Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Hi! Boz, perhaps there is a minor glimpse of hope here. Could it be that for K and M lenses the new mount would work, but it wouldn't allow open aperture metering? But wait, I am afraid I am wrong, because it would mean that mechanical aperture coupling would have to be different in order for body not to be able to do open aperture metering. That's one big piece of bad news. My ZX-L would probably work with new FAJ lenses, but if it all comes true it would mean that ZX-L is the last new camera I am going to buy from Pentax... I do hope, Boz, that you're indeed wrong. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Not so fast! I do not see, why K or M lenses should not work with future Pentax SLRs. All I see is that FAJ lenses won't be usable on pre-A-series cameras. However, that itself is a piece of sh*t. Well, I would not want to own such low-end zooms anyway. Arnold
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Boz wrote: So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount compatibility. :-((( Pentax has just rendered all K- and M-series lenses obsolete. Long live the crippled K-af mount!!! :-((( But the DSLR might feature support for K and M lenses, you say... Yes it might, but will the second-generation one also? :-((( To the extent these lenses exist at all and not a printing error, they are obviously ultra cheap basement level lenses not meant for those who sit on large lens inventories. Unfortunately, the competition has cheapened out and removed the aperture ring so in order for Pentax to compete at the basement level they have to do the same. These two lenses (if they are indeed marketed) are obvious candidates to be bundled in a kit with an entry level camera; possibly the Ist. They may have bearing on the general shape of things when it comes to Pentax K-mount system. Pål
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Boz wrote: pbd What a slip by Pentax USA! This manual probably should have been pbd released after the new top-of-the-line piece-of-sh*t comes out, after we pbd find out that it doesn't support the older lenses. Well, there are two possibilities: - either these are the lenses to be launched with the DSLR and then this signals indeed the end of the K mount compatibility; - or these lenses are MZ-60 dedicated and intended to further drop the price of the entry level slr kit. Which one is real - your guess is as good as mine. Servus, Alin --- Xnet scaneaza automat toate mesajele impotriva virusilor folosind RAV AntiVirus. Xnet automatically scans all messages for viruses using RAV AntiVirus. Nota: RAV AntiVirus poate sa nu detecteze toti virusii noi sau toate variantele lor. Va rugam sa luati in considerare ca exista un risc de fiecare data cand deschideti fisiere atasate si ca MobiFon nu este responsabila pentru nici un prejudiciu cauzat de virusi. Disclaimer: RAV AntiVirus may not be able to detect all new viruses and variants. Please be aware that there is a risk involved whenever opening e-mail attachments to your computer and that MobiFon is not responsible for any damages caused by viruses.
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
I wrote: They may have bearing on the general shape of things when it comes to Pentax K-mount system. It is supposed to be: They may NOT have any. Pål
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
Hi Boz, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: What a slip by Pentax USA! ACK. So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount compatibility. :-((( I wouldn't go so far. Those FAJ lenses cannot be the expected wide-anlge lenses for the DSLR. I suspect that the FAJ lenses are low-cost lenses for the MZ-60. Dropping the manual aperture ring may reduce the production costs and make Pentax more price competitive in the low budget segment. Finally - we need not buy this garbage! Regards, Heiko
Re: posting eBay auctions - final remarks
Doug, The act of hop over to ebay and stumble across an incredible deal qualifies as work. That puts you in a whole different class from those who whine I want a ..., but never even bother to look! (Are they waiting for someone on the PDML to hand them a bargain?!!!) Always happy to clarify. g Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: okay, just to get this clear. I don't have time to watch ebay every day, and generally just glance at it every week or so, less often if I'm busy, so I have a question. If I hop over to ebay and stumble across an incredible deal, say, a 67II system that my next door neighbor is selling because his wife is kicking him out. He has a BIN of the exact amount of money I have in my pocket. Notice that he is my neighbor, so I can verify with my own grubby mitts/eyes that the 67II system, AND there's no shipping charge, because he is right next door, for the moment. Am I allowed to buy it, or do I have to pass because I don't spend enough time on ebay? How much online time do I have to devote to ebay before I qualify for bargains? Technically, that's two questions, but they can really be part A and part B. Always looking to clarify, Doug
Re: OT: Possible mobile phone virus
Hi Mike and all... Not to worry. This is a hoax. Your warning is welcome nevertheless. See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/mobile-phone-hoax.html - wherein it's explained clearly. There are two versions of this hoax, and the ACE one is one of them. Your reputable source ought to be happy to be told about this Symantec site, to check out any warnings s/he might get in the future! Best, keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, I'm not one for spreading despondancy but I have had this from a quite reputable source and don't have time to chack. If you receive a mobile call from ACE-? you should delete it without answering. Apparently this is some form of virus that will delete all your simcard information, causing you to have to re-register with your supplier. Don't know if this is only for the UK or not. No further information. Hope I'm proved wrong. Best wishes, mike
Re: Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Hi Arnold, Not so fast! I do not see, why K or M lenses should not work with future Pentax SLRs. No technical reason, I grant you that. But if they made the marketing decision to leave out aperture rings away on some lenses now, they will leave them out on some more soon, and then they will probably build a body that can only work in the A aperture setting or without an aperture ring... Wait, they already have build such bodies (MZ-30, MZ-50, MZ-60), maybe the'll build some more (MZ-20, MZ-4, MZ-2, MZ-1, MD-1, etc.)... Cheers, Boz PS: Anyone want to buy a like-new K 85/1.8, K 35/3.5, or K 35/2 ?
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
Oh, let them stew, Heiko. They're all so concerned it's the 'end of Pentax as we know it' before Pentax has actually SAID anything at all about it's intended use! I too hope it's a misjudgement, and those lenses _are_ to be used on a new, inexpensive, yet-to-be-announced camera body. Pentax DID say they had some new bodies to release, didn't they? At least that's what has been said here onlist. So how about let's wait and see? After all this time, and you'd rather predict the demise of Pentax instead of giving them time to explain? Talk about wild projections and the sky is falling panic time... Rather typical knee-jerk response, it seems to me. :-((( keith whaley * * * Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Boz, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: What a slip by Pentax USA! ACK. So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount compatibility. :-((( I wouldn't go so far. Those FAJ lenses cannot be the expected wide-anlge lenses for the DSLR. I suspect that the FAJ lenses are low-cost lenses for the MZ-60. Dropping the manual aperture ring may reduce the production costs and make Pentax more price competitive in the low budget segment. Finally - we need not buy this garbage! Regards, Heiko
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the time I try very hard to compose exactly what I want in the viewfinder, but a) I'm sometimes unable to do so because of not being able to change my location quickly enough or not having quite as long a lens as I needed at that moment, and b) sometimes when I get the film developed I change my mind about what the framing should be. And as I get more picky about my work (and start remembering that cropping is one of the available tools), (b) happens more often. When I put an image on a web page, I nearly always crop, trying to get the Important Part of the image into as few bytes as possible, but that's probably not relevant here because that sort of trimming doesn't affect the required pixel count as much as making an 8x10 print would. -- Glenn __ A:How do you carve an Elephant? B:I don't know, how? A: You get a large block of stone, a hammer and a chisel and chip away everything that doesn't look like an Elephant. The same goes for the final print. The carving starts in the viewfinder. While many denigrate zooms, even F 2.8, or even F 1.8 zooms because they are not primes, zooming with ones feet might not be practical and so the birth of pro zooms. If it is a macro shot I would always understand. But to pass up a shot, or take one even when the composition is not to your liking means you can't carve that Elephant; or you won't like it if you do. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS: I HOPE I AM WRONG!!! Typical 3rd party lens junk. I've a used SF-1 that came with an autofocus Tokina. Only after purchase did I realize that the lens had no aperture ring! Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens. Regards, Bob S.
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
More from the FA lenses manual: - FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the viewfinder for auto-focus camera - The FAJ zooms take 58mm filters - FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL: 8 elements in 8 groups, 0.4meters minimum focus disctance; 63x67mm, 180grams - FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL: 12 elements in 10 groups, 1.3 meters minimum focus disctance; 69x116mm, 385grams The manual has was written in 2002 already. There are no other new lenses although we expect some at PMA. Thus this manual will probably be obsolete soon, already. Maybe the FAJ lenses were meant to be released in 2002 but they were shelved? That would indeed be a good thing! Arnold
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...a good photo will overcome its format. That's a keeper! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
Hi Rfsindg, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens. LOL. That's it. Who knows - maybe this is the next, subtly prereleased April-fool trick of Pentax, after the 110-DSLR. Cheers, Heiko
RE: OT: Possible mobile phone virus
Its OK if your name is not 'Ace ...' - you might wonder why nobody is answering your calls today?!?!?! -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 February 2003 12:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Possible mobile phone virus Hi Mike and all... Not to worry. This is a hoax. Your warning is welcome nevertheless. See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/mobile-phone-hoax.html - wherein it's explained clearly. There are two versions of this hoax, and the ACE one is one of them. Your reputable source ought to be happy to be told about this Symantec site, to check out any warnings s/he might get in the future! Best, keith whaley mike wilson wrote: Hi, I'm not one for spreading despondancy but I have had this from a quite reputable source and don't have time to chack. If you receive a mobile call from ACE-? you should delete it without answering. Apparently this is some form of virus that will delete all your simcard information, causing you to have to re-register with your supplier. Don't know if this is only for the UK or not. No further information. Hope I'm proved wrong. Best wishes, mike
Re: 30mm f2.8 on ebay
You are right, Frank. I apologize, John, for my sarcasm, the result of typing before thinking - Sorry. Gee, I sent this out at 9:44 AM EST on February 9, and it just arrived back in my mailbox, almost two days later. Maybe the PDML server choked on it - it's probably not used to me apologizing for any flare-ups of my foot-in-mouth disease... I also sent the apology directly to John - hopefully he received it a little more speedily. Fred
Re: Best AND cheapest Pentax lenses
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens? The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around bargains--very good optically and usually very inexpensive. Which brings up another interesting exercise. What would you say are the best AND cheapest Pentax lenses for someone looking to put together a basic kit for reasonable bucks? I would say the SMCP-M 100/2.8 ranks. So does the SMCP-M 50/1.7. M28/3.5 -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: John Daniele on Photo Net
William, Brendan and Bruce Thanks for the comments I am new at this so I appreciate the help I am not insulted or ripped in any way. I did my developing by reading the instructions on the bottle, there seems to be so many variables between what the negative looks like to how it is scanned to what monitor it is displayed on. I need to find the time to take some classes. I have no room for a darkroom set up the film scanner seems to be the way to go for me right now. More of a collector of submini cameras Tessina, Minox, and some Robots I had a pentax me a few years ago and just loved the build and feel so much I also started collecting these. My life is very hectic 11 hour work days :( so time is limited in my (bathroom) darkroom I do like to use all of my cameras and making an image start to finish has been a real thrill. I need to work less and get a few classes in But for now I will keep shooting and ask for your comments good, bad, or otherwise I am sure I will learn something. Sincerely, John Daniele
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
on 11.02.03 13:12, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To the extent these lenses exist at all and not a printing error, they are obviously ultra cheap basement level lenses not meant for those who sit on large lens inventories. Unfortunately, the competition has cheapened out and removed the aperture ring so in order for Pentax to compete at the basement level they have to do the same. These two lenses (if they are indeed marketed) are obvious candidates to be bundled in a kit with an entry level camera; possibly the Ist. They may have bearing on the general shape of things when it comes to Pentax K-mount system. Nikon has started with low-end G lenses only. Now their every new lens is only G - without aperture ring (look at AF-S 24-85 or undoubtly high-end AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED). More you can read here: http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/index.html Let's hope Pentax won't go the same way... :-( -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a better bigger picture. Bruce this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define better first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived from, doesn't matter. if in fact you want grain, then 35mm is far preferable. translated another way, if 35mm satisfies or defines your artistic vision, then anything larger isn't better. you see two photos taken with different formats and choose the one you like most. it turns out it is the larger one. someone else may say that they are different and that is all. Herb
RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The file comes out with the right amount of megapixels because of the software interpolation making guesses about what's going on between the sensors. This adds to the filesize but doesn't add any actual information. interpolation adds information based on the reactions of the pixels in between, even though they are the wrong color. that means that it's not as good as having true RGB response at each pixel, but it is far better than not having anything to interpolate from. that is how the eye works too. the eye is much more sensitive to luminance changes than color changes. Herb...
Re: Best AND cheapest Pentax lenses
Are you referring to: PENTAX - ZOOM LENSES 35-70 F4 SMC A (58) / 2 TOUCH ??? Because on Boz's site it does not mention a macro capability. It says that the min. focussing distance is .25 M, which I would assume is not macro? Maybe I have the wrong lens? If so, would you mind providing more details of the lens you recommend? I am in the market for a macro and this might fit the bill niceley :) Hi, Steve. Well, that's the lens that I was referring to, but only in the vein of so-called macro zoom lenses. It's not a true macro lens - it only gets down to 1/2.7 X (at 0.25 m) (which is none too shabby) - and we all know that a true amcro lens should reach to 1:1 and have a very flat field, right? g What I was referring to was its so-called macro feature, which I found to be significantly better than the macro feature of some of its A zoom stable mates (28-135/4, 35-105/3.5, 70-210/4), for example. Take a look at the Lens Gallery ( http://plg.komkon.org ), where the little 35-70/4 does a very creditable job as a pseudo-macro lens, even with a close-up more-or-less flat brick wall, and even wide-open at f/4. If you want to jump directly to the 35-70/4's macro shots, go to http://plg.komkon.org/a35-70_4/re4.html . Fred
Re: OT: Okay, the ultimate PC vs Mac antidote!!!!
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: http://www.smuniverse.com/pmac/ In this case, you'd just get a slow Mac with a bad interface.* Convienetly enough, as I attempt to clean out my home, I've come across an old mac SE, a pile of 9 monitors, and a Compaq iPaq baby PC, and a stack of old laptop drives... Well, well, well. I think this'll replace the DEC Alpha mp3 station that's been living in my stereo rack. *I know, I'm bad, but I couldn't resist. What makes you exceptionally off is that its not even running Windows, but linux and X, which is the exact same thing your Apple OS X is (well, except that's BSD and X, but work with me here). ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: Of all the normal lenses...
On 2/10/2003 Greg wrote; It's SMC PENTAX-M 1:2 50mm, according to the printing on the front. Is this one of the good ones, or one of the cheap ones? It's SMC, but it's not a Takumar 50/1.4. SMC Takumars 50/1.4 were screw mount lenses. The SMCP-M 50/2.0 is a good lens, you should not be having sharpness problems with it.A couple of things to try. If you have other K mount lenses shoot a roll with different lenses and compare the resolution. If you are shooting color negative film it may be that the lab's printer may not be in great focus, try another lab or better still shoot a roll of slide film and examine with a good loupe. Printers out of focus are more common then you would think. When I got my Pentax 645 my first test, processed at a pro wedding lab, looked ok but I didn't see the difference I was expecting with MF. I printed a 5x7 at the lab I was working at and was amazed at the sharpness difference. I then shot some BW and processed and printed at home and it confirmed that my lenses were very contrasty and sharp. Very few labs run routine focus tests on their machines. If you do find out it was their machine, and you have a decent relationship with the lab, do them a favor and show them that their machine is not in focus. The good labs will try to correct that problem. Actually it was the sharpness of my M 50/2.0 over a Vivitar zoom lens that convinced me to go back to primes. I recently got a M 50/1.4. Maybe I'll do a sharpness comparison test of the 2 lenses. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: Best AND cheapest Pentax lenses
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: I would say the SMCP-M 100/2.8 ranks. So does the SMCP-M 50/1.7. The A50/2 was one of my favourites...Dirt cheap, new at like $40, small, light, well built. I regret selling it, but it wasn't doing me much good. Also, teh FA28-70/4 seems to routinely come up as a favourite, and was also cheap. My biggest issue with that lens, though, was the rotating front element. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes
Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on BH, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150. What in the world is up with that? Does it really cost that much more to *not* grind, polish, coat, and install glass? -- 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: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Arnold wrote: - FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the viewfinder for auto-focus camera Something that proves that these lenses are bottom of barrel of no interest to most PDML's. Pål
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Matt Greene said: The talk aobut grain always bothers me. Grain is purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid (most BW images) without grain. Then again, printing on textured paper defeats grain argument every time. Grain, like saturated colors is, for all intents and purposes, an affectation of purists and slide film shooters. Print film users tend not to make such a fuss about grain. Besides, a little grain never hurt an ugly Bride. My take on grain: when I enlarged a squirrel there were distinct green and red spots in its fur. A digital image might not have had better resolution, but green and red spots do stand out amidst gray fur. I think the color depth of pixels accounts for many people's pleasant experiences with digital, even if they don't have the pixel count of film. Grain seems like the sort of thing that should be available in software by now. Like load your digital image, and then choose a film brand and speed and enlargement you want to emulate.
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
on 11.02.03 15:38, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the viewfinder for auto-focus camera Something that proves that these lenses are bottom of barrel of no interest to most PDML's. The same was with Nikon's G-lenses. They started with low-end, now even high-end AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR ED IF is G as well as AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 ED... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Matt wrote: And the whole idea of saying pixels seems somehow odd, since the discussion is about film and not digital images and slide or print film, by their very nature, do not have pixels, though I understood what you meant. How is the discussion about film? The thread is called Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? That's what I was addressing, anyway. Yes, but your inference is that the image suffers by the increase. If the image or scene is intimate, it might, but generally such a small increase in size does not affect the image (or grain) at all. Again, I didn't make any such inference. I make lots of 5x7 prints. I was discussing the thread title. --Mike
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Don't forget that digital camera marketers count each R, G and B sensor separately in the megapixel rating. In which case it should probably be called megadots. While I'm being pedantic, I assume you mean ppi instead of dpi in your printing resolution ;) The file comes out with the right amount of megapixels because of the software interpolation making guesses about what's going on between the sensors. This adds to the filesize but doesn't add any actual information. So you need to multiply your numbers by three; ie 21.6Mp and 13.8Mp respectively. True enough, but I assume this has all been taken into account in the idea that the best resolution for printing is 300 ppi. I'm just repeating this standard, not second-guessing it. --Mike
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a new one on me, but I just picked up an FA 28-70mm and wanted to find out about any special features it might have. I downloaded the FA Interchangeable lens Manual from Pentax USA and discovered it covered the FAJ 28-80 f3.5-5.6AL and the FAJ 75-300 f4.5-5.8AL. These lenses, and I quote, 'do not have aperture ring to control f-stop, camera body controls f-stop on A position.' These lenses aren't mentioned on Boz's site and I've never seen or heard of them before, anyone know anything about them? Got the direct URL for that brochure? (I can't find it on Pentax USA's JavaScript-hobbled web site.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Top 10 Worst Clichés
Mike Johnston wrote: ...Which brings up another interesting question. What are the worst photographic clichés of all time? Mike, Without any doubt, the worst photographic clichés of all time are the Rules of Composition. Especially the Rule of Thirds. Regards, John
Re: 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 :) The only one I have (and I've never even used any of the others) is the 15mm f/3.5, which is hard to find and very expensive when you do. Of course, it's worth it if you like ultrawides! Needs to be stopped down a bit but sharp and nice when you do so. Linear distortion is almost non-existant - just astounding for a 15mm lens. It's actually one of my favorite lenses. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having shot a few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will overcome its format. Well said, Doug. I might add to that a trivial additional observation, which is that a good photo will also overcome its maker's prejudices about what constitutes good image quality. That is, a lot of photographers are worried and preoccupied by the question of good image quality, and they allow those considerations to lead them into a number of practices that aren't necessarily helpful. For instance, they may insist on using bigger formats than necessary; they may use tripods when not needed, or insist on stopping down too much, or use too slow a film. And yet, some of their photographs sometimes succeed anyway. gg --Mike
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
- Original Message - From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses) - or these lenses are MZ-60 dedicated and intended to further drop the price of the entry level slr kit. I'm pretty sure this is the case. The lenses seem to be as simple, cheap and toy-like as possible - a proper addition to the similarly toy-like MZ-60, which is IMHO one big mistake by Pentax. I wouldn't expect Pentax to introduce the FAJ idea into more advanced segments, because it would be its biggest and most dramatic mistake ever made. I don't think they are so stupid. Can anybody imagine an SMC FAJ 112/1,9 Limited?:) One way or another - i've got the feeling that the PMA will be the most decisive event for the Pentax future... Regards Artur --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
discovered it covered the FAJ 28-80 f3.5-5.6AL and the FAJ 75-300 f4.5-5.8AL. These lenses, and I quote, 'do not have aperture ring to control f-stop, camera body controls f-stop on A position.' These lenses aren't mentioned on Boz's site and I've never seen or heard of them before, anyone know anything about them? Hmm, those weren't supposed to be announced until later. They're a couple of entry-level zooms for the most inexpensive bodies. So far available in Japan only, not here. Don't worry, this is not the wave of the future. --Mike
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, How about cats playing in the flower bed? Hmm...I know I have some cat photos around here somewhere... AAUUUG! Flower shots are something I have mixed feelings about: I don't much like *looking* at flower photos, but I really like photographing flowers (which inevitably leaves me with a bunch of photos I'm not really interested in looking at, but if I were rational I wouldn't be on this list now would I?). I love working with the organic shapes and textures, especially getting in close enough to make them almost abstract. here's another (of the same plant in my previous shot, actually): http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d300216.jpg Don't worry, I don't like taking *or* viewing cat photos. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Hands up who crops?
Rob Brigham said: OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and filled the frame? Raised hand. When I go after fuzzy animals, they always seem to turn out much smaller in the print than they seemed in the viewfinder, even if they seemed pretty small in the viewfinder. I've often used a crop and zoom as a faux telephoto. In film, not digital, but I'd imagine the same concept applies. All else being equal, I'd rather use the slower film, and that's one reason why. And nobody has even mentioned the poor, neglected spies and private eyes that need as much information in their photos as they can get. They need to read license plates and recognize people's faces from a distance, you know.
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
Hi Iren, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: No. These FAJ zoom lenses are not even in the current product list in Japan. They are something for the future. Maybe they were intended for the MZ-D/MR-52 and now they are obsolete ;-) HAR! Cheers, Heiko
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
I'll admit it, I crop, (I feel like I'm in an AA meeting). Often I will compose a photo knowing I intend to crop from the beginning, some subjects just scream out for a panoramic treatment, or square treatment, as well as the reasons Bob listed At 09:51 AM 2/11/2003 +, Bob wrote: OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and filled the frame? I freely admit that I often and sometimes do these. Shooting planes at Duxford or F1 cars at silverstone, my 300mm was not always enough, so I applied extra magnification at the scanning stage. When taking family shots, sometimes I get into a zone where I automatically take a shot with the camera held in portrait mode and later realise that 2/3rds of the picture is wasted, so crop into portrait mode. This can mean that I need twice as many MP as my biggest print will require to keep me happy. So that 11MP I might need for an 8*10 actually becomes 22MP for an 8*10 which has been cropped. Give us a 22MP, 'non-bayer', full frame DSLR and this argument will stop overnight - I guarantee it. I am not saying todays camera arent good enough, but arguing how many MP the camera needs to do average prints without taking into account the fact that many prints are crops or zooms is only half the story. Sure maybe I should improve my framing technique (it is getting better all the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant do either easily and neither can a lot of the world. My .2c -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? I seem to recall that different printers work at their optimum with different ppi images. Some prefer 360ppi to work at their best. 2880 *3600 = 10,368,000. So the Canon 1Ds would seem perfect for 8*10s on 'any' printer, until you want to crop and enlarge a section. Oh, and by the way - as is usually overlooked by digital shooters, the image supplied by the camera has already been interpolated by a bayer algorith and does not record true colour at each pixel, but merely averages out 4 adjacent pixels. So some Rezzing up has already been done - unless you shoot Sigma... This is why the 3MP Foveon is said to be as good as 6MP bayer by anyone who had tested it. -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It's pretty easy to figure out what size digital camera you need for the best quality prints. Just multiply the size by 300 dpi / 240 dpi, then multiply out the pixels needed. 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. This accords pretty well with my experiences, though. I get very good 5x7s from my 3-mp camera and very good 8x10s from my 5-mp Sony. The 3-mp can't go to 8x10 to my satisfaction and the 5-mp can't go to 11x14. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Optio S pre-order (and prices)
Must be the VAT. At 11:47 AM 2/11/2003 +0100, Scars wrote: Hi! Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro http://s1.amazon.de/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y04Y2262953Y2956152/qid%3 D1044959909/sr%3D1-1/028-5489151-1156544 - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:20 AM Subject: Optio S pre-order (and prices) you can already pre-order this camera at amazon.com for $399.99 Pentax Optio S 3.2MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Optical Zoom Price: $399.99 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B87HWM/qid=1044959095/ sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-3772317-1367839?v=glances=photon=507846 Availability: This item will be released on April 21, 2003. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Pentax DSLRs
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Juey Chong Ong wrote: Wedding/studio shooters are already wedded to their 'Blads; why would they want to give it up when they can get a square format, 48-megapixel digital back for their 'Blad and minimally disrupt their shooting workflow? (ok, it does cost quite a bit). Whoops! I meant to say 48 Megabytes. Not 48 Megapixels. Sorry for the mental slip. --jc
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
Rob, Sounds like square format would actually work well for you. I used to shoot too tight and when it came time to frame, I would not have enough around the edges so the subject would be uncomfortably tight in the frame. From my experience, at least with people shots, it is better to be just a little loose rather than too tight. You can always crop if necessary, but have some working room to frame with. Bruce Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 1:51:53 AM, you wrote: RB OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a RB little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as RB well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough RB magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and RB realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and RB filled the frame? RB I freely admit that I often and sometimes do these. Shooting planes at RB Duxford or F1 cars at silverstone, my 300mm was not always enough, so I RB applied extra magnification at the scanning stage. When taking family RB shots, sometimes I get into a zone where I automatically take a shot RB with the camera held in portrait mode and later realise that 2/3rds of RB the picture is wasted, so crop into portrait mode. RB This can mean that I need twice as many MP as my biggest print will RB require to keep me happy. So that 11MP I might need for an 8*10 RB actually becomes 22MP for an 8*10 which has been cropped. RB Give us a 22MP, 'non-bayer', full frame DSLR and this argument will stop RB overnight - I guarantee it. RB I am not saying todays camera arent good enough, but arguing how many MP RB the camera needs to do average prints without taking into account the RB fact that many prints are crops or zooms is only half the story. Sure RB maybe I should improve my framing technique (it is getting better all RB the time anyway) and maybe I should buy that FA* 600mm F5.6 - but I cant RB do either easily and neither can a lot of the world. RB My .2c -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham Sent: 11 February 2003 09:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print? I seem to recall that different printers work at their optimum with different ppi images. Some prefer 360ppi to work at their best. 2880 *3600 = 10,368,000. So the Canon 1Ds would seem perfect for 8*10s on 'any' printer, until you want to crop and enlarge a section. Oh, and by the way - as is usually overlooked by digital shooters, the image supplied by the camera has already been interpolated by a bayer algorith and does not record true colour at each pixel, but merely averages out 4 adjacent pixels. So some Rezzing up has already been done - unless you shoot Sigma... This is why the 3MP Foveon is said to be as good as 6MP bayer by anyone who had tested it. -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It's pretty easy to figure out what size digital camera you need for the best quality prints. Just multiply the size by 300 dpi / 240 dpi, then multiply out the pixels needed. 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. This accords pretty well with my experiences, though. I get very good 5x7s from my 3-mp camera and very good 8x10s from my 5-mp Sony. The 3-mp can't go to 8x10 to my satisfaction and the 5-mp can't go to 11x14. --Mike
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
on 11.02.03 17:04, Heiko Hamann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Iren, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: No. These FAJ zoom lenses are not even in the current product list in Japan. They are something for the future. Maybe they were intended for the MZ-D/MR-52 and now they are obsolete ;-) I doubt it - MZ-D/MR-52 had similar construction to MZ-S - this means it couldn't control aperture from the body :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
They may not even be released, it won't be the first time a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my 1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that was never manufactured. At 01:19 PM 2/11/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hi Boz, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: What a slip by Pentax USA! ACK. So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount compatibility. :-((( I wouldn't go so far. Those FAJ lenses cannot be the expected wide-anlge lenses for the DSLR. I suspect that the FAJ lenses are low-cost lenses for the MZ-60. Dropping the manual aperture ring may reduce the production costs and make Pentax more price competitive in the low budget segment. Finally - we need not buy this garbage! Regards, Heiko Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10print?)
I agree I need both, but on the longer telephoto score, as I said both a 600mm and/or a track pass for a Grand Prix are out of my league. I do need to improve my skills, but just having a quick look at your shots on Sunday photog, you have a perfect example of the kind of crop I do for people shots. In your article on flare (the first one I cam across with people shots when looking back) there is one titled mj-morgan. If you cropped that from landscape to portrait (eg crop what you have to 250*339 pixels centred) then you have a much better shot. You lose his bisected friend on one side and the wasted space on the other. This is the sort of 50% crop that I do due to poor composition when I should have shot in portrait mode to start with... You may not crop, but perhaps you should? -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I never crop. Well, 35mm I don't. Seriously, I print 35mm out to the frame edge 100% of the time. I do crop my little digi-snaps sometimes. But I would say never all four edges at once. Cropping seems to me like one of the natural controls of Photoshop. And I suppose it's because I take digital so much less seriously. But if someone has to crop to 50% of the frame, they really need some serious remedial work on their shooting skills. Or to invest in a longer telephoto, one or the other! --Mike
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define better first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived from, doesn't matter. if in fact you want grain, then 35mm is far preferable. translated another way, if 35mm satisfies or defines your artistic vision, then anything larger isn't better. you see two photos taken with different formats and choose the one you like most. it turns out it is the larger one. someone else may say that they are different and that is all. Herb, I actually feel this way. I like 35mm black-and-white prints better technically. For instance, if you compare the prints in the book _Bruce Davidson Portraits_ (mostly 35mm BW) and the prints in _Werner Bischoff_ (mostly 2 1/4) I like the look of the Davidson prints better. It's a matter of taste, so I don't argue that they ARE better, nor do I disrespect (at all) any photographer who disagrees. But I also don't easily accept it when people presume that larger is always better. That's an opinion, not a fact --Mike P.S. What _Shutterbug_ article are you referring to exactly?
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More from the FA lenses manual: - FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the matte-field for non-auto focus camera My first thought: Pentax must have gone completely mad. How am I going to set the aperture after I have manually focused with my manual-focus camera?!? My second thought: The AFJ lenses must have a mount that acts as if the aperture ring is permanently in the A position. So the lenses should be usable in P and Tv modes on the A- and P-series bodies. While this is not fatal, the K-mount loses its strongest selling point --- the compatibility of new and old equipment. I can see major headaches coming when I try to explain on the KMP which camera works with which lens in which mode... Cheers, Boz
Re: Optio S pre-order (and prices)
Hi Peter, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro Must be the VAT. And a very conservative price policy by Amazon. You can find various German online shops offering the Optio S at 469,- Euro. That seems to be a realistic streeet price for Europe. Cheers, Heiko
RE: Best AND cheapest Pentax lenses
-Original Message- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] What would you say are the best AND cheapest Pentax lenses for someone looking to put together a basic kit for reasonable bucks? I think that at least most of the lenses suggested so far are primes (not surprisingly). However, if cheap zooms qualify, I'd suggest the stealth mode A 35-70/4, which is quite a decent little lens, and which has a surprisingly good macro function (and at 70mm - at its long end, too). I have sometimes seen these critters sell pretty inexpensively on eBay... In the cheap zoom category I'd suggest the A 80-200/4.7-5.6, which is really a cheap FA without the AF mechanism. Way back in the day I had one and thought it was excellent. Not exactly well made, but excellent sharpness and contrast. If I had to put together a cheap kit I'd do a K 24/2.8 (gotta have a 24), M 50/1.4 and M 80/2. tv
Re: End of K-mount?
P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!! Just wait and see what PMA really brings. Arnold Iren Henry Chu schrieb: Dear all, I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses. I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new user manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ lenses are yet to be released. This implies that there is no more plan from Pentax in the near future to release any other lens for the current 135 lens/camera series. Probably the KAF3 patent application is just a smoke screen before the PMA. Pentax is planning some complete reform in its lens/camera line-up. The KAJ lenses (probably OEM products from Cosina?) are just for the unsold stock of existing cameras. Great. I have a reason to switch to Canon after all the painful waiting of D-SLR for so long. Regards, Henry Chu 11/2/2003 _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: SMC M 100/2.8
Thanks for the advice. It is in near mint condition, but $150 might be too high. I think I'll take it for a test walk around the block. Bill Lawlor Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens? The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around bargains--very good optically and usually very inexpensive. --Mike
Re: Worst clichés
Mike, Without any doubt, the worst photographic clichés of all time are the Rules of Composition. Especially the Rule of Thirds. Regards, John HAR! John, are you by any chance new to the list? Say, within the last couple of months? Or are you joking here? In any event, a man after my own heart. g --Mike
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: Hmm, those weren't supposed to be announced until later. Whoops! They're a couple of entry-level zooms for the most inexpensive bodies. So far available in Japan only, not here. Sure, sure... Don't worry, this is not the wave of the future. I think it would take alot to convince these parts of that case, as many will then point to the VR Nikon G lens. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Arnold wrote: AS - FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL: 8 elements in 8 groups, 0.4meters minimum focus AS disctance; 63x67mm, 180grams AS - FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL: 12 elements in 10 groups, 1.3 meters minimum AS focus disctance; 69x116mm, 385grams I haven't downloaded the manual, so I'm asking you to check if there's anywhere SMC mentioned in the lens designations. Pentax is very careful with this. If it's no SMC then we can safely assume these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization. Servus, Alin
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
Al Shaikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 It must be that Valentine's Day is fast approaching. Feel the love! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They may not even be released, it won't be the first time a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my 1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that was never manufactured. So I won't be able to order that 35mm f/1.4? Damn. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Herb, I base better on my own taste - which is, as you say, tonality and detail. I have never been one that is that interested in grain as a positive factor in my images. Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice). Certainly as Doug put it, the image itself is most important. Also, how/where the image will be used can make a big difference too. Bruce Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 5:53:56 AM, you wrote: HC Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in HC the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place HC where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a HC better bigger picture. HC Bruce HC this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define better HC first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format HC good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what HC tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived HC from, doesn't matter. if in fact you want grain, then 35mm is far HC preferable. translated another way, if 35mm satisfies or defines your HC artistic vision, then anything larger isn't better. you see two photos HC taken with different formats and choose the one you like most. it turns out HC it is the larger one. someone else may say that they are different and that HC is all. HC Herb
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd say having 140 shots on one card with no film costs, no developing chores, and no need to wait to see the results is light years away from the era of the press camera. You're welcome to go back if you prefer, but shooting with a press camera is no picnic. --Mike i just received the green light for an article on waterfalls. they want digital originals where possible and their image specs are a high quality 4 megapixel image. if i supply slides, they would scan and keep at no more than 4 megapixels. they print on high quality glossy stock, about the same as National Geographic uses. anyone who sells their images (as opposed to prints) is being forced to go digital. stock agencies who don't won't have buyers anymore because the graphic artists want digital. publications who don't go digital for their image have trouble because the rest of their publication process is digital. time is money. Herb
Hands up who crops?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And nobody has even mentioned the poor, neglected spies and private eyes that need as much information in their photos as they can get. They need to read license plates and recognize people's faces from a distance, you know. they used to use recording film since the eye can see and recognize things far beyond what is needed for good quality artistic prints. ever use Kodak 2485 High Speed Recording film? true EI 8000 about 25 years ago. Herb
Cheap SLRs, WAS: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJlenses)
I'm pretty sure this is the case. The lenses seem to be as simple, cheap and toy-like as possible - a proper addition to the similarly toy-like MZ-60, which is IMHO one big mistake by Pentax. It's not a mistake, actually. There's been a trend over the past couple of years of people who buy cameras at camera stores being switched over from point-and-shoots to entry-level SLRs. This is because the price of good p/s cameras have gone up, and the price of SLRs has come down. So when people buy from knowledgeable venders, they often walk out with an entry-level SLR rather than a $300 p/s camera. P/s sales are down over the past couple of years as part of the digital evolution, but SLR sales are actually up slightly, and this is why. --Mike
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Mike, Very interesting point. When I first got my 67II, I always put it on a tripod. When doing studio and location portraits, I found that the tripod was too slow to work with to capture natural poses and expressions. There was always that last minute fiddling with the tripod before the shot that ended up missing the moment. For portraits I usually don't use a tripod now unless it is a larger group where corner framing becomes very important. My images have improved in content even though technically they may suffer slightly by not using the tripod. Bruce Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 7:08:42 AM, you wrote: my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having shot a few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will overcome its format. MJ Well said, Doug. MJ I might add to that a trivial additional observation, which is that a good MJ photo will also overcome its maker's prejudices about what constitutes good MJ image quality. That is, a lot of photographers are worried and preoccupied MJ by the question of good image quality, and they allow those considerations MJ to lead them into a number of practices that aren't necessarily helpful. For MJ instance, they may insist on using bigger formats than necessary; they may MJ use tripods when not needed, or insist on stopping down too much, or use too MJ slow a film. And yet, some of their photographs sometimes succeed anyway. MJ gg MJ --Mike
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Hi Alin, Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 11.02.2003, 17:23:30: I haven't downloaded the manual, so I'm asking you to check if there's anywhere SMC mentioned in the lens designations. Pentax is very careful with this. If it's no SMC then we can safely assume these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization. All lenses discussed in the manual are referred to without the SMC prefix, also the lenses which we know have SMC. But the manual itself is entitled SMC Pentax-FA Interchangeable Lens Operating Manual. Cheers, Boz
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
The good Nikon G lenses also have other features that can't be properly utilized by bodies that can't fully use G lenses, like AF motor in lens and VR. You need a current body to make best use of the body anyway, besides control of the aperture from the body. This hasn't stopped the wailing of some Nikon users though. I'm still looking for a link for the source of this J lens info. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many Nikon users hated the G series lenses when they came out, because they were entry-level pieces of dung. Now Nikon has started to make some excellent lenses with the G mount, so maybe Pentax is going that way. Looks like we're going to need cameras that set the aperture from the camera body.
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] It's a matter of taste, so I don't argue that they ARE better, nor do I disrespect (at all) any photographer who disagrees. But I also don't easily accept it when people presume that larger is always better. That's an opinion, not a fact --Mike P.S. What _Shutterbug_ article are you referring to exactly? March 2003 issue - Page 21 - Civil War: The Digital Sensor vs. Film. specifically the headings Grain and Pixels and Image Quality, mostly the latter. Herb...
Re: Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes
My theory is that they do all of than then simply discard the lenses. That would account for the cost. ;) At 09:36 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on BH, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150. What in the world is up with that? Does it really cost that much more to *not* grind, polish, coat, and install glass? -- 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. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
This is, in fact, the deal with Nikon G lenses on older bodies. Welcome to the family. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The AFJ lenses must have a mount that acts as if the aperture ring is permanently in the A position. So the lenses should be usable in P and Tv modes on the A- and P-series bodies.
Mystery link
Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with? http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/bw2002-4-2.jpg TIA, --Mike
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 Goto --Lenses--SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The quote is on page 36 (I think). At 11:42 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: The good Nikon G lenses also have other features that can't be properly utilized by bodies that can't fully use G lenses, like AF motor in lens and VR. You need a current body to make best use of the body anyway, besides control of the aperture from the body. This hasn't stopped the wailing of some Nikon users though. I'm still looking for a link for the source of this J lens info. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many Nikon users hated the G series lenses when they came out, because they were entry-level pieces of dung. Now Nikon has started to make some excellent lenses with the G mount, so maybe Pentax is going that way. Looks like we're going to need cameras that set the aperture from the camera body. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck????
I think it would take alot to convince these parts of that case, as many will then point to the VR Nikon G lens. What have Pentax lenses to do with Nikon? Pål
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Alin wrote: If it's no SMC then we can safely assume these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization. Isn't it enough that they lack focus scale to remove all doubt that they are strictly bottom level? Pål
Re: End of K-mount?
Arnold wrote: P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!! We don't have to wait very long Pål
Re: End of K-mount?
Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact that Pentax release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of reaction when they released the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts! Pentax is just releasing the same crap as the competition. Those who buy these lenses don't give a damned about lens compatibilty. The rest don't care either as they would never buy any of them. This is a non issue! Pål - Original Message - From: Iren Henry Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:36 PM Subject: End of K-mount? Dear all, I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses. I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new user manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ lenses are yet to be released. This implies that there is no more plan from Pentax in the near future to release any other lens for the current 135 lens/camera series. Probably the KAF3 patent application is just a smoke screen before the PMA. Pentax is planning some complete reform in its lens/camera line-up. The KAJ lenses (probably OEM products from Cosina?) are just for the unsold stock of existing cameras. Great. I have a reason to switch to Canon after all the painful waiting of D-SLR for so long. Regards, Henry Chu 11/2/2003 _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: SMC M 100/2.8
Almost on topic (not an M-series) but I have a perfect little Super-Multi-Coated Takumar f:2.8/105 that I've been dying to try out, but haven't yet. Has anyone an opinion on this lens while I'm waiting for better weather? keith whaley Bill Lawlor wrote: Thanks for the advice. It is in near mint condition, but $150 might be too high. I think I'll take it for a test walk around the block. Bill Lawlor Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens? The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around bargains--very good optically and usually very inexpensive. --Mike
Re: Optio S pre-order (and prices)
That's also true the initial price offering will drop rather quickly I'm sure. At 05:15 PM 2/11/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hi Peter, on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro Must be the VAT. And a very conservative price policy by Amazon. You can find various German online shops offering the Optio S at 469,- Euro. That seems to be a realistic streeet price for Europe. Cheers, Heiko Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted them, with one famous exception, a painting that showed a vase of flowers on a table and a woman off to the right. But he said he found this painting distressing rather than pretty. Ancient memories here, I could be wrong. --Mike
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
No you wouldn't At 10:13 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, How about cats playing in the flower bed? Hmm...I know I have some cat photos around here somewhere... AAUUUG! Flower shots are something I have mixed feelings about: I don't much like *looking* at flower photos, but I really like photographing flowers (which inevitably leaves me with a bunch of photos I'm not really interested in looking at, but if I were rational I wouldn't be on this list now would I?). I love working with the organic shapes and textures, especially getting in close enough to make them almost abstract. here's another (of the same plant in my previous shot, actually): http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7d300216.jpg Don't worry, I don't like taking *or* viewing cat photos. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!!
You can order one, I'll take the down payment and it'll be shipped just as soon as it's released, I promise. At 11:28 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They may not even be released, it won't be the first time a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my 1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that was never manufactured. So I won't be able to order that 35mm f/1.4? Damn. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice). Bruce, How true. Fine-art buyers, also, are less impressed with 35mm prints, at least from contemporary photographers. Generally, buyers of all stripes tend to be more impressed the further you can get from something they can do themselves, or something anybody can do. --Mike
Re: Mystery link
David Brooks. Good brokeh, eh? He didn't mention what camera or any other particulars... keith Mike Johnston wrote: Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with? http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/bw2002-4-2.jpg TIA, --Mike
Re: Mystery link
Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles office for thisvbg Its mine,Mike. Shot last spring(2002)early June if memory serves, in the backyard. Gear: Pentax Super Program and SMC A 70-210 using the macro on it.Film i think was Tmax but may have been Delta 100. Dave Begin Original Message From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:50:21 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mystery link Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with? http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/bw2002-4-2.jpg TIA, --Mike End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa 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: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up?;-)
Mike Johnston wrote: Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72 I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color. Disturbing? Hmmm. In person, or just in photos? keith I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted them, with one famous exception, a painting that showed a vase of flowers on a table and a woman off to the right. But he said he found this painting distressing rather than pretty. Ancient memories here, I could be wrong. --Mike
Re: Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes
When you buy extension tubes, you get a set of three, so your figures add up nicely...:-) My set of Chinon tubes cost me $25 a few years ago. Include Ricoh and all the 3rd party makes, and you add up with pretty decent odds for finding something second hand, in good shape, and cheap. Why do you want AF? On extension tubes, it sounds pretty wasted, imo... Jostein - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:36 PM Subject: Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on BH, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150. What in the world is up with that? Does it really cost that much more to *not* grind, polish, coat, and install glass? -- 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: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6 Goto --Lenses--SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The quote is on page 36 (I think). Still can't make it work. Got the direct URL, anyone? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Re: Mystery link
Begin Original Message From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:41:25 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mystery link Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles office for thisvbg David, No, no, I like it. (But you do have to go to the principal's office for misspelling principal. g) D'oh Its mine,Mike. Shot last spring(2002)early June if memory serves, in the backyard. Gear: Pentax Super Program and SMC A 70-210 using the macro on it. You're kidding. That's a _zoom_? Amazing. The _bokeh_ is really nice. Thanks Mike,I really like that one too.Its a lens i bought from Mark L. last year.I entered another colour macro shot in the local fair last year(same lens) and it won a 1st.I think it does a great job. The only other macro gear i have is a set of 3 extension tubes in M42 mount but never have used them. --Mike Dave. BTW i like the BW flower stuff:) End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa 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: ?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Top_10_Worst_Clich=E9s?=
Don, Presumably it's OK to mention politics, guns and any other of the many irrelevant off-topic subjects that make up a very high proportion of the postings here. But when someone whose film cameras are 100% Pentax expresses a genuine on-topic opinion about photography you want to silence them? Makes no sense to me, Don! Best regards, John Actually, John, it makes _great_ sense. Because we had an extended, involved, knock-down, drag-out discussion of rules (such as the rule of thirds) a few months ago. Anyone who lived through that is understandably weary, not to mention wary. Check out the archives if you get a chance --Mike
Re: OT: Possible mobile phone virus
I totally disagree! Mike didn't have time to check it out, I did. Who knows how many hundreds of folks concern themselves about hoaxes like that, un-necessarily! What shall we do? not respond in any way, and all those folks out there keep worring about everytime they turn on their cell phone, whether they're infected, whether they'll infect someone else if they DO have it? I think nipping something like this in the bud is the only way to handle it. Lawrence Kwan wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: Not to worry. This is a hoax. Your warning is welcome nevertheless. On the contrary, I don't think it is a good idea to post this type of alerts to a mailing list at all, especially when Mike himself admitted that he did not have time to check for the validity of this claim. We have too many hoaxes and false alarms, propagating it in a mailing lists with hundreds of users is the last thing we need. No, the last thing we need is for everyone to _worry_ about it! Now, we don't have to worry. And I am not going to charge anything whatsoever for greater piece of mind. Best of all worlds. Get your knowledge free of effort OR cost! g keith whaley mike wilson wrote: I'm not one for spreading despondancy but I have had this from a quite reputable source and don't have time to chack. -- --Lawrence Kwan--SMS Info Service/Ringtone Convertor--PGP:finger/www-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vex.net/~lawrence/ -Key ID:0x6D23F3C4--
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
This doesn't mean that you have to use a digital camera, though. You could just as easily shoot with traditional film and provide them with scans that could still beat the quality you'd get from today's DSLR, even if they only keep 4MB. t On 2/11/03 8:33 AM, Herb Chong wrote: i just received the green light for an article on waterfalls. they want digital originals where possible and their image specs are a high quality 4 megapixel image. if i supply slides, they would scan and keep at no more than 4 megapixels. they print on high quality glossy stock, about the same as National Geographic uses. anyone who sells their images (as opposed to prints) is being forced to go digital. stock agencies who don't won't have buyers anymore because the graphic artists want digital. publications who don't go digital for their image have trouble because the rest of their publication process is digital. time is money.
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Hi! KT Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept Alpha KT Sweet II, Canon EOS Kiss III L and Pentax MZ-L. All these cameras are KT competitively priced yet with various features and automations. Thank you very much bg. Now my ZX-L (same as MZ-L or MZ-6) is an entry level sweet-n-kiss camera. I really thought it was more towards (advanced) amateur level... Not that I care, but anyway... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven things up? ;-)
might as well trot these out again: http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg Doug At 01:31 PM 2/11/03, Wendy wrote: Here's mine http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html ---
Re: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-)
Very nice, Doug(for colour) vbg Natural light i assume. Dave Begin Original Message From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:28:57 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-) might as well trot these out again: http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg Doug At 01:31 PM 2/11/03, Wendy wrote: Here's mine http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html --- End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa 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: FS: Chrome battery door (four prong) for ESII
Ok, I'll bite. I have an ES-II how do I tell a 4 prong from 3 prong battery door. (It would be nice to have a spare since they look amazingly easy to lose). At 01:55 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: I purchased this on eBay just a few weeks ago as an extra for my ESII and somehow forgot that my ESII has the three-prong battery door, rather than the four-prong bodies this battery door cover will fit. (This battery cover has two tabs on top, two on bottom.) It's chrome, but could certainly be painted black, and the chrome is fairly discolored anyway. But the battery contacts on the other side are in fine condition, and it's a solid piece. I got it for $5.95, so let's say $7 including shipping and a padded envelope to addresses in the continental U.S. If you're the first to respond and you're not in the continental U.S., we'll figure out actual postage. Joe -- Joe Wilensky Staff Writer Media Technology Services 1150 Comstock Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-2601 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 607-255-1575 fax: 607-255-9873 Please visit our Web site at http://www.mediasrv.cornell.edu Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: John Daniele on Photo Net
Hi John... I'm new at darkroom work, too. There is a bewildering array of films, chems, papers, techniques and equipment that each alter your final image. Sorting it out can be a real chore. Probably the most helpful advise I've received is to focus on one of each and work from there. For example, D76 is the cornerstone of BW neg developing. There is a lot known about how it works and a lot of people talking about it on the net. It's easy to get help on it when you get into trouble. This is not always easy to do, because you want to try everything during the discovery phase. One of the most useful references I've seen is _The Film Developing Cookbook_ by Stephen G Anchell and Bill Troop. They include some excellent info on films and developers that I couldn't find elsewhere, as well as a background on film chemistry that offers insight into how the stuff works. t On 2/11/03 5:34 AM, John Daniele wrote: William, Brendan and Bruce Thanks for the comments I am new at this so I appreciate the help I am not insulted or ripped in any way. I did my developing by reading the instructions on the bottle, there seems to be so many variables between what the negative looks like to how it is scanned to what monitor it is displayed on. I need to find the time to take some classes. I have no room for a darkroom set up the film scanner seems to be the way to go for me right now. More of a collector of submini cameras Tessina, Minox, and some Robots I had a pentax me a few years ago and just loved the build and feel so much I also started collecting these. My life is very hectic 11 hour work days :( so time is limited in my (bathroom) darkroom I do like to use all of my cameras and making an image start to finish has been a real thrill. I need to work less and get a few classes in But for now I will keep shooting and ask for your comments good, bad, or otherwise I am sure I will learn something. Sincerely, John Daniele
OT: Software fads (was Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Hi, Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 5:33:54 PM, you wrote: a crazy Pentax exec somewhere up the ladder who would single handedly and may I add single mindedly order to promote this new concept upwards across the whole lens range of Pentax ... Again, I hope I am wrong and Pentax is properly managed company, but in my profession (programming) **it happens all too often... you might enjoy this, then: http://www.softwarereality.com/rumours/story021.jsp Oddly enough, there really is something called Reactive Programming... --- Bob
Re: FS: Chrome battery door (four prong) for ESII
Take off the battery door you have on your ESII -- if it has four prongs (two toward the front of the camera, two toward the rear) then you have the four-prong type. The other variation is three prongs, although I can't remember if the single-prong side points toward the front or rear of the camera. You'll know what you have when you take a look at it. ;-) P.S. Here's a shot from Paul Provencher's great Pentax bodies/lenses page: http://whitemetal.com/pentax/esii/esii_15.htm What's pictured is the three-prong battery door, showing only one prong at the center of the bottom edge of the door (as oriented in this photo). The four-prong one has two tabs at the bottom edge of the door that line up with the two on the top edge. Joe Ok, I'll bite. I have an ES-II how do I tell a 4 prong from 3 prong battery door. (It would be nice to have a spare since they look amazingly easy to lose). At 01:55 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: I purchased this on eBay just a few weeks ago as an extra for my ESII and somehow forgot that my ESII has the three-prong battery door, rather than the four-prong bodies this battery door cover will fit. (This battery cover has two tabs on top, two on bottom.) It's chrome, but could certainly be painted black, and the chrome is fairly discolored anyway. But the battery contacts on the other side are in fine condition, and it's a solid piece. I got it for $5.95, so let's say $7 including shipping and a padded envelope to addresses in the continental U.S. If you're the first to respond and you're not in the continental U.S., we'll figure out actual postage. Joe
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PS: I HOPE I AM WRONG!!! Typical 3rd party lens junk. I've a used SF-1 that came with an autofocus Tokina. Only after purchase did I realize that the lens had no aperture ring! Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens. Some years ago, in the beginning of the nineties, Tamron released a 35-90 AF and a 90-300 mm. AF in Pentax mount. None of them had aperture rings. So this is not a new idea, and it doesn't mean the end of the K mount compatiblity. If these FAJ lenses become a reality, their target market will be the same than Nikon G lenses: the low budget photographers who want to buy a pair of zooms as cheaply as possible. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain --
Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
On 03.2.11 0:10 PM, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! KT Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept Alpha KT Sweet II, Canon EOS Kiss III L and Pentax MZ-L. All these cameras are KT competitively priced yet with various features and automations. Thank you very much bg. Now my ZX-L (same as MZ-L or MZ-6) is an entry level sweet-n-kiss camera. I really thought it was more towards (advanced) amateur level... Not that I care, but anyway... Hi Boris, I did not think it was a fair comparison too :-). But that's what the article said and I translated as it was. I am sure you said above with tongue-in-cheek but I think what happened was that the reporter made a simple price comparison and bundled all 3 together in the same price category. In the original article, these 3 models were mentioned with respective price, i.e., Minolta 94,000yen, EOS Kiss (Rebel) 92,000yen and MZ-L 93,000yen. These are all early 2002 prices and they are now more like 67,000yen. However, Pentax SLRs always being competitively priced, they should not have bundled the MZ-L in the same basket. It should have been more like MZ-60 and MZ-30 etc. But consumers who intend to buy these cameras are attracted to the price range and guess which one they are likely to pick? BTW, I do not know much about EOS Kiss or Minolta Alpha Sweet, but I do remember that when MZ-5 came out, Pentax made a big deal out of its compactness and claimed the world's smallest SLR (or something along that line). Soon after that, Alpha Sweet, then EOS Kiss went into the size war and came up with the smaller versions, and Pentax quietly removed their claim. I do not know which one is the smallest today but MZ-5 did induce the size war which made Sweet'n Kiss cameras really smaller. Today, MZ series is probably the largest of the three (I do not know for sure). And even in the feature area, C/M made a big stride. These Sweet'n Kiss cameras look more than just a toy today. And Canon for sure is going to announce the digital cousin of Kiss/rebel in the PMA. That might be a dynamite, and I am sure Pentax know whom they will be contending with. For this reason too, I believe Pentax is coming up with a brand new chassis/models to compete with these two Film and digital). I do not know about MZ-L but MZ-n (or nn) series certainly saw its heyday (But I love my MZ-3 though). Cheers, Ken
Re: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven thingsup? ;-)
natural light, yup. thanks, Doug At 02:47 PM 2/11/03, you wrote: Very nice, Doug(for colour) vbg Natural light i assume. Dave
