My new-to-me MZ S!
Hi Group, I've gotten a very nice MZ S plus the battery/vertical shutter release grip, and all I can say is WOW! A great camera. I've used it for a couple of rolls now, too soon to decide its my favorite pentax ever, but I'm leaning that way! There is nothing so far I don't like about it. Quiet shutter and wind/rewind. Easy to use-- I've figured out most of the functions (except the pentax functions, which have always required the book to decipher) without looking at the manual. Everything I could need is right there, next to my thumb or finger. I like this camera!! And one very interesting thing I've discovered: It is quite close to the super program in size! And that means small-- here's what I've done: Pentax made a leather case to fit the super program with the winder attached to the body. Some of you may have this case-- I've only seen it offered once, and I jumped on it with both feet when it appeared on ebay... But now, that leather case covers my MZ S with the FA 35/2 installed. It's not a perfect fit, I had to take the hood off the lens, but it just goes to illustrate how compact the MZ S is, even with the battery grip installed-- keep in mind this is the MZ S body + the bg grip and the 35 lens- very close to the physical dimensions of the super program and winder... and it is definitely lighter than the superprogram... Sid B
RE: More rumors on Baby-D!
On 4 Jun 2004 at 10:03, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Shawn K. wrote: By the way, Pentax has an AF converter, it's available used too. It only works with manual lenses. My 1.7AF TC works well with appropriate AF lenses. 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
FS Friday: SMC-FA 24-90 lens
Hello PDML, I am selling SMC Pentax-FA 24-90mm AL IF zoom lens: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3819343601 Worldwide shipping. Auction ends on Tuesday. Best regards, Jerry
Re: Papa-D
on 04.06.04 13:59, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What? and then not have the shutter work if the centre focus point isn't OK, two switches for me two. H... I am almost sure that my bodies have never required focus confirmation to make shutter work... but: - I could have special versions of MZ-S and *istD ;-) - I use AF button on the back and AF is not engaged when I press shutter release, so my cameras are always in shutter priority, even in AF.S. -- Best Regards Sylwek
PAW: Abandoned building # 4
Hi Gang. Ok so i get the hint,no more cute cats shots,vbgso this week i'll submit this shot taken last Sunday on the drive home from a very small horse show.I have been on this road before but must have missed this building. I cropped it a bit as i had a lot of dirt in the foreground to get the whole building in and i thought it was a distraction. http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/abandon4.jpg Also took a few IR frames with the PZ-1.Hope they turn out ok,lots of green in this shot plus the building is long,so contrast should be up there. As always i hope you enjoy it and coments always welcome. Dave Brooks
Re: An image for list appraisal
On 4 Jun 2004 at 12:05, Lasse Karlsson wrote: It's a good shot. There is something to the far away line of trees and the sky. I would have preferred a greater sense of deepness, in lack of other words. In my uncalibrated monitor it now bordes to being slightly washed out. (I said borders to.) (I have obviously no idea what the original looks like, why I wouldn't know what can be done to it.) Hi Lasse et.al, Firstly thanks for commenting. Yes the image is slightly washed out, this is due in part to the atmosphere, low angle of the sun and the flare generated by shooting into the sun. I was pretty pleased with what I ended up with considering these impositions, the 31mm LTD is an amazing lens. The image needed to be somewhat under exposed in order to keep any detail in the sky and so the image had to be fairly heavily manipulated to bring it back to a reasonable gamma. On 4 Jun 2004 at 10:42, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Keith Whaley wrote: Pretty impressive, shot into the sun! I don't know that I'd have tried it! Or, I'd have expected a big halo, wiping everything out. Pretty good job, it seems to me! I am impressed for the same reason. Pentax manual discourage users to aim against the sun; perhaps I read too much into that and now I know I am wrong. My monitor hoovers, but I find the field a bit dark. Would it have worked to give it a bit more exposure (when taking it) or does shooting against the sun requires one to be a bit defensive with the diaphragm? I've been shooting into the sun for years with Pentax glass and cameras, I only found out it couldn't be done when I used a Canon :-) You may have missed the technical details but the shot was made at ISO200 f8 1/800th, pretty underexposed, any more exposure and the sun would have consumed most of the image :-) On 4 Jun 2004 at 6:55, Paul Stenquist wrote: I find it quite interesting and quite beautiful. The lens seemed to have handled the severe flare situation quite well. Lassie mentioned the somewhat unusual look of the rear tree line. On my calibrated monitor they appear to be very low contrast in comparison to the foreground. I assume that is a result of flare. You might try selecting the rear tree line with a large feathering area and pumping up the contrast a wee bit. But I do like it the way it is and too much dabbling might spoil it. Nice work. Thanks Paul, I don't know if the image would take much more manipulation, you should have seen the tree line before I contrast enhanced the image. It's one of those images that I wish I'd had more time to shoot, unfortunately I was at the edge of the highway and risked getting flattened as it was. On 4 Jun 2004 at 4:05, Hans Imglueck wrote: Hi Rob, just my humble opinion: The sun looks like a Supernova or the flash of an atomic bomb. It fits not to the rather calm foreground. I would prefer keeping the sun out perhaps by some steps to the right. Though good to know how far an image can be tweaked. Hi Hans, The sun is a difficult compositional element, well no so much by it's self but definitely if you want any other elements to be visible too :-) The image actually looks quite like I remember the scene, I did have the option of shooting the sun out of the frame but I would have lost the reflections in the water jets, every situation is a compromise I guess. Thanks for the comments. Cheers all, 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: Papa-D
On 4 Jun 2004 at 14:10, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: on 04.06.04 13:59, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What? and then not have the shutter work if the centre focus point isn't OK, two switches for me two. H... I am almost sure that my bodies have never required focus confirmation to make shutter work... but: - I could have special versions of MZ-S and *istD ;-) - I use AF button on the back and AF is not engaged when I press shutter release, so my cameras are always in shutter priority, even in AF.S. I'm a left eye'd shooter, I can't use the button on the back, it's as wasted on me as the vertical shutter release on the grip. 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: PAWs - Trip to Washington and Oregon
Nice work Larry. Was #3 #4 the same scene shot with different white balance? Butch Thanks Butch. No, these sre two separate images. Both images were shot and processed with Auto white balance. It was much dacker and much longer exposure on #4. Larry from Prescott
RE: More rumors on Baby-D!
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: My 1.7AF TC works well with appropriate AF lenses. Perhaps I did not read the manual well. Kostas
Re: An image for list appraisal
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: shooting against the sun requires one to be a bit defensive with the diaphragm? You may have missed the technical details but the shot was made at ISO200 f8 1/800th, pretty underexposed, any more exposure and the sun would have consumed most of the image :-) Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Kostas
Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP
Hi, Does anyone have this lens? Any comments? Thanks, Kostas
RE: More rumors on Baby-D!
On 4 Jun 2004 at 13:31, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: My 1.7AF TC works well with appropriate AF lenses. Perhaps I did not read the manual well. I don't think I read it at all :-) What it does do is have a limited range, ie often the lens must be pre- focussed, this can be quite an advantage in many situations as the camera is far less prone to hunt wildly if the target is lost for a moment. 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: An image for list appraisal
On 4 Jun 2004 at 13:33, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: shooting against the sun requires one to be a bit defensive with the diaphragm? You may have missed the technical details but the shot was made at ISO200 f8 1/800th, pretty underexposed, any more exposure and the sun would have consumed most of the image :-) Thanks, that's what I was looking for. Following is the jpg image extracted from the PEF file using Johns great little command line application: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/IMGP3715.jpg Cheers, 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: Papa-D
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 07:17:04 -0400, you wrote: what has happened is that my readings on people who actually do what i am trying to and are making a living at it say the same thing. if you have the basics down, stop playing with wannabe hardware and get what it takes to get the job done reliably, and without interfering with the photographic process. I like to think of it in this way: how much capital is needed to become self employed in nature photography, as compared to say, setting up a two-man barber shop or a fast-food franchise. In that light, nature photography is dirt cheap. The capital outlay is well under $100,000 and can be operated out of the home, thus no ongoing extra rent or building costs; the barber shop will cost twice that, and the fast food franchise four times at least. As a long time owner of big glass, and admirer of Art Morris' work and teachings, I agree: anyone wanting to be a player in the nature photography field needs to go head to head with the equipment used by his peers. As of today this means Canon and only Canon. 600/4 IS USM plus 1.4 and 2x TC, flash bracket and flash extender, Wimberly head or video head, top line Gitzo tripod, then after receiving that multi-thousand dollar lens go buy some camo tape and wrap it up. $6899 EF 600mm f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus 1389 EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens 1649 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens 279 EF 1.4x II Extender 279 2x II Extender EF - Autofocus Add ten thousand for incidentals and you're in business for under twenty-five thousand bucks. Wow, pretty cheap. By the way, the Canon 600/f4 has gone way down in price the last six years - it used to cost over $10,000, now they have added IS plus a couple other features and the cost has dropped to $6899. The 400/4 DO is a neat lens, but has not been widely adopted yet by those in the know. But the important thing for a successful nature photographer has nothing to do with gear: it is the seminars and sessions and books and articles which generate significant income. A few stock photo sales per year will not make the car payment or put the kids through college; one needs a steady profit which provides a reasonably high income, which is where the famous and semi-famous nature photogs excel, they provide themselves with a wide range of income opportunities. If one wants to go be serious about nature photography as a business, or a form of self-employment, Pentax would not be the system of choice. However, that does not mean that Pentax can't match photo for photo with Canon and Nikon - it's just not the best business decision. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: More rumors on Baby-D!
Ouch Rob, who woke you up? vbg Norm Rob Studdert wrote: snip ouch
Re: Scanning Software: Nikonscan v Vuescan
Which begs the questions, what platform are you using, and how's it set up? Processor, speed, etc. Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/4/2004 2:08:38 AM Subject: Re: Scanning Software: Nikonscan v Vuescan Shel, I don't own a Nikon scanner, but I have tried Vuescan. The user interface of Vuescan is awful. You have to flip through various tabs in weird ways to get things done. And screen refresh is _very_ slow.
Re: Scanning Software: Nikonscan v Vuescan
Hi Shel, On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:14:34 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Now that I'll soon have my very Coolscan film scanner, these questions have more significance. So, what is it about Nikon software that you don't like? In what way is Vuescan better? I've downloaded the Vuescan Getting Started guide and can see some features that Nikonscan doesn't have (at least not that I know of), but features don't mean squat unless they work well. Therefore, any comments from experienced users of both software packages would be appreciated, especially concerning the newest versions of each. I must confess I have never really USED Vuescan, but do have experience with the Nikon software. That experience was good enough to let me stick with the standard software :-) I started with a Nikon Coolscan III (a predecessor of what you'll be getting) and used the NikonScan software that came with it with great success for over 3 years. I also tried the Silverfast software that came with it as an alternative but really hated the user-interface so never used it afterwards. I had (and have) herad very positive reports about the VueScan software but at the time it did not support the ICE dust removal hardware in the scanner so I did not use that either. After switching to the Nikon 8000 ED scanner last year, to be able to scan my 67II metrial, I continued using the NikonScan software. I still like it, and the results leave (almost *) nothing to be desired. Regards, JvW PS: About the 'almost', there is a minor bug (I think) in the defaults it uses for negative material, if you scan using the defaults, the lower part of the histogram will not be used completely (black-point), so the range of values used in the image is less that it could be. Not a real problem when working in 16-bit but better to avoid it anyway. It could be that the CoolScan IV and V have the same problem ... -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Shooting these pesty birds :)
I believe that it is a device for listening to, and recording, bird songs. Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Hi, On the Pt.Pelee posts, I wrote that much more important than fancy long glass for a bird photographer is patience. Without it, and preparation, you are just a snapshooter. So, to be more constructive, I found this gallery of birding blinds, to show you and inspire you. Preparation, literature and knowledge of bird etology is most important if you want your bird photograps to show something more than just the damn little critter curiously looking at you, even though you have the best 1200/5.6 supertelephoto... And a lot of bird pictures over the web show only this. Surprised birds looking at the photographer, nothing else. That's the same as if you walked along the street with a 300/2.8 lens and all you photographed were curious and angry faces of the other citisens. http://www.naturphotogallery.com/galerie/galerie-kryty/index.htm Look at the first one, it's actually quite funny... birding blind with a satellite dish :) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
FS: expanded and reduced
#1 #2 Sunpak 611 flashes. GN160 ft. They're in used but fully functional condition. The variable power setting works fine. Each comes with a charger and NiCd pack BUT (and this is good) because the NiCds are not holding a charge worth anything ... each comes with 4 C-cell NiMH batteries. And they really do work so much better. Each also comes with a PC sync cord, a hot shoe sensor, and PC sync cord for the shoe sensor (for those cameras that have a PC connection but a cold shoe, like a YashicaMat 124G, et. al.) That's two nice flash outfits. $65 each set. Both for $120. #3 SMC Pentax-A 24/2.8, excellent condition, caps. $180 Plus shipping. PayPal preferred. Collin --- Brought to you by the Red Green Duct Tape Users Group Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Ritz Camera: Comments on Scanner Purchase
I purchased the new scanner thru Ritz Camera on line, not a shop that I'd even considered as an original choice. However, the scanner was out of stock almost everywhere, and the few places that claimed to have one in stock either had poor reputations, high prices, or were offering grey market. Ritz offered free shipping and no sales tax (a big concern for us Californians - sales tax is pretty high around these parts) even if they had a brick and mortar store in the state. Their price was $599.00, higher by about 10% than Amazon, for example, but lower than most shops when considering tax and shipping. It was a no nonsense transaction simple ordering, a quick confirmation, and, surprisingly, a phone call a few hours later verifying the shipping and billing address on the credit card. Ritz sent emails at every step of the way, as well, verifying receipt of the order, double checking security issues, confirming shipment, and providing a tracking number. So, check them out ... they get a good recommendation here. My only kvetch is that they seemed overly concerned with security, but, in fairness, it should be noted that my billing and shipping address are different (which, for some stores, means you don't get the item), and the billing address is a PO Box (another red flag). So, while it was a bit annoying to receive all the emails and the phone call, it was also very welcome in retrospect. Shel Belinkoff
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Subject: Re: photography vs cameras But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? This trend has been going on for about 40 years. We called them weekend warriors when I was active in the trade. As soon as professional photographers adopted 35mm as their camera of choice, they opened the door to anyone with a camera butting in on their turf, and as a profession, got exactly what they should have expected. The advances in camera technology over the past couple of decades or so has only made it worse, actual photographic knowledge (you know, that stuff I harp about from time to time?) is no longer a prerequisite, since the cameras themselves are able to take care of all the technical details, and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game. William Robb
Re: Papa-D lust
- Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl Subject: Re: Papa-D lust Fortunately, Acros is still there. It will likely outlive all the rest, and I strongly hope so. Now if only they'd cut it in 8x10! This has long been my complaint with Fuji. They don't support the low volume stuff at all. William Robb
Re: Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP Hi, Does anyone have this lens? Any comments? Yup. Like it for film, haven't tried it on the istD yet. It's pretty compact, and produces good pictures. Some one else on the list has one, don't remember who. That person thought it was a bit soft. I thought it was sharp enough. William Robb
Re: Papa-D lust
- Original Message - From: William Robb Subject: Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 06:49:07 -0700 - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl Fortunately, Acros is still there. It will likely outlive all the rest, and I strongly hope so. Now if only they'd cut it in 8x10! This has long been my complaint with Fuji. They don't support the low volume stuff at all. William Robb They could have dropped it like Kodak did Plus-X. (I'll harp on that one for years. Little shadow detail but *lots* of highlight detail -- the reason I like it.) Acros 4x5 QuickLoad is available, but pricey. Midwest is looking to bring some (4x5 loose sheets) into the US. They're working on it now. Place your order with Abdi. http://www.mpex.com Collin --- Brought to you by the Red Green Duct Tape Users Group Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
Congrats on the film camera. The last Pentax camera I got was the PZ1-p. The MZ S is small compared to the PZ1-P. Jim A. From: Sid Barras [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 01:05:55 -0500 To: Pentax discussion Pentax discussion list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My new-to-me MZ S! Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 02:06:29 -0400 Hi Group, I've gotten a very nice MZ S plus the battery/vertical shutter release grip, and all I can say is WOW! A great camera. I've used it for a couple of rolls now, too soon to decide its my favorite pentax ever, but I'm leaning that way! There is nothing so far I don't like about it. Quiet shutter and wind/rewind. Easy to use-- I've figured out most of the functions (except the pentax functions, which have always required the book to decipher) without looking at the manual. Everything I could need is right there, next to my thumb or finger. I like this camera!! And one very interesting thing I've discovered: It is quite close to the super program in size! And that means small-- here's what I've done: Pentax made a leather case to fit the super program with the winder attached to the body. Some of you may have this case-- I've only seen it offered once, and I jumped on it with both feet when it appeared on ebay... But now, that leather case covers my MZ S with the FA 35/2 installed. It's not a perfect fit, I had to take the hood off the lens, but it just goes to illustrate how compact the MZ S is, even with the battery grip installed-- keep in mind this is the MZ S body + the bg grip and the 35 lens- very close to the physical dimensions of the super program and winder... and it is definitely lighter than the superprogram... Sid B
FS: SMCK 400mm f5.6
This lens is still available if any of you *istD'ers care to have a telephoto w/ a 600mm's field of view. Has case, caps and a few 77mm filters is in excellent condition. A much less expensive option to those f2.8 long teles while still producing excellent images w/o much lost convenience against auto focus gear. SMCK 400mm f5.6 US$250 plus freight costs Bill mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: My new-to-me MZ S!
Hello SidB Congratulations. I agree. The MZ-S is a great camera. Wish I had a D version, though! The MZ-S also has a similar user interface as the Super A: Turn the aperture and it will switch to Av. Turn it to A and the camera will switch to Program Mode. Turn the Time Wheel to M and the camera will work in TV mode. Turn both Aperture and Time wheel and the camera will be in Manual Mode. This is a brilliant user interface IMO. The MZ-S work pretty much the same way, except it has Green Button to turn it back into Auto Mode instead of using the Time wheel again. This and the HYP mode of the PZ-1/PZ-1p is what makes Pentax cameras very convenient and truly user friendly. No mode switch is necessary. But I'm having a hard time making my MZ-S compete with the sharpness of my SONY DSC F717 - partly due no slow my zoom lenses, like the SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm. But the autofucus and FPS is very nice in practice - who really needs more than 2,5 FPS, anyway? But, I would like a SMC 2.8/70-210mm - for less than 1000 USD! Is that possible? Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Sid Barras [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. juni 2004 08:06 Til: Pentax discussion Pentax discussion list Emne: My new-to-me MZ S! Hi Group, I've gotten a very nice MZ S plus the battery/vertical shutter release grip, and all I can say is WOW! A great camera. I've used it for a couple of rolls now, too soon to decide its my favorite pentax ever, but I'm leaning that way! There is nothing so far I don't like about it. Quiet shutter and wind/rewind. Easy to use-- I've figured out most of the functions (except the pentax functions, which have always required the book to decipher) without looking at the manual. Everything I could need is right there, next to my thumb or finger. I like this camera!! And one very interesting thing I've discovered: It is quite close to the super program in size! And that means small-- here's what I've done: Pentax made a leather case to fit the super program with the winder attached to the body. Some of you may have this case-- I've only seen it offered once, and I jumped on it with both feet when it appeared on ebay... But now, that leather case covers my MZ S with the FA 35/2 installed. It's not a perfect fit, I had to take the hood off the lens, but it just goes to illustrate how compact the MZ S is, even with the battery grip installed-- keep in mind this is the MZ S body + the bg grip and the 35 lens- very close to the physical dimensions of the super program and winder... and it is definitely lighter than the superprogram... Sid B
RE: New Pentax Price List (1.Jun) shows what is left (was Pentax
It's not all about MP. Some 8MP cameras didn't get very good reviews! It's about making a camera that will sell and can become the base for a versatile lens and accessory system, that will satisfy many photographers - and at a reasonable price. That's what the *ist D is, isn't it? I guess it's not abig problem upgrading the SONY chip from time to time with the latest technology 8-10-16-20-32MP. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juni 2004 23:07 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: New Pentax Price List (1.Jun) shows what is left (was Pentax On Jun 3, 2004, at 1:43 PM, John Francis wrote: I don't want to wait that long for a better DSLR than the *ist-D. Ditto. I want a ten megapixel camera very soon. Without it, Pentax is a non-player. Perhaps they're listening. Paul
Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? Norm Rob Studdert wrote: I'm a left eye'd shooter, I can't use the button on the back, it's as wasted on me as the vertical shutter release on the grip.
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
Jens Bladt wrote: I would like a SMC 2.8/70-210mm - for less than 1000 USD! Is that possible? That was my need too. I ended up buying an AF Sigma EX 2.8/70-200, costing around $650 and reputed to perform better than any other 70-200 (or the like) on the market (including Canon/Nikon/Pentax). It will be a nice addition to my *ist D + DA 16-45mm, I think. Not yet received it, but I'm confident I'll get it within a week or so. Dario Bonazza
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
On 4 Jun 2004 at 10:06, Norm Baugher wrote: I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? Norm I don't know about the norm (har) but I was very right eye/right hand dominant until I suffered lens damage a few years back which made accurate focussing impossible. The switch to the left eye was difficult, it even upset my compositional skill but now it feels quite normal. Out of interest the following article tends to dispel the concept of eye dominance: http://journalofvision.org/2/7/326/ 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: New Pentax Price List (1.Jun) shows what is left (was Pentax
The finder will have to be updated as well, (read replaced), if the sensor is updated with say an 8mp ccd with a 1.3 crop factor. That could be expensive. It would be for all intents a new camera design. Jens Bladt wrote: It's not all about MP. Some 8MP cameras didn't get very good reviews! It's about making a camera that will sell and can become the base for a versatile lens and accessory system, that will satisfy many photographers - and at a reasonable price. That's what the *ist D is, isn't it? I guess it's not abig problem upgrading the SONY chip from time to time with the latest technology 8-10-16-20-32MP. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 3. juni 2004 23:07 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: New Pentax Price List (1.Jun) shows what is left (was Pentax On Jun 3, 2004, at 1:43 PM, John Francis wrote: I don't want to wait that long for a better DSLR than the *ist-D. Ditto. I want a ten megapixel camera very soon. Without it, Pentax is a non-player. Perhaps they're listening. Paul
Re: Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, William Robb wrote: Yup. Like it for film, haven't tried it on the istD yet. It's pretty compact, and produces good pictures. Some one else on the list has one, don't remember who. That person thought it was a bit soft. I thought it was sharp enough. Thanks William, What's a fair price for an Exc+ used one from a reputable shop at your neck of the woods? Regards, Kostas
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
Dario Bonazza a écrit : Jens Bladt wrote: I would like a SMC 2.8/70-210mm - for less than 1000 USD! Is that possible? That was my need too. I ended up buying an AF Sigma EX 2.8/70-200, costing around $650 and reputed to perform better than any other 70-200 (or the like) on the market (including Canon/Nikon/Pentax). It will be a nice addition to my *ist D + DA 16-45mm, I think. Not yet received it, but I'm confident I'll get it within a week or so. Good deal, Dario. The Sigma EX 2.8/70-200 is a very good lens (but pretty heavy) and become a nice 105-300 on the *istD; and with the 2x converter a rare 5.6/210-600 !! Michel http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg
Re: Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP
- Original Message - From: Kostas Kavoussanakis Subject: Re: Tamron AD2 300/5.6 SP What's a fair price for an Exc+ used one from a reputable shop at your neck of the woods? Not a clue, sorry. I bought mine from a friend who was going Nikon (silly boy) and then went to a Canon Rebel Digital (sillier boy). Had he stayed with Pentax, he would have been way farther ahead of the game. William Robb
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: Out of interest the following article tends to dispel the concept of eye dominance: I shoot equally badly with either eye. Kostas
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
Yeah, but it still doesn't explain when the eye ~centers~ on something. Norm Rob Studdert wrote: I don't know about the norm (har) but I was very right eye/right hand dominant until I suffered lens damage a few years back which made accurate focussing impossible. The switch to the left eye was difficult, it even upset my compositional skill but now it feels quite normal. Out of interest the following article tends to dispel the concept of eye dominance: http://journalofvision.org/2/7/326/
Re: photography vs. cameras
At 05:04 AM 6/4/2004 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures. Unless you saw her photos, you don't know what she got. And what's dull to you can be a treasured memory to someone else. Or maybe she did get 99 dull shots and one truly inspired shot. You just don't know and it's not fair to assume you do. If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality camera. If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what they want. I've seen similar attitudes in the cycling community. Someone sees Lance Armstrong win the Tour on a $8000 carbon fiber Trek, so they go out and buy the $8000 Trek for themselves, the full zoot and everything. They can't hold a 20mph pace downhill with a tailwind, but they are having fun imagining they are Lance winning the Tour. Why resent their enjoyment? Of course buying the bike or the camera won't make them a pro, we know it and they know it. Or you see a slow runner wearing top of the line racing flats at the local fun run. Why bother? you say. Saving 5sec a mile won't matter to this back-of-the-packer, they still won't win the race. But maybe those seconds saved matter to the runner. They know they won't win the race, but they can still try to do the best they can. A PR (personal record) is still a PR. I've seen people resent those with better equipment than themselves, saying you can't be a pro just by buying pro-equipment. And others who disdain those with lesser equipment, saying if you don't have the absolute top of the line, you're just a wannabe and don't have money riding on it. or you're not a player. Forget the gear snobbery. Just go take some photos. Cheers, -- Mike
RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I shoot equally badly with either eye. Hey! I resemble that remark! I know I favour my right eye, but this demands a test. What if I take better photographs with my left eye(?)another sleepless night ahead :-) Malcolm
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
I just bought that lens a month ago from Wells Digital for $573.95USD. It's an amazing lens. I used it in conjunction with the Sigma 2x teleconverter for an outdoor concert at night. The viewfinder was so bright that I watched most of the show through the viewfinder. :D ~J. Alejandro Almanza That was my need too. I ended up buying an AF Sigma EX 2.8/70-200, costing around $650 and reputed to perform better than any other 70-200 (or the like) on the market (including Canon/Nikon/Pentax). It will be a nice addition to my *ist D + DA 16-45mm, I think. Not yet received it, but I'm confident I'll get it within a week or so. Dario Bonazza --- End of Original Message ---
Re: photography vs. cameras
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Mike Nosal wrote: If someone spends $8000 (or $800, or $80) on photo equipment and they are satisfied by the outcome, good for them. Let them spend their money on what they want. And fund development for *your* camera. Kostas
RE: photography vs cameras
Some people can fix things without knowing how. I know a guy in fact who took apart his VW bug engine, cleaned everything and put it back together. He left a few washers out but it still ran perfectly. He'd never done it before, and Thats pretty cool. I admit there are putzs out there, but some people really honestly do pick things up rather easily. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: photography vs cameras ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would ein buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. ein Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent ein the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality ein camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other ein professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't ein make any sense of my Ford Escort. Agree. I do resent the idea too, especially as it means we photographers are losing money, when every putz thinks he can make the pictures good for his brochure with his 300D and no knowledge/feeling of photography or lighting. Well, that's the changing market, and anybody wishing to continue will have to adapt. But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
RE: An image for list appraisal
I think the sun should be out of frame. In frame its just to big, and to bright. Also, I don't see enough refraction of the suns light through the water elements. IMO a shot like this is taken in order to catch the unique ways water refracts light. I can see it happening in the foreground, but not in the distance. I like the shot, minus the sun and a little more refraction/reflection it would be even better! -Shawn -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An image for list appraisal I've just finished tweaking an image (I think), if you have the time please let me know what you think? http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/_igp3715.jpg Tech: *ist D, 31/1.8, f8, 1/800th, ISO200. Gamma adjusted with curves tool, local contrast increased using USM (radius 10). (file size about 250kB)
Re: photography vs cameras
ein If the goal is actually a couple of great photos of her kid, $8000 would ein buy a certain amount of time from a skilled photographer. ein Yes, this is less satisfying than doing it yourself, but I sort of resent ein the idea that all it takes to make pro-quality photos is a pro-quality ein camera. Certainly people wouldn't extend this idea to many other ein professions. Give me the best tools in the world and I still couldn't ein make any sense of my Ford Escort. Agree. I do resent the idea too, especially as it means we photographers are losing money, when every putz thinks he can make the pictures good for his brochure with his 300D and no knowledge/feeling of photography or lighting. Well, that's the changing market, and anybody wishing to continue will have to adapt. But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? Bah! Youngsters today! :-) Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts.
Re: Papa-D
John wrote: Frame rate depends on how fast you can clock the data out of the sensor and reset the chip. I'm trying to understand this, John. Doesn't it depend on buffer size? Or processor speed? Or speed of writing to the card? If it depends only on how fast you can get data out of the chip, and reset, then it should be possible to hold the shutter down indefinitely until the card is filled. I'm not arguing, John. Just trying to understand. If I've got it wrong, can you explain some more? Thanks, Joe
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek Subject: Re: photography vs cameras But it still drives me crazy when, as you said, nobody in their sane mind without the knowledge and feel would try to repair their car, but anybody with a camera thinks he is the photographer. Where has the profession's pride disappeared? This trend has been going on for about 40 years. We called them weekend warriors when I was active in the trade. I'd have to class myself as a weekend warrior, rather than as a professional photographer; like many (most?) on this list photography isn't my day job (and if it were I'd be shooting Canon, not Pentax). As soon as professional photographers adopted 35mm as their camera of choice, they opened the door to anyone with a camera butting in on their turf, and as a profession, got exactly what they should have expected. The advances in camera technology over the past couple of decades or so has only made it worse, actual photographic knowledge (you know, that stuff I harp about from time to time?) is no longer a prerequisite, since the cameras themselves are able to take care of all the technical details, and photography is now pretty much a point and shoot game. F8 and be there is still worth more than the best bag of equipment. But you still have to point in the right direction, and shoot at the right time. It helps if you've got the right lens on the camera, too. Beyond that, you're getting down to the fine details. For some shots I can't match the pros, but that's largely because of equipment limits (which, in turn, are enforced by budget constraints); my 250-600 is a fine piece of glass, but a 600/f4 or 400/2.8 would give me a few more options in manipulating depth of field or allow faster shutter speeds. Most of the time, though, I produce shots that stand up to comparison pretty well against all but the best practitioners in my chosen arena.
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
Jens Bladt asked: Who really needs more than 2,5 FPS, anyway? I do, for one. That's why I'll sometimes use the PZ-1p (and it's why I put a motor drive on my MX instead of just the power winder). It's not that I'm shooting in continuous mode - I rarely do that. But the PZ-1p is ready to take the next shot in close to half the time that the MZ-S takes. That can make the difference between getting the best shot and just missing it. In any unpredictable situation where precise timing is the most important factor a fast frame rate is a valuable tool. I'd say that anyone doing sports/action or wildlife photography would definitely benefit from having more than 2.5fps. I could see a benefit for some other situations, too - if you're trying to get a one-time group shot (family functions, weddings, etc.) with a large number of people involved, shooting twice as many frames in the same time gives you twice the chance of having a good shot with nobody blinking or yawning.
RE: My new-to-me MZ S!
I never thought of using continupus mode for group shots - that's a great idea, though. A friend of mine - a photographer - once told me that for group photographs - it's always the first one, that is the best - cause people can't really concentrate for very long! All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. juni 2004 19:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: My new-to-me MZ S! Jens Bladt asked: Who really needs more than 2,5 FPS, anyway? I do, for one. That's why I'll sometimes use the PZ-1p (and it's why I put a motor drive on my MX instead of just the power winder). It's not that I'm shooting in continuous mode - I rarely do that. But the PZ-1p is ready to take the next shot in close to half the time that the MZ-S takes. That can make the difference between getting the best shot and just missing it. In any unpredictable situation where precise timing is the most important factor a fast frame rate is a valuable tool. I'd say that anyone doing sports/action or wildlife photography would definitely benefit from having more than 2.5fps. I could see a benefit for some other situations, too - if you're trying to get a one-time group shot (family functions, weddings, etc.) with a large number of people involved, shooting twice as many frames in the same time gives you twice the chance of having a good shot with nobody blinking or yawning.
Re: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
Undoubtably. Some time ago I took some pictures with the *ist D and the F717, and I was really disappointed by the softness of the *ist D compared to the sharpness of the F717 :-) However, some of you will recall for sure how much (and how alone) I complained for the *ist D softness here in PDML some months ago. Then I got tired of repeating myself again and again (and bothering you so much on that subject). Nevertheless, the *ist D keeps taking soft pictures. So, why the hell did I buy an *ist D at the end? I must be crazy, or masochist. Yes, enough a plausible explanation. Dario Bonazza (owning so many Pentax lenses and being so much stuck to Pentax for daring to buy a Canon) - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:05 PM Subject: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm
What is your flow like? When I first started, I used the *istD with jpg best, so I had to jack up the sharpen, saturation, and contrast settings to avoid a PS fixup afterwards. I was not happy with the results, so I switched to RAW. But the Pentax convertor was a pain, and the only way to get 16 files was in TIFF, another pain. Just recently I purchased an upgrade to my PS, the new PhotoShop-CS (creative suite or version 8). This is a much better tool, and I have noticed that not only is the final result sharper, but the colors are truer also. But the best part is the fact that it can import Pentax RAW directly, without going through the crappy Pentax convertor. rg Dario Bonazza wrote: Undoubtably. Some time ago I took some pictures with the *ist D and the F717, and I was really disappointed by the softness of the *ist D compared to the sharpness of the F717 :-) However, some of you will recall for sure how much (and how alone) I complained for the *ist D softness here in PDML some months ago. Then I got tired of repeating myself again and again (and bothering you so much on that subject). Nevertheless, the *ist D keeps taking soft pictures. So, why the hell did I buy an *ist D at the end? I must be crazy, or masochist. Yes, enough a plausible explanation. Dario Bonazza (owning so many Pentax lenses and being so much stuck to Pentax for daring to buy a Canon) - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:05 PM Subject: PAW: Pentax Samba 2004, shot with SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm Speaking of SMC F 4-5.6/70-210mm: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4934830.html This is not really as sharp as the shots made with my SONY DSC F717, published last week: http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4784879.html Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
Hi, Friday, June 4, 2004, 4:06:30 PM, Norm wrote: I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? Norm I always used my left eye until I bought my first Leica M. It was quick and easy to start using my right eye to shoot with that. I now find that I use either eye with SLRs and with the Ms. I think it's largely a matter of habit and training. What I don't get on with are cameras with important controls on the back. My nose gets in the way. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: My new-to-me MZ S!
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Great idea, Dario, except I would prefer a Tokina, if possible! Tokina is very nice too and it is about 200 Euro cheaper than Sigma here in EU.. It has very good build quality (mainaly metal) and good reputation (although I haven't seen any results from this lens + *istD combo yet).. On Tokina's Japan site they advertise new version of this lens: http://www.tokina.co.jp/atx/4961607633229.html it is interesting, that it won't be available in Minolta mount... -- Best regards Sylwester
Tokina AT-X AF Pro 80-200/2.8
Hello, Pentaxers. Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina AT-X AF Pro 80-200/2.8 zoom? I'm quite familiar with the manual focus AT-X 80-200/2.8, but I'm curious about the autofocus version (which is certainly optically as well as mechanically different). I am particularly interested in: a. Optical qualities (of course). b. Build quality (well, I can hope...). c. Manual focus feel (for an autofocus lens). And, I guess, it might be nice if anyone could offer any experienced comparisons with the Pentax FA 80-200/2.8 (which has a very good reputation, I guess). Thanks. Fred
Re: Papa-D
Got it, John. Thanks. As for autofocus: For my purposes (emphasis) the *ist D's autofocus is far inferior to that of the PZ-1p. Joe
Web space for storing photos
Hi all, A friend of mine is about to go off over seas with his new digital camera - not sure which one he hasn't bought it yet - and would like to be able to put up images as he goes. Can people recommend websites which allow for free posing of images and give comments of how much space is allowed etc? Thanks Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
I used my right eye for twenty five years until it became so far sighted that it couldn't focus. Then I learned to use my left eye, which happens to be near sighted, with my LX and 67. I sometimes had to wear a patch on my right eye or put my thumb over it to keep it closed. Then I bought the *ist D, which gives you a +2 correction, which seems to be about perfect for my right eye, so I'm back to shooting right eye, at least with this camera. God it sucks to be old vbg. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 5:03 PM, Bob W wrote: Hi, Friday, June 4, 2004, 4:06:30 PM, Norm wrote: I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? Norm I always used my left eye until I bought my first Leica M. It was quick and easy to start using my right eye to shoot with that. I now find that I use either eye with SLRs and with the Ms. I think it's largely a matter of habit and training. What I don't get on with are cameras with important controls on the back. My nose gets in the way. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Web space for storing photos
PhotoNet is very good. I don't know how many shots they allow without a membership, but it's quie a few. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Leon Altoff wrote: Hi all, A friend of mine is about to go off over seas with his new digital camera - not sure which one he hasn't bought it yet - and would like to be able to put up images as he goes. Can people recommend websites which allow for free posing of images and give comments of how much space is allowed etc? Thanks Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
RE: Web space for storing photos
Almost all ISPs give you some free web space, usually 10Mb. Have him check with his isp. jco -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Web space for storing photos PhotoNet is very good. I don't know how many shots they allow without a membership, but it's quie a few. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Leon Altoff wrote: Hi all, A friend of mine is about to go off over seas with his new digital camera - not sure which one he hasn't bought it yet - and would like to be able to put up images as he goes. Can people recommend websites which allow for free posing of images and give comments of how much space is allowed etc? Thanks Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: Ritz Camera: Comments on Scanner Purchase
Test message. I replied to this earlier, but my message isn't showing up on Mail-Archive. I have suspected for a couple of days that some of my posts weren't going through. Joe
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
I'm right-handed but left-eye dominant. It hasn't been terribly important with cameras, but on the shooting range it does make a pronounced difference. I really don't think camera-users notice it much, but when you're trying to sight down a barrel, there is an issue of parallax - same as with point-n-shoot viewfinders. (I had to learn to shoot left-handed, too. I'm too near-sighted in my right eye to make it work!) - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:30 PM Subject: Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D) Unless you are like me and have MESSED-UP eyes! My right eye suffers from astigmatism and hyperopia; the left from myopia. Without glasses, my depth-perception is great but I can't read very well regardless of distance. my right eye has become so weak that i can look through the camera viewfinder with the left and keep the right open and NOT SEE ANYTHING but what's in the viewfinder; with or without glasses. If i try to look through the viewfinder with my right eye, I have to physically force my left closed and then the view is so wired that composing and focusing is almost impossible. what's really difficult for me is that I am right handed, but because of my left eye dominance I have to shoot rifles left handed which becomes very awkward. Christian
RE: Web space for storing photos
Fotopic.net gives you 250MB for free... Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. juni 2004 23:45 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Web space for storing photos Almost all ISPs give you some free web space, usually 10Mb. Have him check with his isp. jco -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Web space for storing photos PhotoNet is very good. I don't know how many shots they allow without a membership, but it's quie a few. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Leon Altoff wrote: Hi all, A friend of mine is about to go off over seas with his new digital camera - not sure which one he hasn't bought it yet - and would like to be able to put up images as he goes. Can people recommend websites which allow for free posing of images and give comments of how much space is allowed etc? Thanks Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
Christian wrote:. what's really difficult for me is that I am right handed, but because of my left eye dominance I have to shoot rifles left handed which becomes very awkward. G'day. My mate lost his right eye to a magpie attack a few years ago. He, like me shoot Full-bore rifles in competition. He overcame the sighting issue by using an outrigger to mount his front and rear sights to the left of the bore. He is consistently shooting 100/100. Hooroo. Regards, Trevor Grafton Australia
Re: Scanning Software: Nikonscan v Vuescan
Friday, June 4, 2004, 3:09:06 PM, Shel wrote: SB Which begs the questions, what platform are you using, and how's it set up? SB Processor, speed, etc. Well, my setup was slow. Enough of memory, but slow processor (Pentium 200). But compared to the SilverFast, which was instanteous even on my old machine. And on a better computer, you would be still scanning still bigger files than I did when I used the scanner. OTOH, as they said, VueScan is quite capable. It does things many OEM softwares do not. I had received SF with the scanner, and the OEM software (Microtek's) was totally unusable. Without the SF I would have returned the scanner. That the VueScan's controls are awful is my opinion. YMMV, as always on this list. But I stand behind it :-) It would be much better software if Ed Hamrick got better controls into it. But you can judge for yourself - the VueScan has got a trial version, which is the same as the full version, only limited by watermarking your image. Thus you can try before you buy. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Shooting these pesty birds :)
Friday, June 4, 2004, 3:40:18 PM, Daniel wrote: DJM I believe that it is a device for listening to, and recording, bird songs. Hi Daniel, I haven't thought of that! I thought it was an upload link to nearby computer, maybe ;-) Switching CF cards might not be pleasant when you are in a swamp... Or film :) Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Tokina AT-X AF Pro 80-200/2.8
Fred, I just sold mine to a list member recently. The 80-200 is a great lens. Excellent images, extremely well built, and has reasonably good MF feel. Not that I used MF too often. These lenses are well worth the investment if this is what you want. I only sold mine because it is too heavy for the sort of back country hiking I do these days. I am also changing to a more macro/travel oriented kit. Cheers Shaun Fred wrote: Hello, Pentaxers. Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina AT-X AF Pro 80-200/2.8 zoom? I'm quite familiar with the manual focus AT-X 80-200/2.8, but I'm curious about the autofocus version (which is certainly optically as well as mechanically different). I am particularly interested in: a. Optical qualities (of course). b. Build quality (well, I can hope...). c. Manual focus feel (for an autofocus lens). And, I guess, it might be nice if anyone could offer any experienced comparisons with the Pentax FA 80-200/2.8 (which has a very good reputation, I guess). Thanks. Fred -- Dr. Shaun Canning Archaeologist Cultural Heritage Services P.O. Box 21, Dampier, 6713. 0414-967644 Http://www.heritageservices.com.au
Re: Tokina AT-X AF Pro 80-200/2.8
Hi, I did try the Nikon version (as, unfortunately, my Pentax stuff is only M42 by now, but which I still enjoy). I haven't had time to use it seriously, so take my comments with a grain of salt and pepper :) Build quality seemed excellent. Heavy, metal, good. I wouldn't fear about the lens (although I had unpleasant experience with the cheaper Tokinas, both 3.5-4.5/20-35 - awful, broke thrice before money return under guaranty; and the new cheap 2.8/28-70 ATX SV - zoom ring was tight in some spots). I took only few shots at 2.8 on digital, which were sharp enough. The specimen I tried out (it was used) had quite slow AF, though. Not small AF adjustments, but it was slow going the whole cycle. Which can be a paint when the camera's AF system misses and the lens hunts. the old Sigma (not HSM) and Nikkors (not SWM) were about noticably faster, and the new HSM/SWM/... lenses are pretty fast. But it was only a quick test, and the lens might have been a bad specimen. Manual focus was OTOH very fast, some might say loose, but I did like it. So I wonder, if there was anything wrong with that lens' AF gearings. That's not much help is it :) Fra
Re: photography vs cameras
Hi, I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her photography. I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took may not have reached your obviously high standards, but that doesn't mean those are the only type of photos I take with my expensive equipment. Maybe your rich suburban mom takes other types of photo with her expensive equipment too. Your post reminds me of something from David Hurn's 'On being a photographer: Take a mother on a beach watching her child build sand-castles. She suddenly sees an expression which tugs at her heart strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured - and will be treasured for the rest of her life. Eighty five percent of all the ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of her subject. There is no thought of self or creativity, although both are intimately present. The snap was made without concern for technique. These are the ingredients that should be present in the acts of all photographers, no matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which are too often ignored. If photographs of your own children aren't worth thousands of dollars, what is? -- Cheers, Bob
Re: photography vs cameras
Bob, Very well said. I was thinking of that very same comment by Hurn when I read the original post ;-)) Shel Belinkoff [Original Message] From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/4/2004 4:12:20 PM Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Hi, I was watching a rich suburban mom shooting pictures of her son's team at a high school track meet today. She was using A Nikon D2h and 300/2.8 with a 1.4 converter--about $8000 worth of equipment and better than what I as a pro was carrying. Watching what she was shooting I'm convinced she got a lot of dull, stunningly sharp pictures (here's Jake before his race...). That is probably exactly what she wanted and was aspiring to. perhaps she was a professional photographer spending some time with her children, and knew exactly what she was doing. To be honest, your assumptions say far more about your prejudices than they do about her photography. I've been photographing children at a safari park today, using several thousand dollars worth of Contax equipment - including a 300mm lens and x2 converter, like your suburban mom. The children (11 and 7 years old) took at least 25% of the photographs, and most of those that I took may not have reached your obviously high standards, but that doesn't mean those are the only type of photos I take with my expensive equipment. Maybe your rich suburban mom takes other types of photo with her expensive equipment too. Your post reminds me of something from David Hurn's 'On being a photographer: Take a mother on a beach watching her child build sand-castles. She suddenly sees an expression which tugs at her heart strings. Without thought, she dips into the picnic basket, aims the camera, and presses the button. The moment has been captured - and will be treasured for the rest of her life. Eighty five percent of all the ingredients of photography are encompassed by this simple act. The mother has an intimate knowledge of her subject. There is no thought of self or creativity, although both are intimately present. The snap was made without concern for technique. These are the ingredients that should be present in the acts of all photographers, no matter how sophisticated, yet they are the very ones which are too often ignored. If photographs of your own children aren't worth thousands of dollars, what is? -- Cheers, Bob
FS Friday II
Hey Folks, One more item to sell. I've got a SMC-M 150/3.5 in excellent condition. The glass is clean with the usual level of dust for a lens of its age. Aperture blades are clean and operate normally. Cosmetics are really nice. It comes with the original leather case and front/rear caps. I've got pics of it if needed. $75 shipped in the continental US (outside US is okay but has to pay for the shipping of their choice). PayPal is okay also. Contact me off list if interested. Thanks! Mark
PAW: Best Buddies
One for the peanut gallery: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2417479 Yes, I'm getting a little stir crazy. Mark
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts. I just bought a new Nissan Titan truck. I can check the oil. Thats about it. I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. William Robb
Re: GFM orgy?
Who says. Actually, all those who thought they were going to use their laptops and cel-phone have discovered they can not get a data connection on the mountain. As of 7pm today almost everyone from the list had arrived except TV, Tan, and Cotty. No one had any idea what was holding them up. The first part of the program started at 7, so I came home since I am not taking the workshop, and had started not feeling well either. I plan to go by again tomorrow. Everyone seems to be having a good time. Lots of talking and sharing of equipment. It rained last night and a good part of today, but the weather for the rest of the weekend is supposed to be great. Once again meeting PDMLers in person proves what great people everyone on this list are. Yes Frank brought his bunny ears. AnnSan brought her published photo book. Adelheide brought her video camera. Jostein brought his appetite (grin). Everyone seems to have brought beer. Just about everybody took a photo of everyone else. -- Dario Bonazza wrote: Apparently, the gang @ GFM is too busy lately. Have you noticed we got no news at all for 2 days? There must be some fun there ;-) Dario - Original Message - From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:45 AM Subject: Re: In transit to GFM -- Some pics online. On 3/6/04, MARNIE, discombobulated, offered: And I'll tell you all later about the wild beer parties and the orgies. Marnie aka Doe Nope, I was kidding... I won't tell you -- my lips are sealed. ;-) Well that's not much of an orgy is it now. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: photography vs cameras
Yo Bill, You can do some work on the Titan as well if you purchase a service manual. It's not as mysterious as it seems. Paul On Jun 4, 2004, at 8:41 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: John Francis Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Back in the days when cars weren't totally computerised, it was very common for people to repair most minor problems with their own hands. (There was also far more economical incentive to do so; the reliability of cars has increased considerably over the decades). On the first car that I owned (a Morris Minor 1000 Traveller) I did most of the work myself, up to and including changing piston rings and grinding in new exhaust valves. That wasn't unusual for the time. Nowadays you'll still find vintage car enthusiasts doing all the work themselves, but apart from changing light bulbs, fuses, filters, brake pads and spark plugs there's very little you can do on a modern car; most other things are either good for the lifetime of the car or will require hooking up to the on-board computerised diagnostic readouts. I just bought a new Nissan Titan truck. I can check the oil. Thats about it. I think I am going to have to buy a little British car of some sort. I like fixing things. William Robb
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
On Jun 5, 2004, at 3:06 AM, Norm Baugher wrote: I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? I shoot with my left eye... not for any particular reason. Sometimes if the sun is annoying me or I'm contorting myself into some uncomfortable position I'll use my right eye. Now that I have new glasses that have a fragile antireflective coating, I'm using one-day contacts when I go shooting. I doubt the plastic and rubber finders of my 35mm gear would matter but the 6x7 is all metal. But for some reason I find it harder to photograph while wearing contacts. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
On Jun 5, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Bob W wrote: What I don't get on with are cameras with important controls on the back. My nose gets in the way. The Z-1p is annoying in that regard. My nose is always hitting the exposure compensation or meter mode buttons. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
