sensor size has anything to do with maintaining a SLR system, which is the whole point with preserving the current 35mm lens mount. Few of the existing 35mm lenses (and most of us have quite a few) will be of any use for their intended purpose - focal ranges will shift, special qualities will be lessened. I can't see what I might do with half of my lenses mounted on an APS sensor camera. I'll have to drop them entirely and have it replaced with APS lenses that fit the original bill. Then I'll end up with 2 different systems, one for film and the other one for digital, so where's the point in staying with Pentax after all? Don't tell me that some specialized photography like sports will benefit - I couldn't care less. Most of us came to build well balanced, optimized systems that fill their needs - breaking it will destroy the very idea of system. Pentax might as well come up with another mount. No difference here from the Olympus four thirds proposition. At least they were outspoken from the very beginning. Here, though, is the conundrum. For me to move to a digital SLR, I would find it preferable to have backwards compatability with the 30 or so lenses I already own, whether or not the chip size causes an effective shft in focal range. I can live with that, I don't really see it as that big an issue. I can live with buying a few more short focal lenghts, or perhaps a short focal length zoom to get the wide angles, but I won't happily repurchase 30 lenses. I would much rather learn to shift focal lengths, use my 35mm f/2 as a standard, my 50mm f/1.4 as a portrait, etc. Perhaps this is my pro background showing, perhaps just pragmatism. William Robb
Re: Just another Sandinavian report. Longish.
Out shooting some bands at a concert in late summer I was more or less picked up by this young woman who very much wanted to become a model. Well, she was nice and funny, and very persistent. (And she said that she felt I was just the right person for it - Any of you guys that would have been able to resist... :-) I _don't_ beleeve it. Peter
Re: PROS
I don't think that you personally need a camera anymore either. There was a collection of photographs in the NY Times Magazine section a few weeks ago by a photographer that works more like a film director. There's a very large crew and the person who ultimately pushes the button is only the camera operator. Now you don't even need to touch the camera to be the photographer. BR From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you do have to have a camera to be a photographer though.
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Someday, I am going to have to read up on Canadian copyrigth law. Of course in my last look around I found that apparently some lobbying has been done re copyright here in the US, as there are now several types of work that are defined as WFH unless otherwise agreed. Which was one of the things the new copyright law was supposed to get away from. That is it had the same rules in all cases. Now it changes depending what you are doing. And, no Mr Mrs Joe Public were not included in those catagories. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:01 AM Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. Hi William, If the employer owns the work, does that include the negs as well or just the right to reproduce the images and the negs stay in the photographers possession? In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the employer owns the work. Why shouldn't he? He is paying to have it done. I don't see why this is such a hard concept, most of us have jobs, we have employers, and whatever work comes off our desks is owned by that employer. Being a photographer employed by someone else is no different in concept from being a factory worker building the camera the photographer uses. The employer owns whatever it is you have created, and you don't get ownership in it. Creativity is a commodity that is bought and sold every day. Any time you solve a problem at work, you have just sold your creativity. William Robb
Mettle, metal
He tests his metal more often, in other words. You mean mettle? Woo hoo, I just corrected an editor!! Oh, yes, you're right. I was thinking of Ezra Pound's dictum from the _ABC of Reading_, The amateur does not test his metal in the acid of accepted fact or words to that effect (quoting from distant memory). And there's nothing at all unusual about me making an error. As any editor will tell you, error is robust, correctness frail and fleeting. --Mike
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Is this what Pentax is up to?)
Maybe I don't understand this . . . As I understood it, the old K mount lenses would work fine with a new APS sensor with a 1.5 or so factor. The new new digital lenses would not work with the 35 mm film cameras (old or new) becuase of lack of coverage. This seems OK to me. Pentax will produce some uniquely digital lenses so that they can make wide angle digitals for a reasonable price. They can still make 35 mm lenses for film cameras (and digitals.) the big loss might be RD money diverted to these new D lenses which won't go to 35 mm film research. I think that there may be some realization that only the APS sized sensor is going to be economically viable in the near future (10 years) so that the MFG's want to get some stuff out there in a lower price range. I really think they are all aiming for a sub $1000 DSLR. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
Bojidar wrote: First of all, releasing lenses with smaller coverage circles seems to indicate that the APS-sized digitals are here to stay. Like Alin, I too had hoped that they are only for-the-time-being solutions. It might be that this move is just a way to get proper wide angles for the APS size sensors DSLR. It's the only reasonable way to do it. On the other hand, if these cameras and lenses takes off saleswise, theres a real danger that the manufacturers will expand the new lens lines. If Pentax decides to build such smaller-coverage lenses, even if they are K-mount, this will mean the end of the unrivaled K-mount compatibility. And let's face it, this is the only real advantage of Pentax's SLRs. Yes, they build small and cute cameras, but that's just a plus and not a real argument. But this could be said about all DSLR cameras; Nikon, Canon etc. The main problem with DSLR's so far is price. Smaller sensors equal lower prices. Lower prices are needed in order to achieve volume and profitability. As long as not full frame DSLR exist, making lenses designated for them surely makes more sense than not making such lenses (in practical terms leaves you without the option of a wide wide-angle) If I cannot use my A20/2,8 as a 20-mm lens on a future digital camera, then I have no reason to stick to Pentax and their slowness in extending their SLR technology. So you only want a full frame DSLR? Fair enough but such cameras are still too expensive to give much commercial sense. Pål
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
I am, for one, would be glad to see the new lenses, as long as Pentax continues the backward-compatibility with the old ones. I want to use the old lenses on DSLR. Not the new ones on LX. Faec it, it's like complaining that 35mm lenses don't cover the whole 6x7 circle. Who gives? Besides, a potential to have a decent tiny 10-100 f/1.4 zoom for DSLR is waaay too cool lo be overlooked. Best, Mishka Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: - If Pentax decides to build such smaller-coverage lenses, even if they are K-mount, this will mean the end of the unrivaled K-mount compatibility. And let's face it, this is the only real advantage of Pentax's SLRs. Yes, they build small and cute cameras, but that's just a plus and not a real argument.
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Well, Bruce, I didn't ask why. Everyone knows it's about attempting to control others through inflicting pain. This is what I don't understand. Don't you know that control is an illusion? - but thanks for your sententious description of me. Regards from, Piss Face Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's individuals who are pissing in the community water hole, Piss Face, that's why. From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand having passion. I understand contentious attacks on ideas. I understand combative debates over facts. I don't understanding attacking people who've not harmed you.
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
I guess the part I don't understand is why Nikon would release a lens covering the smaller sensor when they've got a full-frame coming out? Do they think full-frame prices will never come down? On a related note, I understand the argument that a smaller sensor may be sufficient to equal the quality of 35mm, but if a full-frame sensor can be expected to rival medium format then that's the one I want. Maybe they think the smaller sensor will surpass 35mm at some point. I'm confused. I'll wait and see what Pentax does, but I have to admit I'm concerned. I was content with the pace at which Pentax released new cameras in the past because I knew the quality of my prints depended on the lenses, not the camera. This is no longer true with digital - the body is no longer just a light-tight box. The sensor goes a long way towards determining the quality of your prints, and if Pentax is constantly 2 or 3 or 4 generations behind...well, that just wouldn't be a good thing. tv
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging?
With respect to focal length, APS sized sensors only have a negative effect on wide angle. So yes, you might have to burn a 200-500 dollar hole to get that new wide angle zoom or prime. But compare that to what happens to your telephoto lenses such as the 200/2.8 or 300/4.5. The savings there greatly outweighs the cost a new wide angle. Mark Mark makes a good point. I have just bought a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 which is supposed to be quite a performer. This lens cost me all of 300 bucks mint unused. The effective focal length on the D60? 136mm f1.8! Could be my latest and greatest portrait lens. Okay, it's no A*135mm f/1.8, but it's also nearly a grand less in price though. Anyone with a Pentax 15mm 3.5 or 85 1.4, hold onto those if you're deciding about digital and Pentax still. You'll need the 15mm without a doubt. If Pentax do change the mount, and therefore the lens system, who's to say they won;t provide an adapter for (even manual focus) of all those legendary lenses? Still watching this one folks. Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Just another Sandinavian report. Sheeeesh.
Out shooting some bands at a concert in late summer I was more or less picked up by this young woman who very much wanted to become a model. Well, she was nice and funny, and very persistent. (And she said that she felt I was just the right person for it - Any of you guys that would have been able to resist... :-) I _don't_ beleeve it. Believe. Scandanavians shrug :-) Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Re: OT: Mailing photos
Just don't use thin cardboard.I sent out several pictures lately in soft cardboard,some arrived ok and 2 were bent in half to fit into a rural mailbox,even with the do not bend contains photos hilited in yellow. Complaint to Canada Post went nowere,as anticipated. Dave Begin Original Message From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:07:23 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Mailing photos Most office supply/stationary stores sell flat stiff mailers in sizes up to 11X14 or so. At 12:32 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: I've done some 8x10 prints for friends for Christmas, and I'm planning on sending them out soon. How should I package them so that they don't get damaged? Should I look for mailing tubes, or use cardboard to try and keep them flat? Any other suggestions? thanks, -Mat 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: Mike's Brief Harrumph
Two things: There is clearly no clear distinction between an amateur and a pro that one cannot nitpick about. The most obvious distinction is based on earning a reasonable part of one's income from photography, the key and controversial word being reasonable. The pro/amateur camera distinction is more interesting , however, since it's based on the amateur having less demanding needs and using the camera less, both of which may be untrue. A pro camera is often called such because of the number of features, the quality of those features, and durability. Since there is obviously no photographic Rubicon to cross here, a camera becomes pro through a sufficient accumulation of enough of these. The real argument for most people is how much of any of these need to be present in the camera they want, and how much they are willing to pay for that combo. The second thing is way OT. I do notice that Email contains more word substitution than normal text, like metal for mettle. I suspect the spell checkers contribute to this more than we know, since we often make mistakes with the spell checker and send it off quickly.
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Is this what Pentax is up to?)
Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Is this what Pentax is up to?) Maybe I don't understand this . . . As I understood it, the old K mount lenses would work fine with a new APS sensor with a 1.5 or so factor. They would work, but I'm not so sure about fine. I think that lenses designed strictly for a smaller image circle would have higher resolution than one's designed to cover the 43mm diagonal of a full 35mm frame. This in already occuring with Pentax Lenses. Their 6X7 lenses are not as sharp as their 35mm lenses, even if you only use the central portion of the 6X7 lenses. I think that there may be some realization that only the APS sized sensor is going to be economically viable in the near future (10 years) so that the MFG's want to get some stuff out there in a lower price range. I really think they are all aiming for a sub $1000 DSLR. 10 yrs? No way. Kodak has just released a $4K SLR with 14Mp and a 35mm size sensor. $1K SLR with same specs should only take a few years, maybe 5 at the most. JCO
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging?
-Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] With respect to focal length, APS sized sensors only have a negative effect on wide angle. So yes, you might have to burn a 200-500 dollar hole to get that new wide angle zoom or prime. But compare that to what happens to your telephoto lenses such as the 200/2.8 or 300/4.5. The savings there greatly outweighs the cost a new wide angle. Mark Mark makes a good point. I have just bought a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 which is supposed to be quite a performer. This lens cost me all of 300 bucks mint unused. The effective focal length on the D60? 136mm f1.8! Could be my latest and greatest portrait lens. Okay, it's no A*135mm f/1.8, but it's also nearly a grand less in price though. It's not quite that simple. What will we do for a 50/1.4? 24/2? Even if Pentax decided to release a 35/1.4, how many folks would be happy to shell out $1000 for what is basically a 50/1.4?! For those of us who prefer to shoot below at 85mm or less, we're basically hosed. However, the thought of the 50/1.2 becoming a 75/1.2 *is* pleasant to contemplate tv
Re: Naked without a camera.
At 01:01 PM 12/13/2002 +, Cotty wrote: I also don't want to clip some box on my belt that's a power unit! (It'll probably be only available in Japan only) My pants will fall down!! Guess I'm gladly out of the digital game for a long while! There are reports of an accessory hat with two power units mounted on either side, much like the much lauded and technologically advanced beer hat of the '70s. I understand that as the power units discharge, the waste heat is scavenged and reused in the winter for ear warming. That's got to be a Cotty project. I'm onto it :-) You know we'll want photo's. Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm
Either the oil is getting thick, (dirty), or the return spring is getting fatigued. A cleaning will most probably fix the problem, (if you can find someplace to do the repair). It might be difficult to justify the cost however. At 12:11 PM 12/13/2002 +, you wrote: Would some of you SMC-A 20mm 2.8 owners check the action of the diaphragm via the lever on the lens please. I have just bought one and it seems very sluggish. Most of my other Pentax lenses snap shut, but they do vary in their snappiness. This 20mm 2.8 glides shut and it seems scarcely fast enough to fully close when set at f22 with a fast shutter speed. I'm wondering if it's faulty. Thanks Anton ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging?
It's not quite that simple. What will we do for a 50/1.4? 24/2? Even if Pentax decided to release a 35/1.4, how many folks would be happy to shell out $1000 for what is basically a 50/1.4?! You guys dont understand. A 35mm F1.4 lens designed for a smaller sensor will be as cheap to produce as a 50mm F1.4 for 35mm or even cheaper. A nice side effect is it will be smaller than a full frame 35mm design. For those of us who prefer to shoot below at 85mm or less, we're basically hosed. However, the thought of the 50/1.2 becoming a 75/1.2 *is* pleasant to contemplate tv Changing the sensor size does not make a 50mm F1.2 lens into a 75mm. Youll just be recording a smaller part of the same image. It's like cropping. JCO
RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm
Among other things the lens automatically works correctly in stop down mode on un-coupled devices and when mounted reversed. It can be a pain to try to use certain 3rd party m42 lenses on un-coupled extension tubes or for that matter a K to M42 adapter since they lack auto manual switches. Pentax saved a few yen per lens by removing the need for those switches on the K-mount. At 07:52 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Anybody know why pentax flip-flopped their aperture actuation when they went to k-mount? On the screwmount lenses the aperture is normally held OPEN by a spring and is forced closed by the camera at the time of exposure. On the kmounts the spring holds the aperture CLOSED, and the camera forces it open except at time of exposure it lets go and the spring does the work. At least when the spring gets weak with the screwmounts, the lens can still be used manually. Not so with the kmounts. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm Anton Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would some of you SMC-A 20mm 2.8 owners check the action of the diaphragm via the lever on the lens please. I have just bought one and it seems very sluggish. Most of my other Pentax lenses snap shut, but they do vary in their snappiness. This 20mm 2.8 glides shut and it seems scarcely fast enough to fully close when set at f22 with a fast shutter speed. I'm wondering if it's faulty. I think you have a problem. The diaphragm in my A20/2.8 is just as zippy as any other lens I have. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthis what Pentax is up to?)
I thought about the Kodak camera. The problem here is finding the sweet spot of price and resolution. Once they start releasing APS senor lenses, they'll have a certain commitment to that format and the smaller sensor will always be a cheaper camera. After all, $1000 is cheap for a DSLR but still high for a film SLR. Still, predicting this stuff is damned hard. I also suspect that there is some film APS lens technology out there that is being transferred to the digital side. 10 yrs? No way. Kodak has just released a $4K SLR with 14Mp and a 35mm size sensor. $1K SLR with same specs should only take a few years, maybe 5 at the most. JCO Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll wait and see what Pentax does, but I have to admit I'm concerned. I was content with the pace at which Pentax released new cameras in the past because I knew the quality of my prints depended on the lenses, not the camera. This is no longer true with digital - the body is no longer just a light-tight box. The sensor goes a long way towards determining the quality of your prints, and if Pentax is constantly 2 or 3 or 4 generations behind...well, that just wouldn't be a good thing. Well if the latest trend is toward lenses with smaller-than-standard image circles to go with APS-sized digital sensors, I would prefer it if Pentax *were* 3 or 4 steps behind. If this were to be the one area in which they decided to be on the leading edge it would truly suck, erm...I mean hoover :( -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
Even with the lessor requirements of the APS format sized format I doubt such a lens would be 'Tiny'. At 05:48 PM 12/13/2002 +0300, you wrote: I am, for one, would be glad to see the new lenses, as long as Pentax continues the backward-compatibility with the old ones. I want to use the old lenses on DSLR. Not the new ones on LX. Faec it, it's like complaining that 35mm lenses don't cover the whole 6x7 circle. Who gives? Besides, a potential to have a decent tiny 10-100 f/1.4 zoom for DSLR is waaay too cool lo be overlooked. Best, Mishka Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: - If Pentax decides to build such smaller-coverage lenses, even if they are K-mount, this will mean the end of the unrivaled K-mount compatibility. And let's face it, this is the only real advantage of Pentax's SLRs. Yes, they build small and cute cameras, but that's just a plus and not a real argument.
Re: Re: OT: Mailing photos
Never underestimate the Idiocy of the postal services. To insure something from being bent my guess you'd have to mail it with a 1/8th inch steel plate as backing. Even then someone might just take it as a challenge. At 10:35 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Just don't use thin cardboard.I sent out several pictures lately in soft cardboard,some arrived ok and 2 were bent in half to fit into a rural mailbox,even with the do not bend contains photos hilited in yellow. Complaint to Canada Post went nowere,as anticipated. Dave Begin Original Message From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:07:23 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Mailing photos Most office supply/stationary stores sell flat stiff mailers in sizes up to 11X14 or so. At 12:32 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: I've done some 8x10 prints for friends for Christmas, and I'm planning on sending them out soon. How should I package them so that they don't get damaged? Should I look for mailing tubes, or use cardboard to try and keep them flat? Any other suggestions? thanks, -Mat 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
=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Re: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this w=
hat Pentax is up to?)?= Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: onet.poczta Hi, You are right. If we cannot use out nice manaual lenses and even new FA ones on future dslr it would be the end of Pentax in slr market. I do hope it will be the truth. Alek uytkownik Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Hi, What bad feeling I have about this... First of all, releasing lenses with smaller coverage circles seems to indicate that the APS-sized digitals are here to stay. Like Alin, I too had hoped that they are only for-the-time-being solutions. If Pentax decides to build such smaller-coverage lenses, even if they are K-mount, this will mean the end of the unrivaled K-mount compatibility. And let's face it, this is the only real advantage of Pentax's SLRs. Yes, they build small and cute cameras, but that's just a plus and not a real argument. If I cannot use my A20/2,8 as a 20-mm lens on a future digital camera, then I have no reason to stick to Pentax and their slowness in extending their SLR technology. As to Paal's argument that the new lenses will be cheaper... Maybe, but how long will it take Pentax to re-release a full-range of lenses equivalent to 15mm-400mm? Not long enough for me to stick around... Let's hope this is all just a bad dream... Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __ --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- wita tu tu! http://swieta.onet.pl
RE: A new DSLR standard emerging?
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It's not quite that simple. What will we do for a 50/1.4? 24/2? Even if Pentax decided to release a 35/1.4, how many folks would be happy to shell out $1000 for what is basically a 50/1.4?! You guys dont understand. A 35mm F1.4 lens designed for a smaller sensor will be as cheap to produce as a 50mm F1.4 for 35mm or even cheaper. A nice side effect is it will be smaller than a full frame 35mm design. We were talking about using 35mm lenses on small sensor DSLR's and the contention that we would only need to buy one new wide angle to compensate. For those of us who prefer to shoot below at 85mm or less, we're basically hosed. However, the thought of the 50/1.2 becoming a 75/1.2 *is* pleasant to contemplate tv Changing the sensor size does not make a 50mm F1.2 lens into a 75mm. Youll just be recording a smaller part of the same image. It's like cropping. I understand that. tv
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging?
J. C. O'Connell schrieb: You guys dont understand. A 35mm F1.4 lens designed for a smaller sensor will be as cheap to produce as a 50mm F1.4 for 35mm or even cheaper. That I do not believe as the distance of the lens to the focal plane will not be changed so that a 35mm f1.4 must be a retrofocus construction. Arnold
Re: Re: OT: Mailing photos
Never underestimate the Idiocy of the postal services. To insure something from being bent my guess you'd have to mail it with a 1/8th inch steel plate as backing. Even then someone might just take it as a challenge. I just re-read this and realize that possibly someone could take this as a blanket indictment of all postal workers, lets just put a smilie on the end and so there's no misunderstanding. At 10:35 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Just don't use thin cardboard.I sent out several pictures lately in soft cardboard,some arrived ok and 2 were bent in half to fit into a rural mailbox,even with the do not bend contains photos hilited in yellow. Complaint to Canada Post went nowere,as anticipated. Dave Begin Original Message From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:07:23 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Mailing photos Most office supply/stationary stores sell flat stiff mailers in sizes up to 11X14 or so. At 12:32 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: I've done some 8x10 prints for friends for Christmas, and I'm planning on sending them out soon. How should I package them so that they don't get damaged? Should I look for mailing tubes, or use cardboard to try and keep them flat? Any other suggestions? thanks, -Mat 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: OT: Mailing photos
To mail a picture costs me a $1.00.I might have to charge postage on this itemvbg Dave Begin Original Message From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To insure something from being bent my guess you'd have to mail it with a 1/8th inch steel plate as backing. 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
OT: eBay auctiothat fills one with confidence
This is worth a look - have a chuckle... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1945289157 :-) Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
OT: Fuji Acros Again
Folks, I know Brendan and a few others have used this Fuji 100 BW film but seeing as how it's been about a month or two I want to find out what developer people are using to develop the film if they're doing it on their own (i.e. not dropping it off for processing). Which one gives the results that YOU like with Acros? There's a ton of info on http://www.digitaltruth.com (the massive dev chart) which is fine, but I want to hear from those that have developed the film already. I can't obtain the Fuji developers in my area (any Toronto folk that know of a place taht I can, please let me know) so I'm stuck with the standard Kodak and Ilford stuff. Any and all help is appreciated. Thanks, Dave
Pentax Tram
No bids yet, and not a camera or lens, so maybe fair game? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1924642712 Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
Alin wrote: results? - current APS sized 6 MPixel cameras are not convincing at all in a digital versus film argument, at least not to me. Just because today's scanners are poor in exploiting film capabilities (see Nyquest sampling frequency theorem) doesn't mean digital delivers better quality. This is just wishful thinking from digital owners part. Perhaps, but I suspect they will be convincing enough, with the right price, for the vast majority. What the manufacturers now need is for DSLR to start selling in large amounts. For this, the prices need to come down towards the $1000 mark or below. Pål
Re: OT: eBay auctiothat fills one with confidence
Needs autofocus. Must be a girl . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/02 11:25AM This is worth a look - have a chuckle... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1945289157 :-) Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this whatPentax is up to?)
Tom wrote: I'll wait and see what Pentax does, but I have to admit I'm concerned. I was content with the pace at which Pentax released new cameras in the past because I knew the quality of my prints depended on the lenses, not the camera. This is no longer true with digital - the body is no longer just a light-tight box. The sensor goes a long way towards determining the quality of your prints, and if Pentax is constantly 2 or 3 or 4 generations behind...well, that just wouldn't be a good thing. Well, they claim that their digital cameras will have a shelf life of 6 months. So it seems like they will try to keep up... Pål
Re: KMP Update, updated FS list
I know the photo on the LX early version page has to be because Boz don't have a good photo of the black body, but it is funny. At 10:51 AM 12/13/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hi all, I have just uploaded the next KMP release. You will find mostly small corrections and additions to the Lenses and Teleconverters pages, and some major changes in the Bodies section. Now there is an individual page for each camera body, just like with lenses and teleconverters. I have updated the To Do list, and now it contains every single piece of missing information on bodies, lenses and teleconverters. Do not be shy, take a look, and see if you can help me fill up some of the holes. Finally, I've also updated my For Sale list. There you will now find a black ME F, a black KM, and a K1000 SE. Also a few interesting lenses. And last but not least, I've updated the Authors list to include all those people who have written to me with corrections and additions. Cheers, Boz http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/ http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/TODO.txt http://KMP.BDimitrov.de/for_sale/ -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm
Good point. But since you still get the A/M switch on every auto aperture PENTAX screwmount lens, I like that system better. The aperture ALWAYS stops down fully unless it's REALLY fowled with oil because its forced hard by the body and isnt relying on a spring that may weaken with age. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm Among other things the lens automatically works correctly in stop down mode on un-coupled devices and when mounted reversed. It can be a pain to try to use certain 3rd party m42 lenses on un-coupled extension tubes or for that matter a K to M42 adapter since they lack auto manual switches. Pentax saved a few yen per lens by removing the need for those switches on the K-mount. At 07:52 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Anybody know why pentax flip-flopped their aperture actuation when they went to k-mount? On the screwmount lenses the aperture is normally held OPEN by a spring and is forced closed by the camera at the time of exposure. On the kmounts the spring holds the aperture CLOSED, and the camera forces it open except at time of exposure it lets go and the spring does the work. At least when the spring gets weak with the screwmounts, the lens can still be used manually. Not so with the kmounts. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm Anton Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would some of you SMC-A 20mm 2.8 owners check the action of the diaphragm via the lever on the lens please. I have just bought one and it seems very sluggish. Most of my other Pentax lenses snap shut, but they do vary in their snappiness. This 20mm 2.8 glides shut and it seems scarcely fast enough to fully close when set at f22 with a fast shutter speed. I'm wondering if it's faulty. I think you have a problem. The diaphragm in my A20/2.8 is just as zippy as any other lens I have. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re[2]: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
On top of that, it seems we are really talking two standards here. One for APS size sensor and one for full frame. I have seen plenty of 8X10 prints from Nikon D100 and they look just fine. A large portion of the SLR community doesn't commonly print beyond 8X10. Why use so much more horsepower (CPU, RAM, storage, etc) when it won't really be used? Do you really think that Nikon is going to stand by while Canon eats their lunch with a full frame solution? However, the price difference between an APS size sensor and full frame is staggering. How many want to spend $6000 on a body? By having the lower cost version (APS size) with a few wides (zoom, primes) to fix that issue and then a Pro full frame version, you have effectively addressed most of the market. How far down in price will the new Canon body have to come before many people can afford/justify it? If Pentax does the same thing, what is the harm? Seems to make lots of sense. Don't abandon the mount, just make a few specific lenses to cover the wide side. If and when full frame is a economically viable option, then build and sell it. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 5:40:17 AM, you wrote: MD --- Bojidar Dimitrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, What bad feeling I have about this... First of all, releasing lenses with smaller coverage circles seems to indicate that the APS-sized digitals are here to stay. Like Alin, I too had hoped that they are only for-the-time-being solutions. MD It's too bad that some of you feel this way. With MD respect to focal length, APS sized sensors only have a MD negative effect on wide angle. So yes, you might have MD to burn a 200-500 dollar hole to get that new wide MD angle zoom or prime. But compare that to what happens MD to your telephoto lenses such as the 200/2.8 or MD 300/4.5. The savings there greatly outweighs the cost MD a new wide angle. MD Mark MD __ MD Do you Yahoo!? MD Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. MD http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Is this what Pentax is up to?)
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I don't understand this . . .
As I understood it, the old K mount lenses would work fine with a new
APS sensor with a 1.5 or so factor.
They would work, but I'm not so sure about fine. I think
that lenses designed strictly for a smaller image circle
would have higher resolution than one's designed to
cover the 43mm diagonal of a full 35mm frame.
This in already occuring with Pentax Lenses. Their 6X7
lenses are not as sharp as their 35mm lenses, even if
you only use the central portion of the 6X7 lenses.
Exactly. I've done the math on this and posted it before:
Making a 10 x 15 inch print from a shot taken with a 100 lpm lens would
yield a final (print) resolution of 9.45 lpm if that lens were used on a
Canon EOS-1Ds, but if that same lens were used on a D-60 the final print
would have a resolution of 5.97 lpm.
Using 100 lpm lens:
CameraMult CCD H, W, DiagHoriz. Res. 15 Print
-
Canon EOS-1Ds 1x24 36 43 3600 (100%) 9.45 lpm
Canon EOS-1D 1.3x 17.8 27 32 2700 (75%)7.08 lpm
Nikon D1001.5x 15.6 23.7 28 2370 (66%)6.23 lpm
Canon D60 1.6x 15.1 22.7 27 2270 (63%)5.97 lpm
Sigma SD9 1.7x 13.8 20.7 25 2070 (58%)5.43 lpm
For a given focal length multiplication factor you can *divide* the
effective resolution by the same number. Makes the math easy.
10 yrs? No way. Kodak has just released a $4K SLR with
14Mp and a 35mm size sensor. $1K SLR with same specs should only take a few
years, maybe 5 at the most.
Perhaps 5-6 years to his the $1000 price point. Right now the hot sellers in
the DSLR market are around $2000. I'd give two years for full-frame to get
there.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: eBay auctiothat fills one with confidence
Musta used a 'softening' filterG Dave Begin Original Message From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:25:35 + To: Pentax List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: eBay auctiothat fills one with confidence This is worth a look - have a chuckle... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1945289157 :-) Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ 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: A new DSLR standard emerging?
Hi gang, I bet Pentax has all this time been waiting for the sensor technology to upgrade on a level that a good quality 5 mpix 17x13mm chip can be made. The Digital Auto 110 would be something ;) -mte
Re: Naked without a camera.
There are reports of an accessory hat with two power units mounted on either side, much like the much lauded and technologically advanced beer hat of the '70s. I understand that as the power units discharge, the waste heat is scavenged and reused in the winter for ear warming. That's got to be a Cotty project. I'm onto it :-) You know we'll want photo's. Drawings? Well, scratches with ink Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging?
From: Arnold Stark J. C. O'Connell schrieb: You guys dont understand. A 35mm F1.4 lens designed for a smaller sensor will be as cheap to produce as a 50mm F1.4 for 35mm or even cheaper. That I do not believe as the distance of the lens to the focal plane will not be changed so that a 35mm f1.4 must be a retrofocus construction There's no reason for the new digital cameras to keep the current focal plane to rear element distance. If the focal plane distance was made smaller (this would be a good benefit as the image would be brighter on the sensor) then a digital camera could be designed with two lens mounts. An external large one would take current 35mm formant lenses and a smaller one closer to the film plane could take the smaller digital lenses. An alternate would be to lower the focal plane distance for the digital lenses and sell an extension tube type adapter to keep the proper focal plane distance for 35mm lenses. Tom Reese
Re[2]: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DXlenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
If Pentax does the same thing, what is the harm? Seems to make lots of sense. Don't abandon the mount, just make a few specific lenses to cover the wide side. If and when full frame is a economically viable option, then build and sell it. Exactly. Pentax wants to make a viable APS sensor camera, so it builds some APS sensor only wide angles for it that are reasonably priced. No need to make teles if the older lenses can be used. If they are building a camera they want to be a commercial success, the new lenses make sense. These new lenses can be viewed as special purpose lenses. If everyone goes to a bigger sensor, then stop making these new lenses. We see the MF vs. 35 debate on this list sometimes. MF has many advantages over 35 mm, but the cameras are bigger and more expensive. If the APS sensor produces pics that are good enough for many folks, then it will survive even if a bigger sensor comes out. The problem with film APS is that their just wasn't a good enough reason to make the switch. If digital APS can gain a foothold, many with stick with it and not switch to the bigger (and better) sensor. One interesting counter argument, however. Even though most folks do not make enlargements bigger than 8x10 using film, this is not true with digital. It's EASY to crop out the middle of a pic and blow it up on the computer. Oddly, the very nature of digital technology makes a higher resolution sensor more desirable and easier to take advantage of. And given the same basic technology, the larger sensor will have higher resolution. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Substitute for Max 800?
My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
RE: Change in stop down mechanics K vs. M42 was RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm
Subject: Change in stop down mechanics K vs. M42 was RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm What you say is true. If you stick with Pentax(Takumar) you're all set. My only point on the K mount change is that it is probably easier to engineer Right and build, Right therefore simpler with fewer moving parts Right so it 'should' be less expensive Right to manufacture Right with equal reliability. WRONG! The K design is more likely to fail to stop down ( Actual picture taking ), while the Takumar design is more like to fail to reopen ( Pictures will still be fine). Both cases caused by a weakened old spring. JCO At 11:38 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Good point. But since you still get the A/M switch on every auto aperture PENTAX screwmount lens, I like that system better. The aperture ALWAYS stops down fully unless it's REALLY fowled with oil because its forced hard by the body and isnt relying on a spring that may weaken with age. JCO -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm Among other things the lens automatically works correctly in stop down mode on un-coupled devices and when mounted reversed. It can be a pain to try to use certain 3rd party m42 lenses on un-coupled extension tubes or for that matter a K to M42 adapter since they lack auto manual switches. Pentax saved a few yen per lens by removing the need for those switches on the K-mount. At 07:52 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Anybody know why pentax flip-flopped their aperture actuation when they went to k-mount? On the screwmount lenses the aperture is normally held OPEN by a spring and is forced closed by the camera at the time of exposure. On the kmounts the spring holds the aperture CLOSED, and the camera forces it open except at time of exposure it lets go and the spring does the work. At least when the spring gets weak with the screwmounts, the lens can still be used manually. Not so with the kmounts. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMC-A 20mm 2.8 diaphragm Anton Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would some of you SMC-A 20mm 2.8 owners check the action of the diaphragm via the lever on the lens please. I have just bought one and it seems very sluggish. Most of my other Pentax lenses snap shut, but they do vary in their snappiness. This 20mm 2.8 glides shut and it seems scarcely fast enough to fully close when set at f22 with a fast shutter speed. I'm wondering if it's faulty. I think you have a problem. The diaphragm in my A20/2.8 is just as zippy as any other lens I have. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Re[2]: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DXlenses: Is this what Pentax is up to?)
And given the same basic technology, the larger sensor will have higher resolution. Or dont forget, given the same number of Mpixels, a larger sensor will be more sensitive. This would allow faster shutter sppeds and or better DOF when needed. JCO
Re: Portra 400 UC
Hey Joe, Thanks for the first peak at this new film. I've got to go out and shoot some (just sitting in the fridge). I wonder how it compares to the 400VC product? Thanks again, Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 10:01:43 AM, you wrote: JT I spent November in France, during which I shot six rolls of Portra 400 JT UC (and other films, of course). I thought I'd share my impressions. I JT have not yet had a chance to scan the negs, so the following comments JT are based on machine prints on Fuji Crystal Archive. (They are good JT machine prints, but they are machine prints only.) JT Color saturation is good but not over the top. This is not Ultra 100. JT OTOH, some pale blue tones came out with quite low saturation. (Blue JT skies were fine.) On one occasion I shot a scene (outdoors, good JT sunlight) at the end of a roll of NPZ 800, then put in the Portra and JT shot the same scene. On the prints, the saturation of both films seems JT similar, with the NPZ being perhaps a bit more saturated. Shooting the JT same scene with Provia 400F resulted in images with noticeably higher JT saturation than either of these C-41 films. I haven't used Portra 400 JT VC, so can't compare. JT Caucasian skin tones were good, as one would expect. Professional JT portraitists might be more discerning on this topic than I am, though. JT The film seems quite sharp. JT Judging from the machine prints, I expect that sky grain will be quite JT noticeable upon enlargement. JT Contrast is quite high, but some of that may be the paper. JT Overall: I'd use it again, but I'm not shouting Eureka! JT Joe
RE: Substitute for Max 800?
-Original Message- From: Ken Archer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? Fuji's 800 speed films are faster and finer grained, but they don't exactly look like Portra color-wise. tv
All At Sea - Suggestions Wanted for Cheap Telephoto
Okay, I mentioned previously that I bought a PDMLer's MZ-5n. Also included was the 28-70mm AF/Al Autofocus lens. I've played with it a bit and don't particularly like its feel (sheesh, now I sound like the rest of you!). I shot one role (not back yet) all autofocus to see how it worked. I also didn't particulary like using autofocus (made me feel like I wasn't doing anything). So I put on the 50mm f/2.0 I bought on ebay and played with it. Little focusing square in the view finder and beep beep. Actually, that's another question, how does that focus confirmation work? Well, I mean how well? Can I rely on it? I *was* having problems focusing the focusing ring in the K-1000's viewfinder -- older and nearsighted I found it a bit hard. If I *can* rely on the autofocus confirmation then maybe a Manual or A lens would do me... I don't want to spend a lot more money right now and there is no hurry on this answer, because I probably won't buy another lens until January or something. As people maybe can tell from my Dec. PUG submission, there are a lot of animals around here and I want a telephoto lens or zoom. Probably zoom. Big bucks on prime lenses can come later. Basically what I want to do right now is cover as many focal lengths as possible with just three lenses. So I want a telephoto zoom that goes to 200 or a telephoto prime that maybe is 200 or 300. I want to round out my lens kits so I can shoot animals fairly close up. And I want to do all that for about $100 (so good primes are out). And weight is a factor. Not too heavy. I am all at sea. I've looked at the 70-200 AF autofocus (several going on ebay). But that would be the same as the 28-70, I might not like the feel. A non-Pentax lens would be okay too, if it was considered a good one. I've gotten confused about what people consider good non-Pentax lenses. Silgor? Tokina? Vivitar Series 1? To recap I have: K-1000 MZ-5n Albinar 28-80mm Manual zoom lens (which I will dump later) Pentax 70-200mm AF Autofocus lens Pentax 50mm f/2.0 Manual And I am wondering which telephoto (to 200) or prime (to 200 or 300) that I might get. One which I won't have to pay more than $100 for (or much more than that). Pentax or other brand. (Don't want much, do I?) All At Sea here, suggestions welcome. Doe aka Marnie Maybe, for now, the Pentax 70-200 autofocus is the best choice. Sorry I couldn't be more concise.
RE: Re: OT: Mailing photos
Here's what I do: - Put like-sized prints in plastic print-file envelopes. - Tape envelopes shut. - Tape envelopes to cardboard that's a bit larger than the envelope. This prevents the photo corners from being dinged. - If it's a small order, I place another piece of cardboard on top making a photo sandwich. This goes inside a bubble mailer. Depending on the cardboard I have available, I might put another couple of sheets in for more protection. - If it's a large order it gets boxed. The idea is to keep the prints from sliding around so the corners don't get dinged in addition to providing some rigidity. Mailmen will try and fold envelopes or mailers, not boxes. Another idea is to get signature confirmation. He can't leave it in the mailbox - either it sits in the truck or at the office, or it gets handed to the client. Of course, you also know your client received it. tv -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: OT: Mailing photos Never underestimate the Idiocy of the postal services. To insure something from being bent my guess you'd have to mail it with a 1/8th inch steel plate as backing. Even then someone might just take it as a challenge. At 10:35 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: Just don't use thin cardboard.I sent out several pictures lately in soft cardboard,some arrived ok and 2 were bent in half to fit into a rural mailbox,even with the do not bend contains photos hilited in yellow. Complaint to Canada Post went nowere,as anticipated. Dave Begin Original Message From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:07:23 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Mailing photos Most office supply/stationary stores sell flat stiff mailers in sizes up to 11X14 or so. At 12:32 AM 12/13/2002 -0500, you wrote: I've done some 8x10 prints for friends for Christmas, and I'm planning on sending them out soon. How should I package them so that they don't get damaged? Should I look for mailing tubes, or use cardboard to try and keep them flat? Any other suggestions? thanks, -Mat 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: Substitute for Max 800?
Ken, The two to try are Portra 800 and Fuji NPZ 800. There was a recent thread on this. The bottom line seems to be that the Portra should be shot more about 640 and the NPZ is a true 800. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 4:22:10 AM, you wrote: KA My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under KA cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed KA and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the KA added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives KA the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast?
FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
Can someone who own the FA 50mm F/1.4 tell me if his/her lens has an aperture click at f/1.7? My new FA 50mm f/1.4 lens does not have a distinct click stop at the f/1.7 aperture. There is a click stop at f/1.4 and f/2.0 but not at f/1.7. There are distinct click stops at all other full and half aperture values. The body will register f/1.7 if I put aperture ring between f/1.4 and f/2.0, I just can't get a click stop. Is this normal? BTW, I love the images the lens makes! Michael Cross
Re: Substitute for Max 800?
Ken, I heartily recommend Portra 800. Give it a try. Michael Cross Ken Archer wrote: My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast?
Re: Portra 400 UC (Postscriptum)
Forgot to mention. I did not push the film, but several times I underexposed by 1 to 1.5 stops. The prints look fine. Joe
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of filters should it happen again. Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when it comes to the application. When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to him - not the picture taker. The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 4:12 PM Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. Someday, I am going to have to read up on Canadian copyrigth law. Of course in my last look around I found that apparently some lobbying has been done re copyright here in the US, as there are now several types of work that are defined as WFH unless otherwise agreed. Which was one of the things the new copyright law was supposed to get away from. That is it had the same rules in all cases. Now it changes depending what you are doing. And, no Mr Mrs Joe Public were not included in those catagories. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:01 AM Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS. Hi William, If the employer owns the work, does that include the negs as well or just the right to reproduce the images and the negs stay in the photographers possession? In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the employer owns the work. Why shouldn't he? He is paying to have it done. I don't see why this is such a hard concept, most of us have jobs, we have employers, and whatever work comes off our desks is owned by that employer. Being a photographer employed by someone else is no different in concept from being a factory worker building the camera the photographer uses. The employer owns whatever it is you have created, and you don't get ownership in it. Creativity is a commodity that is bought and sold every day. Any time you solve a problem at work, you have just sold your creativity. William Robb
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthiswhat Pentax is up to?)
T Rittenhouse wrote: The computer electronics law of halves should apply. That is 1/2 the price, or twice the capability per year. That puts a 14mp 24x36 sensor camera down into the $1000 range in two years. But there is always the WTMWB factor to consider. But that just isn't happening. See the D60, D30 pricing on ebay. And my post last month shows it can only go to about 25-50megapixels in 35mm format... so this ain't Moore's law. R
Re: Substitute for Max 800?
Ken Archer asked: I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? They won't be quite the same look as Portra 400 NC, but you'll probably be happier with Fuji Press 800 or Fuji NHG II 800 (less contrast, slightly more Portra-like colours) or Kodak Portra 800 than you are with Kodak Max 800. You should probably take a look at Kodak Supra 800 just in case -- I like it for some things, but I'm betting that you're going to wind up with Fuji NHG. I've shot a roll of Agfa 800 but haven't gotten it developed yet, so that one's a big question mark for me. -- Glenn
Re: OT: Fuji Acros Again
Expose @ ISO 80 HC-110(b)
Re: Substitute for Max 800?
Mike, Since I am usually working under rather blah conditions when I need the 800 film, I need something with a little more contrast in it. I have heard that Portra 800 has about the same kind of contrast as 160/400 NC, is that true? On Friday 13 December 2002 06:35 pm, Michael Cross wrote: Ken, I heartily recommend Portra 800. Give it a try. Michael Cross Ken Archer wrote: My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: RE: Fuji Acros Again
David. Did you look at: http://www.digitaltruth.com/ They have the Acros film listed. Dave Begin Original Message From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:49:06 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Fuji Acros Again -Original Message- From: David Chang-Sang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Folks, I know Brendan and a few others have used this Fuji 100 BW film but seeing as how it's been about a month or two I want to find out what developer people are using to develop the film if they're doing it on their own (i.e. not dropping it off for processing). Which one gives the results that YOU like with Acros? XTOL 1:1, ISO 80. I'd have to dig around to find my time and temp. I think there's some dilution/time/speed that will work well w/ Rodinal, but I haven't quite figured it out. tv 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: Substitute for Max 800?
Bruce, Does the NPZ 800 have the exaggerated colors that most Fuji films seem to have? On Friday 13 December 2002 06:34 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ken, The two to try are Portra 800 and Fuji NPZ 800. There was a recent thread on this. The bottom line seems to be that the Portra should be shot more about 640 and the NPZ is a true 800. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 4:22:10 AM, you wrote: KA My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under KA cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed KA and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the KA added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives KA the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Copyright matters OT
It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of filters should it happen again. I've changed it again in the hope that most filters will not delete it without it being read. Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when it comes to the application. When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to him - not the picture taker. The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Though not the same concept, an outfit called Photographer's Edge (www.photographersedge.com) sells calendar blanks already bound, onto which you attach 4 X 6 horizontal prints. Prices range from $5.99 to $4.99 each depending on volume. Add in the cost of the prints (13 images required) and you can do a calendar for around $10 each. I've been doing this for several years and am happy with the results. Ken Waller - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: Re: EPson ink usage for color prints Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm surprised there's no printing company that's tried to make a business specifically around doing calendars for photographers; they'd just need to set up a basic calendar template and plug specific photo files into it. I looked for such a setup and couldn't find one. -- Mark Roberts there are one off such calendars being made for about $20 as a service you will find at some photo finishing places. you send it off with 12 prints and it comes back done. don't have any idea of quality. i saw it at a MotoPhoto. don't know if they have those by you. Herb
Re: Substitute for Max 800?
Ken, I really haven't used it outside too much. But its really not going to be a higher contrast film I would say. How about Kodak Supra 800? It is supposed to have higher contrast and punchy colors. Michael Ken Archer wrote: Mike, Since I am usually working under rather blah conditions when I need the 800 film, I need something with a little more contrast in it. I have heard that Portra 800 has about the same kind of contrast as 160/400 NC, is that true? On Friday 13 December 2002 06:35 pm, Michael Cross wrote: Ken, I heartily recommend Portra 800. Give it a try. Michael Cross Ken Archer wrote: My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast?
RE: Substitute for Max 800?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Ken Archer asked: I don't particulary like the color and the added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? They won't be quite the same look as Portra 400 NC, but you'll probably be happier with Fuji Press 800 or Fuji NHG II 800 (less contrast, slightly more Portra-like colours) or Kodak Portra 800 than you are with Kodak Max 800. I think NHGII has been discontinued in favor of NPZ. I really hate Fuji's silly nomenclature. Oh by the way, my local shop says Supra is discontinued, but it's still listed on kodak.com and at B+H. Anyone heard anything about this? Also, I ownder what happened to the new Fuji slide film? My lab was testing it a few months back but it didn't surface at Photokina. tv
Re: PROS [WAS:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.]
Dr E D F Williams wrote: It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of filters should it happen again. Oh, we know that you will! Why don't you just drop it Doctor. Everybody else has. A doctor who keeps tearing the scab off a now-healing wound has some issues to address himself... Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when it comes to the application. When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to him - not the picture taker. The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. Thanks for your exposition. I for one appreciate it. = rest snipped = keith whaley
Re[2]: Substitute for Max 800?
Ken, I haven't noticed any real problems with the NPZ, but then, I haven't shot lots of it. It did seem on the cool side (typical for Fuji), but no real problems. If you are shooting only 35mm, there is also Supra 800. It is much more contrasty than Portra 800 and maybe finer grained. Certainly worth a try. What kind of subjects are you shooting anyway? Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 5:00:04 AM, you wrote: KA Bruce, KA Does the NPZ 800 have the exaggerated colors that most Fuji films seem KA to have? KA On Friday 13 December 2002 06:34 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ken, The two to try are Portra 800 and Fuji NPZ 800. There was a recent thread on this. The bottom line seems to be that the Portra should be shot more about 640 and the NPZ is a true 800. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 4:22:10 AM, you wrote: KA My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under KA cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed KA and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the KA added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives KA the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast?
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Dr E D F Williams, Having been certified by Mr. Bruce Rubenstein as Piss Face, May I recommend, should I not already be there, that you put me in one of your filters. Yup, I volunteer. All of the photos negatives that I produce as part of my job belong to my clients, therefore all is handed over. I don't even keep records, save those necessary for billing and tax purposes. It may be my work, but it's ownership is my client's. Regards, Piss Face Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of filters should it happen again.
RE: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
Michael, My FA 50mm f1.4 does NOT have a click between 2 and 1.4. On my PZ-1p I do get a f1.7 readout. SN# of lens: 5140XXX Purchased from BH around August 2002 Mark Mangum -Original Message- From: Michael Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:34 PM To: Pentax Mail Subject: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring Can someone who own the FA 50mm F/1.4 tell me if his/her lens has an aperture click at f/1.7? My new FA 50mm f/1.4 lens does not have a distinct click stop at the f/1.7 aperture. There is a click stop at f/1.4 and f/2.0 but not at f/1.7. There are distinct click stops at all other full and half aperture values. The body will register f/1.7 if I put aperture ring between f/1.4 and f/2.0, I just can't get a click stop. Is this normal? BTW, I love the images the lens makes! Michael Cross
Re: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
Mine has no click stop at 1.7 Jostein - Original Message - From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring Can someone who own the FA 50mm F/1.4 tell me if his/her lens has an aperture click at f/1.7? My new FA 50mm f/1.4 lens does not have a distinct click stop at the f/1.7 aperture. There is a click stop at f/1.4 and f/2.0 but not at f/1.7. There are distinct click stops at all other full and half aperture values. The body will register f/1.7 if I put aperture ring between f/1.4 and f/2.0, I just can't get a click stop. Is this normal? BTW, I love the images the lens makes! Michael Cross
RE: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
Follow up, Michael, FYI.. There is also no click between 11 16 and 16 22. All others have the half stop clicks. Mark Mangum -Original Message- From: Michael Cross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 12:34 PM To: Pentax Mail Subject: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring Can someone who own the FA 50mm F/1.4 tell me if his/her lens has an aperture click at f/1.7? My new FA 50mm f/1.4 lens does not have a distinct click stop at the f/1.7 aperture. There is a click stop at f/1.4 and f/2.0 but not at f/1.7. There are distinct click stops at all other full and half aperture values. The body will register f/1.7 if I put aperture ring between f/1.4 and f/2.0, I just can't get a click stop. Is this normal? BTW, I love the images the lens makes! Michael Cross
Re: Bruce R
I asked, you answered, I'm happy Feroze - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Bruce R - Original Message - From: Feroze Kistan Subject: Re: Bruce R Sorry William but if your coming to his defence or trying to excuse his behaviour than you should apply that kind of response to all members of this list, regardless of lenght of time they've been year or how full their heads are with information. I find it hard to belive that you can react so gentlemanly when and correct me if I'm wrong your were threating to have some members reported to their ISP's for so called pro-nazi behaviour not too long ago. I have personal reasons to resent being called a Nazi. Bruce intimated the same thing a few years ago, and I totally lost it at that time too. Having the ability to PRESENT much needed information is in my humble opinion so much more important than than actually having the knowledge in the first place. I have found that if he is asked an on topic question, he will give a consice, on topic answer. I can't hold it against Bruce that he gets peeved when he comes here for Pentax and gets guns, abortion, small cars, the merits of some obscure F1 racing car or whatever other drivel passes for discussion here in the absence of any worthwhile Pentax gear to discuss. He is also a trustworthy eBay seller. William Robb
RE: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
-Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] MORE GUNS. Dr E D F Williams, Having been certified by Mr. Bruce Rubenstein as Piss Face, May I recommend, should I not already be there, that you put me in one of your filters. Yup, I volunteer. Can I have a cool name too? tv
Re: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 10:33, Michael Cross wrote: Can someone who own the FA 50mm F/1.4 tell me if his/her lens has an aperture click at f/1.7? My new FA 50mm f/1.4 lens does not have a distinct click stop at the f/1.7 aperture. There is a click stop at f/1.4 and f/2.0 but not at f/1.7. There are distinct click stops at all other full and half aperture values. The body will register f/1.7 if I put aperture ring between f/1.4 and f/2.0, I just can't get a click stop. Is this normal? BTW, I love the images the lens makes! Michael Cross All the Pentax lenses I own have no click stop 1/2 stop down from wide open. I'm not sure why this is, but I find it annoying with my MZ-5n in full manual mode because the shutter speed also can only be adjusted in full stop increments. I have to switch to Av or Tv mode to get the right exposure. -Scott
Digital Darkroom
Okay, it's official: I suck at doing digital darkroom stuff. I saw others' complaints about the time required to do the post processing digitally instead of handing it off to a lab to do wet, and even with that in mind I'm too slow. And whether it's lack of skill, lack of tools, or both (it doesn't help that the machine on which I can display my editing software (GIMP) I only have 8-bit colour), I'm not being as effective at tweaking things as I'd like. G. This is, of course, subject to change after study and practice, but that's not helping with the deadline I'm bumping into right now. *sigh* -- Glenn
Re: PROS [WAS:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.]
What on earth have I done? For Gud's sake? Are you off your medication? You really must keep taking those pills old chap. Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: Re: PROS [WAS:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.] Dr E D F Williams wrote: It would appear that although the title of the thread is still strange the subject matter has changed. I'm back and ready to make a whole load of filters should it happen again. Oh, we know that you will! Why don't you just drop it Doctor. Everybody else has. A doctor who keeps tearing the scab off a now-healing wound has some issues to address himself... Photographers don't usually hand over the negatives after they have completed an ordinary job, like taking pictures of a wedding, or making studio portraits. They hang on to them and hope more prints will be ordered. I'm also willing to bet that if the client demanded the negatives there would be immediate disagreement about who owns them. I'm also sure that if it got to court, the client would win and get his negatives, unless there was some kind of prior agreement. But who would sign an agreement allowing a photographer to keep pictures of them? To what end? What possible reason, or excuse, can a photographer have for doing this if the matter came up? I'm quite sure most people would say no. And perhaps question the photographer's intentions. It's silly and in my opinion unethical to try to hold on to negatives that belong to someone else. If a client gets a load of prints made elsewhere that's too bad. But what a client cannot do is lay claim to the pictures. He cannot say he took them and if he does its time for litigation. But it can get very complicated. Copyright Law might look quite simple on paper, but specialist litigators make vast amounts of money when it comes to the application. When a client pays to have something - say products - photographed its very clear that everything to do with them, including the negatives, belong to him - not the picture taker. The copyright of printed matter, novels, biographies and such-like is a little more difficult. An author passes the copyright over to the publisher as part of a contract - usually. I didn't (don't) but such an agreement has to be negotiated. So anyone getting a photo book ready beware. It's best to retain the copyright oneself, if at all possible. But Daniel knows more about this stuff an I'm sure he'd have more useful comments than these. Thanks for your exposition. I for one appreciate it. = rest snipped = keith whaley
Re: Digital Darkroom
You have my sympathies. It's certainly not easy, just more doable than a color enlarger. I often kill work and go back to the original, but I haven't had to do much on deadline and I can get pretty frustrated just enjoying my hobby. I can't image taking my 500 vacation pictures, digital or otherwise, and doing anything other than shipping them off to a lab. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/13/02 02:29PM Okay, it's official: I suck at doing digital darkroom stuff. I saw others' complaints about the time required to do the post processing digitally instead of handing it off to a lab to do wet, and even with that in mind I'm too slow. And whether it's lack of skill, lack of tools, or both (it doesn't help that the machine on which I can display my editing software (GIMP) I only have 8-bit colour), I'm not being as effective at tweaking things as I'd like. G. This is, of course, subject to change after study and practice, but that's not helping with the deadline I'm bumping into right now. *sigh* -- Glenn
Re: Digital Darkroom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, it's official: I suck at doing digital darkroom stuff. I saw others' complaints about the time required to do the post processing digitally instead of handing it off to a lab to do wet, and even with that in mind I'm too slow. And whether it's lack of skill, lack of tools, or both (it doesn't help that the machine on which I can display my editing software (GIMP) I only have 8-bit colour), I'm not being as effective at tweaking things as I'd like. G. This is, of course, subject to change after study and practice, but that's not helping with the deadline I'm bumping into right now. *sigh* Study and practice are indeed the keys. I've been giving prints as Christmas gifts and have no trouble going from insert the slide into the scanner to print emerges from the inkjet printer in about 30 minutes. That might seem like a long time, but most of it is in Photoshop work (dust spots, levels adjustment, unsharp mask) and never needs to be done again for that scan, so extra prints are a point-and-click proposition. Also, this is for 12 x 18 prints of quality that I'd be willing to display myself (admittedly, I'm choosing slides that don't need anything more than basic Photoshop work - the quality of the original slide has a huge effect on how long it takes to make a decent print). For smaller, less critical prints I'd load slides into the bulk feeder, batch scan and print with less Photoshop work. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Flash questions
[disclaimer: these are pretty basic questions, but hey! I never claim to be more than a beginner... but a professional beginner, ofcourse! g] It's been said on numerous occasions that the exposure compensation dial works as flash compensation in M mode. Okay, so if I understand this correctly, for half intensity, dial in -1 EV of flash compensation; for one-third fill, -1 1/3 or -1.5 EV; for one quarter, -2 EV. Well, even if that scale is not quite right, the main point is that for less flash, I'm supposed to dial negatively correct? Well, if the answer is yes, then please answer the following: Consider a conventional fill-flash setting. I first metered the scene on Program mode. Then I set the same exact settings manually (now in M mode). Then I flip on the flash unit. Initially, the compensation bar graph stays at zero as expected. But as I turn the comp. dial to the negative side (less flash?) the bar graph goes up (towards the over exposure side). Is this supposed to happen? Is what I expect to happen (less flash) actually going to occur even though the indicators seem to say otherwise? Of course, I could probably answer some of these questions by just shooting some shots, and taking some notes but I figured there is no need to waste film when I have such a panel of experts before me [hoping that flattery will get me everywhere]. Thanks in advance, jerome ps... I now see that it pays to take the camera out of the bag sometimes even when you're not shooting. seems like an obvious thing to do (for learning purposes), but I unfortunately never bother with such things until I'm out taking photos, and by then it's too late! hmmm... lesson learned. ___ Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes PhD Candidate, ISyE, Georgia Tech http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthiswhat Pentax is up to?)
What is not being addressed here is that many of the shooters who are currently buying DSLRs aren't looking for 30meg files. One of the features that they like about the Kodak 14n is that it can be configured to only produce 8meg (not compressed) files. Giant files, unless you really need them, are just a PITA. These are not computers and the point of diminishing return is being quickly approached, in terms of performance, for 35mm type digital shooting. 3-6mp DSLRs are still perfectly capable of generating income and that's why they aren't dirt cheap yet. BR From: Ryan K. Brooks But that just isn't happening. See the D60, D30 pricing on ebay. And my post last month shows it can only go to about 25-50megapixels in 35mm format... so this ain't Moore's law.
Re: Digital Darkroom
Study and practice are indeed the keys. *nod* That's why I stuck that bit in. I've been giving prints as Christmas gifts and have no trouble going from insert the slide into the scanner to print emerges from the inkjet printer in about 30 minutes. I had some try to minimize my 5 o'clock shadow requests from one of the subjects, and some contrast tweaking to do, and another subject who hates her nose. (Not doing anything to her nose, but it affects which frames I choose.) Wheee. Interestingly, the beard shadow is much less noticeable in BW. -- Glenn
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 01:37 PM, tom wrote: Can I have a cool name too? tv Nope. If you want a cool name, you'll have to earn it. :-) Dan Scott
Re: FA 50mm F/1.4 Aperture Ring
Ditto here. Mine has no click stop at 1.7 Jostein
RE: Flash questions
-Original Message- From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It's been said on numerous occasions that the exposure compensation dial works as flash compensation in M mode. Okay, so if I understand this correctly, for half intensity, dial in -1 EV of flash compensation; for one-third fill, -1 1/3 or -1.5 EV; for one quarter, -2 EV. Well, even if that scale is not quite right, the main point is that for less flash, I'm supposed to dial negatively correct? Correct. Well, if the answer is yes, then please answer the following: Consider a conventional fill-flash setting. I first metered the scene on Program mode. Then I set the same exact settings manually (now in M mode). Then I flip on the flash unit. Initially, the compensation bar graph stays at zero as expected. But as I turn the comp. dial to the negative side (less flash?) the bar graph goes up (towards the over exposure side). Is this supposed to happen? Yes. The camera is still metering for the ambient light. You've set the sperture/shutter speed for a correct ambient exposure. If you dial in -1, the camera is telling you that the manual settings will give you a stop more than the -1 setting on the dial. In other words, you've told the camera you want to underexpose by -1, and it's telling you you're a stop over -1, which is just what you want. Maybe the confusing part is that you expect the meter bar graph to line up at -1. It's not. It's going to line up in the middle, the difference being that the middle value is -1. Now when you hit the shutter, the flash/camera doesn't care about your manual settings, it's going to shut the flash off when it senses it's hit -1. Therefore the ambient exposure will be correct, the flash will be a stop below. tv
Re: All At Sea - Suggestions Wanted for Cheap Telephoto
On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 12:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I am wondering which telephoto (to 200) or prime (to 200 or 300) that I might get. One which I won't have to pay more than $100 for (or much more than that). Pentax or other brand. (Don't want much, do I?) You could look for an M 200/4 or the earlier and larger 200/4. You'd like the feel and probably like the quality better than a cheap zoom that goes to 200. Dan Scott
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DXlenses:Isthiswhat Pentax is up to?)
On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 12:21, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: What is not being addressed here is that many of the shooters who are currently buying DSLRs aren't looking for 30meg files. One of the features that they like about the Kodak 14n is that it can be configured to only produce 8meg (not compressed) files. Giant files, unless you really need them, are just a PITA. These are not computers and the point of diminishing return is being quickly approached, in terms of performance, for 35mm type digital shooting. 3-6mp DSLRs are still perfectly capable of generating income and that's why they aren't dirt cheap yet. Good point, Another thing the computer industry has going for it is the ever increasing demands of application software. Sometimes I think that companies like microsoft add bloated features to their software just because the latest PCs can handle it, and then Intel/AMD have to develop faster CPUs and denser memory because people want to run 6 bloated applications simultaneously while downloaded more bloated applications from the internet and listening to MP3s. In photography, there's no increasing demand for performance. Once you get to X Megapixels for a 11x14, it's good enough. The only possibility for such a increase in demand is if really wide, high quality colour printers start to become popular and everyone wants to make giant prints. -Scott
RE: Flash questions
Thanks, Tom! Very nice explanation. Much appreciated. - jerome On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, tom wrote: The camera is still metering for the ambient light. You've set the sperture/shutter speed for a correct ambient exposure. If you dial in -1, the camera is telling you that the manual settings will give you a stop more than the -1 setting on the dial. In other words, you've told the camera you want to underexpose by -1, and it's telling you you're a stop over -1, which is just what you want. Maybe the confusing part is that you expect the meter bar graph to line up at -1. It's not. It's going to line up in the middle, the difference being that the middle value is -1. Now when you hit the shutter, the flash/camera doesn't care about your manual settings, it's going to shut the flash off when it senses it's hit -1. Therefore the ambient exposure will be correct, the flash will be a stop below.
Re: Re[2]: Substitute for Max 800?
Bruce, I shoot mostly retriever hunt tests and field trials. I had three weekends in a row in October where it rained everyday. When I came home after the first weekend, you couldn't tell what color my truck was for all the mud. After the third weekend of rain, it kind of dawned on me why I don't have much competition in this field. ;-) Handlers really want their pictures at those kind of events to prove to their friends and relatives the kind of hell they go through for their sportnot to mention what the dogs go through. Those are also the days I need more speed and contrast. The problem is that, if it clears up in the afternoon, the morning pictures need to match the afternoon pictures. Ken On Friday 13 December 2002 07:16 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ken, I haven't noticed any real problems with the NPZ, but then, I haven't shot lots of it. It did seem on the cool side (typical for Fuji), but no real problems. If you are shooting only 35mm, there is also Supra 800. It is much more contrasty than Portra 800 and maybe finer grained. Certainly worth a try. What kind of subjects are you shooting anyway? Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 5:00:04 AM, you wrote: KA Bruce, KA Does the NPZ 800 have the exaggerated colors that most Fuji films seem KA to have? KA On Friday 13 December 2002 06:34 pm, Bruce Dayton wrote: Ken, The two to try are Portra 800 and Fuji NPZ 800. There was a recent thread on this. The bottom line seems to be that the Portra should be shot more about 640 and the NPZ is a true 800. Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 4:22:10 AM, you wrote: KA My normal film is Kodak Portra 160 or 400 NC. On early mornings under KA cloudy conditions I use Kodak Max 800 because of the additional speed KA and increased contrast. I don't particulary like the color and the KA added grain of the Max 800, however. Has anyone used a film that gives KA the color and grain of Portra NC with additional speed and contrast? -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: RE: Flash questions
Printed and in the binder.Thanks Tom Dave Begin Original Message From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:16:45 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Flash questions Thanks, Tom! Very nice explanation. Much appreciated. - jerome 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: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthis what Pentax is up to?)
- Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse Subject: Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthis what Pentax is up to?) The computer electronics law of halves should apply. That is 1/2 the price, or twice the capability per year. That puts a 14mp 24x36 sensor camera down into the $1000 range in two years. But there is always the WTMWB factor to consider. How does this law apply when the first 6MP camera came on the market close to 8 years ago, didn't ever go down in price or improve in performance until this year? Just wondering William Robb
RE: Flash questions
No. You have to repeately post to a thread that has nothing to do with photography, without trimming your reply so that your post is 75 lines long with 1 new line and then you have to claim that you can do this because freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment (this really impresses every one from places like Europe). You can also get a cool name by posting to the list by using a wireless laptop connection, while driving down the highway in an SUV at a wobbly 40 MPH, with me following behind you. BR From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do I get a cool name now?
Re: A new DSLR standard emerging? (WAS: Re: Nikon DX lenses:Isthis what Pentax is up to?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The computer electronics law of halves should apply. That is 1/2 the price, or twice the capability per year. That puts a 14mp 24x36 sensor camera down into the $1000 range in two years. Graywolf, It's called Moore's Law, but it doesn't work so good for some things... like big chips in flat screen TV's. I think the 24x36mm sensor has some of the same big chip problems. A defect rate of 20% on a 12x18 chip turns into a 60%+ defect rate on a 24x36 chip. (ie .8 to the 4th power or .8 X .8 X .8 X .8 = .4096 ) Regards, Bob S.
Re: All At Sea - Suggestions Wanted for Cheap Telephoto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You could look for an M 200/4 or the earlier and larger 200/4. You'd like the feel and probably like the quality better than a cheap zoom that goes to 200. I'd second Dan's recommendation on the M 200/4. It's small and good. I also use a Pentax FA 70-210/4-5.6? with power zoom on a PZ-1. The whole lens assembly seems to wobble when focusing, but the images are very good. If you have enough light, maybe you should stick with the zoom and stop it down some. Regards, Bob S.
