Re: XP question
You have 33kv lines in the streets in Australia? My God! Are your power companies and legislators insane? 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: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 3:24 AM Subject: Re: XP question > On 8 Feb 2003 at 19:18, Leonard Paris wrote: > > > That's what a really good UPS is for, preventing surges and sags from > > damaging your hardware. > > Amen, I have APC UPS on all my computers. A few years back we had an insulator > come loose on an aerial 33kV line in the street which fell across the aerial > 240V mains vaporizing them. It also blew down-pipes off buildings, fused all > our earth wiring, blew the gas meter off it's perch across the street and lit a > gas plume, blew fuses in most appliances, blew light bulbs, damaged my Telcos > equipment and perforated copper water pipes. But my computers (and hard drives) > survived :-) > > Cheers, > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
30mm f2.8 on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=3005513865&category=4688 This is not my auction! John Daniele
RE: Screw Mount!
I have all the Taks over 150 and I still use them. They just dont seem to be as outrageous quality as the normal and short tele smcts are. I could be wrong as I havent really tested them on a solid tripod. The 500mm & 1000mm are definately a notch down though, chromatic aberrations can be seen on those in large prints. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Screw Mount! > > > I found a SMC Tak 300mm f4 some time ago. > One just went for $202 on eBay. > It is very good, maybe outstanding IMHO. > > Regards, Bob S. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > All the smct lenses over 150 are very good but not outstanding IMHO. >
Re: Screw Mount!
Isn't this the same design as the SMCK 300/4? I'm curious as to how it compares to the M*/A* 300/4. Thanks, William in Utah - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Screw Mount! > I found a SMC Tak 300mm f4 some time ago. > One just went for $202 on eBay. > It is very good, maybe outstanding IMHO. > > Regards, Bob S. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > All the smct lenses over 150 are very good but not outstanding IMHO. >
RE: Home E6 or C41?
there are room temperature C41 kits? Yippie! Sign me up.Who/where/web JCO > -Original Message- > From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 11:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Home E6 or C41? > > > One thing to watch out for if processing C-41 at home. The room > temperature > C-41 kits give you a different balance then regular C-41. Where you are > shooting 4x5 and I'm assuming scanning to print on your inkjet > this is of no > real concern. It causes problems with minilab quality machine prints so be > careful if you use it to process 35mm. > > >
RE: Spotted Locally
You're sure it's an LS lens? > -Original Message- > From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Spotted Locally > > > If anyone is interested, Cord has a > Pentax 645 > with 120 insert & > 75/2.8 LS lens > > for $750. > Used, but Good condition. > > Collin >
Re: Home E6 or C41?
One thing to watch out for if processing C-41 at home. The room temperature C-41 kits give you a different balance then regular C-41. Where you are shooting 4x5 and I'm assuming scanning to print on your inkjet this is of no real concern. It causes problems with minilab quality machine prints so be careful if you use it to process 35mm.
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
I think one point is being missed here. Different things have different points of obsolescence, and something being obsolete does not necessarily mean that it is unusable or impractical to use. I shoot with a K-1000 and K & M series lenses. All are out of production and "obsolete" but are still very useable and will continue to be as long as film is around. IMHO digital is getting close to that stage. Digital point and shoots have mostly settled in the 2-4 MP range and I doubt that we will see many in the 6+ MP range. For their intended use 2-4 MP is enough. I think prices will go a bit lower, especially with the higher MP P&S, but the digicam you buy today will still do what you bought it for next year. Consumer level D-slr's and D-zlr's are shooting for a different market, advanced amateurs and "soccer moms" wanting better quality or more versatility. My guess is that 6-12 MP will be the norm and that sub $1000 D-slr's will appear within the next year. An interesting note is that N***N is already manufacturing a lens specifically for their D-slr's, which makes me think they are not ready to give up on their APS sized chips in the near future. So we may see more digital lenses (including Pentax?) in the near future. I think a good 6 MP D-slr sub $1K will sell well. None of this means that any of our equipment is unusable. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: Screw Mount!
I found a SMC Tak 300mm f4 some time ago. One just went for $202 on eBay. It is very good, maybe outstanding IMHO. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > All the smct lenses over 150 are very good but not outstanding IMHO.
Re: Is this too good to be true?
It is too good to be true-- I checked the guy's feedback and the very first negative feedback I came across was a disgruntled buyer who negged him for "not honoring the deal." I suspect anyone else who thinks they have a deal have got a dud... Sid B Steve Pearson wrote: Is this really for sale? I have seen so many auctions where you are only buying a "program" that tells you how to get electronics for free. This looks like it's for real? Would you buy one? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006539475&category=30012 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Scammed
Hi Tonghang, It sounds like the same story I read last night, which had me digging through last week's emails and realizing I'd been had. I'm slipping up and getting less paranoid the older I get. : - [ Not a good thing. I think I need to put up some posters reminding myself, "Smart people really ARE trying to get you." :-P Dan On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 01:34 AM, Tonghang Zhou wrote: Transmeta Corporation mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (408) 919-6380 On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dan Scott wrote: I've just finished reporting the incident to my CC company and Ebay. Doesn't appear to be unusual activity on my CC account, which worries methese con artists have had my name, e-mail address, and CC number since Tuesday and haven't tried to charge anything. Anyone have any tips on what to do if you suspect "identity theft"? Dan Scott I heard a news item today on radio while driving, about some con artist pretending to be eBay and sent email to people getting account numbers on some pretext for account confirmation or something. Way back I got an email like this myself, that I forwarded to ebay abuse department. I thought it was very audacious. The radio story must've been about the same con. Tonghang.
RE: Most unknown Pentax Camera
How about the "Spot-Matic", the one shown in 1960 with an actual spot meter inside. JCO
Re: Most unknown Pentax lens
On Saturday, February 8, 2003, at 03:55 PM, Peter Smekal wrote: What do you think is the most unknown Pentax lens? My guess: SMC M 35-70/2.8-3.5. Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd guess the M 35/1.4, the 20/1.4, the 300/2 or any other prototypes Pentax showed and then decided not to release are likely to be the most unheard of. Dan Scott
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
> Except that the REAL capability of the original piece has not > deteriorated, has it? > So the obsolescence is in the mind, not the camera. Not so? > The fact that those cameras in direct line have increased their > capabilities is really beside the point. > If you WANT those new features, great. Have at it, mate! I think you should read the definition of "obsolete": "No longer in use because replaced by something new. Superceded by something newer, though possibly still in use. Outmoded in style, design, or construction." It doesn't mean that something no longer works. You can still wear bell-bottom pants (or Zoot suits, or your ruff and a powdered wig). The M42 screw mount is obsolete. Cars with wooden frames are obsolete, even though you can still buy a new Moggie. Radio dramas are obsolete (but the Shadow still knows, muwah-HAHAHAHAHA!). So are digital cameras from five years ago. Film, manual-focus lenses, Leica M6's, and enlargers are merely obsolescent (in the process of becoming obsolete) --Mike
Re: Omega 4X5F w Nikor W 210/5.6
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: FS: Omega 4X5F w Nikor W 210/5.6 > Since I am not shooting 4x5 anymore... > > Omega 45F camera w extra bellows > Nikor W 210mm f/5.6 w/caps on mounted lens board > 17 4x5 film holders > 545 Polaroid back > Omega loupe > Dark cloth > Home-made wooden case The Nikkor W 210mm f/5.6 is one of the best 4x5 lenses available, in case anyone is wondering. William Robb
Obsolescence (was: Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA)
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Digital camera obsolescence is REAL obsolescence. It shows not only in the dropping prices of new items, but in the failure of used items to hold value, and in the increasing REAL capability of the equipment. If anyone doubts this, compare the number of digital cameras for sale on U.S. Ebay with the number of film cameras. I checked recently; there were 12,000 film cameras for sale, and 16,000 digital cameras. Perhaps many of these 16,000 are new units. But I suspect that many digital owners are already trading up. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Most unknown Pentax lens
in K mount: Pentax SMC 85-210/3.5 in screwmount: Takumar 18mm f/11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 15:48:52 EST
Bob S ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
"There are a number of folks who like the Older K lenses.
(I think of Daphne the Israeli who was collecting them.)"
Shel Belinkoff, a longtime member of this list, was the K-series lenses'
most articulate and passionate advocate.
"They are generally 25%-35% bigger than the M versions of the same lens.
Some think that Pentax compromised quality when they made them smaller."
Pentax replaced brass bushings with aluminum when they switched to the M
series.
"Overall, the K's aren't fetching much more than the M's. In some cases
like the K135/3.5 I saw this AM, nobody even seemed to notice K vs M and the
price was 15 or 20 Euros on eBay Germany."
The 135/3.5M is one of the most widely misadvertised Pentax lenses on Ebay.
The listing will say "SMC 135/3.5", the photo isn't clear; I'll write to the
seller hoping it's really the K, and he'll deliver the bad news: It says M.
Oddly, once or twice the ad has said "135/3.5M" but the lens looked
suspiciously long, and a letter to the seller confirmed that the letter M
did not appear on the front of the lens, and hence the lens was the K. Only
the 50/2, or f1:2 (advertised as a "50/1.2") and f/4, or f1:4 zooms ("f/1.4
zoom") seem to be misadvertised more often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FS: Omega 4X5F w Nikor W 210/5.6
Since I am not shooting 4x5 anymore... Omega 45F camera w extra bellows Nikor W 210mm f/5.6 w/caps on mounted lens board 17 4x5 film holders 545 Polaroid back Omega loupe Dark cloth Home-made wooden case I am looking for serious offers or trades on the entire package. Please e-mail off list. Thanks. Jay
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
It goes for about $180 to $350. Low to mid $200s seems typical. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Screw Mount!
Hey, Dont use those stinking TCs. As for Teles, These are great, but not cheap or easy to find: 85mm F1.8 smct ( $250-$350) 135mm F2.5 SMCT 6 element version (100-150) These are excellent: 105mm F2.8 smct ($80-120) 120mm F2.8 smct ($100-150) 150mm F4 smct ($80-120) All the smct lenses over 150 are very good but not outstanding IMHO. If you like zooms all three of the screwmounts are excellent, but only the 85-210 ($100-200) is easy to find. Both the 45-125 and the 135-600 are rare and fairly expensive. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Gregory L. Hansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Screw Mount! > > > I'm thinking of getting a screw mount adapter to turn my K1000 into a > Spotmatic and try out some of the Takumar lenses. I've wanted to try > professional quality lenses. I can't afford them, but the Takumar optics > are legendary, and I see on eBay that the lenses are cheap. > > I'm interested more in telephoto than in wide angle. I like to take > pictures of birds and fuzzy animals, with all that implies. > > So I'm looking for any advice, experience, confirmation of the legends, > recommendations on specific peices of equipment. I don't really know the > equipment well enough to ask specific questions, just that I want good > stuff for cheap, normal lenses are easy to find but there seem to be > several types, and I want good telephoto for cheap. What should I expect > to pay? What about teleconverters; are there Takumar and non-Takumar > teleconverters, will a TC ruin the advantge of a Takumar lens, is the 3x > TC as horrible as that huge modifier leads me to believe? > > Can you help? > -- > "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree > with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance > our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803. >
FA: Pentax bits and pieces
Hi Team, I have some more pieces of Pentax gear up for auction (some second time around) and the very last of the wooden LX grips. If anyone is interested please click on the link in the footer. I should be listing some more gear mid week. Cheers, Rob Studdert (eBay ID: distudio) PO Box 701 HURSTVILLE BC NSW 1481 AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please check my current eBay auctions: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/ebay/
most unheard of pentax lens
How about the 27mm SMC-W ? The W stood for windshield wiper. Very hard to replace the blades on that one. The A version (1970's) had an eight-track tape deck available with it (very rare). Marcello --
RE: Rumor Mill
Must have been a break from more than the list. Nikon has had an IS (Nikon calles it VR) lens out for about 2 years now. BR "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand from other rumors that >their patent has pretty much run out and other companies like Nikon are >working on image stabilized lenses. __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
There are some things important to consider before we start opinionating the digital SLR market.. > Their comment: "Despite the rumors, we fear that > Pentax, Contax and > others distanced from Canon and Nikon and lack the > means to > position themselves on the digital SLR market. > Even if an > exceptional camera arrives, there will still be > the problem of > lenses and accessories availability." > Consider this: Who is likely to buy a DSLR? Your average mom and dad with a K1000 or a MZ-60 or MZ-6? Hardly I think.. And what are the benefits to a common individual owning a DSLR that are not already being addressed by their 35mm film siblings? And what market is a DSLR trying to satisfy? So far, I have not seen or heard a convincing case that everyone should own a DSLR.. And if that's the case, what's the hurry to rush into a DSLR market with only a handful of potential buyers? > Among the other trends and rumors they comment, > two may impact on > Pentax decision to market at all a DSLR this year > - in my opinion. > First, it seems that Canon (and perhaps Nikon) > will launch a very > aggressively priced DSLR that Pentax may not be > able to match. There is no doubt that everyone wants to market a DSLR priced for a specific consumer price point stopping Pentax on their tracks? Hardly.. Canon and Nikon were OEMing some of their point and shoot cameras at aggressive prices, while Pentax made most of their own and still are able to compete gracefully. That's not bad... Second of all.. What terms as an aggressive pricing? To price a product worth less of its value is suicide. Remember, once you price a product, the price sticks forever. Price doesn't usually go up - they go down, but warranty expenses can go up. And they do because, when the model stops being produced, parts stop being mass produced. When a handful of parts are needed to be produced to address warranty issues, prices for these parts usually go up higher. > Second, the early demise of D60 places a question > mark over general > manufacturers support for DSLR. People will think > twice before > buying a relatively expensive product that gets > obsolete so quickly. Again.. It all comes down to warranty or future repairs.. People here seemed to think that DSLR will never break. They will never need servicing.. Hence, there is no need for Canon and Nikon or even Pentax to stock parts for the older models.. Right? Unfortunately, DSLR or any digitals fail just like the analog 35mm camera. Everybody love to boast they are making money on digitals, and yet few would admit to loosing money because of warranty repair expenses and stocking of obsolete parts for the required 7 years in some states and countries. The expense of stocking these parts that may never get used is again money. These parts don't earn interest in the bank. They only collect dust if they are not used. But, companies are required to stock serviceable parts regardless of the model's age. Do you upset your current customer by telling him or her that their Canon D60's CCD block is no longer available even after only 2 years out of warranty? Certainly not.. Otherwise, you'll get a very very upset and fuming customer! Therefore, an obsolete product is a product that does not have any factory serviceable parts.. As long as the product is serviceable, it is not obsolete. By the way, digital parts are very to extremely expensive. Most makers will just advise their clients to simply upgrade to the next best available model, if their cameras were not fixable. > Pentax will have to do even more in this regard, > by presenting an > upgrade path in a complete system. One may wonder > if they actually > have the resources... It is actually "cheaper" for Pentax and also for everyone else in the camera business to provide an upgrade path for an existing or older system technology. Rick.. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
There are probably more women that adjust the valves in their car engines than change lenses on their cameras. From what I've seen you aren't the typical soccor mom. BR wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Yep, got to agree with g. on this one, 'cos this soccer mom's got her eye >on a DSLR in the not too distant future (though I do like swanky little >gadgets too) > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
They buy 5mp digicams. I haven't spoken to one yet that was interested in changing lenses. It isn't even all that common for them to desire true photo quality prints, i.e. have photo inkjets and use real photo paper, or have them printed to photo paper by a service. It's mostly on line albums and e mailing photos. BR gfen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I think its less about soccer moms and more about rich college kids and >young adulkts with income to burn and desire for appearances. > > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Screw Mount!
I'm thinking of getting a screw mount adapter to turn my K1000 into a Spotmatic and try out some of the Takumar lenses. I've wanted to try professional quality lenses. I can't afford them, but the Takumar optics are legendary, and I see on eBay that the lenses are cheap. I'm interested more in telephoto than in wide angle. I like to take pictures of birds and fuzzy animals, with all that implies. So I'm looking for any advice, experience, confirmation of the legends, recommendations on specific peices of equipment. I don't really know the equipment well enough to ask specific questions, just that I want good stuff for cheap, normal lenses are easy to find but there seem to be several types, and I want good telephoto for cheap. What should I expect to pay? What about teleconverters; are there Takumar and non-Takumar teleconverters, will a TC ruin the advantge of a Takumar lens, is the 3x TC as horrible as that huge modifier leads me to believe? Can you help? -- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Rumor Mill
I took a break from the list, but curiosity draws me back. What news from the rumor mill? Image Stabilization. I've spent some time with my brother's 500mm reflex and 2x teleconverter and discover that 1000mm of telephoto can be very difficult to hold steady. That image stablization thing Canon had is starting to seem like a good idea. I understand from other rumors that their patent has pretty much run out and other companies like Nikon are working on image stabilized lenses. Can we expect the same from Pentax, or from a company like Vivitar that will make compatible lenses? Digital SLR. It's February, didn't I read here that they were going to make an announcement this month? -- "A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
>> That, my friends is not obsolescence. It's attitude and directed mindset... >> I love my 'obsolete' cameras! > > I think you love affair the obsolete products would have been somewhat > different if, say, the lens you bought today could have been had with 40% > higher resolution at half the price in six months. Or the Pentax MX you bought > in july 1978 could have been had for half the money in 1979. This is the > reality of DSLR. I agree with Pål here (and remember that I shoot with Spotmatics...). Digital camera obsolescence is REAL obsolescence. It shows not only in the dropping prices of new items, but in the failure of used items to hold value, and in the increasing REAL capability of the equipment. All *I* meant to say (and I didn't actually write most of the text that Keith responded to) was that the D60 is not obsolete yet. --Mike
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
At 05:21 PM 08/02/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > P&S, ZSLR digital cameras may be "lifestyle" items, but > interchangeable lens DSLRs aren't and won't be. Lumping P&S digitals > and DSLRs together is foolish. It's like thinking the film camera > buying of professional photographers and scoccer moms are the same. I think its less about soccer moms and more about rich college kids and young adulkts with income to burn and desire for appearances. Yep, got to agree with g. on this one, 'cos this soccer mom's got her eye on a DSLR in the not too distant future (though I do like swanky little gadgets too) Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Don't forget Kodak and Fuji. Kodak has been selling DSLRs for years. Fuji has been doing quite well with the S1 and S2, in particular. DSLRs have been, and I personally think will continue to be pro and serious amateur cameras, where what brand of lens you can mount is very important. BR Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Nikon and Canon are the only companies who has been serious so fat in the DSLR >market. It is not so strange as these are the compoanies who cater to the 35mm pro >market and DSLR so far have for all practical purposes been pro only items. This will >of course change and then the other players will join with full force. > > __ The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
RE: Most unknown Pentax lens
25-50?? I thought it was a 28-50. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Steve Pearson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 5:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Most unknown Pentax lens > > > If I remember the focal length correctly, my vote > would be for the 25-50 zoom. I've only seen one in > the last year on ebay. Almost bought it, but had no > idea if it was a good one or not. Seems like it sold > fairly reasonably-maybe $50? > > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > What do you think is the most unknown Pentax lens? > > > My guess: SMC M 35-70/2.8-3.5. > > > > How about the K30/2.8 or K20/4 or the soft focus > > 85mm? > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com >
Re: Most unknown Pentax lens
If I remember the focal length correctly, my vote would be for the 25-50 zoom. I've only seen one in the last year on ebay. Almost bought it, but had no idea if it was a good one or not. Seems like it sold fairly reasonably-maybe $50? --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > What do you think is the most unknown Pentax lens? > > My guess: SMC M 35-70/2.8-3.5. > > How about the K30/2.8 or K20/4 or the soft focus > 85mm? > > Regards, Bob S. > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Most unknown Pentax lens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What do you think is the most unknown Pentax lens? > My guess: SMC M 35-70/2.8-3.5. How about the K30/2.8 or K20/4 or the soft focus 85mm? Regards, Bob S.
Re: Re[2]: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
On 2/08/03 3:46 PM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True, but digital does not necessarily level the field. There's a > limit for miniaturization. A DSLR will always have more resources > than a p&s, and the difference in ergonomics is what makes apart a > tool from a toy. Modular SLR systems are not an accident. Hi Alin, I always respect your opinion. And I was not necessarily talking about the SLR becoming P&S as a toyish format. I was thinking more in line with Contax G type which cannot be called a P&S but it is certainly not an SLR. Miniaturization for the sake of miniaturization is not practical, however, the shift to digital is giving more freedom to designers (I think), and the same amount of the resources and the functions today's SLR (or DSLR) have can be packed into the smaller box with more flexible form. F5/1V type heavy and bulky boxes will be the first to go. I am personally looking forward to something which will break the mould with more convenient functions which today's SLRs could not achieve. In the perfect world, DSLR is already eliminating the film transport mechanism (a big space), the need to change the film speed (I know ISO 400 still has a lot of noise, depending on the model) and the type of film (tungsten or daylight etc. I know the white balance is still not perfect but very usable). But in my mind, I also am looking forward to a high end film SLR with more solid basic functions (no gimmick, no robo camera) with a solid body (metal preferable but metal cladding is fine), the one which is a gem of craftsmanship and I can bring to my grave :-). I meant the levelling the filed in the sense that all competitions are essentially starting fresh, launching into uncharted water, not in the sense of comparison between today's P&S and SLRs. Interesting time, indeed. Cheers, Ken
RE: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
While my favorites are the SMCT ( M42) lenses, I also like both the K and M's too. Not so much the A's ( too much plastic). I feel some of the M's are unfairly disrespected. For example, I just got the M-100 2.8 and my first roll revealed amazing sharpness, much better than I expected. The compact sizes of the M's are cool too. JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 3:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ? > > > Tell him to sell it to JCO! > > There are a number of folks who like the Older K lenses. > (I think of Daphne the Israeli who was collecting them.) > They are generally 25%-35% bigger than the M versions of the same lens. > Some think that Pentax compromised quality when they made them smaller. > Others think the "look" produced by the lenses is better. > I don't personally notice much of a difference, but that's me. > > Overall, the K's aren't fetching much more than the M's. In some > cases like > the K135/3.5 I saw this AM, nobody even seemed to notice K vs M > and the price > was 15 or 20 Euros on eBay Germany. I'm trying to pick them up > when I see > them, but for a good price (~$50). Right now, prices on ebay are odd. > > Like I said, sell it to JCO for his $150 offer! > > Regards, Bob S. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Tell him I'll give $150 for it. > > JCO > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Subject: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ? > > >Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value > > >of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a > > >trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade > > >value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through > > >list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I > > >got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is > > >pristine - I believe him :^) > > > > > >... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it > > >would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could > > >post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, > > >it's Barry Brevik. >
Most unknown Pentax lens
What do you think is the most unknown Pentax lens? My guess: SMC M 35-70/2.8-3.5. Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
On 2/08/03 3:46 PM, "Alin Flaider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh well, I hope I won't be forced to resign within the consumer > condition and have to stare at the reconstructed piece of the reality > in the viewfinder. If I need mind blowing simulations with subject > identification based on the previous 1000 shots and a real time > on-screen probability figure of the shot to be a Pulitzer winner, > then I know where to go. Just give me the true optical image of what > my camera gets through the lens. Can you do this for me, Hal? ;o) Well, yes, Alin :-). Actually, I much prefer the optical finder. I guess my point was that, with the advent of digital cameras, certain things could be done electronically which will eliminate a few things in the process and might change the traditional form factors. Traditional SLR could never eliminate the protrusion of the penta prism (or mirror) housing which set the form of SLRs (wysiwyg viewfinder to allow focussing/exposure which has to be flipped away with a bang and shock ;-), well yes, perricle mirror but...). I do not particularly like it, but the Minolta APS S-1 eliminated it by designing the viewfinder sideways which eliminated the bulky penta prism housing but it is still a big bang flipper. A lot of people, including those pros who use DSLRs hold the camera away from viewfinders as they wish to see the exposure conditions in the screen. Sometimes I wonder how they could avoid the blur, but that's the way they are using the camera (not all times, I know). It would be nice if we could have a true optical viewfinder (which necessitates the bulky body by default) which can be easily toggled to EVF by pushing the button while holding the camera etc ;-). I am sure that engineers are fully aware of the conflicting requirements for DSLR and let's see how they can come up with the nice solutions :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Flash
Plus, if you ever go to a 645 or 67 (any brand with a hotshoe), it has the ability to adjust the output for those formats. Comes in handy on my 645 and Kiev 60. Bill - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Flash > Gary, > > Couple of things. I used to have 500 FTZ and now have multiple 360's. > The 500 can swivel as well as tilt, the 360 can only tilt. The 500 > can take multiple battery sources (nicad, etc) the 360 is limited to > just AA's. The 500 has better range than the 360. > > The 360 however, has P-TTL for those bodies that support it. It has > wireless TTL flash support for those bodies that support it. In auto > mode (sensor on flash) you can dial in any f-stop rather than just > range. This makes it usable on manual cameras. > > > Bruce > > > > Saturday, February 8, 2003, 11:42:21 AM, you wrote: > > GLM> What, other then the guide number increase, would be a good reason to > GLM> purchase the AF500-FTZ over the AF360-FTZ? It would be used on the PZ-1p > GLM> and PZ-20 > > GLM> Right now I'm using the AF330-FTZ but would like a bit "more" flash > GLM> including bounce capability. > > GLM> Thoughts? >
Re: Flash
Gary, Couple of things. I used to have 500 FTZ and now have multiple 360's. The 500 can swivel as well as tilt, the 360 can only tilt. The 500 can take multiple battery sources (nicad, etc) the 360 is limited to just AA's. The 500 has better range than the 360. The 360 however, has P-TTL for those bodies that support it. It has wireless TTL flash support for those bodies that support it. In auto mode (sensor on flash) you can dial in any f-stop rather than just range. This makes it usable on manual cameras. Bruce Saturday, February 8, 2003, 11:42:21 AM, you wrote: GLM> What, other then the guide number increase, would be a good reason to GLM> purchase the AF500-FTZ over the AF360-FTZ? It would be used on the PZ-1p GLM> and PZ-20 GLM> Right now I'm using the AF330-FTZ but would like a bit "more" flash GLM> including bounce capability. GLM> Thoughts?
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Not snipped because it needs reading again: >I'm continually amazed at people's use ~ and perception ~ of the word >"obsolete." >It seems they think of anything called 'obsolete' as just next to worthless. >Last week, before the introduction of the new super-thing, what they >had or hankered for was top of the line, and WELL worth having! >Now, in a week or less, it's relegated to the rubbish pile because >some ad man called it obsolete. > >How absolutely absurd! If it was very good last week, it's just as >good this week, and will probably be just as good next year, and maybe >10 years from now if you take care of it... > >Most of my collection of Pentax bodies, and lenses too for that >matter, could be considered obsolete by someone, just for age alone! >In fact, ONLY because of age. But I'd put the raw quality of my best >negatives up against those produced by any one-hour-new Nikon, Canon >or whatever, and unless you _knew_ what took it, you'd find it >impossible to tell the body was 50 years old, and the lens 35 years >old. > >That, my friends is not obsolescence. It's attitude and directed mindset... >I love my 'obsolete' cameras! Here here! Best thing I've read all week. Well written, Keith. Cheers, Cotty (With a pair of obsolete MXs, an obsolete Leica CL, and an obsolete D60!) Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
More precisely put... I have seen a premium on the K20/4, K35/2, and some on the K50/1.4. I haven't seen any on the K135/3.5, K200/4, but a bit on the K105/2.8. (Of course, the K85/1.8 is prohibitively expensive.) The K120 and K150 don't come up often and I suspect there isn't a premium on them vs the M120/2.8 and M150/3.5 versions. Regards, Bob S.
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
Tell him to sell it to JCO! There are a number of folks who like the Older K lenses. (I think of Daphne the Israeli who was collecting them.) They are generally 25%-35% bigger than the M versions of the same lens. Some think that Pentax compromised quality when they made them smaller. Others think the "look" produced by the lenses is better. I don't personally notice much of a difference, but that's me. Overall, the K's aren't fetching much more than the M's. In some cases like the K135/3.5 I saw this AM, nobody even seemed to notice K vs M and the price was 15 or 20 Euros on eBay Germany. I'm trying to pick them up when I see them, but for a good price (~$50). Right now, prices on ebay are odd. Like I said, sell it to JCO for his $150 offer! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Tell him I'll give $150 for it. > JCO > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Subject: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ? > >Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value > >of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a > >trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade > >value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through > >list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I > >got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is > >pristine - I believe him :^) > > > >... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it > >would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could > >post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, > >it's Barry Brevik.
Re[2]: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Pål wrote: PJ> What gave you that idea? Why shouldn't Pentax be able to match PJ> their prices? The have always been able to match anybodies prices. Well, camera price is still driven by the sensor price. Last time I checked Canon was manufacturing their own sensor, that is they have a larger margin to cut from. PJ> The first maker who make a DSLR that actually look like something PJ> high-tech and not like a 12 year old slr, will suceed. Digital are PJ> "lifestyle" items that wsill sell on style and modernity. I believe this trend is receding lately. Indeed Olympus, Minolta or Sony made everything possible their ZLRs look like tricorders. It made me sick just by looking at them. Once the fanciness is gone, good old proven design and functionality will be back. It happened before with film AF, it will happen even faster with digital. Ken wrote: KT> This is the old thinking based on the film technology. The KT> boundary between P&S digital and DSLR is becoming blurred litle KT> by little, and will accelerate in the near future. True, but digital does not necessarily level the field. There's a limit for miniaturization. A DSLR will always have more resources than a p&s, and the difference in ergonomics is what makes apart a tool from a toy. Modular SLR systems are not an accident. KT> With the improvement of the electronic viewfinder, one of the most KT> advantages of SLRs may be diminishing (well, it will at least KT> eliminate the bulky prism and its housing). I understand that KT> big4 are developing better EVF now. Then, the high end and very KT> compact digicam with a rangefinder form factor with decent zoom KT> and EVF might satisfy most, if not all, of the consumer markets. Oh well, I hope I won't be forced to resign within the consumer condition and have to stare at the reconstructed piece of the reality in the viewfinder. If I need mind blowing simulations with subject identification based on the previous 1000 shots and a real time on-screen probability figure of the shot to be a Pulitzer winner, then I know where to go. Just give me the true optical image of what my camera gets through the lens. Can you do this for me, Hal? ;o) KT> Pentax has more than KT> sufficient resources to produce what they want including accessories. Not so obvious if it's about new technologies. Pentax only recently upgraded the flash system and it still lacks sorely in the lens department with no IS and USM. In order to successfully promote the image of a revolutionary new DSLR system, they have to introduce other technologies as well, besides digital. They may have among the largest lens lines, but this is aging and won't take them too far. Then again, are they up to task of the change...? Mike wrote: MJ> But the early "demise" of the D60 in no way indicates a lack of MJ> support for it--rather, it indicates its overwhelming popularity MJ> and far stronger than expected sales. Many Canon users are perceiving it as a lack of commitment from their beloved manufacturer (sounds familiar?). They had no other option but to buy an expensive, underspecified camera compared to their current film belonging, and now they fear the uncertainty of future drivers while some frankly deplore the reselling price will drop in just a few months. Servus, Alin
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
Sorry - ignore the previous. I have the M version. stan on 2/08/03 2:24 PM, Stan Halpin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I paid $120, including shipment from Europe, for mine about 6 months on > eBay. > > stan > > on 2/08/03 11:15 AM, Bill D. Casselberry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value >> of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a >> trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade >> value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through >> list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I >> got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is >> pristine - I believe him :^) >> >> ... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it >> would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could >> post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, >> it's Barry Brevik. >> >> >> - >> Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast >> >> http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> - >> >> > >
Re: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
I paid $120, including shipment from Europe, for mine about 6 months on eBay. stan on 2/08/03 11:15 AM, Bill D. Casselberry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value > of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a > trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade > value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through > list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I > got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is > pristine - I believe him :^) > > ... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it > would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could > post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, > it's Barry Brevik. > > > - > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - > >
Re: Flash
- Original Message - From: "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Flash > What, other then the guide number increase, would be a good reason to > purchase the AF500-FTZ over the AF360-FTZ? It would be used on the PZ-1p > and PZ-20 You probably mean AF360FGZ (not FTZ). The reasons are as following: - you won't be able to use the AF360FGZ's advanced features like P-TTL, HSS and wireless control with both of your cameras anyway - the AF360FGZ has no swivel - the AF360FGZ has the built-in flash compensation feature, which is useless with the PZ-1p, because this camera has its own built-in flash compensation control (which is IMHO A LOT easier to operate than the former) Regards Artur --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: Flash
For the PZ-20 and ip the 500 gives you the range, the 360 doesn't have much of a range increase overthe 330. Other than that, the 360 rocks. --- "Gary L. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What, other then the guide number increase, would be > a good reason to > purchase the AF500-FTZ over the AF360-FTZ? It would > be used on the PZ-1p > and PZ-20 > > Right now I'm using the AF330-FTZ but would like a > bit "more" flash > including bounce capability. > > Thoughts? > > > -- > Later, > Gary > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Flash
What, other then the guide number increase, would be a good reason to purchase the AF500-FTZ over the AF360-FTZ? It would be used on the PZ-1p and PZ-20 Right now I'm using the AF330-FTZ but would like a bit "more" flash including bounce capability. Thoughts? -- Later, Gary
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Keith wrote: > I'm continually amazed at people's use ~ and perception ~ of the word "obsolete." > It seems they think of anything called 'obsolete' as just next to worthless. > Last week, before the introduction of the new super-thing, what they > had or hankered for was top of the line, and WELL worth having! > Now, in a week or less, it's relegated to the rubbish pile because > some ad man called it obsolete. > > How absolutely absurd! If it was very good last week, it's just as > good this week, and will probably be just as good next year, and maybe > 10 years from now if you take care of it... By that logic we would still be driving T Fords. If it was good enough back then etc... > Most of my collection of Pentax bodies, and lenses too for that > matter, could be considered obsolete by someone, just for age alone! > In fact, ONLY because of age. But I'd put the raw quality of my best > negatives up against those produced by any one-hour-new Nikon, Canon > or whatever, and unless you _knew_ what took it, you'd find it > impossible to tell the body was 50 years old, and the lens 35 years > old. > > That, my friends is not obsolescence. It's attitude and directed mindset... > I love my 'obsolete' cameras! I think you love affair the obsolete products would have been somewhat different if, say, the lens you bought today could have been had with 40% higher resolution at half the price in six months. Or the Pentax MX you bought in july 1978 could have been had for half the money in 1979. This is the reality of DSLR. Pål
Re: XP question
From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: XP question Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:23:39 + Hi, > That's what I thought when I had this setup. The perfect backup system > Until an unknown force (ottawa hydro) blew up most of the components on my PC including BOTH hard drives. > Darned unlucky. I'd have put money on it that I wouldn't have two disks fail at the same time. That's the way Sod's Law works! --- Bob That's what a really good UPS is for, preventing surges and sags from damaging your hardware. Len --- _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
OT: MS Photo Editor
Has anyone used Microsoft's Photo Editor? If so, I have a few questions. 1. Is there a way to convert a color image to B&W? 2. Is there a way to "Mark up" the picture? For instance, I want to write the date on the picture itself, or maybe a caption, that will actually print out on the photo? Thanks in advance! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Scammed
At 11:56 PM -0600 2/7/03, Dan Scott wrote: Last Tuesday I had a big attack of the "stoopids". I'd been trying to report and resolve a problem with Ebay and received an email from them with a link to what appeared to be an authentic Ebay page. It wasn't. I've just finished reporting the incident to my CC company and Ebay. Doesn't appear to be unusual activity on my CC account, which worries me-these con artists have had my name, e-mail address, and CC number since Tuesday and haven't tried to charge anything. Anyone have any tips on what to do if you suspect "identity theft"? Put a password on the CC account. I assume they have shut that number down and are issuing you a new one. If that is all the information the fraud perpetrator has then you are probably okay. Usually they move fast if they are going to do something with the account information. Steve, who works for a credit card company. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Trying to explain MZ-60
Hi! There are some strange cameras such as MZ-60 popping up in ranges of other manufacturers. Recently I've read about some new model of Nikon which is essentially a very low level, nearly fully automatic film SLR. Though I have close to none interest in Canon and Nikon offerings I allow myself to be thinking every now and then . The following thought have occurred to me. Could it be that major manufacturers are sensing the oncoming demise of film point and shoot cameras and preparing the ground for fallback. By now 2 MP zoom DP&S can be had for how much - 200-300 bucks... Way better 4 MP DP&S can be had for roughly twice that figure, or may be even less. Now, in 1994 I bought a rather simple P&S by Fuji for $250. Anyway, for sake of 4"x6" family album shots 2-4 MP DP&S are sufficient. Thus, it would be logical to assume that rather soon film P&S will start to loose market share and quite rapidly too. So perhaps, to keep film cameras attractive for some time, or better yet to keep profit coming from film cameras for as long as possible the major manufacturers are preparing the ground for the shift. The shift would be towards very simple yet seemingly more serious MZ-60 like SLR film cameras. The would become the P&S of 2005 and onward to the future. I did drink some tasty dessert wine today. Did I drink too much? --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
RE: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
Tell him I'll give $150 for it. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 12:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ? > > > > Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value > of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a > trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade > value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through > list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I > got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is > pristine - I believe him :^) > > ... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it > would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could > post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, > it's Barry Brevik. > > > - > Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast > > http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - >
Re: Exhibition preview tonight.
Congratulations! Sorry I am somewhat late... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > P&S, ZSLR digital cameras may be "lifestyle" items, but > interchangeable lens DSLRs aren't and won't be. Lumping P&S digitals > and DSLRs together is foolish. It's like thinking the film camera > buying of professional photographers and scoccer moms are the same. I think its less about soccer moms and more about rich college kids and young adulkts with income to burn and desire for appearances. -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Value opinion 120mm f2.8 ?
Got a note from an ex-member this AM concerning the value of the SMCP 120mm f2.8 (K-version, not M). He's working a trade for a 4x5 system and asks an estimation of trade value of the 120mm. From what I have picked up through list-osmosis, this is one of the "desirable" old K's?. I got my 17mm f4 Tak from him and he says the 120mm is pristine - I believe him :^) ... anyway he's been keeping an eye on the list and it would be cool if some of our "lens specialists" could post some of their thoughts. For those w/ longish memories, it's Barry Brevik. - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Mike Johnston wrote: > > > First, it seems that Canon (and perhaps Nikon) will launch a very > > aggressively priced DSLR > > You can bet on that. > > > Second, the early demise of D60 places a question mark over general > > manufacturers support for DSLR. People will think twice before > > buying a relatively expensive product that gets obsolete so quickly. I'm continually amazed at people's use ~ and perception ~ of the word "obsolete." It seems they think of anything called 'obsolete' as just next to worthless. Last week, before the introduction of the new super-thing, what they had or hankered for was top of the line, and WELL worth having! Now, in a week or less, it's relegated to the rubbish pile because some ad man called it obsolete. How absolutely absurd! If it was very good last week, it's just as good this week, and will probably be just as good next year, and maybe 10 years from now if you take care of it... Most of my collection of Pentax bodies, and lenses too for that matter, could be considered obsolete by someone, just for age alone! In fact, ONLY because of age. But I'd put the raw quality of my best negatives up against those produced by any one-hour-new Nikon, Canon or whatever, and unless you _knew_ what took it, you'd find it impossible to tell the body was 50 years old, and the lens 35 years old. That, my friends is not obsolescence. It's attitude and directed mindset... I love my 'obsolete' cameras! keith whaley > The D60 isn't exactly "obsolete." It's going to be replaced, probably at > PMA, by two separate cameras, and Canon simply underestimated demand for it > and sold out of the production run far sooner than they thought they would. > Since the production lines were already devoted to the new cameras, another > run of the D60 was not feasible. But the early "demise" of the D60 in no way > indicates a lack of support for it--rather, it indicates its overwhelming > popularity and far stronger than expected sales. > > --Mike
RE: OT XP question
Thank you for all who answered my question. I think the transfer, reformat and partition, and re-transfer is my best option. I'm running XP home. How do I make sure I have everything off C drive before reformatting? As this is very OT and may be long, please feel free to contact me off list. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Vs: OT Pentax wife
Exactly. And the opposite is also true. Lenses go always unnoticed, cameras get noticed sometimes but the phrases Wendy uses do work. I also buy cameras for Christmas presents - for myself, of course. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: wendy beard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 07. helmikuuta 2003 6:02 Aihe: Re: OT Pentax wife >At 06:37 PM 06/02/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >>Do Pentax wives play the same games played by Pentax husbands: having >>equipment sent to their work address so their spouses won't know? >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I've only done it once. Not because I didn't want my spouse to know, but >because it was coming by UPS and UPS only deliver in "office hours". >Honest. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. > >Later. > >"where did that hulking great camera spring from?" >"What this old 67? Oh, I've had it ages. Men! They just don't notice these >things." > >W. > >Wendy Beard, >Ottawa, Canada >http://www.beard-redfern.com > >
Vs: ultrawide lens questions
I have the 4.5/15 mm Voigtländer and it is very good indeed. It vignettes noticeably but not annoyingly. A Voigtländer Bessa-L and the 15 mm is not that expensive, either. And no weird colours - just good saturation on mine. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 08. helmikuuta 2003 5:54 Aihe: ultrawide lens questions >for some time now i have been looking for an ultrawide lens (18mm and >wider). i seem to somewhat narrowed my list of choices: > >pentax 15mm/3.5 >voigtlander 15mm or 12mm >pentax fisheye 17mm/4 >pentax fisheye 16mm/2.8 > >does anyone here have experience with these? the review on luminous >landscape gives voigtlander 12mm quite a bit of praise, but i am curious, >how they compare to pentax 15mm (the designs are obviously very different). >pls, no usual "go try them both and see for yourself" :) > >also, i have been enjoying zenitar 16mm full frame fisheye for quite some >time now, and with a little help of photoshop, it too is capable to give >some pretty wide images with very little distortion. has anyone here tried >to compare quality-wise remapped fisheye images with true wide-angle shots >at, say, 15mm? -- all my film ends up scanned anyway. > >and, finally, did anyone tried both, zenitar and pentax fisheyes side by >side? does pentax worth the premium? and, quality-wise, which pentax one is >better, 17mm or 16mm? > >ufff... now back to scanning. > >best, >mishka >
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
> First, it seems that Canon (and perhaps Nikon) will launch a very > aggressively priced DSLR You can bet on that. > Second, the early demise of D60 places a question mark over general > manufacturers support for DSLR. People will think twice before > buying a relatively expensive product that gets obsolete so quickly. The D60 isn't exactly "obsolete." It's going to be replaced, probably at PMA, by two separate cameras, and Canon simply underestimated demand for it and sold out of the production run far sooner than they thought they would. Since the production lines were already devoted to the new cameras, another run of the D60 was not feasible. But the early "demise" of the D60 in no way indicates a lack of support for it--rather, it indicates its overwhelming popularity and far stronger than expected sales. --Mike
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
Ken wrote: > I tend to agree with this. While the current digital camera market has a > look of C/N runaway success, the whole market has been essentially > reshuffled and everybody will be competing in the level field. , But this not a correct interpretation. Canon being No.1 in film cameras is only No. 4 in digital (they may have reached 3rd place in some markets recently). This cannot be satisfactory for the company. Nikon isn't even in the ballpark. > As Pål said > elsewhere, C/N had to first respond to what is called "pro" market which is > almost done, and C/N will begin to enter into the consumer market (DSLR, > that is). Nikon and Canon are the only companies who has been serious so fat in the DSLR market. It is not so strange as these are the compoanies who cater to the 35mm pro market and DSLR so far have for all practical purposes been pro only items. This will of course change and then the other players will join with full force. >Digital P&S market will be filled with all kinds of competitions > including from non-traditinal camera makers, mostly the electronics and the > home electronics makers. In the DSLR market, it is still the traditional > big 4 market because of somewhat unique trick & trade required for the SLR > but even that market is no longer sacred. There are a number of sub-contract > level SLR body makers. Absolutely, and it is in this segment Pentax is in an unique situation. We have rumors about a entry level DSLR; a entry/mid film slr; a new 67; a 645D; a high mp DSLR; a high-end 35mm film slr. All this is credible due to Pentax unique position. Pentax can make the "same" camera in very different conifgurations. A digital 645 need only been an inflated 35mm slr. Same with a new 67 body; digital or not. Lets face it; the only necessarily diference betwen a high-end 35mm slr/DSLR and medium format of the same is the size of the mirror box, mount and film/sensor mount distance. Why not take advantage of this simple fact? As Pentax have never been much keen on interchangeable backs, why bother with digital backs when it makes far more sense with digital cameras? > 1. It was not like Pentax & Minolta had no capability nor intention to enter > into the DSLR market. It is obvious that they had to enter into it at some > point but had to measure the timing. I do not think P/M were even > interested in entering into the early DSLR market when C/N were draining the > money to respond to the pro market they had. > 4. Current industry leader is obviously Canon and it is almost certain that > they enter into the consumer level DSLR market. D60 was such a success that > they could not keep up with the production. Hmm. This probably depend how you define sucess. It should not be overestimated. The fact is that Canon sold more than they expected. They did not expect much. Pål
Re: ChDImage about Pentax and PMA
On 2/08/03 9:01 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > P&S, ZSLR digital cameras may be "lifestyle" items, but interchangeable lens > DSLRs aren't and won't be. Lumping P&S digitals and DSLRs together is foolish. > It's like thinking the film camera buying of professional photographers and > scoccer moms are the same. This is the old thinking based on the film technology. The boundary between P&S digital and DSLR is becoming blurred litle by little, and will accelerate in the near future. With the fixed imaging media (film), there were distinctive advantage of SLRs over P&S, and SLRs have been used as such. However, with the constant advancement of the image sensing technology and the software engine to process it, today's digital P&S are capable of capturing the images equalling (or at least approaching) the ones by traditional SLRs. For the usual zoom range of 28~105mm etc (where most of the photos are taken. I am talking about the average amateur hobbyists), the performance of the digital P&S is more than sufficient now, and it will even improve further in the near future. DSLR will still shine in ultra wide, long tele and dedicated macro etc. However, a lot of people are now finding the less necessity to buy DSLRs at least for now when the product cycle is so short. I have a Canon G3 which I purchased as a stopgap until the decent and usable DSLR will come out at the competitive price, but I am finding that I can live with it for a little longer than I thought. It has even a bayonet adaptor mount to quickly use the tele/wide converters. Now, I know the converters are no match to the interchangeable SLR lenses but very usable. If there were any kind of vignetting and light falling off etc, the image could be easily cropped. With the improvement of the electronic viewfinder, one of the most advantages of SLRs may be diminishing (well, it will at least eliminate the bulky prism and its housing). I understand that big4 are developing better EVF now. Then, the high end and very compact digicam with a rangefinder form factor with decent zoom and EVF might satisfy most, if not all, of the consumer markets. I understand that there are now all kinds of very innovative technologies are being developed to be adopted into digicam, and our traditional image of cameras may have to be refreshed. Cheers, Ken
