Re:OT: HTML frames
Well, sort of. It's a single component of the frameset I navigated to, albeit the one with the information of interest. The pisser about it is that the URL window of my browser never changes from the site's main page, no matter where I navigate. Instead of being able to copy the text from that window, I'd have to engage in backhanded sleuthing based on the status information that's displayed when I mouse over the URL. That's inexcusably user-hostile. most times you can get the url when you rightclick on the link to the source and choose open in a new window. normaly you get a new window with the page displayed and the direct link in the addressfield.
Off topic: Russian engineering / On topic : MZ-S
Hi, Just a response to the recent posts on Russian cars. Having come back from two weeks in western Siberia, I can testify that Russian cars work very well indeed. The cars never frightened me at all. Russian driving is something else. No smiley. As more and more western cars appear, one thing became obvious to me. The numerous small scale collisions that occur on Russian roads in winter are going to become much more expensive. Whereas before, a metal bumper would only need straightening and repainting, the new plastic sort have to be replaced. WRT MZ-S, I can report that in a day of -18+severe windchill, the camera and 28-70 2.8 never failed to work, unlike my fingers and most other extremeties. Going from that into a +20, humid cafe caused both to take a severe bath due to condensation but this also had no apparent effect. mike
Sreet Photos
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Strret photography seems to be much simpler the less you look like a REAL photographer [think about Cartier Bresson with a a little Leica back in the days when REAL photogs used 4X5 Speed Graphics... My favourite tools are a 25 year old Canon [sorry] Canonet G111 rangefinder, inconspicuos, fast 40mm f1.7 lens about 20 times cheaper on Ebay than a Leica witha 35mm to do the same job!] A 40mm pancake lens with its own body! The other nifty acqusition for this stuff is a Ricoh Gr-1S super compact with a 28mm f2.8 this falls in to the same bracket as the Olympus XA that i used to use [still have] from 20 years ago, super quality that fits in your pocket and doesn't LOOK too serious! I always try and make a point of saying HELLO [after the first snapso now I get a loooking into camera version] and THANKYOU which also usaually gets another smile! Load any of these with TriX or CN400 and off you go! Clive Evans Antibes France
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Bruce Rubenstein wrote: I didn't say it was a knock off and it doesn't matter if it's similar or not. It doesn't matter if it has the best interface know to humanity, because people don't start with user interfaces, or any other technical detail. A digital SLR, for the general population, is just an expensive electronic gadget. They want to buy from a company that they know makes good electronic gadgets, or a camera brand that has such good name recognition that they already know it. Pentax is neither. Pentad's name recognition starts with Spotmatic and ends with K1000, with nothing in between. If Pentax's DSLR sales are just dependent on long time Pentax users then they'll sell about as many as Minolta did of their Maxxum 9's. Bruce, It seems to me that Pentax is a well-run, profitable and generally successful company, especially in comparison to some larger companies who sell DSLRs at a loss and have done for years now. The company's main market is in point-and-shoot cameras; it manages to sell both 35mm and digital PS cameras in large numbers and at a profit. It also manages to do this without spending vast amounts of money on advertising. This sounds to me like a well-managed company, and I fail to see how your criticism of it can be justified. Whether the *ist D sells profitably or not will not depend solely on numbers sold. It will depend crucially on the profit margin on each sale. If Pentax can offer the *ist D at an attractive price point, it will sell well. In other words, if the *ist D and two kit lenses can be had for the same price as the Canon EOS 10D (or less) then it will sell. Our enlightened self-interest in the success of the Pentax DSLR line depends on two things. One is whether their product(s) meet(s) our needs at a price we can afford. The other is whether Pentax is making money with DSLRs, because an unprofitable Pentax is unlikely to survive, let alone offer us the equipment we want to buy. Not being at the very sharp end of digital technology, and being economical with the advertising budget, has served Pentax pretty well so far, and the *ist D is a beautiful product. I'm very happy with its announcement. But why aren't you? I would also venture the question, if the Pentax brand gives you as much dyspepsia as it appears to, why do you buy it and why do you discuss it on here? Maybe you would be happier with a camera brand that kept your blood pressure somewhat lower? Forgive me if I have misunderstood your dissatisfaction. Regards, John
Re: Agfa Scala
David Harris wrote: Just to point out that currently there are NO labs in the UK to process scala, it has to be sent to France since Joes Basement went bust in January. Hi David, Thanks for the reminder. My exposed Scala is building up in the freezer for when I decide where to have it processed. By where I probably mean in which European country! Best regards, John
Re: Off topic: Russian engineering / On topic : MZ-S
More OT stuff about Russian engineering: I have just acquired a Soviet era compound microscope. Every single control was frozen solid with hardened grease. It took me a week to get it all to pieces, cleaned, adjusted and back together. The image is reasonable considering the objectives and eyepieces are only achromats - not flat field optics. I nearly bust a gut getting it in and out of the car - it weighs 19,5kg! The microscope is a copy of one of the Leitz instruments of the 1980s or thereabout. The only trouble I anticipate is finding replacement light bulbs. The one in the lamp housing looks new, but is of a pattern I've never seen before. As soon as I've found a phototube (that can be modified to fit the frame) I'll be in the photomicrographic game again. The finish on the mechanical parts, slides, screws and in particular the fine focus mechanism is rather rough. The grease they used contained graphite which became as solid as cement. This made disassembly very difficult. I soaked some parts in light petrol ether overnight and even then it was difficult. Where I'm going to store this monster when its not in use I have no idea. At the moment its up on top of a filing cabinet, but getting it there was a weight lifting exercise. There's no place you can get a good grip. ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:12 AM Subject: Off topic: Russian engineering / On topic : MZ-S Hi, Just a response to the recent posts on Russian cars. Having come back from two weeks in western Siberia, I can testify that Russian cars work very well indeed. The cars never frightened me at all. Russian driving is something else. No smiley. As more and more western cars appear, one thing became obvious to me. The numerous small scale collisions that occur on Russian roads in winter are going to become much more expensive. Whereas before, a metal bumper would only need straightening and repainting, the new plastic sort have to be replaced. WRT MZ-S, I can report that in a day of -18+severe windchill, the camera and 28-70 2.8 never failed to work, unlike my fingers and most other extremeties. Going from that into a +20, humid cafe caused both to take a severe bath due to condensation but this also had no apparent effect. mike
Re: MZ-3 vs ZX(or MZ)-5n (EX: Re: *ist v. MZ or ZX series)
In bright sunlight the high shutter speeds can be wonderful assets. I have speeds up to 1/8000 in pentax and even a 1/12000 in a minolta body. If you want to blur your background in a portrait type image in bright sunlight you'll need the fast speeds to run f2 range aperatures. Very fast shutter speeds can be used for such purposes, but they're far from the only way. Slower films (at ISO 100, correct exposure at f/2 is 1/2000 in direct sun... even ZX-M can do that) and ND filters are two others that come to mind. On a shoot, I usually use 400-800 film, overall day. The fast shutter is definite plus here, when I want to use 2.8 or 3.5 aperture with 70-210 lens to blur background, or even faster with f/2 wideangle prime. That's why a Hexar RF appeals to me (although offtopic) - Leica and similar lenses are very nice near wide open, but you can't use them with any Leica... (whose 1/1000 is mostly 1/750 and 1/1000 only in the electronic M7). Especially in sunlight, shooting M6 at fastest 1/1000 even with 100 iso film would give you f/5.6, which is nowhere near wide open. And now imagine it with general use 400 film... But I digress. This all depends of course on what you shoot, your style, etc. Frantisek
Pentax 1.7 TCU
Pentax people: I bought a 1.7 F Pentax teleconverter because somewhere I heard you could use it to convert Pentax A lenses to autofocus lenses. I bought it on eBay, and I think it came from overseas, because I couldn't find it at any of the mail order houses or any of the local photo shops here in L.A. I can't get it to work properly with my ZX 5n. Coupled with my Pentax 85mm f1.4 A lens, it racks the lens a quarter inch or so, leaves image blurry. If you hand turn the lens all the way out to infinity, it bucks back and forth trying to focus. (I'm test focusing on a TV screen.) If you get close to sharp focus by hand, it will pull the image in till the indicator light flashes in the viewfinder and the beeper sounds, and then it stops. But you may or may not be in sharp focus. It's often close, but then you need to give it a tiny little turn more by hand to get it really sharp. I tried turning the aperture ring to A and the shutter speed dial to A and it seemed to work somewhat better, but not consistently. Coupled with my Pentax 135mm f1.8 A, the AF works much better, but you still must get it close by hand. Anybody got any tips about this? Tony Gieske [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Agfa Scala
This one time, at band camp, whickersworld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the reminder. My exposed Scala is building up in the freezer for when I decide where to have it processed. By where I probably mean in which European country! Dunno about Europe, but I get it developed here in .au I am a recent convert to Scala and am most impressed with the results. I pushed the film to 1600 and was still happy with the results. My next shoot I am taking some Scala to see the results if I push to 3200. The only problem I have experienced is scanning the slides with the canon FS4000, the images appear very dark when scanned. My supplier in Sydney says this film has been discontinued and it is remaining stocks only, anyone else know about this? Kind regards Kevin -- __ (_ \ _) ) | / / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \) \_||_| \) \) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Pentax 1.7 TCU
Hello Tony, the 1.7 F converter covers not the whole range. It can only focus when you are in some range close to the focus. That depends clearly on the focal length of the used lens. So the behaviour you have discribed is normal. The difference between the automatically found focus and the correction done by hand may be due to somewhat wrong diopter correction of the finder or a misalignement of the AF sensor and the screen. My finding was: Often the AF sensor is right and the focusing by hand is not. Best regards, Hans. --- Tony Gieske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pentax people: I bought a 1.7 F Pentax teleconverter because somewhere I heard you could use it to convert Pentax A lenses to autofocus lenses. I bought it on eBay, and I think it came from overseas, because I couldn't find it at any of the mail order houses or any of the local photo shops here in L.A. I can't get it to work properly with my ZX 5n. Coupled with my Pentax 85mm f1.4 A lens, it racks the lens a quarter inch or so, leaves image blurry. If you hand turn the lens all the way out to infinity, it bucks back and forth trying to focus. (I'm test focusing on a TV screen.) If you get close to sharp focus by hand, it will pull the image in till the indicator light flashes in the viewfinder and the beeper sounds, and then it stops. But you may or may not be in sharp focus. It's often close, but then you need to give it a tiny little turn more by hand to get it really sharp. I tried turning the aperture ring to A and the shutter speed dial to A and it seemed to work somewhat better, but not consistently. Coupled with my Pentax 135mm f1.8 A, the AF works much better, but you still must get it close by hand. Anybody got any tips about this? Tony Gieske [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ 23a mail _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Hello John, well said. I'm also very content with announcement of the *ist D. Regards, Hans. --- whickersworld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Rubenstein wrote: I didn't say it was a knock off and it doesn't matter if it's similar or not. It doesn't matter if it has the best interface know to humanity, because people don't start with user interfaces, or any other technical detail. A digital SLR, for the general population, is just an expensive electronic gadget. They want to buy from a company that they know makes good electronic gadgets, or a camera brand that has such good name recognition that they already know it. Pentax is neither. Pentad's name recognition starts with Spotmatic and ends with K1000, with nothing in between. If Pentax's DSLR sales are just dependent on long time Pentax users then they'll sell about as many as Minolta did of their Maxxum 9's. Bruce, It seems to me that Pentax is a well-run, profitable and generally successful company, especially in comparison to some larger companies who sell DSLRs at a loss and have done for years now. The company's main market is in point-and-shoot cameras; it manages to sell both 35mm and digital PS cameras in large numbers and at a profit. It also manages to do this without spending vast amounts of money on advertising. This sounds to me like a well-managed company, and I fail to see how your criticism of it can be justified. Whether the *ist D sells profitably or not will not depend solely on numbers sold. It will depend crucially on the profit margin on each sale. If Pentax can offer the *ist D at an attractive price point, it will sell well. In other words, if the *ist D and two kit lenses can be had for the same price as the Canon EOS 10D (or less) then it will sell. Our enlightened self-interest in the success of the Pentax DSLR line depends on two things. One is whether their product(s) meet(s) our needs at a price we can afford. The other is whether Pentax is making money with DSLRs, because an unprofitable Pentax is unlikely to survive, let alone offer us the equipment we want to buy. Not being at the very sharp end of digital technology, and being economical with the advertising budget, has served Pentax pretty well so far, and the *ist D is a beautiful product. I'm very happy with its announcement. But why aren't you? I would also venture the question, if the Pentax brand gives you as much dyspepsia as it appears to, why do you buy it and why do you discuss it on here? Maybe you would be happier with a camera brand that kept your blood pressure somewhat lower? Forgive me if I have misunderstood your dissatisfaction. Regards, John _ 23a mail _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag
Re: Pentax 1.7 TCU
Hi Tony, First of all - download the manual for the adapter from the American Pentax site (it's in the Literature section). The lens should be set on infinity for most distances, but for some closer focusing distances you have to set the focus ring near the desired distance. There's a table that explains all that in the manual. If you get close to sharp focus by hand, it will pull the image in till the indicator light flashes in the viewfinder and the beeper sounds, and then it stops. But you may or may not be in sharp focus. It's often close, but then you need to give it a tiny little turn more by hand to get it really sharp. I also bought such an adapter recently for my MZ-S, and I have very similar problems when using it with a FA 50/1.4. Haven't had the time to shoot a test roll yet. But maybe it's a normal thing (I'm not saying that it should be like this, just that maybe it *is* like this). Regards, Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Szukasz banku bez prowizji ? mBank - zaloz konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Re: New Message from Mike Johnston
Hi, Chris, I must say, I must have taken the penis shot out of context. I didn't realize that it was being contrasted with gory, violent shots. Maybe I just saw it, and went ballistic. Had I seen the images you refer to, I'd have been equally (if not more) bothered. I've often told friends that sexual images are no worse than some images seen on the evening news. To put a different spin on it (adding another ingredient), an emaciated, starving child from a third world country with flies all over his/her face is ~real obscenity~. regards, frank Chris Brogden wrote: And yet it's okay to link to new photos showing death, dismemberment, and blood? I'm not coming down on you, specifically, Frank; I just find it mindboggling how North American culture finds nothing wrong with exposing kids to violence, but tries to prohibit them from seeing a naked body. To prevent this from being entirely OT, I should say something about posting stuff to the list, but I'm too tired right now... I should be in bed. :) chris -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
on 3/07/03 1:45 AM, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please someone send me a picture or two of a silver limited on a black body, preferably the MZ-S, so I can see how nice it looks and convince myself that I don't really need the black after all... Sorry Stan, but I'd hate to see you make a terrible mistake :-) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/02-P3032977m.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/01-P3032974m.JPG Rob Studdert Lovely pictures Rob. Thank you, I guess. Stan
It's that time again...
Folks, as it is Friday in most parts of the world I feel dutifully obliged to point out that we have some new toys: LX #5231369 FA1 100mm F2.8 F macro 35mm F3.5K KX (choice thereof) Kind regards from sunny Brighton Peter
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
I agree, makes the LX look new again. --- Stan Halpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 3/07/03 1:45 AM, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please someone send me a picture or two of a silver limited on a black body, preferably the MZ-S, so I can see how nice it looks and convince myself that I don't really need the black after all... Sorry Stan, but I'd hate to see you make a terrible mistake :-) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/02-P3032977m.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/01-P3032974m.JPG Rob Studdert Lovely pictures Rob. Thank you, I guess. Stan __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Pentax 1.7 TCU
On 7 Mar 2003 at 3:34, Tony Gieske wrote: Coupled with my Pentax 85mm f1.4 A lens, it racks the lens a quarter inch or so, leaves image blurry. If you hand turn the lens all the way out to infinity, it bucks back and forth trying to focus. (I'm test focusing on a TV screen.) Firstly the light output of a TV is quite low putting you into marginal AF operation secondly and most importantly the TV image isn't constant, it's being constantly updated and is wildly flickering to you cameras AF circuit. No wonder it's having difficulties. Test it outside in the daylight and see how it goes. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax 1.7 TCU
Firstly the light output of a TV is quite low putting you into marginal AF operation secondly and most importantly the TV image isn't constant, it's being constantly updated and is wildly flickering to you cameras AF circuit. No wonder it's having difficulties. Test it outside in the daylight and see how it goes. Oh yeah - and that too :-) Lukasz --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Szukasz banku bez prowizji ? mBank - zaloz konto http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbank
Tripod and Monopod on Ebay from PDML member
See http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915705087 Both are for sale. Contact off-line. And, yes, I still have that new condition 24mm SMC f2.8 I keep trying to peddle. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why doesn't my lens work?
Butch Black said: Gregory L. Hansen wrote: I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens, manual, doesn't seem to work. Pictures I've taken with it seemed grayish, grainy, low contrast, under-exposed. snip I would do a couple tests. First, take a good look at the negatives. Are they very dark or very thin compared to a negative that prints well? Thin means you are underexposing, dark overexposing. Both could give you that flat, grainy look you were describing. Negatives always look thin to me. The prints, without extra brightness, came out pretty dark from the machine at CVS. I tried a Motophoto, I think they removed some of the red, and they came out much nicer, but still low contrast. The guy that handled it wasn't working last night, I'll try to find him tonight and see if he can tell me how much brightening he had to do, if he has any opinions on it. Also, I realized that the sensor arm tells the camera how much the lens will stop down when the picture is taken, but the lens is always f/8, so it wants to tell the camera that this is as much light as it's going to get. So setting the arm to f/1 doesn't necessarily mean anything. Second. Were you shooting in program or an auto exposure mode. I don't think reflex lenses work properly in auto exposure. Aperture priority. Third. If the negs were underexposed, were you compensating for shooting snow. You should open up 1-2 stops for snow or sand. +1 exposure compensation and bracketing, I'd thought +- 1 EV but the camera was set to +- 0.5 EV. Fourth. Inexpensive reflex lenses have a reputation of being slower then marked. I would test the lens on a wall indoors with and without the TC. You should get a reading 2 stops slower with the TC on. I would also test against another lens (not reflex) preferably telephoto at f8 you should get the same readings which is a good way of telling if your lens is slower then f8. I was just testing it last night, setting camera parameters on my K1000 and in manual mode on my ZX-L with other lenses set to f/8, and then with the reflex. For instance, 400 ASA, f/8, 1/8 second. And it did actually seem to meter right, although my SMCP-M 50/2 seemed to want half a stop more light than my other lenses. I wasn't using the TC at the time, I only used that to see where the sensor arm moves to. Finally. As mentioned by others, inexpensive reflex lenses are notorious for being flat with poor color and adding an inexpensive TC would only make matters worse. I'm starting to think this is it. It's supposed to be warm tomorrow, maybe I'll look for some birdies and try Sunny 16, comparison with other lenses (but none of them have that much telephoto), and a wide range of exposure values, and see if I can get a definitive opinion. I was thinking of trying to push e.g. 400 film to 800 or 1600 to see if I can increase the contrast a little. But if the lens is just naturally washed out, I might have to just put up with it for a long time until I can save up for a decent one. And I'm not sure what that would be, but I'll be aiming for $500 or $600, and the Sigma 170-500mm seems to be about all there is. There's the Sigma 600mm reflex for $379, but I don't think I want another manual fixed aperture. People have said how expensive the Limited lenses are, but I've been pricing telephotos that seem to run $2000 to $11,000, and then I saw the Limiteds for $500 to $800 and thought pshaw, for the best money can buy that's pretty darn cheap.
Still have the S3 for sale
The S3 is still for sale,with 55 f 1.8 and meter,and cases. I have had a few inquiries but nothing further,so if noone is interested i'll try my hand at Ebay. $60 US plus shipping to North American addresses. Contact me off list. Dave
Re: PhotoSIG (offending images) was Re: New Message from Mike Johnston
Ed, I do plead guilty for not writing the warning. I learned the lesson and I won't do it again. About hypocrisy: hell, it was just a prick. The male fraction of this list sees such on a daily basis. Ed Matthew wrote: Frankly, I found the image obnoxious, but less objectionable than the fact that you sent a link to it without warning. Why is the defense of suggesting 'hypocrisy'so commonly used by the offensive?
Re: Why doesn't my lens work?
Brendan said: The age old grey snow metering error, the camera tried to make the snow ( white ) 18 % grey. The low contrast tho is the lens, the kalimar 500mm F8 is the same as my vivitar 400mm, low not contrasty flat shots, Low contrast lens, huh? I think I'd just about reached that conclusion independently. That means I'll just have a low contrast lens for a long time, until I can buy something decent with that kind of telephoto.
Street photo (was Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on blackbody?)
Hi Rob, How do you find this particular lens to be suited to street and portrait photo ? *WARNING* The following links may lead you to images inducing evil feelings such as lust and envy: on 3/07/03 1:45 AM, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/02-P3032977m.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/01-P3032974m.JPG *WARNING* The above links may lead you to images inducing evil feelings such as lust and envy.
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Ken wrote: U.S. has 3 times the connected population of Japan, and no wonder the camera mfrs flock to the U.S. market. I understand for example, the Kodak 14n is on allocation to distributors, mostly in the U.S. and only a very small number would be trickling into Japan, the second largest market. No wonder as the market for digital camera at this price range is microscopic anyway. Pål
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
It definitely means that if you are going to sell every camera you make, there is no use in lowering the price to sell more. You can't buy market share without having the units themselves to deliver. The correct business approach would be to price the cameras just low enough to sell every one you make. Making them cheaper accomplishes nothing. The higher price may even make them more desirable, in a perverse sort of way. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 11:38AM Doug wrote: Excellent point. Reports out of PMA indicate that Pentax will have trouble keeping up with demand for the *ist D, and the price hasn't even been set yet. Not to be negative but hardly any digital camera is made for meeting demand. Nothing scare the manufacturers more than having unsold stock of digital cameras. Hence, avery digital camera manufactured are already sold. So the fact that a manufacturer doesn't meet demand doesn't mean anything really. Pål
RE: Importing used equipment into the US
Even thou I'm buying from a company? I've bought a lot of stuff from UK via ebay and never paid anything but the selling price. JCO I'm thinking about buying a used lens from Camera-Direct in England. My question is import fees, taxes, etc. will I have to pay here in the US. thanks Paul _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
RE: Limited camera user interface
It has not effect on function, but if you are spending that much on a lens and they make the matching kind, it's frustrating not to be able to get it. Certainly we care about colors for cars, although it doesn't effect mileage. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 10:25AM Just tell me one thing, why does the camera have to match the lens, are we talking about colour, you know the sexy thing? Ziggy Provided that there will be a camera matching the Limited lenses, what kind of interface would you like to see? Pentax have been all over the place regarding interface for their cameras the last decade. All of them have basically been great but for different usage and preferences. Eg. to my mind theres no doubt that the traditional dial interface is best for working on a tripod whereas the newer wheel interface is better for settings when your cameras is held up to your eyes. I suggest the following interface for a Limited camera wich I assume is the closest thing to an LX with AF, a nomenclature used by Pentax camera division boss, we will ever seen. The new fad of having large LCD panels on the back of the camera, like on the *ist, makes room for traditional controls on the top plate of the camera. I suggest a Limited lens focus ring finished metal shutter speed dial on top. This dial should have an A setting addition to the shutterspeed. The camera have two wheels, like on the *ist D. Some may think that this is overkill but I think it adds flexibility because it gives you both manual and hyper manual with no need for hold switch like on the MZ-S. In A, both lens and camera, the camera give hyper program like on the Z-1p. When lens is off the A setting, the camera varies between hyper manual and aperture priority auto like on the MZ-S. Switches for metering modes and drive modes should be placed like on the MZ-S. AF system interface like on the *ist D. A large LCD panel on the back would detract from the camera traditional look and finish, matching the Limited lenses, while it may give room for a host of features, perhaps via custom fuctions, without cluttering the interface. Such a camera have the potential of appelaing to a lot of advanced Pentax users whether they come from the Z-1p, MZ-S, LX or any of the medium format cameras. Pål
RE: Importing used equipment into the US
yes, I think so. Some of my purchases even though on ebay, were from UK camera shops. JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Eriksson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Importing used equipment into the US Even thou I'm buying from a company? I've bought a lot of stuff from UK via ebay and never paid anything but the selling price. JCO I'm thinking about buying a used lens from Camera-Direct in England. My question is import fees, taxes, etc. will I have to pay here in the US. thanks Paul _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
RE: Limited camera user interface
Well all current lenses are made to match any of our series of our cameras, so what point are you making? Ziggy -Original Message- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 07 March 2003 16:39 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Limited camera user interface Just tell me one thing, why does the camera have to match the lens, are we talking about colour, you know the sexy thing? No idea why but Pentax have always made lenses to match certain bodies or series of cameras. Pål
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Oh, the turmoil Pentax must be in trying to decide on the final pricing. Many reasonable scenarios have been put forth. Bruce Friday, March 7, 2003, 8:48:24 AM, you wrote: SD It definitely means that if you are going to sell every camera you make, there is no use in lowering the price to sell more. You can't buy market share without having the units themselves to SD deliver. The correct business approach would be to price the cameras just low enough to sell every one you make. Making them cheaper accomplishes nothing. The higher price may even make them SD more desirable, in a perverse sort of way. SD Steven Desjardins SD Department of Chemistry SD Washington and Lee University SD Lexington, VA 24450 SD (540) 458-8873 SD FAX: (540) 458-8878 SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 11:38AM SD Doug wrote: Excellent point. Reports out of PMA indicate that Pentax will have trouble keeping up with demand for the *ist D, and the price hasn't even been set yet. SD Not to be negative but hardly any digital camera is made for meeting demand. Nothing scare the manufacturers more than having unsold stock of digital cameras. Hence, avery digital camera SD manufactured are already sold. So the fact that a manufacturer doesn't meet demand doesn't mean anything really. SD Pål
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Steve wrote: - Original Message - It definitely means that if you are going to sell every camera you make, there is no use in lowering the price to sell more. You can't buy market share without having the units themselves to deliver. The correct business approach would be to price the cameras just low enough to sell every one you make. Making them cheaper accomplishes nothing. The higher price may even make them more desirable, in a perverse sort of way. REPLY: And thats probably exactly whats going to happen. They are almost certainly going to price it close to the competition. I don't expect a steal. Anyway, digital have some similarities to low volume products. The fact that Hasselblad doesn't meet demand with the H1 is seen as an indication that the camera sell in huge numbers. However, the fact is probably that this is all about low scale production and only filling distributors warehouses globally is going ot equal months of production. The Pentax 645N, which indeed was a sucess, wasn't available to some countries distributors before a year after introduction. This doesn't mean that they sold 10 000 a month. Pål
Re: *ist D price issues
This is not a camera that will be sold in an electronics store or a discount house that sells PS cameras and entry level offering. The *ist D will be available in Camera Stores. If Pentax offers a bonus to sales people who sell the thing they will sell more of them. Never underestimate the value of a cash incentive to the right people. If the camera itself is any good once the sales person shows the camera to the customer coupled with the enthusiasm engendered by the cash incentive the camera should sell itself. If Pentax does a little education about it's commitment to backward compatibility a lot of people who don't currently own a SLR will take a very serious look. At 11:32 AM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 3/5/2003 9:16:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you tell me, how is Pentax going to turn heads and get people to buy the *ist D over the Canon 10D? Bruce Come out with some really good lenses, in appealing focal lengths, with for the camera? However, if they do that they should really premier some of those lenses WITH the camera. Offer free popcorn? Well, offer free old manual lenses that they might still have in stock on some dusty back shelf (probably they don't, yeah)? Include a basic lens with the camera and in the price? Come out with a whole bunch of limited lenses? Beats me. I too think they have a problem. When the 10D wasn't revealed yet the problem was not as obvious. But now that it is, the problem is. To get a whole bunch of people to look at the *ist D they almost have to break the $1000 barrier. I am speaking for the average consumer who may know very little about cameras anyway. Or just a little. Like me, about six months ago (and still quite often, now.) Price will be what catches their eye first. $800-900 is still a lot for a camera for the average person, but it sounds a tad more reasonable. I've had a whole bunch of reactions to the *ist D, as we have learned more and more (all favorable to the camera though), and that's the conclusion that I've finally reached. Nice camera -- what's the price? Doe aka Marnie :-) Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Limited camera user interface
Steve, It doesn't matter, I stick a 200mm FA2.8IF on to my MZ-S and I have black and silver, so what, I can shoot my targets, don't care about the colour scheme. Ziggy It has not effect on function, but if you are spending that much on a lens and they make the matching kind, it's frustrating not to be able to get it. Certainly we care about colors for cars, although it doesn't effect mileage. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/07/03 10:25AM Just tell me one thing, why does the camera have to match the lens, are we talking about colour, you know the sexy thing? Ziggy Provided that there will be a camera matching the Limited lenses, what kind of interface would you like to see? Pentax have been all over the place regarding interface for their cameras the last decade. All of them have basically been great but for different usage and preferences. Eg. to my mind theres no doubt that the traditional dial interface is best for working on a tripod whereas the newer wheel interface is better for settings when your cameras is held up to your eyes. I suggest the following interface for a Limited camera wich I assume is the closest thing to an LX with AF, a nomenclature used by Pentax camera division boss, we will ever seen. The new fad of having large LCD panels on the back of the camera, like on the *ist, makes room for traditional controls on the top plate of the camera. I suggest a Limited lens focus ring finished metal shutter speed dial on top. This dial should have an A setting addition to the shutterspeed. The camera have two wheels, like on the *ist D. Some may think that this is overkill but I think it adds flexibility because it gives you both manual and hyper manual with no need for hold switch like on the MZ-S. In A, both lens and camera, the camera give hyper program like on the Z-1p. When lens is off the A setting, the camera varies between hyper manual and aperture priority auto like on the MZ-S. Switches for metering modes and drive modes should be placed like on the MZ-S. AF system interface like on the *ist D. A large LCD panel on the back would detract from the camera traditional look and finish, matching the Limited lenses, while it may give room for a host of features, perhaps via custom fuctions, without cluttering the interface. Such a camera have the potential of appelaing to a lot of advanced Pentax users whether they come from the Z-1p, MZ-S, LX or any of the medium format cameras. Pål
No respect (again...)
All -- Charlotte Camera is one of the places I used to watch regularly for used gear. Having purchased a few things earns me a monthly visit from their e-mail newsletter. The lead story: Industry Notes We just got back from the PMA (Photo Marketing Association) Convention in Las Vegas so there is a lot to report this month. Here are a few of the key announcements made: DIGITAL SLR FOR $1499.95!! Canon launches the new Canon 10D -- a 6.3 megapixel digital SLR. Starting to ship to us now - call us for more details. The perfect complement to your new digital SLR is the new Canon EF 17-40 4.0 lens. They go on to tout a couple of C PS models, the N 80-200 2.8 VR, Olympus digital PS models, etc. etc. etc. Sheesh! I thought the *ist D was pretty big news. But what the hell do I know? Stephen
RE: Limited camera user interface
Is this coming from the kidnapped Pål? Well all current lenses are made to match any of our series of our cameras, so what point are you making? Ziggy Just tell me one thing, why does the camera have to match the lens, are we talking about colour, you know the sexy thing? No idea why but Pentax have always made lenses to match certain bodies or series of cameras. Pål
RE: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Ah. Well, I saw the $1600 price here on the list as well, but I've heard nothing about it elsewhere, so I don't know how solid that guess is. Since the specs for the camera have not been finalized, I'd say it would be difficult to predict what the price will be. At 11:34 AM 3/7/03, you wrote: Doug, Last I heard it was $1600, what is the other, here in the UK the dollar price will be the GBP price. Ziggy
RE: Importing used equipment into the US
Thanks a lot, Pauls yes, I think so. Some of my purchases even though on ebay, were from UK camera shops. JCO _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
FS Friday
I have a Motor Drive LX with NiCad pack for sale. I purchased the motor off eBay about a year ago with plans to buy a third LX. I mounted and tested the drive with 4-5 rolls of film, and it worked perfectly. It is very clean, with only a little rub on the screw that holds the rewind lever on. The NiCad pack was purchased as a nearly new item from someone on the list. It has never been recelled, and functions as a new unit. A charger is NOT included in this deal. I am selling because I have decided not to buy another LX since the D*ist was announced. Id like to get about $250 shipped for this combo, but might entertain offers if it doesn't go for that. Paypal at no additional charge. LMK if anyone is interested. Jim
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Nevertheless, if a camera is expected to sell out without yet having a set price, it's foolish to suggest the camera should be sold cheaper than it could be. At 11:38 AM 3/7/03, Pål wrote: Not to be negative but hardly any digital camera is made for meeting demand. Nothing scare the manufacturers more than having unsold stock of digital cameras. Hence, avery digital camera manufactured are already sold. So the fact that a manufacturer doesn't meet demand doesn't mean anything really. Pål
Re: March Pug (very long thread)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Steve Cottrell wrote: Who is this person sending these messages? Steve WHAT? WHO Cottrell? It cannot be, we all know your name is _really_ Cottington! Perhaps Cottington Cottrell, or Cottington Steve Cotrell... hmmm.. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: PhotoSIG (offending images) was Re: New Message from Mike Johnston
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Caveman wrote: About hypocrisy: hell, it was just a prick. The male fraction of this list sees such on a daily basis. Every time I look in a mirror. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: PhotoSIG (offending images) was Re: New Message from Mike Johnston
Ooooh, Ooooh, that implies you don't wear anything, (not an image I wanted to have). At 12:23 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Caveman wrote: About hypocrisy: hell, it was just a prick. The male fraction of this list sees such on a daily basis. Every time I look in a mirror. ;) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Report from PMA spies
Didn't something similar happen when the Mz-5 (US: ZX-5) was introduced? I remember the major dealers here in Oslo being very enthusiastic about the camera, even though they are all very nikon and canon biased. One dealer said I never thought Pentax as a brand could come back like that. Jostein From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] This would be a major accomplishment. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm standing by my prediction that the *ist-D (and the Optio S) are going to put Pentax on a lot of store shelves where Pentax hasn't been seen much lately.
Re: No respect (again...)
You think they really been at the PMA? On Friday 07 March 2003 17:10, Stephen Moore wrote: All -- Charlotte Camera is one of the places I used to watch regularly for used gear. Having purchased a few things earns me a monthly visit from their e-mail newsletter. The lead story: Industry Notes We just got back from the PMA (Photo Marketing Association) Convention in Las Vegas so there is a lot to report this month. Here are a few of the key announcements made: DIGITAL SLR FOR $1499.95!! Canon launches the new Canon 10D -- a 6.3 megapixel digital SLR. Starting to ship to us now - call us for more details. The perfect complement to your new digital SLR is the new Canon EF 17-40 4.0 lens. They go on to tout a couple of C PS models, the N 80-200 2.8 VR, Olympus digital PS models, etc. etc. etc. Sheesh! I thought the *ist D was pretty big news. But what the hell do I know? Stephen -- Frits Wüthrich Pentaxianado
Re: PhotoSIG (offending images) was Re: New Message from Mike Johnston
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Peter Alling wrote: Ooooh, Ooooh, that implies you don't wear anything, (not an image I wanted to have). Especially if you've seen me! -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
For Sale Friday
Here's a nice item I relisted at a lower price: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=4688item=2915383109 For you istD fans it would have same view as a 67-187 35mm lens which is pretty close to a typical 70-200. In any case, I already have two of these ( both screw K) and it's a fine optic to be sure. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com My Business references Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/
Re: Pentax 1.7 TCU
Tony, Last summer, I had a jolly good time at the PDMLUK-event shooting flying Spitfire planes with the A*400/2.8 and the F-1.7TC. The converter did a very good job combined with that particular lens, but I have had some other good experiences too. Like with M-200/4, A-50/1.7 and K-135/2.5 to name a few. I second the comment on finding something else to test focus on. Jostein - Original Message - From: Tony Gieske [EMAIL PROTECTED] Coupled with my Pentax 85mm f1.4 A lens, it racks the lens a quarter inch or so, leaves image blurry. If you hand turn the lens all the way out to infinity, it bucks back and forth trying to focus. (I'm test focusing on a TV screen.)
PC Cord and : New toy
Jeff i looked at the Vivitar 285hv and there is a double male socket on the side of the flash.Would you think this is the socket that would connect to the F. Dave You're welcome. Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Thanks to list member Jeff,i am now the pround owner of a Minolta F Spotmeter. Jeff did me a HUGE favor and i picked it up last night.It differs from his by only a few tenths in the EV mode(one is right but which oneg)in unscientific test.Clean,with box and manual. Hope to put it through its paces this weekend. Once again thanks Jeff. Dave(not buying anything else this year)Brooks g
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Think its a bit late for body re-design. There is one more body to come not so. I really do love my MZS, nice weight, feel and size. Anyone can remember what the general opinion was when that model was released? I have to say looking a bit like your competition isn't too bad. I suppose some parts will have to be in the same place because of ergonomic or fashion reasons. One of the more common comments I got on the D100 was you could use most of the functions without reading the manual, and when the mojority of use still can't (at least me) set the damm VCR without a teenager around thats pretty good design. If you were looking for something as revolutionary as that new phone that looks like a klingon car alarm remote than I think Pentax would have lost more potential new buyers that way. Imitating a proven design is not a bad business decision especially when you in the business of selling tools and not in the business of tantalizing people with sex toys Feroze - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:35 AM Subject: Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues) Pål Wrote: So Pentax better market it heavily cause it won't stand out at the shelves, or better, redesign the body particularly the prism face.
Re: No respect (again...)
Peter wrote: Pål this is a very strange arguement. So you mean to tell me that you'd be happier of Pentax released a special, sexy' incompetent camera? Pentax recently marketed stylish camera with old technology. Now they market ugly or derivative cameras with new technology. I think it is a good idea to marry the two but not in form of ugly cameras with old technology. Pål
*ist-D price update - official - read it here first
From the online BJPMORE NEWS... = Pentax unveils first digital SLR Pentax has delivered on a promise to unveil its first digital SLR camera this year. Having abandoned plans to introduce a full-frame sensor model, the Japanese manufacturer began working on a new 35mm camera system that would also form the basis for a digital SLR, and both are finally revealed this week at the PMA trade show in Las Vegas. The ist D boasts the smallest and lightest body of any interchangeable lens digital SLR currently available, weighing just 510g without batteries. Expected to arrive in July, the ist D delivers a 6.1m pixel resolution from a 23.5x15.7mm sensor, and may cost as little as 0 without a lens, according to one UK spokesman. (Read more in this week's printed issue of BJP) You read it here first. Have a great weekend. Peter
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Feroze wrote: If you were looking for something as revolutionary as that new phone that looks like a klingon car alarm remote than I think Pentax would have lost more potential new buyers that way. Imitating a proven design is not a bad business decision especially when you in the business of selling tools and not in the business of tantalizing people with sex toys You mean thats the only alternatives? Good looking products are always well received whatever. Derivative ones, particularly stylistically chaotic cut and paste designs, rarely succeed to the same extent. Pål
Re: *ist-D price update - official - read it here first
Peter wrote: Expected to arrive in July, the ist D delivers a 6.1m pixel resolution from a 23.5x15.7mm sensor, and may cost as little as 0 without a lens, according to one UK spokesman. At that price some may even forgive how it looks and the fact that it is a Pentax. Pål
Re: No respect (again...)
Pål is an advanced user who has had top notch Pentax gear for many years. There aren't many left of that breed, but what they want is basically for Pentax to grow big enough to renew their range of top gear at a pace more comparable to Nikon and Canon. Being beyond the entry-level stuff myself, I must say that I have sometimes become a bit disillusioned each time Pentax has released _another_ entry-level SLR and _more_ zooms in the normal range of aperture 3.5-5.6. Meanwhile, the top range see little renewal. Take for example: - the FA* 80-200/2.8 Powerzoom lens not changed since early nineties. - the FA* 28-80/2.8 The same. - 1.4x and 2x TC still manual focus. 3rd party vendors have made AF work. - AF and camera noise is as loud as ten years ago. Even counting the sneezing hamster. The market for the top gear may be small, but the signal effect huge. I _do_ understand Pål's stance on this. Many people in his situation have given up waiting for a Pentax initiative to renew their top gear lineup. That said, I don't share Pål's pessimism. With the kind of photography I do, I have nothing to gain from switching brand, and I find _enough_ support for my kind of work in the Pentax line. As long as Pentax stays healthy as an enterprise, there's more goodies to come. We live in interesting times. Always. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:05 PM Subject: Re: No respect (again...) You know, Pål, your kind of diminishing and disparaging comments regarding Pentax's design efforts and new product releases is getting tiresome... Whenever someone says Pentax is doing something that could be possibly construed as exciting, or ground-breaking (for them) you find words to make it less so, or put it down. Why is that? keith whaley * * * * Pål Jensen wrote: Stephen wrote: Sheesh! I thought the *ist D was pretty big news. But what the hell do I know? I hate to repeate this again, but *ist D isn't great news outside the Pentax pond. Unfortunately, Pentax didn't use this oportunity to release a DSLR that is something special as opposed to very competent. Pål
Re: *ist-D price update - official - read it here first
Well, hell sigh me up for a dozen! At 02:44 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip and may cost as little as 0 snip Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: No respect (again...)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, the ist D is not ugly at all. Innovative design? Maybe not, but still good looking with a finish that reminds me of the MZ-S with its leather like grip and black spackled top plate parts. We still have to wait for performance reports to pass judgement. DG At 08:43 PM 3/7/03 +0100, you wrote: Peter wrote: Pål this is a very strange arguement. So you mean to tell me that you'd be happier of Pentax released a special, sexy' incompetent camera? Pentax recently marketed stylish camera with old technology. Now they market ugly or derivative cameras with new technology. I think it is a good idea to marry the two but not in form of ugly cameras with old technology. Pål
Re: *ist-D price update - official - read it here first
At 02:58 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: Well, hell sigh me up for a dozen! That should have been sign. (Damned spell checker). At 02:44 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip and may cost as little as 0 snip Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Importing used equipment into the US
Paul, No import duties. The rules are any 35mm camera equipment is duty free. Have Peter at Camera Direct mark it Used 35mm Camera Lens. Once they charged me a $5 duty on a $100 ME Super from Germany plus an extra $10 in handling for the postal service to collect it. (They didn't even open the box!) I wrote back to complain that it was used 35mm photo gear and they refunded the $5. I suppose the answer is clearly mark the box! Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm thinking about buying a used lens from Camera-Direct in England. My question is import fees, taxes, etc. will I have to pay here in the US.
Re: No respect (again...)
That is sad. I'd visit when I was in town. My FA24/2, AF500T Flash, and later my A*85/1.4 all came used from there. Bob S. near Chicago In a message dated 3/7/2003 1:29:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charlotte Camera has changed ownership and is not nearly as good as it used to be.
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: Good looking products are always well received whatever. Derivative ones, particularly stylistically chaotic cut and paste designs, rarely succeed to the same extent. It IS good looking..if your idea of good looking is SMALL. Guess what? Lots of CONSUMERS (you know, the people with disposable income, not the curmudgeons who hang about on mailing lists and scruntize ebay for things spelt pentex) have a real fetish about SMALL things.. Meaning something that's positivly tiny, like the Optio-S, is a good thing.. And a tiny DSLR? No different than the Optio-S. You aren't quite grasping that the whole point of the ist F and D is that they're TINY compared to their brethren. It may not be sexy to you, its not sexy to me, either. Hell, my 645 is sexy to me cause it looks high tech and intimidatingly big. Your MZ-S is sexy to you because it looks timeless and high tech. Everyone likes different things, and the mass market obviously must like those Canon Rebel bodies because they sure do sell, and Canon keeps making more of the same. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Scoop: the new wa lenses?
First of all, I don't know how trustworthy this info is!!! Pentax will release three new wide angles this fall 1. 18-35mm f/3.5-5.6 (the lens the *ist D was shown with at the PMA) 2. Pro??? 16-35mm f/2.8 or 3.5 3. 16mm f/? Second there is also a potential problem with non A lenses and the white balance exposure system on the *ist D. Please don't flame me, this info comes from someone that should have some info but that I can't personally vouch for. /Paul _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Yes, either you follow the establishment, learn from their mistakes to see what works and what dosn't. To have to go it alone with a truly unique design not only requires guts but a lot money to back you up if you fail. Many companies have crashed by putting a large chuck of money into developing a product that was to change the world only to fail. The recent post of size comparisons of the various DSLR's seems to indicate that the *istD is in terms of size makes it stand out from the pack. Even if this camera is not a resounding success at least they are finally playing the game, conservative or not, they are in the game. Feroze - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues) Feroze wrote: If you were looking for something as revolutionary as that new phone that looks like a klingon car alarm remote than I think Pentax would have lost more potential new buyers that way. Imitating a proven design is not a bad business decision especially when you in the business of selling tools and not in the business of tantalizing people with sex toys You mean thats the only alternatives? Good looking products are always well received whatever. Derivative ones, particularly stylistically chaotic cut and paste designs, rarely succeed to the same extent. Pål
Re: New guy has *ist questions...
Nick wrote: I'm thrilled to hear this but is it mentioned anyplace? I'm not sure about it. Can anyone get this confirmed? The reason is that I know for a fact that the *ist and *ist D was originally designed with only full functionality with A, F, FA and FA J lenses. However, things might have changed in the finalizing. Pål
*ist D viewfinder
Hi PDMLers, Yet another thread on this... So, I returned to the group after some months not reading it, and found out about the new *ist D. If the price is below/around $2000, I am going to seriously consider getting one to use with my K and M lenses. As much as I love Tri-X, I'm ready to kiss film goodbye if I get a camera as usable as my MX and Leica M6. Question: Anyone know whether the viewfinder on the *ist D is full frame (ie, covers what the whole field of view of the lens) or is it blacked out to the smaller field covered by the sensor? Question2: How do you pronounce *ist? Is it the camera fomerly known as the replacement for the MZ-D? Cheers, j -- -- Juan J. Buhler | Lead FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.com --
Re: Scoop: the new wa lenses?
The white balance and non electronic lenses? humm it is possible but I only see slight inaccuracy in the white balance or the need to set it manually ( point at white wall as the white point. ). --- Paul Eriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First of all, I don't know how trustworthy this info is!!! Pentax will release three new wide angles this fall 1. 18-35mm f/3.5-5.6 (the lens the *ist D was shown with at the PMA) 2. Pro??? 16-35mm f/2.8 or 3.5 3. 16mm f/? Second there is also a potential problem with non A lenses and the white balance exposure system on the *ist D. Please don't flame me, this info comes from someone that should have some info but that I can't personally vouch for. /Paul _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Feroze wrote: Yes, either you follow the establishment, learn from their mistakes to see what works and what dosn't. To have to go it alone with a truly unique design not only requires guts but a lot money to back you up if you fail. This is getteing rather tedious. I'm not suggesting pentax should make a weirdo design. Their history is full of great industry design that are individual, have character and have cought the buyers fancy and are greatly copied. Thats all I'm asking for; stick to their successful recipe. Pål
Re: *ist D viewfinder
Juan wrote: Is it the camera fomerly known as the replacement for the MZ-D? Yes it is and it is everything Pentax indicated it would be. Pål
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It IS good looking. snip *Very* few people are going to base the purchase of a $1500.00 camera on how it looks. Especially in the first year when it seems likely there will be a waiting list to get the *ist-D. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: New guy has *ist questions...
Full functionality, no. ALL PENTAX LENSES are usable, with the same restrictions as K, M, and 645 and screwmount lenses have on the newer bodies. In other words, all Pentax lenses will work as well on the *ist models as they do on the PZ-1p and MZ-S. Consider it confirmed to this extent. Bill - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: New guy has *ist questions... Nick wrote: I'm thrilled to hear this but is it mentioned anyplace? I'm not sure about it. Can anyone get this confirmed? The reason is that I know for a fact that the *ist and *ist D was originally designed with only full functionality with A, F, FA and FA J lenses. However, things might have changed in the finalizing. Pål
Re: No respect (again...)
Smaller than the MZ-S and with AA batteries in the camera itself seems pretty darned innovative to me. Bill - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 3:47 PM Subject: Re: No respect (again...) Dick wrote: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, the ist D is not ugly at all. Innovative design? Maybe not, but still good looking with a finish that reminds me of the MZ-S with its leather like grip and black spackled top plate parts. We still have to wait for performance reports to pass judgement. My point isn't that it is bad performer or not worth the money or whatever. My dissapointemnet comes from the simple fact that the *ist D look too much like too many other cameras and thereby Pentax loose the chance to make people that are not usually checking out Pentax too take notice. Pål
FS: Pentax LX body, CLA, 4 months warranty
SN 5304xxx Cosmetics EX Mechanically perfect $400. Complete CLA with new shutter curtains 16 months ago. I give you a 4 months warranty and a free LX case. Andre --
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It IS good looking. snip I'm a little bothered that you completley took that out of context, and the fact that its a direct response to Pal stating its not a good looking camera and derivitive trash. Truth be told, I don't care WHAT it looks like as long as it fits in my hand the way I want it to, and does what I want it to. *Very* few people are going to base the purchase of a $1500.00 camera on how it looks. Especially in the first year when it seems likely there will be a waiting list to get the *ist-D. Hey, if I could afford it and justify it (at the same time, there's the rub!), I'd be on the list. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: March Pug (very long thread)
David Blowin' by Andre Langevin; Great composition and use of framing (and rule of thirds). First time I've seen a soprano sax shaped like that. Tri X does well in contrasty lighting. Thanks Butch for taking the time for commenting all the pug's pictures! The sax shape is indeed uncommon. I think the resulting tonality has also to do with D76, which opens up the shades a bit. For some reason the musician's face was uniformly lit, unlike most other photos taken there. Microphones's shades are sometimes difficult to avoid (especially when there is some action). I do frame intuitively without thinking about the thirds. In other words I don't follow rules for framing but it is possible to find afterwards that the picture objectively respects the thirds. Regards, Andre --
Re: Scoop: the new wa lenses?
Paul wrote: 2. Pro??? 16-35mm f/2.8 or 3.5 3. 16mm f/? I'll say they are likely. The rumor mill say the good things comes in fall. With pro grade lenses could follow the cameras above the *ist. Pentax did announce an 18/2.8 to the distributors. That must have been a couple of years ago. It never materialized (at least not yet). The release of APS sized digital sensor may have made them reconsider and gone wider. A 16-35 or similar pro grade zoom has been lacking in the Pentax lens line up. Pål
Summary and manual focusing on the newer cameras
Just figured I'll sum up what I learned. Please let me know if I am still mistaken somewhere... MZ-30 and MZ-60 (ZX if you pref) will not work with my manual aperture lenses. - these are out of the Q. The MZ-3 and MZ-5n has the best feel for someone who is used to the dial on the MX, K-1000, LX... etc. It also has a more sophisticated pentaprism viewfinder and simple basic functions. The *ist has the best (most sophisticated) autofocus and the prism is some new bright one which sould be very cool. Also it can shoot more pics per sec. (2.7) If flash is crucial (I don't use a flash, yet) the high-speed flash sync is only available on the MZ-6 (ZX-L) the top of the line MZ-S and the new model... And lastly, the discussion about the viewfinders is what I find disturbing and possibly a crucial decision factor. I really don't undertsnad what the 0.7 and 0.8 magnification means but it seems to be crucial for manual focus. Several people noted that they have to use the beep function of the MZ-5n (3?) to be able to focus manually. Now this disturbs me. I want to be able to focus... period. If this is true, no way will I upgrade. Is this true about the rest of the models? Someone suggested that People have changed the screens out of their ZX-5 and -5n cameras with the split screen from the ZX-M body. It will affect teh spot metering on these cameras, but it can in fact be done. What is the spot metering? How will it affect it? Someone also suggested that the MZ-5 (not the n) is the same as the MZ-M. Does that mean it focuses the same? What about the rest of the ZX line, the MZ-S, or older autofocus models (P series), is it as hard to manual focus with those as it is with the MZ-5n? Any word on the *ist? Thanks L
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
gfen wrote: I'm a little bothered that you completley took that out of context, and the fact that its a direct response to Pal stating its not a good looking camera and derivitive trash. Good looking is in the eye of the beholder. But it does not look original and distinctive and I believe that it need to do to get other than those with k-mount inventories to be interested. What bothers me isn't the fact that the *ist D look like it does, cause I'll never buy one anyway, but the fact that it may indicate Pentax future lack of direction. Hopefully, it doesn't. It is likely that Pentax plays it safe in entry level and the body above them will show more originality, thats why I'm after all is using Pentax. Pål
Re: New guy has *ist questions...
Bill wrote: Full functionality, no. ALL PENTAX LENSES are usable, with the same restrictions as K, M, and 645 and screwmount lenses have on the newer bodies. In other words, all Pentax lenses will work as well on the *ist models as they do on the PZ-1p and MZ-S. Consider it confirmed to this extent. I was thinking of the fact that the *ist was designed without the mechanical coupling. It will only meter with lenses with electrical contacts. Still, it might changed but it was originally designed withn a crippled mount due to its entry level status. Pål
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
Stan wrote: Please someone send me a picture or two of a silver limited on a black body, preferably the MZ-S, so I can see how nice it looks and convince myself that I don't really need the black after all... Reply: Silver lenses on black bodies look as good as black lenses on silver bodies. In my opinion, black Limited lenses doesn't look more exclusive than an A series lenses whereas silver Limiteds looks expensive. I also suspect that silver Limiteds are more durable in finish. Pål
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
In my opinion, black Limited lenses doesn't look more exclusive than an A series lenses whereas silver Limiteds looks expensive. I also suspect that silver Limiteds are more durable in finish. I honestly don't feel my silver LIMITEDs are very duriable in finish. :( regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: *ist-D price update - official - read it here first
and may cost as little as 0 Well, hell sigh me up for a dozen! I'm even willing to pay 50-100% more for it... :)) L
Re: Importing used equipment into the US
I was told once that used cameras and lenses Made in Japan didn't require tax when imported into US. At least that's what the eBay buyer told me. Just marked the parcel Used camera/lens, Made in Japan would do. regards, Alan Chan I'm thinking about buying a used lens from Camera-Direct in England. My question is import fees, taxes, etc. will I have to pay here in the US. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
Alan wrote: I honestly don't feel my silver LIMITEDs are very duriable in finish. :( Thats pretty amazing as I have never sen more durable finish even after being carried around along with other metal lenses. No scratches. Pål
Re: Summary and manual focusing on the newer cameras
Levente -Levi- Littvay wrote: The *ist has the best (most sophisticated) autofocus and the prism is some new bright one which sould be very cool. Also it can shoot more pics per sec. (2.7) I thought only the *ist D had a prism, the *ist was a mirror?
Short telephoto prices
Why does the SMC-A 100/2.8 sell for significantly more than the SMC-A 135/2.8? Does the former have better optics than the latter or is it just that the former is more convenient for portrait work? -- David Barts Portland, OR
LX Grip (EX: Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on blackbody?)
Sorry Stan, but I'd hate to see you make a terrible mistake :-) http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/02-P3032977m.JPG http://members.ozemail.com.au/~geroc/01-P3032974m.JPG Wwoww, that grip looks AWSOME. Having the tsandard grip and a motor drive always scared me. (possibly one of the reasons why I never got around to buying an MX just use the LX wia the morot drive) But this changes perspective... What kind of grip is this? Do these show up on the market once in a while? L
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
Stan wrote: Please someone send me a picture or two of a silver limited on a black body, preferably the MZ-S, so I can see how nice it looks and convince myself that I don't really need the black after all... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Reply: bla bla bla bla bla bla Reply: Reply: Silver lenses on black bodies look as good as black lenses on silver bodies. In my opinion, black Limited lenses doesn't look more exclusive than an A series lenses whereas silver Limiteds looks expensive. I also suspect that silver Limiteds are more durable in finish. Pål Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Report from PMA spies
The MZ-5, and the rest of the MZ series was the most significant (from a brand/marketing POV) camera that they introduced since the A series. It's sold better than any other AF models that they had, and even made them a viable brand to 3rd party lens makers again. They just rested on their chassis since then. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Didn't something similar happen when the Mz-5 (US: ZX-5) was introduced? I remember the major dealers here in Oslo being very enthusiastic about the camera, even though they are all very nikon and canon biased. One dealer said I never thought Pentax as a brand could come back like that. Jostein
Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body?
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: Help needed (longish)- Silver Limited on black body? Silver lenses on black bodies look as good as black lenses on silver bodies. In my opinion, black Limited lenses doesn't look more exclusive than an A series lenses whereas silver Limiteds looks expensive. I also suspect that silver Limiteds are more durable in finish. The thing I like the least about my 77 is the silver finish. It reminds me of a 1950's Contaflex lens. Not that there is anything wrong with 1950's Contaflex lenses, compared to other lenses of the same era, but the thing looks dated, and dated looks cheap. William Robb
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues) This is getteing rather tedious. I'm not suggesting pentax should make a weirdo design. Their history is full of great industry design that are individual, have character and have cought the buyers fancy and are greatly copied. Thats all I'm asking for; stick to their successful recipe. What is getting tedious is your mindset on this particular subject. William Robb
FS Friday
Hi, I have a few things for sale. Anyone interested, please contact me off line. I have pictures I can email and better descriptions. Jim K1000 EX condition, but with inaccurate meter $50 M 50mm f1.7 EX condition $35 A 70-210 f4 EX condition $80 Traceflex - a plastic Diana clone in EX+ to mint- condition $20
Re: No respect (again...)
I just call'em as I see'm, but I still think Pentax, USA sucks (I think all the women on the list have already put me on their kill list). BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which is even more strange becuase BR has well, um, been almost, sorta POSITIVE about the latest Pentax news and product offerings. Christian
OT: Question For You Professional photogs out there
Ok folks, Here's the scenario. I shot a number of baby pics about 3-4 months ago for a young mother and her husband. I know them via her (the young mother's) mother-in-law. I fired off about 24 color 6x6's and 36 BW and 24 Color 35mm shots. I did a lot because the kids were super fidgety - one, the young girl, is just past two years old and the son is just over 3 months old. Needless to say it was hard for them to sit reasonably still for any length of time. Anyway, I handed over the proofs and waited till they were ready to order prints. I figured I got about 6-8 decent photos out of all the shots I took - mainly due to trying to maintain the kids attention :-) The kicker was, that the mother-in-law has been dealing with me and she said that her daughter-in-law (i.e. the mother of the kids) didn't like ANY of the photos. That was fine, I could deal with that but she added a comment that struck me as interesting. She said that in the future, if I'm going to give proofs back to clients, I should only hand them the good photos and toss out all the bad ones. My question to all of you: How do YOU handle your proofs when handing them back to clients? Do you sort and only hand the good ones back or do you give them the whole 9 yards so they know you're not holding anything back? I'm curious as this is sort of new per se to me. Gracias, Dave
Re: Short telephoto prices
Many more 135 lenses were sold than 100mm lenses. Supply and demand. BTW the 100mm has a reputation for much better optics than the 135. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does the SMC-A 100/2.8 sell for significantly more than the SMC-A 135/2.8? Does the former have better optics than the latter or is it just that the former is more convenient for portrait work? -- David Barts Portland, OR
Re: Size of *ist D
No. Only the Kodak and the Canon EOS 1Ds are full frame. The Nikon D1x is something less but I'm not sure what. The Oly is 4/3 inch and the rest are APS sized. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: Nagaraj, Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nice work. Does all cameras have same sensor size? Thanks Ramesh
Re: OT: Question For You Professional photogs out there
I never give an unedited set of pictures to anyone. Don't let clients get confused with too many choices. Certainly don't let them know that you take anything other than great shots. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question to all of you: How do YOU handle your proofs when handing them back to clients? Do you sort and only hand the good ones back or do you give them the whole 9 yards so they know you're not holding anything back? I'm curious as this is sort of new per se to me. Gracias, Dave
OT Agfa APX
I was buying film today, and noticed that Downtown Camera here in Toronto is selling Agfa APX (bw 400) for $3.00 Cdn for a roll of 36. I asked them what it was like, and they said quite grainy. I asked if it was a lot grainier than TriX, and he just said again, quite grainy. OTOH, when I looked on the Agfa Canada site, they mentioned good fineness of grain. I chickened out, and bought my usual Ilford HP5+, for a whole 33 cents a roll more. Anyone familiar with APX, and if so, what do you think of it? thanks, frank -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
RE: Short telephoto prices
Not even close. The 135 actually has a rather poor reputation, the 100 is rare enough that I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having one. At 09:50 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, you wrote: are they even the same optical design except just scaled differently? JCO -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Short telephoto prices I believe that the 100 is somewhat more scarce than the 135. At 02:51 PM 3/7/2003 -0800, you wrote: Why does the SMC-A 100/2.8 sell for significantly more than the SMC-A 135/2.8? Does the former have better optics than the latter or is it just that the former is more convenient for portrait work? -- David Barts Portland, OR Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Make contact prints without enlarger?
I've never done any printing myself, but I was reading about making contact prints from negatives, and it would seem unnecessary to use an enlarger for this purpose. It seems you'll just need a contact frame and a way to shine light onto it. Of course I don't know how you'd control the exposure time. Anyone like to explain this process? Tonghang.
Re: Size of *ist D
On 8 Mar 2003 at 4:53, Anthony Farr wrote: For those who were wondering how the *ist D (and the Olympus 4/3)compared in size to some other DSLRs, I've put a compilation up on Photo.net at: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1348629photo_sel_index=2#ph oto The *ist D is the only camera for which I couldn't get a front elevation. Instead I flipped a rear elevation and made a silhouette of it, that'll have to suffice for the moment. Hope you all find the comparison as enlightening as I did. Thanks for the effort Anthony, an image is worth a thousand words. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
