FS: Super A (aka Super Program)
Hi, I've still left a very nice Super A. I have bought it used, but it looks like new and works fine. There is only some minor brassing on the back. The rest of the camera has no marks of usage (see pictures on www.mycroft.de/sale.html). There even is the protection film on the underside. Comes with cap, Pentax strap, German documentation and new batteries. English documentation can be downloaded from www- pentaxusa.com. I ask for 150 Euro/US$. I accept transfers to my bank account or Paypal and I will ship worldwide (please ask me for further information). Cheers, Heiko
Re: OT: Digital question
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:47:25 -0400, Herb Chong wrote: i think the number of people who print from a digital camera is a lot less than 10% of the images. i would think that 1% is a high number, and most of that small fraction would be on inkjet printers. I use a digital camera at work for work snapshots and pictures for internal publications. Of the pictures taken we use about 30%. Of those we use about 40% for our Intranet, 30% are printed and hung on a wall and 20% used for presentations (via Powerpoint or so on). Some may get used for all 3 and about 20 per year end up in internal publications. We use a colour wax printer, though will probably soon upgrade to a colour laser. We also have an inkjet which only gets used when the other printer breaks down. I'm sure that there are other workplaces doing the same sort of thing. I know every work centre in Telstra (the communications company I work for - I think we have 3 staff though I could be wrong, the number keeps going down we used to have 5) has atleast one digital camera. The use of cameras in this environment is vastly different to the use of cameras at home. When I get my *ist D I will happily never use work's Kodak digital point and shoot ever again! Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
The film lenses suck for digital syndrome was immediately apparent with the full-frame EOS-1ds too. One of the culprits is the bayer pixels disposition in the sensor, that makes it more sensitive to colour fringe towards the edges of the image. When the oblique lines of red or blue sensitive pixels align with the hard edges in the image, it effectively amplifies any colour aberration. Servus, Alin Mark wrote: MR In the simplest terms: The sensors of DSLRs are generally smaller than MR full-frame 35mm format (commonly by a factor of 1.5 - hence the 1.5x MR focal length multiplication effect). Thus you need to enlarge an image MR 1.5 times as much for a given print size. Therefore your lens must have MR 1.5 times higher resolution for equal quality at a given print size. MR Apparently this has caught quite a few people by surprise: There have MR been people who found that their so-so quality lenses that gave decent MR (but not great) performance on their film cameras simply didn't cut it MR on their DSLRs. The 1.5x greater enlargement necessary showed up the MR deficiencies of the lenses that went unnoticed at the lesser MR magnification necessary when making prints from film. MR If your DSLR effectively multiplies your focal length by 1.5, it also MR *divides* the lens' resolution by 1.5. So you'll want to use top-notch MR lenses whenever possible. I think the 31mm f/1.8 Limited would make a MR fine normal lens for the *ist-D, though!
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Looking for primes for digital is a wise decision. Waiting for full frame is even wiser. Personally I couldn't care less for current Pentax zooms in the *ist d equation. The focal ranges are all scrambled up to the point of rendering it useless. Trans-standards become what, portrait zooms ? Tele-zooms are pushed towards the long end, where image quality drops anyway. Wide angle zooms barely fit the standard lens bill: we're back in the era where 35-70 was an amazing lens. Servus, Alin Harold wrote: HO As I more interested in the 320 end of the lens I will just have to keep HO an eye out for a reasonably priced 300mm prime, preferably Pentax or any HO 3rd party manufacturer who makes a decent 300mm f4. HO From what other people have said about digital cameras and 35mm designed HO zoom lenses I think I will wait until the ist D is on the market before HO making any lens purchases!
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Roberts) wrote: For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual focus lens even though it's AF. Brilliant optical performance, too :) Nice! Bet it's pricey, though, even second-hand. --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: The M35/2 shows up on ebay occasionally, the M28/2 also (a fine lens, too). I'll keep waiting, then. There is an A35/2 and an A28/2 (truly rare). You might also like the A20/2.8. Yum... The shortest and longest focal lengths are Tamrons, for the both-ways compatibility. 24/2.5 and 17/3.5 at present; I don't seem to use the SMCT 28 any more, preferring the 35 and the 24. Lens choice is a very personal thing, but I don't seem to like zooms. I hear you about liking lots of light to focus with. :-) ...and the A85/1.4 will be very pleasant. Sure is, on trials without film on the KM. Must get the K2 that just came from eBay overhauled, since the film speed setting doesn't seem to work any more. --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
On 11 Jul 2003 at 9:42, John Dallman wrote: For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual focus lens even though it's AF. Brilliant optical performance, too :) Nice! Bet it's pricey, though, even second-hand. It actually surprisingly inexpensive for a lens of it's speed and capabilities. They sell used on eBay for as little as US$225. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
when the camera requires a AF lock button to be pushed to hold it, i'm not interested in holding the button the entire time. Herb... - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the thing? I really can't believe this was posted. William Robb
Re: Digital question
no it doesn't. it means that prints are irrelevant to the new generation. Herb... - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 01:10 Subject: Re: Digital question These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras are status symbols, not photographic tools.
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know that they require you to compose first and focus later. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the thing? I really can't believe this was posted. William Robb
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Shouldn't it be focus first and compose later? This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually don't use a tripod either .-) DagT Fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know that they require you to compose first and focus later. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the thing? I really can't believe this was posted. William Robb
Re: Digital question
Are you sure its a generational thing. I don't recall getting very many prints from slides which account for 95 percent (best guess) of my personal (as opposed to work related) photo work since 1958. Never had much use for prints once I discovered slides. I now keep print film in one body for to get prints for others now and then, but for a long time now there is always someone else. For me, viewing on the monitor is just Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: no it doesn't. it means that prints are irrelevant to the new generation. Herb... - Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 01:10 Subject: Re: Digital question These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras are status symbols, not photographic tools.
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
no, and until i determine my final composition, i don't know what is the most critical thing i want in focus, assuming i don't want everything in focus. if you use a view camera, you also work the same way. Herb... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:03 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Shouldn't it be focus first and compose later? This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually don't use a tripod either .-)
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Is that right, Herb? If it is, obviously I don't use one regularly...but, when I have used AF, if the depth of field is going to be narrow, I always use spot metering, and I see no way one could compose first, and focus second. It won't work that way. keith whaley Herb Chong wrote: incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know that they require you to compose first and focus later. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the thing? I really can't believe this was posted. William Robb
Re: Digital question
shooting slides is more a pro/am thing than a generational thing. i was introduced to a Fuji Film marketing person who is the son of a close friend. when i mentioned i shot slides, he laughed. he figured that slides account for less than 1% of total film sales of Fuji USA. he didn't know the actual number though, but it is miniscule compared to their print film sales. Herb - Original Message - From: Otis C. Wright, Jr. rusty.@att.net To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:18 Subject: Re: Digital question Are you sure its a generational thing. I don't recall getting very many prints from slides which account for 95 percent (best guess) of my personal (as opposed to work related) photo work since 1958. Never had much use for prints once I discovered slides. I now keep print film in one body for to get prints for others now and then, but for a long time now there is always someone else. For me, viewing on the monitor is just
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
OK, so you prepare for a composition, focus, and then go back to the composition. Life is so much easier when you can focus anywhere on a bright screen... DagT.-) Fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] no, and until i determine my final composition, i don't know what is the most critical thing i want in focus, assuming i don't want everything in focus. if you use a view camera, you also work the same way. Herb... - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:03 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Shouldn't it be focus first and compose later? This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually don't use a tripod either .-)
Re: fireworks photos
Wow, You're husband works in the Empire State Building? Cool! Love the pics, BTW. cheers, frank Amita Guha wrote: I just posted the photos I took of the fireworks last Friday. Some of them came out pretty decent IMHO. :) http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/july_4_03/index.html BR, thanks for the exposure advice you gave me. It was spot-on. :) Amita -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because walking is too slow when you don't know how to do it? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Indeed, I find it to be a true bargain. It sells at the price not much above of the 24/2.8 lenses from others. OTOH, it is still not too big, like a monster truck 24/1.4 from Canon. BTW, before I got the lens I didn't imagine how much 1 stop faster 24 mm lens can be appreciated in low light. Now I do. Matjaz On 11 Jul 2003 at 9:42, John Dallman wrote: For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual focus lens even though it's AF. Brilliant optical performance, too :) Nice! Bet it's pricey, though, even second-hand. It actually surprisingly inexpensive for a lens of it's speed and capabilities. They sell used on eBay for as little as US$225. Rob Studdert
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems that there may some situations that manual focus is faster and more accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more accurate) than AF. It ~may~ be that in the majority of situations, AF works best (and fastest). Maybe your analogy would be better if it related to technology, such as bicycles and cars. Sometimes the bicycle, despite being the older, simpler technology, works better for the purpose at hand, is more reliable, and is faster (like in a traffic jam). But, there's no doubt that in the majority of situations, the car works best. regards, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because walking is too slow when you don't know how to do it? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 -- I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Let's see him laugh once that KAF2 mount is surgically embedded beneath his knickers... Cotty wrote: Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4, bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR... which one? Cotty... or the lens? g ROTFL! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
think about what happens when you are using the camera in AF mode. you have to push a button to say when to focus, usually the shutter button. the interface works quickest when the time you set focus is when the scene is composed. the manuals for the beginners all assume this too. besides, a modern AF camera will let you set metering and focus points separately. an evaluative metering system won't need to worry about individual focus points anyway. as you read earlier, i have yet to switch any of my cameras equipped with it from the evaluative mode and prefer to use the exposure compensation button. i'm not sure why the connection between spot metering and shallow depth of field. they sometimes are related in a scene, but frequently not. i care about exposure of out of focus objects too. i frequently turn off AF when i am doing macro work because there could be too many possible things to focus on at varying distances under the same AF point, and i turn if off when i need the hyperfocal setting on my lens. Rob Studdert and i have had a private exchange of our macro flower pictures taken strictly in AF mode. both of us are satisfied that AF works well a very large percent of the time and that the critical thing on an AF camera is how easy is it to override the camera when it is clear it isn't doing what we want. this applies to exposure too. Herb - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:39 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Is that right, Herb? If it is, obviously I don't use one regularly...but, when I have used AF, if the depth of field is going to be narrow, I always use spot metering, and I see no way one could compose first, and focus second. It won't work that way.
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
the camera does the focusing for me and i don't have to think about it most of the time. if the camera does what i want 99.9% of the time faster than i can do it, it wastes my time to do it myself unless i decide that it isn't doing what i want. i know my exposure and focusing systems well enough that i trust what it does and know when it gets it wrong. Herb - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 07:06 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus OK, so you prepare for a composition, focus, and then go back to the composition. Life is so much easier when you can focus anywhere on a bright screen...
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
But you can buy a Pentax 2x magnifier to slip over the viewfinder that at least takes a step in that direction. I think one of the newer RefConverters has a magnifier built-in, as well. I remember that Keppler used a magnifier when comparing manual to autofocus in a Pop Photo article a few years ago. Of course, he found manual focus superior when using the magnifier. However, think about the percentage of shots you take where your subject would stand still for this kind of fiddling. I've got the M magnifier, and have used it for only a handful of shots this year. Alan Chan wrote: Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm. Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens, AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought of it, and it seems total BS (BackSpace g) to me. I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers. I once need to adjust the focus of my LX myself and I observed the focus on the actual film plate using a Nikon rectangular 8X loupe which just fits the film guides. What I have found stocked me. The absolute focus on the film plate would deliver ultra sharp image while only very very very slightly off would be totally different. Since the AF tolerance is quite loose on the Z-1p (turn the lens both ways and it still confirms in focus), that loose margin is wide enough to take away that absolute sharpness. Unfortunately, since no 8X loupe can be used on the viewfinder, the same accuracy of focus cannot be achieved in practice (except those shooting large format). regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
You know, if you keeping running around the dinner table you will miss your meal. Sometimes I even sit down. DagT Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because walking is too slow when you don't know how to do it? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Tom wrote: At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than no automation at all. REPLY: Well, the AF systems I use enables me to decide whats in focus. In addition, it can yield sharp images when I can't. Pål
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Alan wrote: I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers. REPLY: Well, it then can't have anything to do with the AF system. One of the big problems of the Z-1p (and the LX) is that it vibrate a LOT! The difference to the MZ-S is stunning. Pål
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Caveman: Quote: A fascinating test. I'm especially amazed by how poorly the Nikkor 1.8/50 performs at all apertures. No wonder Brucey doesn't bother with focus. It's all bokeh to him anyway. REPLY: Is it too much to ask of you that you for once refrain from insulting persons who use other gear than you? Yes, even if it is Bruce and even if it isn't Pentax. Pål
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Boris wrote: Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm. Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens, AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought of it, and it seems total BS (BackSpace g) to me. REPLY: How many l/mm can your eyes detect through a viewfinder? One thing is test set-ups another is reality. Most subject are three dimensional and minute differences and inaccuracies are covered by DOF both with AF and MF. Detecting more than 50 l/mm for moving subject is impossible for most of usAt least it is for me... The 50 l/mm thinghy, and such tests, becomes totally academic when you shooting a moving animal frame filling at F:4 with a 600mm lens with the associated miniscule DOF. AF will get you the shot. Sharp. Pål
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring. Herb - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 08:05 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Well, it then can't have anything to do with the AF system. One of the big problems of the Z-1p (and the LX) is that it vibrate a LOT! The difference to the MZ-S is stunning.
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
This wouldn't suprise me at all. The first time I scanned film and viewed at 100%, my first thought was: This scanner is CRAP. The inkjet prints delighted me with their sharpness compared to the screen. Rob Studdert wrote, in part: When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine for 35mm all of a sudden sucked. Is it possibly more a case of the fact that film shooters who hadn't owned a decent film scanner finally got to zoom into their images on a big screen?
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Mark wrote: If your DSLR effectively multiplies your focal length by 1.5, it also *divides* the lens' resolution by 1.5. So you'll want to use top-notch lenses whenever possible. I think the 31mm f/1.8 Limited would make a fine normal lens for the *ist-D, though! REPLY: Perhaps this is a factor in the compatibility issues of the *istD? Perhaps K and particularly M lenses are not that well suited for digital? At least I know Pentax reps were concerned about these issues at the time of the MD-S. They feared customers that were not happy with the results with their current lenses. I've even noticed how differnt lenses may perform in response to various films. Provia F in particular being a high resolution/low accutance film. It simply doesn't mate well with all lenses! Pål
Re: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Chrome MZ-S with a chrome 43 Limited. Never have so sharpness been available in so a small and lightweight package. Pål
Re: Digital question
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote: These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras are status symbols, not photographic tools. I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that still have a roll of film in their ps from last Christmas that won't get processed again until next Christmas. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that a relatively small proportion of pictures get printed. I know I don't print every single frame I expose on a film camera. I think digital has done two things for photo-taking behavior: 1) Increased the number of shots people (both the average consumer and serious photographer) are willing to take 2) Allowed the average person to evaluate their shots before making a print. Consumers used to just get prints of everything at the one hour lab because it was the easiest way to see what they shot. I think evaluating images on the monitor is the same as looking at a contact sheet or at slides on a lightbox. Rather than being status symbols, digital cameras have made people evaluate their pictures more carefully. For example, now that my wife has a fairly good digital PS (Nikon 885, 3.2MP) she takes it anytime she thinks there might be a reason to take a picture. She keeps just about everything she takes on the computer, but only prints the best ones or those with particular sentimental value. I'd say the percentage of shots she prints from her digital is similar to the percentage of BW or slides that I scan and print. -Matt
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Herb wrote: he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring. Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a car window with the MZ-S at 1/60s with a 600mm lens. About 50% of the images are sharp. With the Z-1p I couldn't shoot anything slower than 1/250s under the same circumstances and get even one sharp image. Yesterday I was out shooting fox puppies again and I managed frame filling shot with the 600mm and not so frame filling shots with the 150-300 on my 645NII. Without AF, I could only have the shots where the animals were still; this doesn't happen often with small foxes! AF is truly helpful and being without it under such situations isn't really an option in my opninion and virtually everyone who shoots wild-life have converted to AF long ago because it works. I don't use AF for anything else. Luckily, all my AF lenses are great manual focus lenses as well. My AF cameras are fantastic manual focus cameras. The 645NII is the best manual focusing camera I've ever used. It isn't really about one thing or the other: it is about using the tool when it makes a difference. I don't find AF helpful at all when using hyperfocal focusing for landscapes but it is bloody useful for moving wild-life! Pål
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used poor versions of it. People who don't like digital don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used poor versions of it. There's at least a two stop difference in handheld useable shutter speeds between good and bad SLRs. BR Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a car window with the MZ-S at 1/60s with a 600mm lens. About 50% of the images are sharp. With the Z-1p I couldn't shoot anything slower than 1/250s under the same circumstances and get even one sharp image.Yesterday I was out shooting fox puppies again and I managed frame filling shot with the 600mm and not so frame filling shots with the 150-300 on my 645NII. Without AF, I could only have the shots where the animals were still; this doesn't happen often with small foxes! AF is truly helpful and being without it under such situations isn't really an option in my opninion and virtually everyone who shoots wild-life have converted to AF long ago because it works. I don't use AF for anything else. Luckily, all my AF lenses are great manual focus lenses as well. My AF cameras are fantastic manual focus cameras. The 645NII is the best manual focusing camera I've ever used. It isn't really about one thing or the other: it is about using the tool when it makes a difference. I don't find AF helpful at all when using hyperfocal focusing for landscapes but it is bloody useful for moving wild-life!Pål __McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now!http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
on 11.07.03 14:38, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a car window with the MZ-S at 1/60s with a 600mm lens. About 50% of the images are sharp. With the Z-1p I couldn't shoot anything slower than 1/250s under the same circumstances and get even one sharp image. Exactly. When I tried MZ-S for the first time I was suprised how great was dumped mirror! Actually I had then Contax G-1 rangefinder and there was almost no difference in vibrations between them! Of the cameras I know, only Nikon F100 is similar in this respect. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Wow, that's a great argument. Let me try it: People who don't like Pentax don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used poor versions of it. Gee, it works, it must be true .-) DagT Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used poor versions of it. People who don't like digital don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used poor versions of it. There's at least a two stop difference in handheld useable shutter speeds between good and bad SLRs. BR
Re: FS: SMC-M 28mm f2.8 with box
Hi! Wendy, I might be interested in this lens. Is it a first generation or second generation M28/2.8 lens? What is state of the glass, aperture mechanism? What is filter ring diameter? Do you accept PayPal? Do you ship to Israel? I think that it would fit nicely into M35/2.8, FA 50/1.7, Tak K 135/2.5 outline g. Thanks in advance. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 ===8==Original message text=== wb SMC-M 28mm f2.8 with box. Pristine condition. Aperture ring a little stiff. wb A little beauty wb $40 wb http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0590_1.JPG wb Wendy Beard, wb Ottawa, Canada wb http://www.beard-redfern.com ===8===End of original message text===
Re: FS: SMC-M 28mm f2.8 with box
Hi1 I apologize for fingers that were faster than my brain. Now you all now that I'd rather have this lens bg. Boris ===8==Original message text=== wb SMC-M 28mm f2.8 with box. Pristine condition. Aperture ring a little stiff. wb A little beauty wb $40 wb http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0590_1.JPG wb Wendy Beard, wb Ottawa, Canada wb http://www.beard-redfern.com ===8===End of original message text===
Re: Digital question
I don't have any figures, but upon reflection, I suspect your correct. Otis Wright Herb Chong wrote: shooting slides is more a pro/am thing than a generational thing. i was introduced to a Fuji Film marketing person who is the son of a close friend. when i mentioned i shot slides, he laughed. he figured that slides account for less than 1% of total film sales of Fuji USA. he didn't know the actual number though, but it is miniscule compared to their print film sales. Herb - Original Message - From: Otis C. Wright, Jr. rusty.@att.net To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:18 Subject: Re: Digital question Are you sure its a generational thing. I don't recall getting very many prints from slides which account for 95 percent (best guess) of my personal (as opposed to work related) photo work since 1958. Never had much use for prints once I discovered slides. I now keep print film in one body for to get prints for others now and then, but for a long time now there is always someone else. For me, viewing on the monitor is just
OT: Western Canada
Next month I will be traveling to Western Canada, including Victoria, Vancouver, Banff, Jasper and Calgary. As I have never been to that part of Canada, any advice on photo opportunities will be greatly appreciated by me and by my MZ-5 and OptioS. Any advice on other activities and dining spots would also be welcome. Thanks, eh? Dan Matyola
Re: FOR SALE FRIDAY: lenses, now with added sweeteners! (Another Pentax user bites the dust!)
Hi Richard, Please stick around as I`ve always enjoyed your pics! Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Richard Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:48 PM Subject: FOR SALE FRIDAY: lenses, now with added sweeteners! folks, I'm down to just 3 Pentax mount lenses left to sell - a Tokina 150-500mm f5.6, Tokina 100-300mm f4 and Pentax 50mm f1.7. These are being sold because I moved to Canon digital equipment some time ago. To help move these things along, I've added some sweeteners, camera accessories which I'm giving away for no extra cost to the people who buy these lenses. The accessories are: a flash with guide number 130 ft/40m; a flash with guide number 70 ft/21 m; a camera bag; a set of three macro extension tubes and a 2x teleconverter. For photographs of all of the lenses and accessories, together with prices and details about the sweeteners, go to: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Z/ForSale/CameraGearForSale.html For questions or to make an offer, email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] regards, Richard. home phone: (1)(847) 733 7313 home page: www.richard-seaman.com _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ (now a bit long))
Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom-phobia. I have always thought that the since 28-105 PZ has an excellent reputation as a very sharp lens but it still wasn't sharp enough when compared to any of my primes, I have to stick with prime lenses only. Turns out I was very wrong indeed. REPLY: It is being said that todays best zooms are every bit as good as primes. You can find it even in several photo books like the ones by John Shaw (who in earlier books only recommended primes), Charles Campbell etc. I would modified it to todays best zooms are better than yesterdays primes and this is valid to the extent generalizations go. E.g. the FA645 45-85/4.5 lens is significantly sharper than the FA645 45/2.8 lens.The zoom is also much better when it comes to flare, in contrast to what would expect. The FA* 28-70/2.8 is sharper than the A 35/2.8 and I'm sure some of the better wide angle zooms are sharper than my A 24/2.8. The better telephoto zooms are now so good that they have virtually conquered the whole short telephoto market. Zooms will generally show more distortion than primes highly corrected for such. It is still true that the best primes are better than the best zooms but such prime lenses are far between. Interestingly, I increasingly find that zoom lenses seem to have better all round qualities as compromises seem to be evenly distributed. Many modern primes are in comparison often quite specialized optics where certain usages may have defined to a large extent the compromises made. Then theres the trade-off between resolution, accutance and contrast. So there really are no clear cut answer. It is much like Prova F vs. Kodachrome. Apart from the color palette differences, the Provia resolve more than the Kodachrome but the images appear less sharp. John Shaw says that no one can pick his shots from from zooms from the the ones from primes on the light table. This, toghether with their flexibility, explains their domination in increasingly larger parts of the focal lenght ranges. Simply put, the best zooms today are so sharp quality vs. primes is mostly an academic excercise. If a good zoom has the speed you want and don't distort unacceptably for your subjects, there aren't many reasons to avoid them anymore on otical criterias something most photographers have discovered judging from the zoom sales volume. BTW I've been a prime only person until last year but I still use primes for 35mm because the Limited lenses are sharper than any zoom. However, I admit that good zooms are good enough and that the differences for many will be academic. At least, in order to spot it you need to use the best of techniques. Pål
Re: Digital question
That is exactly the point. And let me add: Digital allows people to modify their pictures. You can easily add the date and time (no need for data back any more), you can even include thoughts or feelings into the image (don't need to write it in the album), and what is more you can hide disturbing details (takes some time), extend depth of field (overlay several images wiht different point of focus), extend or lower contrast and dynamic range (overlay several images with different exposure settings), ... The creativity you can spend on digital imaging is much bigger. Those People who are mocking about digital, they are obviously fallen in love with the obstacles conventional photography is suffering from. Never forget: We are photographing because painting is that difficult. Cheers, Hans. --- Matt Bevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote: These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras are status symbols, not photographic tools. I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that still have a roll of film in their ps from last Christmas that won't get processed again until next Christmas. Furthermore, I'm not surprised that a relatively small proportion of pictures get printed. I know I don't print every single frame I expose on a film camera. I think digital has done two things for photo-taking behavior: 1) Increased the number of shots people (both the average consumer and serious photographer) are willing to take 2) Allowed the average person to evaluate their shots before making a print. Consumers used to just get prints of everything at the one hour lab because it was the easiest way to see what they shot. I think evaluating images on the monitor is the same as looking at a contact sheet or at slides on a lightbox. Rather than being status symbols, digital cameras have made people evaluate their pictures more carefully. For example, now that my wife has a fairly good digital PS (Nikon 885, 3.2MP) she takes it anytime she thinks there might be a reason to take a picture. She keeps just about everything she takes on the computer, but only prints the best ones or those with particular sentimental value. I'd say the percentage of shots she prints from her digital is similar to the percentage of BW or slides that I scan and print. -Matt _ 23a mail
Re: Western Canada
lean out the window and hold the shutter button down. 8-) Herb - Original Message - From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 09:17 Subject: OT: Western Canada Next month I will be traveling to Western Canada, including Victoria, Vancouver, Banff, Jasper and Calgary. As I have never been to that part of Canada, any advice on photo opportunities will be greatly appreciated by me and by my MZ-5 and OptioS. Any advice on other activities and dining spots would also be welcome.
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
- Original Message - From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nice shot, Jostein! Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses, autofocus, etc. Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-) (I know, I know, you get really close to your subjects, evidenced by frame-filling shots of songbirds) Christian
To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that Pal brought it up, you know I find your derision of other people, other equipment, and other methods (i.e. digital) extremely tedious. Boring. Also very juvenile. If you want a decent argument, here it is. First, let aside Paal Bruce and lets discuss the derision of other people. The most insulting to everyone threads I've been involved were indeed the digital ones. Here they are in order: 1) The projection test. I still submit that it is a valid test and was done correctly. I compared digital vs. film for the purpose of projecting images, and used fair equipment choices (in fact the digital was at least 10 times more expensive). I don't see why anyone should get insulted by such. Yes, it is limited to projection purposes only, but I didn't state otherwise. 2) the photograph vs. inkjet print discussion. Where everybody got insulted by the toilet paper thing. Without noticing that it was a reductio ad absurdum argument, i.e. I apply the same logic in an inkjet print may have the same purpose as a photograph thus it is a photograph to a different example, giving an absurd result (toilet paper). Those not recognizing the argument type felt insulted by the absurd result. What do you want me to do about it ? 3) the enlarger image reconstruction thread. Where I write black on white that digital has the advantage of better image reconstruction methods and people cry out that I'm dissing digital. What do you want me to do about it ? 4) the cheerleader thread. That's fresh, you know my pov. If you want to cheerlead, insulting people is counterproductive. If someone has a problem that you don't, you may remain silent or say something like I'm sorry to hear that, let's hope things will eventually be solved. Starting an insulting war against them, trying to make them feel culpable for something they didn't create doesn't help at all. cheers, caveman
Re: OT: Digital question
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of once again proving that digital is inferior. -Matt On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Caveman wrote: Thanks to all that replied. Now I can unveil the purpose of my question. I want to do a 3rd cave film vs. digital test. My intention is to use typical setups for both and compare the quality of the images. I will use PS cameras for both medias, and compare the quality of images on their respective preffered display media - minilab prints for film and computer monitors for digital (I won't bother with the camera's LCD display). The cameras will be Olympus MjuII vs Canon Powershot 40. That's what I have readily available at hand. If you guys preffer a zoom film camera, based on the premise that it's unfair to have a prime vs. zoom test, I can borrow some, please choose between Olympus and Canon. The next question I would like to know the answer is: What kind of monitor is mostly used, i.e. LCD or CRT ? cheers, caveman
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems that there may some situations that manual focus is faster and more accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more accurate) than AF. It ~may~ be that in the majority of situations, AF works best (and fastest). Maybe your analogy would be better if it related to technology, such as bicycles and cars. Sometimes the bicycle, despite being the older, simpler technology, works better for the purpose at hand, is more reliable, and is faster (like in a traffic jam). But, there's no doubt that in the majority of situations, the car works best. That's the way it is with all technology; half the trick is knowing when to use it and when not to. At the workshop I went to a couple of months ago, Frans Lanting was raving about his VR (Nikon's version of Image Stabilization) lens. On the other hand, he said he uses manual focus more than autofocus. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Digital question
On 11 Jul 2003 at 12:38, T Rittenhouse wrote: You seem to have missed the never copied from the camera part. I'd submit that they do get copied from the camera to the 'puter then most likely are then emailed to all and sundry or at least those at the party/dinner/pick-nick/birthday/christening/barbee/bike ride/protest/dance etc... No more double sets of print for the majority of new age snappers. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Alin wrote: The film lenses suck for digital syndrome was immediately apparent with the full-frame EOS-1ds too. One of the culprits is the bayer pixels disposition in the sensor, that makes it more sensitive to colour fringe towards the edges of the image. When the oblique lines of red or blue sensitive pixels align with the hard edges in the image, it effectively amplifies any colour aberration. Hmmm. I am waiting for a full-framer. I won't buy the starkistdee myself, although I may have my lab buy one. This alarms me. I carry a gaggle of good quality lenses, on which I have spent too much. I have been awaiting a full-frome digital slr on which to mount them. Now I may not be able to use some/all of them? Is there a way to know in advance which lenses will/won't work with a full-frame digital slr? Where can one find out more about this? Should I stop waiting and just buy one of the 5 mp slr-like digicams? Thanks, Joe
Can someone in the US do me a favor?
I need to obtain some English Language manuals for Fuji S1 and Fuji S2, Nikon D1. The UK distributors want STUPID prices for these things. Since the USA distributors probably will not ship outside the US, I was wondering if someone might devote a few minutes stuck in an automated telephone system to discover how much these things are and if they can get two or three of each. And then post them to me. I have a few bucks kicking around in a PP account. Preferably new manuals, but photocopies would do at a pinch. Cheers Peter
Re: OT: Digital question
It will achieve the stated goal, i.e. compare them in typical use. If you want to compare the best of each, you may want to compare a 8x10 slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money nor the inclination to do such test. Matt Bevers wrote: Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of once again proving that digital is inferior.
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective
Mark wrote: I suspect (and let me hasten to add that this *only* suspicion and not based on anything I heard from people at Pentax) that the aperture simulator ring is being removed from the camera bodies to make room for future electronic contacts - probably for electronically-controlled lenses. This would be the only way I can see of adding significantly more electronic contacts while retaining the existing contacts on the lens mount for backwards compatibility. In other words: I suspect we're seeing a sacrifice of some backward compatibility (K and M lenses) in order to insure future compatibility with future products. REPLY: Could very well be. After all, the future should hold IS and USM because the competitions products does. However, at present it could just as easily simply be about making a product cheaper and more competitive pricewise. The *istD sits right in the most price sensitive DSLR segment and Pentax may have decided that a modern 11-point AF system will bring them more customers than compatibility of more than 20 year old lenses at the same price point. Pål
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Harry wrote: At the moment there is virtually no information coming from Pentax on possible 'D' type lenses for the digital SLR. REPLY: They have promised more lenses in the fall particularly suited for the *istD. Personally I think it is both focal lenghts and optics optimized for a DSLR. Pål
Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in American Photo magazine)
Anthony wrote: But to repeat, those operations that are presently done mechanically to be initiated electronically instead, this would require the lens to have independent drive mechanisms for focus and diaphragm. REPLY: It could also be as simple as having fully digital camera electronics in a digital camera. It is probably cheaper to engineer and manufacture. Expensive engineering solutions for lenses of an increasing age make less and less business sense, particularly in price sensitive products, as time moves on. At a certain stage they have to cut the link when 20+ years worth of more recent lens production don't demand the solutions regretable as that may be. Pål
RE: Can someone in the US do me a favor?
IF you want pdfs, try http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/D1rm.pdf or http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.ph p?p_sid=XPQPMYNgp_lva=p_li=p_page=1p_prod_lvl1=19p_prod_lvl2=23p_c at_lvl1=24p_search_text=p_new_search=1p_search_type=3p_sort_by=dflt The fuji stuff evades me right now... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 July 2003 17:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Can someone in the US do me a favor? I need to obtain some English Language manuals for Fuji S1 and Fuji S2, Nikon D1. The UK distributors want STUPID prices for these things. Since the USA distributors probably will not ship outside the US, I was wondering if someone might devote a few minutes stuck in an automated telephone system to discover how much these things are and if they can get two or three of each. And then post them to me. I have a few bucks kicking around in a PP account. Preferably new manuals, but photocopies would do at a pinch. Cheers Peter
Re: To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that Pal brought it up, you know I find your derision of other people, other equipment, and other methods (i.e. digital) extremely tedious. Boring. Also very juvenile. I apologize for the post, I should have taken it off list. Publicly taking you to task is no better than derision of others. If you want a decent argument, here it is. First, let aside Paal Bruce and lets discuss the derision of other people. The most insulting to everyone threads I've been involved were indeed the digital ones. Here they are in order: 1) The projection test. I still submit that it is a valid test and was done correctly. I compared digital vs. film for the purpose of projecting images, and used fair equipment choices (in fact the digital was at least 10 times more expensive). I don't see why anyone should get insulted by such. Yes, it is limited to projection purposes only, but I didn't state otherwise. This was not insulting, if recall it correctly. And I thought it was an interesting point. 2) the photograph vs. inkjet print discussion. Where everybody got insulted by the toilet paper thing. Without noticing that it was a reductio ad absurdum argument, i.e. I apply the same logic in an inkjet print may have the same purpose as a photograph thus it is a photograph to a different example, giving an absurd result (toilet paper). Those not recognizing the argument type felt insulted by the absurd result. What do you want me to do about it ? Your point could have been made better I feel without things like the toilet paper comment. If you are being tongue in cheek, warning, warning, I have found (being a tongue in cheek person) it does not come across well in writing and is not usually that effective on the Internet. People take it wrong without the accompanying smiling eyes and mouth. The obvious, what say I call it?, negative approach tended to override any point you were trying to make. No one likes to have others put down their choices and their efforts. No one. Whether their choices and efforts would be ours, it doesn't matter. One can say what one likes, what one believes to be better, what one's experience is, without at the same time detracting from or putting down others choices and efforts. 3) the enlarger image reconstruction thread. Where I write black on white that digital has the advantage of better image reconstruction methods and people cry out that I'm dissing digital. What do you want me to do about it ? Nothing. Didn't read it, sounds fine. 4) the cheerleader thread. That's fresh, you know my pov. If you want to cheerlead, insulting people is counterproductive. If someone has a problem that you don't, you may remain silent or say something like I'm sorry to hear that, let's hope things will eventually be solved. Starting an insulting war against them, trying to make them feel culpable for something they didn't create doesn't help at all. cheers, caveman You can make points without calling someone something. I think Pal is a strong believer in Pentax, who also holds strong opinions about which he argues strongly. But that does not make him in Pentax's employ or something. And there are others on this list who also love Pentax. That doesn't mean criticism isn't applicable or called for, just that they don't need to find the same faults that others do. They may find different faults. Or no faults with a particular item. We all like different things. Everyone has their own view points. I'd, personally, just like that to be respected. I apologize for making a public post and I have also sent you a private letter, so if we continue this discussion, let it be off list. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I carry a gaggle of good quality lenses, on which I have spent too much. I have been awaiting a full-frome digital slr on which to mount them. Now I may not be able to use some/all of them? If you've bought top-quality glass I wouldn't worry. It's only the marginal performers (consumer grade stuff, for the most part) that may be inadequate. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
-Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there a way to know in advance which lenses will/won't work with a full-frame digital slr? I don't think it's a matter of them not working, it's a matter of finding out some of your lenses aren't as good as others. You could do the same thing now by enlarging all your negs to 11x14. Should I stop waiting and just buy one of the 5 mp slr-like digicams? No, you should wait like everyone else for the *ist-D. tv
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
Joseph wrote: JT Hmmm. I am waiting for a full-framer. I won't buy the starkistdee JT myself, although I may have my lab buy one. JT This alarms me. I carry a gaggle of good quality lenses, on which I have JT spent too much. I have been awaiting a full-frome digital slr on which JT to mount them. Now I may not be able to use some/all of them? Likely there are lenses that will behave worse than others. However, I doubt there's any way to know for sure in advance. JT Is there a way to know in advance which lenses will/won't work with a JT full-frame digital slr? JT Where can one find out more about this? Maybe you should download and see for yourself some of the D1s full-frame images available on review sites. JT Should I stop waiting and just buy one of the 5 mp slr-like digicams? Surely not for serious use. If it really burns, you might as well wait a bit more, pay a bit more and get the *istd. As a side note, I think I have enough patience for the full framer below $1000. Servus, Alin
Re: fireworks photos
What film, speed, exposure, focal length...? more data please. Tonghang. On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Amita Guha wrote: I just posted the photos I took of the fireworks last Friday. Some of them came out pretty decent IMHO. :) http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/july_4_03/index.html BR, thanks for the exposure advice you gave me. It was spot-on. :) Amita
Test of Tokina ATX AF 28-80 f2.8 (long)
I bought this lens about a year ago. It got a major workout last autumn, when I got to spend November in France. The results have mostly been very, very sharp. There were, however, two images in which there was pronounced lateral weakness (left and right in landscape mode). I had not recorded the details of these images. They bothered me, so I did systematic tests to see if/where there was a problem. I report the results here. The subject was the old (1870) church in Corrales, New Mexico. The exterior is plastered in mud mixed with bits of straw; these give small details from which to judge sharpness. There is also a small plaque at 9:00 indicating that the church is on the National Register of Historic Places. From a distance the lettering in the plaque is good for testing sharpness. I shot all apertures from 2.8 to 16 at 28, 35, 50, and 80 mm. Further details: Provia 100F, tripod, Nikon LS 2000, no image cleaning. I evaluated all images in Photoshop at 300% enlargement. Here are the results. I list sharpest to weakest f-stops from left to right. They are divided into three segments, based on my subjective classification: good (very sharp) / okay (acceptably sharp) / and weak (unusable). (I made the table this way because I plan to print and laminate it, and carry it with me.) You will note that at 28 mm., 4 f-stops are good and 2 are weak. None was in-between. At 35 mm, 3 were good and 3 were okay. None was unacceptable. Best to Worst (good/okay/weak) 28 mm. 5.6, 4, 11, 8 / / 16, 2.8 35 mm. 5.6, 8, 11 / 16, 4, 2.8 / 50 mm. 5.6, 4, 8 / 2.8 / 16, 11 80 mm. 8, 5.6, 11 / 4 / 16, 2.8 The biggest surprise came in the 50 mm focal length. There is a pronounced loss of lateral sharpness between f8 and f11. The difference is so great that it is like suddenly falling off a cliff. At 50 mm., f11 is unusable. Then at 50 mm. and f16, sharpness at 9:00 (the plaque) increases again sharply. F16 is, however, not sharp from 5:00 to 7:00. I have never seen anything like this result at 50 mm. and f11. Has anyone else? Why would sharpness at 9:00 be okay again at f16? Do I have a defective lens? The lens is still under warranty. Should I send it to Tokina? It is incomprehensible to me why it should be so weak at 50 mm. and f11 unless it is defective. I was thinking of selling the lens. Yet it is so sharp at its best apertures that I will probably keep it and use it at those apertures. Thanks, Joe
RE: fireworks photos
What film, speed, exposure, focal length...? more data please. Tonghang. Kodak Gold 100, f11-16 (I forget which), 50mm-28mm, mostly 6-7 second exposures.
Re: To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I apologize for the post, I didn't felt insulted, from this pov there's no need to apologize. Your point could have been made better I feel without things like the toilet paper comment. That's how a reduction to absurd argument is supposed to work, i.e. get to some really grotesque conclusion when applying a certain logic that you're trying to prove as false. See the silicon example that I just gave to Bruce. If you are being tongue in cheek, warning, warning, I have found (being a tongue in cheek person) it does not come across well in writing and is not usually that effective on the Internet. I sign Caveman. That should be enough, but here it is, once again: BEWARE FOLKS, I *ALWAYS* WRITE TONGUE IN CHEEK. That's how I work. Look here: http://pug.komkon.org/99nov/valentin.htm Hello to Roger wherever he is now. The rest of the discussion is beyond the scope of the list and will be taken on private mail. cheers, caveman
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
You mean, not do like that guy Paal Jensen that's currently engaged in a thread where he states that it's impossible to take sharp photos with the PZ1p, REPLY: I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p for six years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I I pointed out to the Alan that if he was having focus problems with his Z-1p it was either due to a faulty camera or he was experiencing vibration problems. This was being constructive. Pål
Re: Will Digital SLRs improve consumer 35mm zoom lenses?
That depends on what do you intend to use it for. For general purpose photography (which probably means, if one midrange zoom is enough and ISO400 and higher is not required), high end digicams are pretty good. I'd say, go for it, for under $400 one can get a very decent 4MP one. Canon G2 comes to mind. I know since I got one. Mishka Should I stop waiting and just buy one of the 5 mp slr-like digicams?
Re: OT: Digital question
A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words around. B) I don't mean good as in the best quality possible, I mean good in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera. Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have someone leaning in the frame, she has her eyes closed in 4, her mouth open and full of food in 3 others. The last picture, where she has a nice smile just before she blows out the candles on her cake, goes to the lab or the inkjet so you can keep a print. I think this is how digital cameras are being used in many cases, so I think comparing prints is a valid test. The monitor is sometimes the intended output, but I think it is more often just a viewing mechanism, just like a contact sheet or a lightbox. Am I the only one who shoots film and doesn't get a keeper on every shot? Or is everyone else printing and keeping every frame of every roll? On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Caveman wrote: It will achieve the stated goal, i.e. compare them in typical use. If you want to compare the best of each, you may want to compare a 8x10 slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money nor the inclination to do such test. Matt Bevers wrote: Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of once again proving that digital is inferior.
Re: To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
Caveman wrote: The most insulting to everyone threads I've been involved were indeed the digital ones. Here they are in order: REPLY: Shes is not refering to your threads but your namecalling to anyone who dare disagree with you Pål
Brazil Trip
My two daughters are traveling to Brazil shortly for a tour with their symphony. I'm wondering about electrical outlets - for charging batteries for their digital cameras (One is an Optio - :)). Are the outlets the same as in the US or do I need some kind of adapter? I understand that the voltage is 110 so the charger should work. Thanks for any help, Bruce
RE: Cheerleading Part Deaux
Easy. K 50 1.2, on my only body, ME Super. Versatile, compact, damn fast combo. This is my most used lens, followed by F 28mm 2.8, and waaay back last is the M 100mm 2.8. Regards Albano --- Jose R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For me, it would be hard to beat my SMC-K 50mm f/1.2 on my LX. Regards, Jose R. Rodriguez -Original Message- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:23 PM To: PDML Pentax Discuss Subject: Cheerleading Part Deaux What we need is a good ole fashioned thread where everyone gets to justify a magic piece of Pentax equipment. So: If you had to go photograph, and you didn't know where or what or why, what lens would you take with you? You get only one. I, personally, would take an M50mm f1.4. Fast if you need it, can be pressed into service as a near portrait lens, capable of good scenics, and fast for any available light opportunities. The closest zoom I have to this is an A 35-70, but it ain't nearly as easy to focus, so I'd leave it behind. = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Refurbish the LX NiCd pack
My batteries showed up in the mail today and with a little work, my LX NiCd pack is back in business. I'd ordered 350mAh cells but changed my mind when I saw how much trimming would be required and stepped it down to 300 mAh. Total price for parts and shipping came out to $40 US bringing the cost of my new motor drive to $145.00. Swapping batteries was a straightforward 30 minute job with the soldering iron. The instuctions at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/pentax_nicd_pack/ were spot on. As a bonus, the capacity should be double the original and NiMh cells shouldn't suffer from the memory problems. The downside of course is that my charge pack (thanks cotty) is now a 12 hour slow charger. Mike Y. -- myehle at wanadoo dot fr
Re: To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
Pål Jensen wrote: Shes is not refering to your threads but your namecalling to anyone who dare disagree with you Pål Quote, please. Otherwise eat your foot. cheers, caveman
Re: OT: Digital question
In my hands, there are rolls that are a complete waste. I once got what I considered 5 good shots from 1 24-frame roll. My highest percentage of keepers ever. The old rule of thumb 1 good shot per roll seems to be about average for me. Matt Bevers wrote: Am I the only one who shoots film and doesn't get a keeper on every shot? Or is everyone else printing and keeping every frame of every roll?
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Hi! Thanks for all those who responded, which however excludes some of the people who still managed to squeeze in some very strange arguments and wordings. Come, let us at least pretend we're all civilized enough. Now, to the point of the thread. There're few things that were out of the scope but were still brought in. 1. I did not speak about digital cameras. I spoke only about film SLRs in fact. Furthermore, my experience is only with ME Super and ZX-L. 2. I did not mean to argue about 600/4 lens hunting down quite remote and no less fast animal that for some reason should be filling the whole frame once the film is processed and printed and/or scanned. 3. In fact I was talking about something like shooting my daughter with 35 or 50 mm lens under sunlight with aperture at f/5.6 or f/8 from distance of at least 2-3 meters. I suppose I should have said this explicitly to avoid confusion. From what I hope I understood from all the (meaningful) responses, I think that I learned that: 1. No matter how but the focusing should be tack on. 2. Do not rely on DOF as you may be surprised to your disadvantage. Finally, I suppose I am right to assume that sharpness is not uniform across the DOF region. Again I mean neither defense nor offense although I suppose we could behave a little, how to put it, in a more balanced manner. Also I chose Paal's message to reply to simply as it was the topmost in the list of messages for this topic, and for no other reason. It's been a pleasure, so far... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: OT: Digital question
I'm about the same - I sometimes get a few more per roll, but often I like to save these more so I can learn something than because they are perfect. I'd say I print about 2-3% of what I shoot. -Matt On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:49 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: In my hands, there are rolls that are a complete waste. I once got what I considered 5 good shots from 1 24-frame roll. My highest percentage of keepers ever. The old rule of thumb 1 good shot per roll seems to be about average for me. Matt Bevers wrote: Am I the only one who shoots film and doesn't get a keeper on every shot? Or is everyone else printing and keeping every frame of every roll?
Re: OT: Digital question
Matt Bevers wrote: A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words around. I said typical use. If you want something else, feel free to perform your own test. cheers, caveman
Re: fireworks photos
Hi! Indeed, Amita, could you please share with us the technical details. I am sure I will be trying it once we have the next Independence Day - they have some nice fireworks then... Wonderful stuff... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 ===8==Original message text=== AG I just posted the photos I took of the fireworks last Friday. Some of AG them came out pretty decent IMHO. :) AG http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/july_4_03/index.html AG BR, thanks for the exposure advice you gave me. It was spot-on. :) AG Amita ===8===End of original message text===
Re: Digital question
From: Caveman Subject: OT: Digital question Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of images viewed: a) on computer monitors b) as home made inkjet prints c) as lab prints a) 95% (say 5% on average deleted in camera) b) 3% ish. That's 8X11 minimum, 16X11 max. c) 0% Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT: Digital question
I'm trying to say that typical use is to print the keepers whether they were shot on digital or film. This is what I was trying to explain in part B of my previous message, which you chose not to reply to or even quote in making your snide response. I'll copy it again here in case anyone missed it. Does my interpretation of typical use make sense to anyone else, or am I crazy? I wrote: B) I don't mean good as in the best quality possible, I mean good in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera. Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have someone leaning in the frame, she has her eyes closed in 4, her mouth open and full of food in 3 others. The last picture, where she has a nice smile just before she blows out the candles on her cake, goes to the lab or the inkjet so you can keep a print. I think this is how digital cameras are being used in many cases, so I think comparing prints is a valid test. On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:56 PM, Caveman wrote: Matt Bevers wrote: A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words around. I said typical use. If you want something else, feel free to perform your own test. cheers, caveman
My first long telephoto prime: advice sought
I'm a sucker for zoo shots. My Sigma 70-300 is a tad short at the long end. I've compensated with 500mm f8 mirror lenses (Lentar and Spiratone), but am thinking about faster primes combined with TCs. I do NOT need a birdie lens. I don't think I want to mess with something as long as a 600mm. That leaves me with 300mm and 400mm primes from Pentax. Just how impossible/heavy/awkward is the A 400mm f2.8? Will a Bogen 3221 tripod be adequate for it? And how about the 300mm f2.8 lenses? -Lon
Re: OT: Digital question
God. You're jumping on me even before I'm doing anything ? Do you fear the results ? Why ? For the moment I'm just noticing that a monitor has some advantages to a paper print, i.e. being backlit it has higher contrast and more vivid colors. It's also bigger than the *typical* 4x5 inch minilab print. What are you afraid of and trying to avoid ? cheers, caveman Matt Bevers wrote: I'm trying to say that typical use is to print the keepers whether they were shot on digital or film. This is what I was trying to explain in part B of my previous message, which you chose not to reply to or even quote in making your snide response. I'll copy it again here in case anyone missed it. Does my interpretation of typical use make sense to anyone else, or am I crazy? I wrote: B) I don't mean good as in the best quality possible, I mean good in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera. Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have someone leaning in the frame, she has her eyes closed in 4, her mouth open and full of food in 3 others. The last picture, where she has a nice smile just before she blows out the candles on her cake, goes to the lab or the inkjet so you can keep a print. I think this is how digital cameras are being used in many cases, so I think comparing prints is a valid test. On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:56 PM, Caveman wrote: Matt Bevers wrote: A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words around. I said typical use. If you want something else, feel free to perform your own test. cheers, caveman
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
At 18:05 10.07.2003 -0400, you wrote: Nice shot, Jostein! Thanks, Mark. Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses, autofocus, etc. The technological solution is only part of the equation - you'll get better shots by getting close simply because you are not shooting through so much air, with the attendant effects of haze, thermal distortion, etc. Absolutely. However, there's a right focal length for everything. 300-400mm is pretty good for larger mammals, but I'd prefer to have your setup with a TC for birds. And a 200 macro for insects...:-) Cheers, Jostein
Re: stalking animals (was: Re: On cheerleading)
At 22:39 10.07.2003 +0100, Bob wrote: Nice shot! I took this one with a lousy LX+A 400/5.6, beanbag on top of a car (I wasn't exactly stalking). www.web-options.com/impala.jpg Wow. Nice mood, Bob. Lovely shot. I put stalking in the title of the thread, but using cars isn't exactly stalking in the strictest meaning of the word, is it? However, cars are quite good for reducing the fear-circle of animals. Cheers, Jostein
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p for six years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I I pointed out to the Alan that if he was having focus problems with his Z-1p it was either due to a faulty camera or he was experiencing vibration problems. This was being constructive. I think I should describe them as sharp (Z-1p) super sharp (MX). Sorry to disturb the fun between you Caveman. :-) regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: On Manual and Auto Focus
-Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Damn! You just gave me an excuse to buy another expensive toy. I need ring Pentax and see if they could switch that stupid 31 with a brand new MZ-S. They have my lens for a month and not a single response from them. No email, no phone call, nothing. They must trashed it for me. :-( They fixed it already, but they're having trouble removing your hex. tv
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know that they require you to compose first and focus later. Herb Actually, with the MZ-S you can select the sensor you want (2nd sensor from the right lines up with the subject's eye for vertical portraits, for example). That way, you just let the camera focus, then you shoot. No recomposing. The key is to be aware which sensor the camera is using when you allow it to select its sensor automatically. Pat White
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #658
Hi Lon, I have the Pentax A*300 2.8. I use it with a Bogen 444 Carbon One tripod, so I would assume the 3221 would be fine. I also have Pentax 1.4XL teleconverter for it. While it comes with a nice metal case, I recently bought a backpack style camera bag so that I can get more use out of it. I was leaving the lens home a lot of times since it was not convenient to carry through the woods. This is not light lens. According to the KMount equipment page it is 6.5 pounds. (I never put mine on a scale to verify it.) Make sure you want to carry this extra weight around with you at the zoo. While I love the pictures I get from it, I will be the first to admit, it is not a very versatile lens. Make sure the tripod head can handle it. I have a Giotto MH 1001 (I think, as my gear is not in front of me. It is definitely a giotto ball head though) which is a little undersized. While it is rated for the weight, I think the length of the lens makes it a bit unwieldy on that ball head. Even with that drawback, which would probably be solved by me buying a better ball head (someone here will comment I shouldn't be using a ball head with this setup,) I still love the lens. It has enabled me to get shots that were not possible in the past. For zoo shots remember you more then likely would not be walking around with this beast on the camera, so figure on extra time to get the tripod setup, mount the lens, and then attach the camera. Jeff At 03:20 PM 7/11/2003 -0400, you wrote: Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:15:08 -0400 From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My first long telephoto prime: advice sought Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm a sucker for zoo shots. My Sigma 70-300 is a tad short at the long end. I've compensated with 500mm f8 mirror lenses (Lentar and Spiratone), but am thinking about faster primes combined with TCs. I do NOT need a birdie lens. I don't think I want to mess with something as long as a 600mm. That leaves me with 300mm and 400mm primes from Pentax. Just how impossible/heavy/awkward is the A 400mm f2.8? Will a Bogen 3221 tripod be adequate for it? And how about the 300mm f2.8 lenses? -Lon
Re: Manual focus and proud of it (was:Re: On Manual and Auto Focus)
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found that I now use manual focus 100% of the time on my DSLR, even though it has a reasonable AF system, and in fact is the first AF camera I have come across. I just got fed up with letting the camera decide what was in focus or not. (...) In the tv industry, broadcast quality cameras with autofocus are unheard of. Manual every time. Even the aperture is left on manual. That reminds me of my experience with the Canon XL1: it has seen just a take where the autofocus was active, and it was a mistake due to handling... (not to mention the bad behaviour of the autofocus in that take). I always use a handheld meter when we are filming. Gianfranco = __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: To Marnie (wasRe: On Manual and Auto Focus)
Marnie, in reference to tongue-in-cheek comments, I think tongue-in-cheek is Caveman's default setting. I enjoy his humorous postings, and believe he is not as cave as you think (cave: Quebec slang, pronounced cav. Correct me if I'm wrong, Caveman). Pat White
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
the fact that you point the camera and look through the viewfinder first constitutes composition, no matter how temporary. i have a wide selection of focus points on my two most advanced cameras. nonetheless, i have to point in the general direction of what i want to photograph to see where the focus points lie relative to the current framing. until i have the composition i want in the viewfinder, i don't know which focus point to choose. Herb - Original Message - From: Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 17:00 Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus Actually, with the MZ-S you can select the sensor you want (2nd sensor from the right lines up with the subject's eye for vertical portraits, for example). That way, you just let the camera focus, then you shoot. No recomposing. The key is to be aware which sensor the camera is using when you allow it to select its sensor automatically. Pat White
Praising the MX (was Re: On cheerleading)
It's really funny seeing this thread now. I was just checking out the KEH website, and bought a bargain chrome MX on a complete lark. This was definitely a collector moment. ;-) I do like little cameras, however, and this should be a nice match for my 40 pancake, which tends to lanquish in my bag. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Western Canada
Daniel, it's hard to go wrong when taking pictures in Banff and Jasper. Those are beautiful spots. Vancouver is nice, and, as Dave mentioned, Victoria has quite a few picturesque buildings. If you like, contact me off list and I can show you around Victoria while you're here. Pat White
Re: FS: MX Body
DOH! I just picked one up from KEH (for $126). I should pay more attention to the list. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Digital question
På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 22:27, Hans Imglueck: May be I missed my point because I used the word painting. Let me say it this way: We are already high quality intelligent stereoscopic digital cameras equiped with a lot of incredible software. Images are taken, modified and composed within. The only thing what is missing is a USB 2.0 interface. Since the interface is missing and the internal memory is limitied we need external cameras and Sorry, but from my point of view there is more to photography than technology. Yes, it is partially technological, like playing the piano or organ is, but not more. external memory. Formerly there was only painting to get the internal pictures outside. Then photography came up: The cameras were film based and the pictures couldn't be much modified afterwards. That´s not true. After exposure manipulation is as old as the negative - positive process, at least. Look at the evolution of old photos of the russian leadership, it´s an old art. I think digital photography will win, because it is much closer to our internal way of viewing and composing. The amount of modification someone needs is very different - comparable with the amount of imagination people have in their minds. Look here: http://www.uelsmann.com There is no significant difference in what i good craftsman can do, digital or analog. The technology is just different. Some have more sense for reality - they will tend to photography as a mean of expression. Others will not be content with the amount of modifications possible with a camera and go for painting or whatever is related to their kind of imagination on the cost of realism (expect some old painters like Dürer or Rafael - they are just great in both: imagination and realism). What are these: http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/ vis_oversikt.cgi?brukerid=158serieid=3204 Reality, realism or imagination? They are all manipulated at the event of exposure. Except for some (bad) contrast adjustment nothing was done after the exposure. I do not think that photography is an objective representation of some reality, it can never be. My point is that photography is an independent way of making images. Some use stone, some use paint, some use photography, all of them have their limitations. I think what suits me about photography is the analytic part: You have to see, analyze and remove, not build, to make the image. Also, some times I like the aspect of having the correct timing, finding the right moment in time. Regards! Dag T --- Dag T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photography is an independent art form. Cartier Bressons images could not have the same impact if they were paintings. In fact he IS a painter, and his paintings and drawings are very different from his photographs. I photograph because it suits me, I have no intention to make anything looking like a painting. If I didn´t have a camera I think I would prefer music before painting. DagT På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 16:58, skrev Hans Imglueck: So what do you think about that? Would you take a camera, if you could paint a picture as good or better in the same time? Paint what your mind if full of? What you are dreaming about? Hans. --- Dag T [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speak for yourself! .-) DagT På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 15:55, skrev Hans Imglueck: Never forget: We are photographing because painting is that difficult. _ 23a mail _ 23a mail
Re: Refurbish the LX NiCd pack
Mike, What were the final cells that you put in - name and numbers, and where did you get them? Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My batteries showed up in the mail today and with a little work, my LX NiCd pack is back in business. I'd ordered 350mAh cells but changed my mind when I saw how much trimming would be required and stepped it down to 300 mAh. Total price for parts and shipping came out to $40 US bringing the cost of my new motor drive to $145.00. Swapping batteries was a straightforward 30 minute job with the soldering iron. The instuctions at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/pentax_nicd_pack/ were spot on. As a bonus, the capacity should be double the original and NiMh cells shouldn't suffer from the memory problems. The downside of course is that my charge pack (thanks cotty) is now a 12 hour slow charger. Mike Y.
Re: FS: Pentax 400-600 Reflex Zoom
At 05:07 PM 11/07/2003 -0400, you wrote: From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] If it's beautiful, how come you sell it? Hah! It's because of the Canadian Government I'm selling it. I'm currently unemployed due to the mega-slump in the high-tech industry. The government were happy to take my taxes and employment insurance off me while I was working, but have no intention of giving any of it back. Is having to pay the mortgage a good enough reason? Have you compared it to other mirror lenses? Comments about such? I used to own a Minolta AF 500 mirror lens. That was pretty damn good. The Pentax is better. The only disadvantage to the Pentax zoom reflex is that it's f12 at 600mm http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0591_1.JPG http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0592_1.JPG http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0593_1.JPG http://www.beard-redfern.com/fs/105_0594_1.JPG Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: fireworks photos
Great shots. I love FW pics. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
There is one plane of focus. The farther you move from it the more out of focus things are. DOF is determined by what is the maximum amount of blur considered acceptable at the limits of the DOF. So yes, the sharpness is not uniform through the DOF. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally, I suppose I am right to assume that sharpness is not uniform across the DOF region.
