Re: Pentax DSLR
.. Assuming that Pentax eventually sells a DSLR with APS sized sensor, what prime lens would you use on it for your fast normal lens? (assume a lens factor of 1.5x) ... 35 to Aps table: 35mm15 18 20 24 28 35 50 70 Aps 23 27 30 36 42 53 75 105 35mm80 100 105 135 180 200 210 300 Aps 120 150 158 203 270 300 315 450 Normal lens: 28 => 42; 35 => 53 And the old K 2.8/30mm => 2.8/45mm (the best !) Michel
Re: Camera Insurance in Australia?
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:03:44 +1100, Paul Ewins wrote: >I guess it depends on whether you are a Pro or not. I'm strictly >amateur and have everything included in my home contents policy. I've got an >extension to it that covers up to $3000 of equipment for theft or damage >outside my house. The only drawback is that the maximum for anyone item is >20% of the total, which is fine at the moment but wouldn't cover a DSLR. Sounds like RACV or NRMA. We moved to a policy only available through brokers, called a "Gold Star" policy, or something like that. It covers all items under $2000 automatically anywhere in Australia and over seas (overseas for 90 days). You pay more for items over $2000, but an MZ-S is under $2000 so is a 77 limited and so on. It costs us less than the RACV policy which put limits on values and didn't cover overseas. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> All things considered, my guess (from looking at pictures) is that > the A 85/1.4 is the best short tele Pentax ever made, albeit by a > very narrow margin. I would concur. However, I would say that the K 85/1.8 is quite close (and is a joy to use). I had to sell my K 85/1.8 a few months ago, and I still miss it... Fred
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> All of these lenses have superb optical qualities. Some people > say that the K is better then the A, you say it is vice versa, I > personally would be happy with both, but I prefer the lighter one > which is cearly the K. On the othe rhand people say the FA 85/1.4 > is clearly a setback from the A 85/1.4, and I also heard that > while the M 85/2.0 is an excelent lens it is clearly inferior to > the 85/1.8. I would not exactly say that the "the FA 85/1.4 is clearly a setback from the A 85/1.4", but that, perhaps, the FA* is a "sidestep" from the A* 85/1.4. The FA* 85/1.4 is a rather unusual lens, with rather nice optical qualities for portraiture. Fred
Re: Camera Insurance in Australia?
This one time, at band camp, "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Bill, > I guess it depends on whether you are a Pro or not. I'm strictly > amateur and have everything included in my home contents policy. I've got an > extension to it that covers up to $3000 of equipment for theft or damage > outside my house. The only drawback is that the maximum for anyone item is > 20% of the total, which is fine at the moment but wouldn't cover a DSLR. My home and contents covers up to $4k for cameras, nowhere near enough.. Some time ago I had my MZ-30, Metz flash, lenses etc... stolen from my car, The NRMA insurance said they would cover the first $300.00 if I paid a $350 excess, I would also loose my no claim bonus. So basically I would simply be donating $50.00 to them for the benifit of paying a higher premium due to the loss of the No Claim Bonus. I no longer insure with the NRMA. Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> You use AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as for general photography ==>> FA77/f1.8 Limited > You use AF + you want to use the lens mostly for portraits ==> FA*85/f1.4 > You do not need AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as for general photography + size matters ==>> K85/f1.8 > You do not need AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as > for general photography + size does not matter ==> A*85/f1.4 > You do not need AF + you want to use the lens mostly for portraits ==> > M85/f2 I might quibble with the exact details here-or-there slightly, but I'd say that Arnold's guide overall is a pretty good one. After having had a chance to try out several 85's ( http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/ ), I currently am down to "only" three - the A* 85/1.4, the FA* 85/1,4 (which is actually my wife's), and the Kenko 85/2.5 Soft. Fred
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> --Buy the 77mm [snip]. Just nothin' not to like. What's not to like? Here's the answer: > I considered the 77mm and concluded the following. For someone > like me, who uses fully manual cameras (MX mainly) the autofocus > lens just does not feel right. Fred
Re: Camera Insurance in Australia?
In Australia, I would think that you wouldn't need insurance for both loss and breakage, but just for loss, since "down under", if you drop your camera, wouldn't it just "fall" off into outer space? ;-) Fred
Re: It's Coming
>> Here it is: >> >> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/bw_ollie_1.jpg > Hey, at least it's the right color. And nice bokeh. (What lens?) Hey, Mike, if you "want" () some cat photos with bokeh, try http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/85catpix.htm Fred
Re: It's Coming
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/bw_ollie_near_window.jpg The New Pentax OllieCam? Jim -- ___ Get your free Verizonmail at www.verizonmail.com
Re: Hideous, horrible, looming feline in the flowers, WAS: It's Coming
>> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg It looks like a nauga just coming out of "hyding"... ;-) Fred
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
Actually it is quite simply: You use AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as for general photography ==> FA77/f1.8 Limited You use AF + you want to use the lens mostly for portraits ==> FA*85/f1.4 You do not need AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as for general photography + size matters ==> K85/f1.8 You do not need AF + you want to use the lens for portraits as well as for general photography + size does not matter ==> A*85/f1.4 You do not need AF + you want to use the lens mostly for portraits ==> M85/f2 Arnold
Re: Mucho Gray Pic
On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 10:58 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: The are tons of different grays. To me it almost looks like a painting/surrealistic except it's got incredible details only large format can record. This was about 2 miles from my house in a city park. The web image pales to the actual print. I'm actually satisfied with this one for a change! The ferns are really fantastic looking in the full rez scan. http://jcoconnell.com/temp/woodspath01s.jpg I think it was 1/30 @ f22 Tmax 400 Hazy Sun & tree cover. 90mm F8 on a Speed Graphic. Neat! Dan Scott
Re: Camera Insurance in Australia?
Hi Bill, I guess it depends on whether you are a Pro or not. I'm strictly amateur and have everything included in my home contents policy. I've got an extension to it that covers up to $3000 of equipment for theft or damage outside my house. The only drawback is that the maximum for anyone item is 20% of the total, which is fine at the moment but wouldn't cover a DSLR. For Pro use a broker is probably the only way to go. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> I don't own either of them, but what I'd think would be the most sensible > thing to do would be to: > > --Buy the 77mm if you're in the market for a short tele today and don't > already own one. It's got so many virtues--superb build, great optical > performance, fast aperture but small size and low weight. Just nothin' not > to like. > > --Keep the K 85/1.8 or the FA or A 85/1.4 if you already have it. All things > considered, my guess (from looking at pictures) is that the A 85/1.4 is the > best short tele Pentax ever made, albeit by a very narrow margin. If I were you I would sell the 85mm/1.8 to me :)) (for cheap since it's old and crapy :)) OK, I am actually in the market to buy one of these short teles. Probably the K 85mm/1.8 is my top pick. I considered the 77mm and concluded the following. For someone like me, who uses fully manual cameras (MX mainly) the autofocus lens just does not feel right. On the other hand if you would utilize the autofocus feature the 77mm is probably the way to go. All of these lenses have superb optical qualities. Some people say that the K is better then the A, you say it is vice versa, I personally would be happy with both, but I prefer the lighter one which is cearly the K. On the othe rhand people say the FA 85/1.4 is clearly a setback from the A 85/1.4, and I also heard that while the M 85/2.0 is an excelent lens it is clearly inferior to the 85/1.8. L PS: So anyone want to sell me a K 85/1.8??? :))
Just thinking...
I just think to myself... Is it justified to expect Pentax to show more new stuff at the PMA? Even the DSLR? I mean Pentax has already presented a new SLR, 2 new lenses and 2 DP&S - that's quite a lot, isn't it?. If they have new stuff that is ready to be introduced, they'd rather do it at the consecutive big shows, just to maintain the market's interest. I think it wouldn't be wise to hit the market with all the new stuff at once... Regards Artur --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
> The 77mm ltd that escaped us all got me to thinking. If I had seen it, would > I have bought it? In order to do so, I would have at least considered > selling my K85/1.8. I have a couple of other options as well, but this is > the first that came to mind. Classic old lens vs. "classic" new lens. What > would you do? would you sell the one to get the other? I don't own either of them, but what I'd think would be the most sensible thing to do would be to: --Buy the 77mm if you're in the market for a short tele today and don't already own one. It's got so many virtues--superb build, great optical performance, fast aperture but small size and low weight. Just nothin' not to like. --Keep the K 85/1.8 or the FA or A 85/1.4 if you already have it. All things considered, my guess (from looking at pictures) is that the A 85/1.4 is the best short tele Pentax ever made, albeit by a very narrow margin. --Mike
Re: Nanometer
> Why is the word abbreviation so long? Awwright! Another Stephen Wright joke. --Mike
Re: Info on P3, P30, P3n, P30n
Levente -Levi- Littvay wrote: Can you tell me what the screen looks like. (is it the diagonally split prism one?) If you have a service manual to these or to the P30t, ME Super SE or ME SE please look up the screen part number. I have a P30t and the screen is diagonal... But do not have a parts manual. -- Later, Gary
Info on P3, P30, P3n, P30n
Does anyone have these? Can you tell me what the screen looks like. (is it the diagonally split prism one?) If you have a service manual to these or to the P30t, ME Super SE or ME SE please look up the screen part number. Thanks L
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
who's mafuad? JCO
Mucho Gray Pic
I took this one with my 4X5 today and it seems I got the exposure and development to match nicely. The are tons of different grays. To me it almost looks like a painting/surrealistic except it's got incredible details only large format can record. This was about 2 miles from my house in a city park. The web image pales to the actual print. I'm actually satisfied with this one for a change! The ferns are really fantastic looking in the full rez scan. http://jcoconnell.com/temp/woodspath01s.jpg I think it was 1/30 @ f22 Tmax 400 Hazy Sun & tree cover. 90mm F8 on a Speed Graphic. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/
Re: It's Coming
since we are spaming the list with flowers and cat pics http://webhome.idirect.com/~trini/cat1.jpg enjoy, Mike this better be good. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
Alan Chan wrote: Btw, the split image is horizontal on P50. On the P30t it's diagonal... -- Later, Gary
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX > I dont like in-camera meters & AE and would never use it for time exposures, > even an > LX wouldnt change my mind. Bracketing around rough estimate is way simpler > than your > research every film/calculate/override the AE method in my opinion. > I am well aware that the reciprocal failure is non-linear (thats why > the LX cant do it alone). I would not attempt a 7 hour exposure > for big money without more research, but even then I'd still bracket by > using > multiple cameras if I had to. Time exposure bracketing is prudent in any > case whenever > possible and it usually is. There are too many variables involved to be > so confident you will nail the exposure to only expose one frame. It's not > worth the risk to me. But if you would rather save a few frames of film > and possibly get burned thats your choice. Different styles for different > folks. All I can say is you have an almost Mafud like approach to reading. Regards William Robb
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
Btw, the split image is horizontal on P50. regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
Thanks. I was looking at that too, but I am affraid that the ME or ME Super screen is different from the SE models. (SE is diagonally splint while the regular ones are horizontal) I beleive they used the diagonally split one in later models (P series maybe??? Any idea?) I had the P50 (P5 in US) which had a very interesting screen. The micro prism was not circle shape, but rectangular which was very practical IMHO. Too bad the variable resistor had a design flaw and couldn't be fixed. Still miss my P50. :( regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
> Since nobody is answering, I shall do my best. I have the ME Super parts > manual and it is "L2" Fresnel Lens which I believe is a split screen > (standard on many Pentax bodies). I know you are asking for ME, but I > believe they are interchangable. Thanks. I was looking at that too, but I am affraid that the ME or ME Super screen is different from the SE models. (SE is diagonally splint while the regular ones are horizontal) I beleive they used the diagonally split one in later models (P series maybe??? Any idea?) But thanks anyway. Anyone else has a tip? L
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
> > U, whatever. > With view cameras, an exposure shorter than a second is a rarity, several > minutes is more the norm. So, practically, almost everything I shoot is > longer than 1 second exposure. Huh? Are you a vampire? We obviously have different shooting styles. I use 35mm almost exclusively hand held which precludes 1 second. Don't you take any pictures in DAYLIGHT :) > Sensitometry is the science of exposure and development. It's a > science all > photographers should familiarize themselves with. Science, not taking a > scattershot exposure approach will always work better. > > A four stop bracket is a scattershot approach. Bracketing is dirt cheap insurance. It's one of the advantages of a 35mm camera. To assume your calculators/tables/meter/film freshness/ film batch is always going to behave the same and only expose 1 frame isnt exactly the thing I'm willing to chance. I would much rather bracket around an ESTIMATE, than count on it. > > If you get better at exposure, you can then use those four sheets of film > (or frames if you are using a small camera) as insurance against physical > damage to the negative. > > The degree of reciprocity failure is pretty easy to predict by observing > meter deflection at open aperture and predicting an approximate exposure > time at the shooting aperture. It's stil going to vary from film type to film type. I dont shoot enuff night stuff to bother investigating the particular curves. I know its going to need more time and I bracket the time. Simple enuff and its worked fine for me. ( but I'm talking seconds and minutes, not hours). > > Just one question: > Have you actually used an LX for making long exposures? > I have. > > William Robb > I dont like in-camera meters & AE and would never use it for time exposures, even an LX wouldnt change my mind. Bracketing around rough estimate is way simpler than your research every film/calculate/override the AE method in my opinion. I am well aware that the reciprocal failure is non-linear (thats why the LX cant do it alone). I would not attempt a 7 hour exposure for big money without more research, but even then I'd still bracket by using multiple cameras if I had to. Time exposure bracketing is prudent in any case whenever possible and it usually is. There are too many variables involved to be so confident you will nail the exposure to only expose one frame. It's not worth the risk to me. But if you would rather save a few frames of film and possibly get burned thats your choice. Different styles for different folks. JCO
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
So anybody has a part number? Maybe someone who does pro service... Since nobody is answering, I shall do my best. I have the ME Super parts manual and it is "L2" Fresnel Lens which I believe is a split screen (standard on many Pentax bodies). I know you are asking for ME, but I believe they are interchangable. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: It's Coming
Hey guys? It's still coming. Be of good cheer, tomorrow's another day. --Mike
Re: Pentax DSLR
Illinois Bill wrote: > Assuming a lens factor of 1.5, the ideal lens to replace the 50mm lens, > should be right smack dab in between 25 and 50 mm. That means that 25 + > 17.5 is 42.5, which means that those of use with the pancake or 43mm > limited are right on target . . . . uh oh, does anyone notice a reason > for the limited lineup now? Hey, we're better at math in Wisconsin than they are in Illinois! Even I can figure out that 43mm x 1.5 is 64.5mm--not very close to a 50mm. Proud of my ciphering ability, --Wisconsin Mike
Re: It's Coming
> OK, I'm in...tell us Mike or I'll post the other 498 images I have just > like this one... > > http://www.heritageservices.com.au/images/too%20cute.jpg Oh, but I *LIKE* doggies! Ruff, ruff, little feller! Daz a goo doggy. Ruff! Can you say, "ruff"? Azza god boy! --Mike
Nauga herds, WAS: LX Rumor
> I wonder how long it will take before we have > full sized Naugas again... Let's hope we never do. Rayons and Polyesters should also be kept suppressed in number and stunted in growth, if you ask me. No fashion plate I, --Mike,
Re: It's Coming
> The longer you keep us in suspense. The more of us can join in. Bwaa haa haa > http://home.att.net/~butchblack?wsb/media/78450/site1064.jpg That's a funny-looking kitty, Butch... --Mike
Re: It's Coming
tom wrote: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg Grand "Kétaine" Cave Academy Award for this one. To make things even more entertaining, I submit that copies of these sooo sweet and cute photos should be sent as attachments to Mike, and printed copies glued to his car. cheers, the caveman
Re: Miranda (was: Re: ebay item question)
Miranda is a warning, not a camera. (Waving council) I know, I used to own one. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Steve Sharpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 9:04 PM -0500 2/25/03, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: > >Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >"Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb." > > > >Miranda used to own Soligor. All of Soligor's great C/D lenses should be > >available in Miranda mount: the 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and > >assorted zooms. > >. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Soligor made most of Miranda's lenses, but I think Miranda went > defunct before the c/d lenses came out. Miranda shut down in 1976 or > so. > > The extra lens that came with that dx-3 was a Soligor 28/2.8. It > looks very good. > > My experience with later Soligors was not so good. I bought a 28-80 > for my ME Super in 1984...it was so awful that I traded it in after > four months for a Tamron. In 1987 I picked up a 300mm mirror, which > is of dubious optical quality to say the least.
Re: Nanometer
I sure enough did! Ah.. better listen to Shaun. Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bob, I rest my case. You have done exactly the same thing I did! > > Cheers > > Shaun > > Bob Blakely wrote: > > Sorry, but "µm" is the abbreviation for micrometer which is one billionth of > > a meter. The correct abbreviation for nanometer is "nm". > > > > Decimeter (dm) is one tenth of a meter - 1/10 meter. > > Centimeter (cm) is one hundredth of a meter - 10^(-2) meter. > > Millimeter (mm) is one thousandth of a meter - 10^(-3) meter. > > Micrometer (µm) is one millionth of a meter - 10^(-6) meter. > > Nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter - 10^(-9) meter. > > Picometer (pm) is 10^(-12) meter. > > > > Why is the word abbreviation so long? > > > > Regards, > > Bob > > > > "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" > >- Benjamin Franklin > > > > From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >>Sorry gang...in one of yesterdays posts I referred to a nanometer (µm)as > >>a millionth of a meter when in fact it is one billionth of a meter.
Re: Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
In a message dated 2/25/03 10:36:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >The 77mm ltd that escaped us all got me to thinking. If I had seen it, >would >I have bought it? In order to do so, I would have at least considered >selling my K85/1.8. I have a couple of other options as well, but this >is >the first that came to mind. Classic old lens vs. "classic" new lens. What >would you do? would you sell the one to get the other? > >Stan Never. I can go and get a 77 any day I want if I have the money. It's not so easy to get the K85/1.8. It's all about supply and demand. I'd buy both or wait until I had enough to buy a new 77... Vic
Tradeoffs: old vs. new, FA77/1.8 vs. K85/1.8
The 77mm ltd that escaped us all got me to thinking. If I had seen it, would I have bought it? In order to do so, I would have at least considered selling my K85/1.8. I have a couple of other options as well, but this is the first that came to mind. Classic old lens vs. "classic" new lens. What would you do? would you sell the one to get the other? Stan
Re: Miranda (was: Re: ebay item question)
At 9:04 PM -0500 2/25/03, Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: "Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb." Miranda used to own Soligor. All of Soligor's great C/D lenses should be available in Miranda mount: the 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and assorted zooms. . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Soligor made most of Miranda's lenses, but I think Miranda went defunct before the c/d lenses came out. Miranda shut down in 1976 or so. The extra lens that came with that dx-3 was a Soligor 28/2.8. It looks very good. My experience with later Soligors was not so good. I bought a 28-80 for my ME Super in 1984...it was so awful that I traded it in after four months for a Tamron. In 1987 I picked up a 300mm mirror, which is of dubious optical quality to say the least. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pentax DSLR
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:35:28 -0800, you wrote: >Here's a quick poll to keep everyone from blowing a fuse while we wait >for Mike to fill us in: > >Assuming that Pentax eventually sells a DSLR with APS sized sensor, what >prime lens would you use on it for your fast normal lens? (assume a >lens factor of 1.5x) > 300/2.8 sounds about normal to me, for effective FOV of 450mm. For a wider angle I'd choose a K 200/2.5. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Nanometer
Bob, I rest my case. You have done exactly the same thing I did! Cheers Shaun Bob Blakely wrote: Sorry, but "µm" is the abbreviation for micrometer which is one billionth of a meter. The correct abbreviation for nanometer is "nm". Decimeter (dm) is one tenth of a meter - 1/10 meter. Centimeter (cm) is one hundredth of a meter - 10^(-2) meter. Millimeter (mm) is one thousandth of a meter - 10^(-3) meter. Micrometer (µm) is one millionth of a meter - 10^(-6) meter. Nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter - 10^(-9) meter. Picometer (pm) is 10^(-12) meter. Why is the word abbreviation so long? Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sorry gang...in one of yesterdays posts I referred to a nanometer (µm)as a millionth of a meter when in fact it is one billionth of a meter. . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kodak 3600 scanner
The Picture CD gives 4-meg files, which are good for about 5x7s at best. The PhotoCD, however, gives 18-meg files, as well as a choice of 4 other resolutions for every image. The 18-meg file gives a resolution of 2048 x 3072 pixels, which makes a decent 8x10. In Canada, Kodak charges 65 cents per image, as well as around $17 for the CD. Supposedly, the CD will hold up to 100 images, but they once put an extra roll on one of my CDs, and it works fine with 136 images on it. You can keep sending the PhotoCD back until it's full, but the Picture CD only holds 28 pictures or so . Pat White
Re: Nanometer
Sorry, but "µm" is the abbreviation for micrometer which is one billionth of a meter. The correct abbreviation for nanometer is "nm". Decimeter (dm) is one tenth of a meter - 1/10 meter. Centimeter (cm) is one hundredth of a meter - 10^(-2) meter. Millimeter (mm) is one thousandth of a meter - 10^(-3) meter. Micrometer (µm) is one millionth of a meter - 10^(-6) meter. Nanometer (nm) is one billionth of a meter - 10^(-9) meter. Picometer (pm) is 10^(-12) meter. Why is the word abbreviation so long? Regards, Bob "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!" - Benjamin Franklin From: "Shaun Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sorry gang...in one of yesterdays posts I referred to a nanometer (µm)as > a millionth of a meter when in fact it is one billionth of a meter.
Re: It's Coming
Cocker's have only false dignity. At 12:07 AM 2/26/2003 +, you wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: Top that. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=746359 and I raise you Jeff Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Miranda (was: Re: ebay item question)
Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: "Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb." Miranda used to own Soligor. All of Soligor's great C/D lenses should be available in Miranda mount: the 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and assorted zooms. . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's Coming
OK, I'm in...tell us Mike or I'll post the other 498 images I have just like this one... http://www.heritageservices.com.au/images/too%20cute.jpg Cheers Shaun Butch Black wrote: The longer you keep us in suspense. The more of us can join in. Bwaa haa haa http://home.att.net/~butchblack?wsb/media/78450/site1064.jpg . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: How things change so quickly
hmmm...1,142 times 6 megapixels =6,852 mp. S*%t that's a sensitive sensor... heh heh heh...yeah, I'm bored too. Cheers Shaun Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: I wrote: "I bought my first hard drive in 1991. It was 105 megabytes and cost $725, or $7 a megabyte. At Best Buy this week, you can now buy a 120 gigabyte hard drive for $100. That's nearly 7,000 the capacity for less than 1/10 the price (in real dollars)." Oops! I was mixing and matching the capacity comparison with the cost comparison. Someone has probably corrected my math by now. That'll teach me not to try math before sipping my morning coffee. That's 1,142 times the capacity, at roughly 1/7000 the cost per gigabyte. What a difference 12 years makes. [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Aspect rations (was seeking advise...)
Tom, the P67's actual negative size is 55 x 69mm, whch does reduce to almost exactly 4x5. And yes, I guess Fuji really has it covered. I was thinking of C***n, N***n, and M*a. Pat White
Re: It's Coming
Butch, that is a shocker. I would tell you everything I know right now Cheers Shaun Butch Black wrote: The longer you keep us in suspense. The more of us can join in. Bwaa haa haa http://home.att.net/~butchblack?wsb/media/78450/site1064.jpg Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: LX Rumor
The Nauga herds were decimated in the '60's and early '70's and are still not back to normal. When I was a young man, a single Nauga hide would cover a chair and a couple would cover a couch. Now it takes two Nauga hides to cover an LX! Their growth has been really stunted by changes in their traditional grazing lands. I wonder how long it will take before we have full sized Nauga's again... Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm staying out of the Nauga thread, yes I am. > > At 09:58 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >-- >> Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. > > > -- > > > -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service > > > -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in > > > -- an eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? > > > -- > > > -- ;-) > > > -- > > > -- Fred > > > > > Ahhh, a traditionalist. Those who have seen my Cobra LX for the > > > first time this trip have commented that it looks a lot better > > > than in the photos ;-) > > > > > If not snake, then another skin perhaps? > > > >How about Naugahyde? I don't think it would take the skins of too > >many cute little naugas to cover an LX. ;-) > > > >Fred
Re: Bird Lenses [was Sigma 300-800mm]
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:24:20 -0500, you wrote: >> You really only need a 600/4 and 1.4x TC for birdies. > A subject of interest to me, so comments interspersed. > >A 600/4 monster is pretty useless for many "birdy" situations. It's >great on a tripod for shooting birds that are not moving around much >and who will sit still long enough for you to set up, assuming that >you can get your tripod set up on suitable ground. (I'm thinking of >marsh birds or shore birds, perhaps.) Weight is the one real drawback to the big lenses, which include the 400/2.8, 250-600/5.6, and 600/4. Smaller lenses such as 300/2.8. 600/5.6, and even a Nikon 500/4 are not heavy enough to make weight a serious limiting factor. I've never experienced any difficulty shooting marsh or shore birds - but then I don't take the 600 into the water, and often don't even set up a tripod. I leave carrying such a lens over water to the more adventurous, or those to whom sinking an expensive lens might be part of the cost of doing business. >However, the lens is not very portable, and it certainly isn't >hand-holdable (I can just about hand-hold an A* 600/5.6 in bright >light conditions with 400 ASA film). Even a sturdy monopod would be >taxed by a 600/4 cannon (that's with a "double-n" - ). If you >have to walk very far to get to the birdies you'd better buy an >army-surplus caisson to help transport it, but forget it if the >terrain is rough. If anyone is carrying a big lens very far to get bird photos, they better be backpacking to a blind, or some other spot already scouted. It's no secret that birds flee from human contact. The birds circle of fear is proportional to the amount of regular human contact they have. In remote locations, there won't be a bird within twenty yards of a human crashing through the underbrush. > >Then, I don't picture using such a lens on pelagic birds from a >boat. And, I can't picture traipsing through dense woods to shoot >birds in the puckerbrush, and thickets, either. (Good luck to you >if a bird lands less than 5 meters - about 16.5 feet - away from >you.) In my part of the birding world (Texas and Florida for awhile, now Arizona) birds are abundant at the edge of clearings - not in dense woods. Owls and some woodpeckers like the interior a little, but usually dense woods are not nearly as good a place to go birding as the scrubby transition area between woods and field. The best "thicket" birding is from the car, parked on the shoulder of a less-traveled road, often right in the city at the edge of a development. This is where the really big glass shines - shooting from a blind, and a car is an excellent blind. The use of a car reduces the drawback of lens weight, and the minimum focus distance seldom comes into play. If it does, a 25mm Kenko AF extension tube helps a lot. >Mind you, this is really not any criticism of the design or the >optical properties of the F* or FA* 600/4 lenses, but is just a >"devil's advocate" rebuttal to the concept that "you really only >need a 600/4 and 1.4x TC for birdies". It is probably a great lens >for its purposes, but its purposes don't cover a lot of good birding >situations. A lot of good bird photography can be done without "a >600/4 and 1.4x TC". > >Fred My comment about needing a 600/4 and TC is a tongue-in-cheek comment I've made many times in the past. I hold to it a little, but it's not all that defensible. The 600/4 is very heavy, very expensive, and requires a host of expensive accessories. One has to plan to use it - it is not the lens to keep in the trunk for spur-of-the-moment outings. And hand-holding is out of the question except for an occasional grunt-and-hope shot. I've used my 600/4 in many modes, from tripod setup at a blind, to a walk-around lens on a monopod, to a pack-in situation. I've carried it on the passenger seat of the car, hooked to a short monopod, ready to point through the car window. I've even shot it from flat on my back, holding it above my face shooting directly up into a tree. I've lugged it as much as eight miles in one day (that was a very long day), but normally I limit myself to a two mile round trip. But all that weight is a lot easier on the younger crowd. Now that I am nearer to a hundred than not, I'm heeding the siren call of digital and its 1.5x FOV crop. So I carry a fairly light 300/4 and 1.4x TC, on a monopod, and get 315 shots per roll at an effective focal length of 630/f5.6 with the fabulous close-focus ability of 1:3 Macro. Now that's a walk-around setup for birding! -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: It's Coming
The longer you keep us in suspense. The more of us can join in. Bwaa haa haa http://home.att.net/~butchblack?wsb/media/78450/site1064.jpg
Re: MF Normal Lens
Joe Wilensky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "In that case, get an original K-series SMC 55/1.8. It's the closest you'll come to the screwmount Tak feel in a K-mount lens (albeit with a rubber-texture focus ring) and the same lens formula as the Super-Tak (but with multicoating). I think they're usually quite cheap." I love my classic $30 55/1.8K dearly, but only from f/5.6 f/22. I used it to take some parade shots on a cloudy day at, I think, f/2.8. There was a shot of a red-coated horseman, but the detail in his face was so lacking--as though someone had placed a stocking over his head--that I was embarrassed to submit it for April's "cliché" PUG theme. For f/2, f/2.8, and f/4, I use my Ricoh Rikenon P 50/1.4...which, coincidentally, can no longer close down beyond f/5.6. Yeah, it's a pain to have to keep two 50s to get decent results across the aperture range. If I knew then what I know now, I'd probably overcome my aversion to autofocus lenses and get a 50/1.4 FA. Or I may return to an XR Rikenon 50/2, which rivals the Rikenon P 50/1.4 at f/2 to f/4 and doesn't have the P tab to get in the way when I want to mount the lens quickly. Unlike the XR 50/1.4, the XR 50/2 optical formula was not improved when Ricoh added the P setting. Unfortunately, neither was the coating, which remained single, or the body, which remained aluminum. Also, the P 50/1.4 delivers more saturated color, possibly because it is multicoated.
Re: OT: How things change so quickly
I wrote: "I bought my first hard drive in 1991. It was 105 megabytes and cost $725, or $7 a megabyte. At Best Buy this week, you can now buy a 120 gigabyte hard drive for $100. That's nearly 7,000 the capacity for less than 1/10 the price (in real dollars)." Oops! I was mixing and matching the capacity comparison with the cost comparison. Someone has probably corrected my math by now. That'll teach me not to try math before sipping my morning coffee. That's 1,142 times the capacity, at roughly 1/7000 the cost per gigabyte. What a difference 12 years makes. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 67ii 61 Limited...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:27:52 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > >Crisco + Pig = Epicurean Delight > > Hmm. Must be some definition of "epicurean" that I'm not familiar with. > ;-) Hey, I'm a hillbilly with 500 years or so of lineage to prove it! :-) Smithfield Ham is the reason God made Pigs. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: ME (Super) SE Screen
On 25 Feb 2003 at 19:19, Levente -Levi- Littvay wrote: > Hello > > Can someone tell me the model number of the ME SE or the ME Super SE > screen? It is different then the regular ME or ME Super... I think > (though it's been a year now) that Pentax still has them because it is > the same as one of the later models. I have a ME Super SE laying around > which has a screwed up screen... ME series screens are fixed AFAIK, there aren't any retail product numbers for them and they are a pain to replace. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: OT: How things change so quickly
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:45:02 -0500, Peter Alling wrote: > In the interview I read, he was surprised how close he came for a number > he pulled out of his a**. > > >Gordon Moore doesn't think so (the Moore of Moore's Law). He's > >expounded on it recently in the IT trade press. Well, he pulled it out of his a**, but it was a very experienced a**. Estimates of that sort tend to be a lot more useful than the ones pulled from inexperienced a**es. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Nanometer
That still doesn't read right. Anyway, y'all know what I meant... a nanometer (nm) is not a millionth of a meter (µm)but a billionth. The alternative proposed by a mate of mine is that a nanometer is something we all should have in our houses to warn us when our Grandmother is about to arrive unannounced and we are parading around the house in our small's :-) Cheers Shaun Shaun Canning wrote: Sorry gang...in one of yesterdays posts I referred to a nanometer (µm)as a millionth of a meter when in fact it is one billionth of a meter. Cheers Shaun Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's Coming
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Top that. >> >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=746359 > >and I raise you Yikes! (Looks like we have another marathon runner on the list.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: 67ii 61 Limited...
"Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:22:01 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > >> > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crisco_pig.jpg >> >> Yeah, but the Crisco lends it just that touch of redeeming surreality. > >Crisco + Pig = Epicurean Delight Hmm. Must be some definition of "epicurean" that I'm not familiar with. ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX > The LX meter range may be limited by the lens speed which may be slow, > a hand held isnt. My digital multi-pro gossen automatically > indicates "error" if the light is out of range so I dont > get "false" readings. What I do anytime the metered reading is over 1 second > is start out the base exposure at the meter reading which is always > going to be underexposed due to film reciprocal error. Then I bracket > doubling the time exposure each time up to 4 more "stops" total. I've never > NOT gotten at least one really good exposure in the selection. I would never > attempt to do a shot like that with only a single exposure. > Hell thats what 36 exposure rolls are for.My time is > worth more than a few frames of film. I dont leave it to chance > So far the longest exposure I ever did in a series was about 20 minutes, > and that is only once in a blue moon (pun intended). I have nothing > against the LX, it's just that ANY built-in meter means very little > to me, I rarely use built-in meters in the type of photography > I do. To others I'm sure it important like event photography, etc. > I'm not a fan of reflectance metering or AE, I prefer incidence > and hand metered manual. As for the situation with the light changing > during a time exposure I said before I dont want the light changing > DURING the exposure. If it did I would just reshoot the frame... > And there is the practical matter also how often do you actually > take photos where the time is longer than 1 second? I know I take > VERY few. I'm certainly not going to buy camera based on just on that > feature > when there is a cheap easy reliable solution like bracking with any camera, > even > an unmetered one on the rare occasion where something like that is needed. > To each his own I guess. U, whatever. With view cameras, an exposure shorter than a second is a rarity, several minutes is more the norm. So, practically, almost everything I shoot is longer than 1 second exposure. If you are discussing the image I gave the link for, do you not think that over SEVEN HOURS the light might change? That image is illuminated by window light. I had one shot at it, bracketing the exposure just wasn't an option. If one has done proper tests, then it is possible to precisely place the film reciprocity curve into the exposure equation. This cuts down greatly on the 4 stop guesswork that is guaranteed to give one less than optimum negative 3 times more often than it will give a correct negative. Metering long exposures is no different from metering short ones. You need to know your correct film speed for the situation, including exposure duration. Sensitometry is the science of exposure and development. It's a science all photographers should familiarize themselves with. Science, not taking a scattershot exposure approach will always work better. A four stop bracket is a scattershot approach. If you get better at exposure, you can then use those four sheets of film (or frames if you are using a small camera) as insurance against physical damage to the negative. The degree of reciprocity failure is pretty easy to predict by observing meter deflection at open aperture and predicting an approximate exposure time at the shooting aperture. Just one question: Have you actually used an LX for making long exposures? I have. William Robb
Nanometer
Sorry gang...in one of yesterdays posts I referred to a nanometer (µm)as a millionth of a meter when in fact it is one billionth of a meter. Cheers Shaun Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ME (Super) SE Screen
Hello Can someone tell me the model number of the ME SE or the ME Super SE screen? It is different then the regular ME or ME Super... I think (though it's been a year now) that Pentax still has them because it is the same as one of the later models. I have a ME Super SE laying around which has a screwed up screen... thx Levi
Re: Gigapixels...
>>Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>1µm = 1/1,000,000 of a metre >>>1nm = 1/1,000,000,000 of a metre >>>1pm = 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a metre >>>1p.m.= early afternoon >> >>1PM = Tony Blair >> >>-- >>Mark Roberts 1PMS = Rosie O'Donnell
Re: Pentax DSLR
no, no, no. The focal length and aperture of the lens do not change. It's simply a cropped image. The apparent magnification from what would have been a 75mm lens is there, but only because of cropping. And, a 75mm 1.2 would have a different DOF structure than a 50/1.2. They're not the same thing in either respect. Collin * >> Assuming that Pentax eventually sells a DSLR with APS sized sensor, what * >> prime lens would you use on it for your fast normal lens? (assume a * >> lens factor of 1.5x) * * A 50mm f/1.2 becomes a 75mm 1.2!! Portrait City! * Cotty
RE: More on the *ist
Hi Rob, On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:22:34 -, Rob Brigham wrote: > Call it paranoia, but I don't use AF for motorsports - I prefocus. > Sensor selection isnt relevant to me. Especially manually setting an AF > point - I would probably never catch the car in the right place... Due to my own limitations in technique, I get much better hit rates using AF than not. I have a lot less problem panning to keep the sensor over the target than I do estimating when to trip the shutter on a prefocus point. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: ebay item question
At 7:05 PM -0500 2/25/03, Peter Alling wrote: Yes, I take it you know it isn't? I do now! At 02:50 PM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: This is OT since since the item is not a Pentax, but I would appreciate it if you could check out the following item, and specifically its description: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006594554&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6 My question is this: based on the item description, would you tend to think that this was a functioning camera? -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ebay item question
> My question is this: based on the item description, would you tend to think that this was a functioning camera? They didn't function when they were current. I doubt if they have gotten better with age. Aaargh! Someone's flaming my beloved Mirandas! :^) Actually I have to agree at least partially. The dx-3 - the last Miranda - was apparently prone to problems, especially the early models. I have developed a very close relationship with the repair guy at Classic Camera in Biddeford, Maine as a result of my thing for Mirandas. He tells me that there is actually a pulley inside the dx-3! The reason I like that model is because it is a perfect size for me, with well placed controls. It handles beautifully. OTOH, the Auto Sensorex EE is built like a tank, simple, solid, and easy to fix when it does go wrong. Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb. -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's Coming
>> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg > > I surrender! Seriously, this is truly nightmarish. I *could* have bad dreams about this. --Mike
Need a small favor from mac people
Anyone here running a mac osx with safari and ie, I need 3 beta testers for about 5 minutes of your time. To test an option on my site. Anyone have a few minutes to spare. al
Re: It's Coming
> > does this count as a cat? > > > > http://www.urbancaravan.com/images/jag_peeking.jpg > A... > car... > Black and white... >regaining strength Damn! I knew someone was going to make a mistake... Quckly, Tom - find something *really* nice for our friend. £ukasz PS. BTW - Mike, have you received my email? There I go - paranoid again... === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: Hideous, horrible, looming feline in the flowers, WAS: It's Coming
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg AAAUUHHH!!! I give up! Enough! Enough! I'll tell every thing I know, just please STOP, I'm going to have NIGHTMARES... What's coming is.uhhhn It's that. Ahhh... <*THUMP*> (falling over on floor, unconscious)
Re: It's Coming
> Probably an A 50/1.7 or 1.4. That was a few years ago. It's a 1.4, I'm guessing. I know my favorite lens when I see it. --Mike
Re: 67ii 61 Limited...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:22:01 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crisco_pig.jpg > > Yeah, but the Crisco lends it just that touch of redeeming surreality. Crisco + Pig = Epicurean Delight :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: MZ-S
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:35:38 -0600, Gary L. Murphy wrote: >Bruce Dayton wrote: > >>That was me and it has been sold and shipped. >> > >Story of my life... :-( > >Thanks for the note, Bruce! Gary, You have to be quick. I missed out on the first one advertised because I hesitated. I wasn't going to miss the second! Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: It's Coming
On 25 Feb 2003 at 18:32, Mike Johnston wrote: > (must not tell... ...must not tell) C'mon Mike, give your fellow PDMLers an eBay advantage! Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: It's Coming
> does this count as a cat? > > http://www.urbancaravan.com/images/jag_peeking.jpg A... car... Black and white... regaining strength
Re: It's Coming
> http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/co_bluebells.jpg Colors. raindroplets <*feeling woozy*> (must not tell... ...must not tell) That horrid yellow color in the background AUGH!
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Hi Ryan, On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:28:00 -0600, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: > Speaking of which, I saw an LX user at the 100 Acre Woods Rally here in > the States last weekend. I was in a car, so I couldn't talk to him- > anyone on the list? It wasn't me. I have an LX, but I don't have any idea where the 100 Acre Woods are, except the one in the Winnie the Pooh books. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Daylight Fill-Flash with the AF360 FGZ
Bruce, Thanks for your help!!! I've got a roll of Portra 400UC and I want to try some outdoor shots before it starts raining again. Michael Bruce Dayton wrote: Michael, That depends on what you are trying to do. I have done some testing myself. One desire is to put catchlights in the eyes and that is bout it. With diffused outdoor light probably about 2 stops under. As the sun gets more direct you are usually trying to take out shadows in/under the eyes. Noonday sun here in NorCal being quite bright you need almost no compensation. Just as a rule of thumb, my average starting point would be about one stop under. Adjust as necessary based on how strong the sun is. HTH, Bruce Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 3:52:40 PM, you wrote: MC> The AF360 FGZ seems to imply that flash compensation needs to be dialed MC> in for outdoor fill flash. Can someone tell me if this is true? And if MC> so, what would be a good starting level of flash compensation for MC> outdoor fill flash? MC> Thanks, MC> Michael
Re: Pentax DSLR
> Assuming that Pentax eventually sells a DSLR with APS sized sensor, what > prime lens would you use on it for your fast normal lens? (assume a > lens factor of 1.5x) FA 28mm. --Mike
Re: Vuescan users quiry
the 4000 dpi scans I get are about 95 megs 5700x3900 from slides. --- Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It seems to give smaller files than the Epson > software and Silverfast > >too.Most > >of my 35mm colour negs files are in the 10meg range > with jpgs just under 1 > >meg,even lees > >with B&W. > > A 2820ppi TIFF file is about 56MB (3900x2600ppi) on > my PC using Vuescan. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months > FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: OT: ebay item question
Yes, I take it you know it isn't? At 02:50 PM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: This is OT since since the item is not a Pentax, but I would appreciate it if you could check out the following item, and specifically its description: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006594554&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOAB:US:6 My question is this: based on the item description, would you tend to think that this was a functioning camera? -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: It's Coming
Mark Roberts wrote: Top that. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=746359 and I raise you Jeff
Re: 67ii 61 Limited...
I wasn't going to comment but this is the awful pun, (maybe almost pun), I've ever seen in a photo. At 05:22 PM 2/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: > A little variety: > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crisco_pig.jpg > > Stuffed animals! Yeah, but the Crisco lends it just that touch of redeeming surreality. Although I have to say, you guys are totally, completely out of control. --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: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
The LX meter range may be limited by the lens speed which may be slow, a hand held isnt. My digital multi-pro gossen automatically indicates "error" if the light is out of range so I dont get "false" readings. What I do anytime the metered reading is over 1 second is start out the base exposure at the meter reading which is always going to be underexposed due to film reciprocal error. Then I bracket doubling the time exposure each time up to 4 more "stops" total. I've never NOT gotten at least one really good exposure in the selection. I would never attempt to do a shot like that with only a single exposure. Hell thats what 36 exposure rolls are for.My time is worth more than a few frames of film. I dont leave it to chance So far the longest exposure I ever did in a series was about 20 minutes, and that is only once in a blue moon (pun intended). I have nothing against the LX, it's just that ANY built-in meter means very little to me, I rarely use built-in meters in the type of photography I do. To others I'm sure it important like event photography, etc. I'm not a fan of reflectance metering or AE, I prefer incidence and hand metered manual. As for the situation with the light changing during a time exposure I said before I dont want the light changing DURING the exposure. If it did I would just reshoot the frame... And there is the practical matter also how often do you actually take photos where the time is longer than 1 second? I know I take VERY few. I'm certainly not going to buy camera based on just on that feature when there is a cheap easy reliable solution like bracking with any camera, even an unmetered one on the rare occasion where something like that is needed. To each his own I guess. JCO > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX > > > > - Original Message - > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX > > > > > > > > Do you carry around the data sheets for all the different > > films you use? I don't. It's much easier and safer to bracket long > > exposures. > > AE & time exposures dont mix IMHO . BTW, if your going to override > > the AE with compensations, you might as well go manual > > and be done with it. > > No, but I do carry a notebook with such pertinent information in my gadget > bag for the half dozen films that I do use. > I cannot guarantee that the light conditions won't change > somewhat during a > several minute exposure. A cloud may obscure my light source (the moon, as > an example). > Since I can't change fate, I have the ability with the LX to roll with it. > The camera will respond to changes in light intensity during the exposure, > and will adjust the exposure time to compensate. > Here are two examples for the same scene type. > Photographer #1 is using a manual camera on bulb, and has made an ambient > light reading of the scene, taken reciprocity into account and decides an > exposure of three minutes is appropriate. > Unfortunately, at some point, a cloud obscures the major light source. > Poor Mr. Manual is hooped, as he no longer knows how much time to give the > exposure to complete it, so he closes the shutter and tries again. > Photographer #2 is using an LX on automatic. He also takes > reciprocity into > account by dialing in exposure compensation on the meter dial. > At the same time photographer #1 is getting screwed by mean old mother > nature and her bitchy ways, photographer # 2 is making bets with himself > about how much longer he will have to stand there. But, he knows > he will get > a correct exposure, because the camera makes the exposure > adjustment on the > fly. > The LX is unique in it's ability to do this, and this feature was > one of the > main draws to the camera for me. > > Lets go to another situation where the light is constant. > Photographer #1 makes a light reading, decides how much exposure > compensation to give for reciprocity and commits to the exposure. > Photographer #2 (remember, this guy has an LX) dials in the > needed exposure > compensation for reciprocity, trips the shutter and hangs out > until he hears > it close. > > OTOH, if you don't have an LX, you are pretty much stuck with > extrapolating > exposures from a meter which may be of questionable sensitivity > and accuracy > in low light conditions (there aren't many meters more sensitive than the > built in meter of the LX). > At that point, bracketing is the only choice you have, since you are, in > effect, guessing at the exposure anyway. > > I'm pretty good at guessing, the below link will take you to an image that > recieved somewhere in the range of a one hour exposure. The shadow detail > doesn't show up on the computer generated image unfortunately. The silver > print is absolutely 3 dimensional. > > http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=717188 > > At that sort of exposure times,
Re: PDML #5 Group Photo
#7...? Cheers Shaun tom wrote: -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, we know Cesar's the one with the boot fetish (or is it a snakeskin fetish?) We need other names, though... http://www.bigdayphoto.com/PDML5.jpg Left to Right: Cesar, Glenn, Me, Christian, Stephen, Geoff #7 is the horizontal one. That was her idea. tv . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking advise on medium format
> >Does Pentax still service the original 6x7? The non MLU version, no. The MLU version, yes. William Robb
Re: Daylight Fill-Flash with the AF360 FGZ
Michael, That depends on what you are trying to do. I have done some testing myself. One desire is to put catchlights in the eyes and that is bout it. With diffused outdoor light probably about 2 stops under. As the sun gets more direct you are usually trying to take out shadows in/under the eyes. Noonday sun here in NorCal being quite bright you need almost no compensation. Just as a rule of thumb, my average starting point would be about one stop under. Adjust as necessary based on how strong the sun is. HTH, Bruce Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 3:52:40 PM, you wrote: MC> The AF360 FGZ seems to imply that flash compensation needs to be dialed MC> in for outdoor fill flash. Can someone tell me if this is true? And if MC> so, what would be a good starting level of flash compensation for MC> outdoor fill flash? MC> Thanks, MC> Michael
Re: It's Coming
> >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg > I love the name of that file :-)) £ukasz --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: It's Coming
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/bw_ouzo_at_window.jpg >> > >> >I can do this all day. >> >> http://www.robertstech.com/temp/webster.jpg >> >> Top that. > >Ouch. > >http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/images/crap.jpg I surrender! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT: ebay item question
> This is OT since since the item is not a Pentax, but I would > appreciate it if you could check out the following item, and > specifically its description: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006594554&ssPageName=ADME: > B:EOAB:US:6 > > My question is this: based on the item description, would you tend to > think that this was a functioning camera? The seller also did not use the magic words "sold as is," so I would also presume I could return it if I were not satisfied. --Mike
RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
another question: Does anybody know if 8X10 sheet film is EXACTLY 4 times the size of 4X5 film ( which I discovered today isnt really 4X5). JCO
PDML #5 Group Photo
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/PDML5.jpg Courtesy of a former PDMLer and his D100. Notice that Cesar is handling the faux snakeskin boots. Coincidence? tv
OT: ebay item question
> This is OT since since the item is not a Pentax, but I would > appreciate it if you could check out the following item, and > specifically its description: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3006594554&ssPageName=ADME: > B:EOAB:US:6 > > My question is this: based on the item description, would you tend to > think that this was a functioning camera? "I shot a roll of film with it and the pictures looked good." That would certainly seem to indicate functioning condition to me. What happened, you get a DOA? --Mike
RE: It's Coming
> One-Eye, > Jes' don't git that chawr on ma foot, Bub. And whutcha mean > spit it out? I done SAID it's comin', din' I? > > --Mike Ya sure did! That should be 'nough to get us to warmin' up our plastic, or takin' out a second mortgage, or limberin' up our check writin' hands so's to be ready. Len ---
Re: Gigapixels...
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 23:21, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 25 Feb 2003 at 22:01, Cotty wrote: > > PS - what in Bealzebub's name is a µm ? Is that like 'ummm' written > > pretentiously or what? Sheesh. > > Was basic physics compulsory in the UK? > > 1mm = 1/1,000 of a metre > 1µm = 1/100,000 of a metre > 1pm = really really short > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html 1µm = 1/1,000,000 of a metre 1nm = 1/1,000,000,000 of a metre 1pm = 1/1,000,000,000,000 of a metre 1p.m.= early afternoon -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
MZ-S
Didn't someone on the list post a message about selling their MZ-S a few days ago? Is it still for sale? -- Later, Gary
