Re: Cat Content PAW PESO
Thanks Shel. > Boris - If you don't use a colon to as a separater, the PAW or Peso may not > be stripped out by some mail readers. Post your pics with a hypen, or even > without a separator, iow, like "PAW Cat Pics" or "PAW - Cat Pics" The > other option is to put the PAW or PESO at the end of the subject > description, "Cat Pics PAW" > > I feel your pain ;-)) That's really cool suggestion... -- Boris
Re: SD Cards for istds
I didn't know there were "mini" SD cards, SD cards are small enough, too small in my opinion. It doesn't use CF cards if that's what you mean. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Does the istds use regular or mini SD cards? Shel -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
Actually I thought it made for an interesting juxtaposition... Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html Technical Info: Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. Easily up to current professional standards. IMNSHO. Hehe... LOL... Can you copy and paste the hat onto that boy's head? ;-) Excellent stuff... Boris -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
Actually my friends are much stranger... David Savage wrote: Nice shot of some interesting characters. What would be wrong with having friends like that? Considering some of the silly things people from this list wear on there head Dave On 7/10/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html Technical Info: Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. Easily up to current professional standards. IMNSHO. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
My only defense is damned spell checker... Shel Belinkoff wrote: This one's interesting. Nicely focused, too ;-)) BTW, it's not "further adieu," it's further ado. Shel [Original Message] From: P. J. Alling I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Viewfinder istDs v istD
I don't have any hard data, but I've handled both and looked through both and I believe that one of the best things in the *ist-Ds favor is that it shares the *ist-D's penta prism finder. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Are they the same brightness, design, and do they show they same amount of the frame? Shel -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: SD Cards for istds
Does the istds use regular or mini SD cards? Regular SD. - Peter
Re: SD Cards for istds
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Does the istds use regular or mini SD cards? It takes regular SD cards. As of firmware version 1.02 it handles SD cards of any size up to and greater than 1gb (ie, it now supports 2gb cards).
SD Cards for istds
Does the istds use regular or mini SD cards? Shel
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
Nice shot of some interesting characters. What would be wrong with having friends like that? Considering some of the silly things people from this list wear on there head Dave On 7/10/05, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many > photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not > half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the > Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) > > http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html > > Technical Info: > > Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 > vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 > > The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. > Easily up to > current professional standards. IMNSHO. > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). > >
Re: PAW: Cat Content
Good idea ... for both of us. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > No there isn't (I assume BFD means what I think it does Shel ). But > some people think if you do what we do to cows & sheep, to a cat or > dog, it is different. > I can see myself getting into trouble with this so I'll shut up now. >
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
Nice catch! Quite a fun photo - they look like a lively bunch. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, July 9, 2005, 8:17:05 PM, you wrote: PJA> I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many PJA> photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not PJA> half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the PJA> Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) PJA> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html PJA> Technical Info: PJA> Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 PJA> vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 PJA> The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. PJA> Easily up to PJA> current professional standards. IMNSHO.
RE: PESO -- Before the Show.
This one's interesting. Nicely focused, too ;-)) BTW, it's not "further adieu," it's further ado. Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling > I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many > photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not > half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the > Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) > > http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html
Re: Viewfinder istDs v istD
As I understand it they are both the same. Dave On 7/10/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are they the same brightness, design, and do they show they same amount of > the frame? > > > Shel > > >
Re: PESO: Blue Dragon
Looks like you're trying to give Cassino a run for his money. Very nice, indeed! -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, July 9, 2005, 7:46:05 PM, you wrote: PS> I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping to shoot some PS> birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright green algae. A PS> number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth among some reeds in PS> the creek. They were way too distant for a macro lens, and I had PS> brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter along on the walk. PS> I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the magnifier lens. I stuck PS> the converter on the back of the lens and took some shots at 5.6, PS> 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I came away with some PS> nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. Here's the blue guy on PS> a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is almost full frame PS> with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. PS> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg PS> Paul
Re: PAW: Cat Content
No there isn't (I assume BFD means what I think it does Shel ). But some people think if you do what we do to cows & sheep, to a cat or dog, it is different. Certain countries C&D are on the menu, and people say "ewww, that's disgusting" while they chow down on a roast beef sandwich or lamb chops or what ever, without giving it a second thought. I can see myself getting into trouble with this so I'll shut up now. Dave On 7/10/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BFD ... a lot of people don't condone that, either. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > Wrom: PNKMBIPBARHD > > > (Now cat lovers, don't get too upset, think of what Daniel Boone & > > Davy Crockett famously wore to keep there heads warm. That too is a > > "cute" & furry creature. And the leather in your shoes didn't grow on > > a tree) > > >
Re: PAW PESO - Life Savers
Hi David ...I'm not satisfied with the dark background either. Both items could be considered helpful or harmful, life savers or life takers. Depends on the circumstances ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > Interesting. Life savers, life takers. > > I think it might be neat if it was shot on a light table/ infinity > background, with the light shining through the lollies. I find the > black background a bit too heavy. > > As you say it's just a test shot, but the concept has heaps of promise. > > Just my humble thoughts > > http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/lifesavers.html
Re: PAW: Cat Content
BFD ... a lot of people don't condone that, either. Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Savage > (Now cat lovers, don't get too upset, think of what Daniel Boone & > Davy Crockett famously wore to keep there heads warm. That too is a > "cute" & furry creature. And the leather in your shoes didn't grow on > a tree)
Re: Cat Content PAW PESO
Boris - If you don't use a colon to as a separater, the PAW or Peso may not be stripped out by some mail readers. Post your pics with a hypen, or even without a separator, iow, like "PAW Cat Pics" or "PAW - Cat Pics" The other option is to put the PAW or PESO at the end of the subject description, "Cat Pics PAW" I feel your pain ;-)) Shel > [Original Message] > From: Boris Liberman > Markus, could you please not strip "PAW" from the subject line? Your > messages do not get filtered to the PAW category ;-).
Re: PAW: Cat Content
Straying off topic. I'll preface my comments below by saying I'm not into animal cruelty, but I'm no cat lover either. In this country there's a native flora/fauna conservationist, Dr John Wamsley, who at one stage took to wearing a hat made from a feral cat skin. A picture of said hat can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/aehdm (Now cat lovers, don't get too upset, think of what Daniel Boone & Davy Crockett famously wore to keep there heads warm. That too is a "cute" & furry creature. And the leather in your shoes didn't grow on a tree) It was done as a publicity stunt to raise awareness of the damage that cats (both domestic & feral) do to native animals, which is a position I happen to agree with. They are natural hunters, and it is irresponsible for cat owners to let them loose at night to do what comes naturally. Few people let there dog roam the streets at night, so why do it with cats? Lock'em up I say. And if it's feral, shoot it. Bringing this back on topic. Both of Boris's pictures are really very good. I said it once and I'll say it again: A. Isn't that cute?! Dave On 7/10/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One doesn't always know what Boris means when he uses English . It's > just my personal preference to use the word photograph in some contexts. > Using the word "shoot" never bothered me until one Thanksgiving I met a > woman who literally shot a cat because it crossed into her yard one time to > many. Anyway, based on comments made on the list by certain participants > about shooting cats, it may be better not to give them fodder for more > stupid comments. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > Wrom: ZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWTQTI > > To: > > Date: 7/9/2005 1:38:43 PM > > Subject: Re: PAW: Cat Content > > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > >Perhaps "photograph" is a better word choice than shoot, Boris. > > > > > Are you *quite* sure he meant what you think he meant, Shel?? > > :-) > > > > (Maybe he knows what the animal-lovers will say, and wants the reaction > > from the animal-haters, huh?) > > >
Re: PESO: Blue Dragon
Hi! I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping to shoot some birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright green algae. A number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth among some reeds in the creek. They were way too distant for a macro lens, and I had brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter along on the walk. I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the magnifier lens. I stuck the converter on the back of the lens and took some shots at 5.6, 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I came away with some nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. Here's the blue guy on a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is almost full frame with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg Paul Very gentle creature... Paul, please look beneath the eye of the critter... And further beneath the leave. You'd see a dark round spot... Perhaps it is time you thought of cleaning your *istD sensor... It almost looks like a perfect studio shot... ;-) Boris
Re: PESO -- Before the Show.
Hi! I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html Technical Info: Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. Easily up to current professional standards. IMNSHO. Hehe... LOL... Can you copy and paste the hat onto that boy's head? ;-) Excellent stuff... Boris
Re: Cat Content
Hi! Hi Boris I enjoyed both of your photos and would like to know what was the hardest part for you to take them. Maybe an auto focus lens would have helped her. I would struggle with the manual Tamron 90mm macro and my glasses with faster moving objects to keep focus. You photos lack absolute sharpness on the eyes but as a cat lover, how could I possibly resist liking them anyway ;-) And btw, I have a lots of blurred shots of my cat "Leo Leu Löwenzahn" and only a handful of good ones. Markus, could you please not strip "PAW" from the subject line? Your messages do not get filtered to the PAW category ;-). The *hard* part was to lay all 180 cm of my height on the floor of rather busy and crowded room. The *harder* part was to keep Tamron in focus. It focuses in the opposite direction my my other lenses which is confusing. The *hardest* part however was to take pictures with my daughter sitting on my back while I was lying on the floor ;-). I agree with the sharpness part. I deliberately set aperture to f/4 or f/5.6 for these shots... I wanted to work with selective focus... Boris
Viewfinder istDs v istD
Are they the same brightness, design, and do they show they same amount of the frame? Shel
RE: Fuji have gone mad
I just stuck my head in the freezer and asked the 75 or so rolls that are living there. In the best Monty Python style they replied: "Actually, we're feeling much better now"! There is hope. I just made my first B&W "wet" prints in many years. Wonderful stuff. Don > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:34 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Fuji have gone mad > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: RE: Fuji have gone mad > > > > > > When did we decide Fuji was dead? Did I miss that one? > > > > Not Fuji, just film. > > William Robb >
Re: PESO- Mushrooms
Hi! When tragedy strikes, we sometimes can get so bogged down with it that it can be good to try to get back on course. On this somber day, at the risk of offending some, I thought we could use a photography topic again. In the grand scheme of things we, humans, don't matter. Nature will always endure... Taken on my Southern Utah trip in Arches. This rock formation really reminded me of a clump of mushrooms growing. Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld ISO 200, 1/125 sec @ f/8 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0255.htm Bruce, can you loose that piece of dead wood at the bottom middle part of the frame? I would also consider playing with different crops just to see if it adds anything... Nice view, definitely worth exploring further. Boris
Re: PESO - Dead Horse Point
Hi! Taken on the first day of the trip. It is very difficult to truly show the scale of this place. The overlook is 2000 feet above the Colorado river that you can see at the bottom. On the bottom right of the picture you can see a jeep road - about halfway down the canyon. I have wide shots and more compressed shots like this one. Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, Handheld ISO 400, 1/250 sec @ f/13 Converted from Raw using Capture One LE http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/monumentvalley_0066.htm Bruce, (Shel at al ;-) ), if one is photographing the Dead Horse Point does it mean one is beating the dead horse? :-) Bruce, on my screen it looks very much as if it was taken with film camera... I mean that as a compliment. Wonderful photograph of a wonderful place... The horse is definitely not dead, not just yet. Boris
Re: The instigation of enablement
Allow me to put in another good word for this lens. It was #1 on my wishlist as a lens for use with film, but on the reduced frame size of the digital cameras it loses some of its effect. On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:43:39PM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Hello Rick, > > I've offered up my fisheye zoom for sale the other day - > Pentax F 17-28/3.5-4.5 - it gives a very interesting field > of view. From full fisheye to almost no fisheye effect > but much closer to a standard 20mm rectilinear, depending on how far > you zoom. So far no takers - interested? > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Saturday, July 9, 2005, 7:36:44 PM, you wrote: > > RW> I'm so damned cheap that the list hasn't inspired me > RW> to buy anything. After today, though, if someone > RW> should come along with a nice fisheye at a good > RW> price... > > RW> Rick > > RW> --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Since joining the list in February, I've experienced > >> enablement in the > >> worst way. I have acquired no less than one body, > >> three primes, one > >> zoom, a camera bag, everything necessary to process > >> black and white > >> film, a film scanner, at least one photo magazine > >> subscription, a > >> handful of random assorted other goodies, and one > >> digicam. I hold > >> Bill Robb ( and most of the rest of you ) personally > >> responsible. But > >> not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the > >> only one immune > >> to this nonsense. > >> > >> To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list > >> inspired ( coerced > >> ) you to become enabled? > >> > >> -- > >> Scott Loveless > >> http://www.twosixteen.com > >> > >> -- > >> "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > >> > >> > > > > > RW> > RW> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items. > RW> http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > >
Re: PESO - Norwegian lake II.
Hi! Just another Norwegian lake :-) Its close by to a beautiful valley of Laagen river: http://photo.lacina.net/view.php?id=2321 any comments welcomed.. Wow! Tint and colors work in an interesting way. It is so blue, it seems it would spill out to the left... ;-). Fisheye effect also works here... Boris
Re: FA 200/4 macro price???
I want the FA 200/4 macro because of its reputation for sharpness and resolution. I would probably focus it manually most of the time. However, I've found that by using the *istD joystick and choosing the right focus point I can get very accurate autofocus. Sometimes my eyes are just too tired to do a good job with manual. When that happens, I go autofocus. Paul On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:51 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: Shel wrote: Why would anyone want an autofocus macro lens? I just don't understand that. Everything I understand about macro photography suggests that you want to be very precise with focus in order to obtain maximum DOF, or very specific DOF, and leaving that precision to autofocus seems an odd thing to do. AF works wonder with moving subjects as long as you are not exactly at 1:1 (then theres only one direction to focus!). It works for insects (with flash naturally). Even insects on grass that moves back and forth in the wind. The predictive AF manages a hit rate in this circumstance of more than 80%. Not bad for back and forth movement. It would be virtually hopeless with manual focus... I've read countless times that AF doesn't work for macro but this is always from Nikon and Canon shooters. It certainly work on a Pentax, but then Pentax doesn't trade AF precision with speed... BTW I don't think you can find a better telephoto lens than the FA* 200/4 Macro ED IF. Pål
Re: PESO: portrait in a rainy day
Hi! I made this portrait the last weekend, I think it was Sunday. I shot it with an wideangle lens (flektogon 35/2.4) and the result looks strange and interesting for me. It was shot wide open at very low speed - I do not remember exactly but at about 15-30. The negative was stand developed in Rodinal 1+200 for one hour, so there are some noticeable edge effects. It was scanned from the negative and only resized. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00Cmgj&photo_id=3517167&photo_sel_index=0 Ahhh, the 35 mm portrait. Excellent, excellent... Luben, one point though - the fact that the day is rainy does not show on the photograph. It does have a gloomy mood, but without the title, I wouldn't have guessed it had to do with rain. I don't mean that as a critique, rather as an observation. It looks very fascinating indeed. Boris
Re: PESO - Changing Season
Hi! However, my eyes are a little troubled by the unsharpness of the bramble in the background. To my eyes, this is the point that makes the composition come together, and my eyes keep landing on it. Maybe Cotty's suggestion would have solved the issue, but I suppose it requires the mud to be hard enough for walking on...:-) I'd agree with Jostein on this one. I also would like to see the vegetation in focus... Well, Bruce, if not 90 mm, did you have anything wider than this on location, anything at all? May be even mere 50 mm would do this... In fact, I'd be as bold (no, not bald ;-) ) to say that this really takes a lot from the photograph. As for the second one you posted in reply to Jostein - I like it much less than the original one. The original one has this natural contrast - water and scorched land and it makes it work... Boris
Re: Fuji have gone mad
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: RE: Fuji have gone mad When did we decide Fuji was dead? Did I miss that one? Not Fuji, just film. William Robb
Re: PESO: Blue Dragon
Nicely done. Paul Stenquist wrote: I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping to shoot some birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright green algae. A number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth among some reeds in the creek. They were way too distant for a macro lens, and I had brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter along on the walk. I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the magnifier lens. I stuck the converter on the back of the lens and took some shots at 5.6, 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I came away with some nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. Here's the blue guy on a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is almost full frame with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg Paul -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Blue Dragon
Thanks Jack. I think Mark Cassino has enabled me on the dragon fly hunt :-) . Never new those critters were so interesting up close. Paul On Jul 9, 2005, at 11:13 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Paul, Like the shot and, you're right, the background is perfect. Your set-up, also, allowed you the distance for sufficient DOF. All such elements nicely applied. Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping to shoot some birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright green algae. A number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth among some reeds in the creek. They were way too distant for a macro lens, and I had brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter along on the walk. I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the magnifier lens. I stuck the converter on the back of the lens and took some shots at 5.6, 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I came away with some nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. Here's the blue guy on a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is almost full frame with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg Paul __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Fuji have gone mad
since william rob told us so. best, mishka On 7/9/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Their website is advertising the "new" FujiColor True > Definition 400 consumer film. > Still has the full line of consumer and pro films too. > When did we decide Fuji was dead? Did I miss that one? > > Don > > > > -Original Message- > > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:56 PM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: Fuji have gone mad > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" > > Subject: Fuji have gone mad > > > > > > > > > > I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the > > > Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed > > > to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. > > > > They are probably trying to dump the last of their stock. > > > > William Robb > > > >
Re: PAW PESO - Life Savers
Interesting. Life savers, life takers. I think it might be neat if it was shot on a light table/ infinity background, with the light shining through the lollies. I find the black background a bit too heavy. As you say it's just a test shot, but the concept has heaps of promise. Just my humble thoughts Dave P.S. Try crushing some with a hammer. If you do it just right they sometimes explode quite dramatically (don't ask me how I know this ) On 7/10/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is just a test shot of a little still life that I'm working on. Needs > a lot more study and work WRT layout, lighting, color/bw, textures, and so > forth. It's an idea that's been kicking around for a few months ... and > while I got the idea long before accidentally discovering Ruth Bernhard's > 1930's photo, I have to acknowledge that seeing her work gave me some ideas. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/lifesavers.html > > Shel > > >
Re: Enablement: LX winder
How true. Saddening, the sudden loss of popularity of film. --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jon M" > Subject: Enablement: LX winder > > > > Just got back from Charlotte Camera. Bought an LX > > Winder for $69, and one of the wide red straps > with > > PENTAX in large white letters for $5. Tried to > trade > > an A3000 in on the stuff, but they didn't want it. > > That kinda surprised me. Sure the A3000 isn't the > most > > appealing body, but it sure is useful, having a > built > > in winder and capable of aperture priority or > program > > modes. > > It's not digital. > Film is dead. > > William Robb > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Fuji have gone mad
Their website is advertising the "new" FujiColor True Definition 400 consumer film. Still has the full line of consumer and pro films too. When did we decide Fuji was dead? Did I miss that one? Don > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 9:56 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Fuji have gone mad > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" > Subject: Fuji have gone mad > > > > > > I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the > > Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed > > to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. > > They are probably trying to dump the last of their stock. > > William Robb >
PESO -- Before the Show.
I went to a Fireworks display with some friends, and took way too many photos, (I'm still editing), however one of the crowd shots came out not half bad IMHO. So with out further adieu, let me present, "Before the Show". (Needless to say these aren't my friends...) http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_beforetheshow.html Technical Info: Pentax *ist-D @ 1/90 iso 1600 vmc Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 varifocal @f2.8 The Vivitar S1 varifocals are worth 20 times what I paid for them. Easily up to current professional standards. IMNSHO. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: PESO: Blue Dragon
Paul, Like the shot and, you're right, the background is perfect. Your set-up, also, allowed you the distance for sufficient DOF. All such elements nicely applied. Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping > to shoot some > birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright > green algae. A > number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth > among some reeds in > the creek. They were way too distant for a macro > lens, and I had > brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter > along on the walk. > I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the > magnifier lens. I stuck > the converter on the back of the lens and took some > shots at 5.6, > 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I > came away with some > nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. > Here's the blue guy on > a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is > almost full frame > with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg > Paul > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Enablement: LX winder
- Original Message - From: "Jon M" Subject: Enablement: LX winder Just got back from Charlotte Camera. Bought an LX Winder for $69, and one of the wide red straps with PENTAX in large white letters for $5. Tried to trade an A3000 in on the stuff, but they didn't want it. That kinda surprised me. Sure the A3000 isn't the most appealing body, but it sure is useful, having a built in winder and capable of aperture priority or program modes. It's not digital. Film is dead. William Robb
Re: Fuji have gone mad
- Original Message - From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis" Subject: Fuji have gone mad I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. They are probably trying to dump the last of their stock. William Robb
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Hi! Another question is what the right price for it would be. I found a shop in the UK (or rather, their website) that have both a used SMC-A 100 F/4 and a Tamron 90mm F/2.5 in stock right now. They ask for £245 for the Pentax lens, but only 145 for the Tamron *including a 1:1 extension tube*. I know nothing about SMC-A 100/4. I would suspect however that it also goes to mere ;=) 1:2... If you can have a look on either of them before you buy - I'd suggest that too. I need to look up this page on the web. Somewhere in google it is hidden :-). There is a test shoot of my very variety of Tamron lens done for all apertures and both with and without the doubler... When I saw these tests I was convinced... Boris
PESO: Blue Dragon
I was walking in a wooded area this afternoon hoping to shoot some birds when I came upon a creek covered with bright green algae. A number of dragon flies were flitting back and forth among some reeds in the creek. They were way too distant for a macro lens, and I had brought only my *istD, A400/5.6 and an A2X converter along on the walk. I also had the Sigma 500 Super mounted with the magnifier lens. I stuck the converter on the back of the lens and took some shots at 5.6, 1/1000, ISO 800 with high speed synch activated. I came away with some nice pics of red, green, and blue dragon flies. Here's the blue guy on a reed. The algae makes a great background. This is almost full frame with just a bit cropped off the ends of the frame. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3526907&size=lg Paul
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Hi! It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1 macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working distance from the subject - less intrusive! How well does the adaptor work? I mean, does it hurt the performance in any way? I guess I'm a bit sceptical to using an extender, based on the fact that the whole point would be to replace a 2X macro focusing teleconverter (which I've used mainly with 50mm lenses).. Unless I am mistaken, this adaptor was designed along with the lens. It says somewhere that one can use this adaptor with other Tamron Adaptall lenses, but it is still *matching* adaptor. The macro focusing tele-converter that you have (I suspect it is Vivitar) is general purpose optic. I've done some photography (thank you Shel, no more violence from this guy ;-) ) with 180/5 1:1. It is good enough for my purposes. Naturally, if you can get a one-piece lens that will go 1:1 it is preferable. I got my Tamron combo at very good price from fellow list member... I am very happy about it. And remember, on *istD you get extra x1.5 for free. Boris
Re: The instigation of enablement
Hello Rick, I've offered up my fisheye zoom for sale the other day - Pentax F 17-28/3.5-4.5 - it gives a very interesting field of view. From full fisheye to almost no fisheye effect but much closer to a standard 20mm rectilinear, depending on how far you zoom. So far no takers - interested? -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, July 9, 2005, 7:36:44 PM, you wrote: RW> I'm so damned cheap that the list hasn't inspired me RW> to buy anything. After today, though, if someone RW> should come along with a nice fisheye at a good RW> price... RW> Rick RW> --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Since joining the list in February, I've experienced >> enablement in the >> worst way. I have acquired no less than one body, >> three primes, one >> zoom, a camera bag, everything necessary to process >> black and white >> film, a film scanner, at least one photo magazine >> subscription, a >> handful of random assorted other goodies, and one >> digicam. I hold >> Bill Robb ( and most of the rest of you ) personally >> responsible. But >> not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the >> only one immune >> to this nonsense. >> >> To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list >> inspired ( coerced >> ) you to become enabled? >> >> -- >> Scott Loveless >> http://www.twosixteen.com >> >> -- >> "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >> >> RW> RW> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. RW> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: PAW: Cat Content
Hi! Perhaps "photograph" is a better word choice than shoot, Boris. Are you *quite* sure he meant what you think he meant, Shel?? :-) There it goes again... Boris-driven-nuts...
RE: A new poll: Your first pentax?
Spotmatic with case and 50mm f1.4 super tak - $100 from a friend at work. This was mid 80's. In the 70's I had a Mamiya because I couldn't afford a Pentax, I was only a teenager- gimme a break. JCO
Re: The instigation of enablement
I'm so damned cheap that the list hasn't inspired me to buy anything. After today, though, if someone should come along with a nice fisheye at a good price... Rick --- Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since joining the list in February, I've experienced > enablement in the > worst way. I have acquired no less than one body, > three primes, one > zoom, a camera bag, everything necessary to process > black and white > film, a film scanner, at least one photo magazine > subscription, a > handful of random assorted other goodies, and one > digicam. I hold > Bill Robb ( and most of the rest of you ) personally > responsible. But > not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the > only one immune > to this nonsense. > > To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list > inspired ( coerced > ) you to become enabled? > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
*ist DS + DA14/2.8
Re: View finder marks
It doesn't matter. They're on the focusing screen, either above or below the mirror box. just an annoyance to see, nothing important. To clean the focusing screen, you have to remove it and then dust it off with a puff of air. VERY carefully. Do not touch the screen's surfaces except for the little tab at the leading edge, do not wipe it with a cloth or lens tissue. I recommend leaving it alone. Godfrey On Jul 9, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: Dear All, When I look through my view finder I can see some fine hairs in it. I have cleaned the mirror sensor etc, and they don't seem to go away. When I take photos they do not show up. Any idea how I get rid off them, or doesn't it matter? Regards Charles Wilson Sydney, Australia
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
> From: "Sid Barras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax discussion list Pentax discussion" > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:32 PM > Subject: A new poll: Your first pentax? > > > > The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to > > thinking about my first pentax. Mine was an H3 with a 55/1.7 (or was it a 1.8?) lens. The friend who gave it to me also gave me a handheld light meter. I still have a soft spot for the S3/H3 and S1a/H1a. -- Glenn PS: Not really back to reading the list, just poked my nose in briefly. Life has been various combinations of busy, confusing, and exhausting lately, fortunately not usually all three at once. Had a week that should have involved burning a lot of film, but kept me too distracted to remember to shoot much. And I ran out of TMZ at a rather inopportune time.
Re: FA 200/4 macro price???
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Tamron does a 180 Macro. It's supposedly very good, but it's not made in Pentax mount alas. Sigma's new 150mm macro is also supposedly very good but this isn't made in Pentax mount either. I belive there are some sigma 180mm macros as well, these are available in our mount of choice, but get mixed reviews. There were three FA* 200/4 macros available (1 used, 2 new) in the last month. Cheers, David
Hey Gonz! About Six Flags ...
I've printed out the coupons and we're planning to go to Six Flags Fiesta Texas on Thursday evening. Are you considering a return trip? ERNR
Re: FA 200/4 macro price???
Shel wrote: >Why would anyone want an autofocus macro lens? I > just don't understand that. Everything I understand about macro > photography suggests that you want to be very precise with focus in order > to obtain maximum DOF, or very specific DOF, and leaving that precision to > autofocus seems an odd thing to do. AF works wonder with moving subjects as long as you are not exactly at 1:1 (then theres only one direction to focus!). It works for insects (with flash naturally). Even insects on grass that moves back and forth in the wind. The predictive AF manages a hit rate in this circumstance of more than 80%. Not bad for back and forth movement. It would be virtually hopeless with manual focus... I've read countless times that AF doesn't work for macro but this is always from Nikon and Canon shooters. It certainly work on a Pentax, but then Pentax doesn't trade AF precision with speed... BTW I don't think you can find a better telephoto lens than the FA* 200/4 Macro ED IF. Pål
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
What do you guys think - can I trust a Sigma EX 70-200 f.2.8 APO HSM DG will do a good job, or will it let me down like the 18-125? Lasse -- I have the non-DG version of this, as do others. It is something of a cult lens -- very, very good. The non-DG version does very nicely on my D. See my fireworks photo in this month's PUG. I would use this lens more often but it is too heavy to carry. Joe
OT: Daughter enablement
Hi gang. Well my daughter may have the next few weekends off till our next series of shows, but i don't. More shooting this weekend,but the two of us found a few minutes last night to set up her istD and the 35-70 i gave her. She likes the camera,took a decent flash shot to.LOL Her camera does the same as mine as far as needing to turn the camera off to reset and go again.This with suppled liths. Any way i told her to get some shots and play and i'll forward any Paw stuff when she gets any. Now i'll have to get her that 80-200 F2.8 or the 600, Bwaaa Haaa H:-) Dave
Re: Fuji have gone mad
John Francis wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 09:13:02PM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. I thought it was dead! Fuji are promoting their current digital cameras (and/or the software in them) under the FujiFilm name, even though there's no film involved. Coca-Cola also kept the name of its soda even now that no coca is involved, or is it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocacola#Coca-Cola_formula
View finder marks
Dear All, When I look through my view finder I can see some fine hairs in it. I have cleaned the mirror sensor etc, and they don't seem to go away. When I take photos they do not show up. Any idea how I get rid off them, or doesn't it matter? Regards Charles Wilson Sydney, Australia
Re: PAW PESO - Life Savers
Well, I started salivating - now I need to go get me a pack! -- Bruce Saturday, July 9, 2005, 4:41:39 PM, you wrote: SB> This is just a test shot of a little still life that I'm working on. Needs SB> a lot more study and work WRT layout, lighting, color/bw, textures, and so SB> forth. It's an idea that's been kicking around for a few months ... and SB> while I got the idea long before accidentally discovering Ruth Bernhard's SB> 1930's photo, I have to acknowledge that seeing her work gave me some ideas. SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/lifesavers.html SB> Shel
PAW PESO - Life Savers
This is just a test shot of a little still life that I'm working on. Needs a lot more study and work WRT layout, lighting, color/bw, textures, and so forth. It's an idea that's been kicking around for a few months ... and while I got the idea long before accidentally discovering Ruth Bernhard's 1930's photo, I have to acknowledge that seeing her work gave me some ideas. http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/lifesavers.html Shel
Weird 80-320
Hi! In short: Can someone please, please tell me where I can send my 80-320 for repair in London, England and in Paris, France? The long story: I got my 80-320 in eBay along with an FA 35-80. The 35-80 is actually in a quite nice condition, but the 80-320 has two problems: 1. The zoom ring is VERY tight. I mean, I can't zoom the lens without shaking my *ist DS like a stick... and at 320mm that's just a nightmare. What's weird, I always thought these lens had a creeping, loose zoom... 2. It simply doesn't work in the "A" setting! My DS seems to think it is a manual, non-A lens, although it's autofocus works wonders. The diafragm blades click nicely and smoothly, and it seems to lock into the "A" setting, but the camera says no-no... there's no oil on the blades and besides these to problems, the lens seems in a very good condition! I'm going to Paris in the next couple of weeks; I was hoping some of you could help me in finding a good repair shop in Paris so that I can leave the lens there during my stay. Thanks in advance! -- Oscar Sarabando
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
Hi Cotty I went asking to a theatre the first time today, before I photographed often at music concerts, once at the circus and often at public events in the streets sometimes asking the manager sometimes just taking photographs. I once did it at a theatre with available light and a 50mm 1.2 lens but without asking anybody. But why is that not allowed in general? I think if you photograph without a flash and only with a silent manual camera it should be possible. If you really disturb, then it should not be allowed. I do not know about the rules here but have read the same as you write in different books. Of course I depend on your sympathy for a "poor" amateur like me Cotty, it's all about suffering for the creation of Pentax art (vbg) ;-) greetings Markus >>-Original Message- >>From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:50 PM >>To: pentax list >>Subject: Re: No entry for photographers for the first time >> >> >>On 9/7/05, Markus Maurer, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >>>I wanted to take some photographs today of children and a puppet >>>(marionettes) theater. >>>I asked the director of the theater sitting unfortunately next to the >>>entrance if they had any limitation on taking photographs of the >>show (for >>>example not using flash which I would understand) >>>He simply said that taking photographs is not allowed in his >>theater because >>>of the contracts the have >>>with Suisa. That is the Swiss organization who collects the >>license fees for >>>the artists from the entry >>>fees of the theater and is in *no way* involved in the decision >>whether you >>>can take photographs or not. >> >>[rest snipped] >> >>Am I given to understand that you turn up at a theatre and ask there and >>then if you can take photographs? >> >>Seems strange to me - the default in the UK is that photography / video / >>recording of any live performance at a designated venue like a theatre is >>not allowed. However, arrangements made in advance can sometimes skirt >>around this, certainly access for bona fide press is catered for, but not >>usually during an actual performance. For this, rehearsals or an actual >>photocall is usually provided. >> >>I realise that situations may vary in different parts of the world, but I >>would have thought that European countries would be fairly similar in >>these respects. >> >>Bearing this in mind, you'll forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy? >> >>Best, >> >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> Cotty >> >> >>___/\__ >>|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com >>_ >> >>
Re: A new poll: Your first pentax?
ME-Super - Original Message - From: "Sid Barras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax discussion list Pentax discussion" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:32 PM Subject: A new poll: Your first pentax? The "favorite" pentax poll generated lots of good stuff. Got me to thinking about my first pentax. Mine was a P 30t, but came as a gift, so I don't know if it counts. The first one of my own choosing was a spotmatic, a real "user" off ebay, and it came with a 20 pound sack full of lenses-- the 28(3.5), 50(1.4), 105(2.8), 135(3.5) and 200(4)super taks. The fifty was a "user" too, but the others were near mint, with cases. Since then, I've been a fan (as described by Bob Blakely) of pentax equipment. I've owned nearly every body, and as many lenses as a poor amateur can afford. Sid B in cajunland.
How D + grip use batteries
I dunno if this has been discussed already but thought I should share anyway. According to Pentax Japan (ist-D FAQ) it uses both in camera and in grip batteries more or less at the same time. In fact it periodicaly checks the voltage of both batteries group and uses the one with higher voltage (or was it current?, not sure...). What it means is this: if your D shows a low battery indicator (and they are low indeed) then BOTH in camera and in grip batteries are depleted. Hope it helps someone... -- Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Re: Fuji have gone mad
we all know, film is dead, those are the last throes for sure. mishka On 7/9/05, Lewis Matthew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the > >Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed to > >see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. > > > >I thought it was dead! > > > >Kostas (even I have been shooting Konica over the past couple of months) > > > > Visit their website. Fuji Film is not dead - not even close. > > Lewis > > _ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > >
RE: Fuji have gone mad
I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. I thought it was dead! Kostas (even I have been shooting Konica over the past couple of months) Visit their website. Fuji Film is not dead - not even close. Lewis _ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 05:12:26PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: >> I currently own the EX 300/2.8 APO. Outstanding construction and optics. > >That's good to hear. Do you use it as an AF lens most of the time? Depends on what I'm doing. For wildlife (birds) I almost always use is in manual focus mode. For motorsports it's usually autofocus. I use it with the Sigma 1.4x and 2x teleconverters with good results. The Pentax 1.7x AF TC also works well. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Fuji have gone mad
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 09:13:02PM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the > Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed > to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. > > I thought it was dead! Fuji are promoting their current digital cameras (and/or the software in them) under the FujiFilm name, even though there's no film involved.
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 05:12:26PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > Powell Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure > >I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy to have paid 1/3 the > >price. Sigma has had poor, lower quality, non compatible lenses in the > >past but do any of the newer Sigmas still have these problems? Most > >reviews I have seen of the EX and DG seem to report at least good results. > > > >So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens? > > I had the 28-135 "consumer" zoom for a while. Seemed as well built as > comparably-priced ($200.00) Tamrons & such; quite sharp; suffered from a > little pincushion distortion at the long end. > > I currently own the EX 300/2.8 APO. Outstanding construction and optics. That's good to hear. Do you use it as an AF lens most of the time? I'm not sure I want AF badly enough to pay the $4500 for the Pentax lens, but I might consider the Sigma at around half that, especially since I would be able to sell my A 300/2.8 to go towards the cost. Does anyone else have this lens? If so, have you used it with the Sigma EX APO TCs (either 1.4x or 2.0x), especially in AF mode?
Re: ist Ds clearance?
Has it been discontinued? We won't know until it disappears... Joseph Tainter wrote: Pentax's timing is always so exquisite. However do they do it so consistently? The August issue of Pop Photo has a three-page spread on the DS -- just in time for the camera to be discontinued. Joe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
Unfortunately and very frustratingly I have great problems with the new Sigma 18-125 DC f3.5-5.6 for Canon (20D). (That's the only lens I could afford when I finally got enough money to buy the digital stuff.) Optically - for a zoom of this type - it's not bad at all. However it is consistently inconsistently malfocusing. Typically it will focus at a point closer than the aimed focus point. But in between it will focus all over the place except for where it's supposed to focus at. Being observant and working it hard I manage to get good shots, but it's a pain to use it. I might add that I shoot a lot of moving objects why manual focus is not always an option. It's still on warranty and I will get it replaced. The only reason I haven't yet done it is because there have been so many shoots that I havent had the time to wait for the replacement yet. Think I will get it replaced next week, though. What do you guys think - can I trust a Sigma EX 70-200 f.2.8 APO HSM DG will do a good job, or will it let me down like the 18-125? Lasse - Original Message - From: "Powell Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 11:41 PM Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ?? I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy to have paid 1/3 the price. Sigma has had poor, lower quality, non compatible lenses in the past but do any of the newer Sigmas still have these problems? Most reviews I have seen of the EX and DG seem to report at least good results. So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens? Powell
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. Is this a 1:2 macro? It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1 macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working distance from the subject - less intrusive! Another question is what the right price for it would be. I found a shop in the UK (or rather, their website) that have both a used SMC-A 100 F/4 and a Tamron 90mm F/2.5 in stock right now. They ask for £245 for the Pentax lens, but only 145 for the Tamron *including a 1:1 extension tube*. Boris
Re: Memory card management
You only have to reformat the card if you have a corrupted FAT. Table. Formating the card normally doesn't do much more than simply erasing the files. Pat Kong wrote: So from the responses, it seems as if I can delete files from either the camera or the PC. When/if I format the card, I should do it in the camera. This then poses the question of when should I re-format the card? Pat in SF (None of this mattered with film...) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: No entry for photographers for the first time
On 9/7/05, Markus Maurer, discombobulated, unleashed: >I wanted to take some photographs today of children and a puppet >(marionettes) theater. >I asked the director of the theater sitting unfortunately next to the >entrance if they had any limitation on taking photographs of the show (for >example not using flash which I would understand) >He simply said that taking photographs is not allowed in his theater because >of the contracts the have >with Suisa. That is the Swiss organization who collects the license fees for >the artists from the entry >fees of the theater and is in *no way* involved in the decision whether you >can take photographs or not. [rest snipped] Am I given to understand that you turn up at a theatre and ask there and then if you can take photographs? Seems strange to me - the default in the UK is that photography / video / recording of any live performance at a designated venue like a theatre is not allowed. However, arrangements made in advance can sometimes skirt around this, certainly access for bona fide press is catered for, but not usually during an actual performance. For this, rehearsals or an actual photocall is usually provided. I realise that situations may vary in different parts of the world, but I would have thought that European countries would be fairly similar in these respects. Bearing this in mind, you'll forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy? Best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
> >So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens? > > I had the 28-135 "consumer" zoom for a while. Seemed as well built as > comparably-priced ($200.00) Tamrons & such; quite sharp; suffered > from a little pincushion distortion at the long end. > > I currently own the EX 300/2.8 APO. Outstanding construction and optics. I been told the AF 24mm f/2.8 has problems with build quality (AF self destructs) the 28-105 f/2.8-4 is supposed to be dog optically. I have the early 24mm and it's been a fine lens for many years and also the 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye, both metal bodied, manual focus. I currently own the 105 f/2.8 EX Macro, fine lens no problems, 300mm F/4 APO, 2x EX converter, 1.4x EX converter and all work without problems on all my Pentax bodies, more than happy with the results. I'd like to get my hands on the 70-200 f/2.8 EX at a reasonable price, I can't afford the Pentax alternative. John
RE: PAW: Cat Content
On 7-9-05 Marcus Maurer wrote: Hi Jim a beautiful cat as well. So they shy the camera even when you do not use flash? Well, by now they are shy whether I use a flash or not. The fact that I used flash early on with them may have made the problem worse... Regards, Jim
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
It wasn't clear to me that you didn't intend to take pictures inside with the flash. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 7/9/2005 1:59:11 PM > Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time > > Hi Shel > I see your point about not using a flash **inside** a theatre very well. > That was not the point of the story in my email however. > Nor was taking photos with "available light" which I have indeed done > before sometimes with my lovely K50mm 1.2 and fast film. > You are not trying to give my message a different meaning, do you? > > Not allowing to take **any photographs without having a plausible reason** > was the main content of my email. > And there are always photographic occasions outside the theater before and > after the show and in breaks especially with children when a flash comes > handy. > I do respect rules Shel, I have no problem with that and not respecting them > would be a bad thing for everybody and indeed rude behavior and no service > for future photography. > I just have problems with stupid guys taking me for a sucker by telling me > an untrue and silly story about Suisa rights with > a smile and not even thinking a moment in favor of the artists who deserve > publicity and usually like free photos :-(. > > > greetings > Markus > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:39 PM > >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time > >> > >> > >>Perhaps you're missing my point. USING a flash is, imo, rude and > >>disruptive. Hiding it on your person doesn't preclude you from using it, > >>and why would you take it if you weren't planing to use it. > >> > >>Photographers or the taking of photographs should be banned from certain > >>venues in some situations. I'd suggest that you learn to work with > >>available light rather than trying to overpower it with a strong flash. > >> > >>Shel > >> > >> > >>> [Original Message] > >>> From: Markus Maurer > >> > >>> Hi Shel > >>> I had all the gear hidden in two neutral pockets exactly for > >>that reason. > >>> I do that always at least for the second body and the large flash and > >>other > >>> parts on strolls too just for security reasons. > >>> The guy just wanted to say "No" and was not even brave enough > >>to admit it. > >>> Usually. small local cultural institutions are thankful for any free > >>> publicity. > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> Markus > >>> > >>> > >>> >>-Original Message- > >>> >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:18 PM > >>> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>> >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>Try not carrying all that gear. Seems to me that using a > >>flash during a > >>> >>theater performance is rude and disruptive. At least that's > >>the way it > >>is > >>> >>at the shows I've seen. > >>> >> > >>> >>Shel > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>> [Original Message] > >>> >>> From: Markus Maurer > >>> >> > >>> >>> Maybe I was just lucky before. I always got permission to take > >>> >>photographs > >>> >>> after some talk and on most events they do not even ask. They assume > >>you > >>> >>are > >>> >>> from the press when you carry two cameras, monopod and an > >>> >>impressive flash > >>> >>> and are quite > >>> >>> self confident. And the actors/musicians/subjects liked it > >>a lot when > >>I > >>> >>sent > >>> >>> them prints afterwards. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Nothing helps against stupid men > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> > >>
Different focusing screens in the K1000?
While at a camera shop earlier today I happened to look through their inventory of 5 K1000s (2 SE, 3 regular) - all were the assembled in hong kong variety. I was surprised to see one of the regular ones had a split screen in it. I thought it was an SE only feature. Anybody else seen one like that, or is that likely just one that's been rebuilt from parts from an SE? Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
Powell Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure >I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy to have paid 1/3 the >price. Sigma has had poor, lower quality, non compatible lenses in the >past but do any of the newer Sigmas still have these problems? Most >reviews I have seen of the EX and DG seem to report at least good results. > >So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens? I had the 28-135 "consumer" zoom for a while. Seemed as well built as comparably-priced ($200.00) Tamrons & such; quite sharp; suffered from a little pincushion distortion at the long end. I currently own the EX 300/2.8 APO. Outstanding construction and optics. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
Hi Shel I see your point about not using a flash **inside** a theatre very well. That was not the point of the story in my email however. Nor was taking photos with "available light" which I have indeed done before sometimes with my lovely K50mm 1.2 and fast film. You are not trying to give my message a different meaning, do you? Not allowing to take **any photographs without having a plausible reason** was the main content of my email. And there are always photographic occasions outside the theater before and after the show and in breaks especially with children when a flash comes handy. I do respect rules Shel, I have no problem with that and not respecting them would be a bad thing for everybody and indeed rude behavior and no service for future photography. I just have problems with stupid guys taking me for a sucker by telling me an untrue and silly story about Suisa rights with a smile and not even thinking a moment in favor of the artists who deserve publicity and usually like free photos :-(. greetings Markus >>-Original Message- >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:39 PM >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time >> >> >>Perhaps you're missing my point. USING a flash is, imo, rude and >>disruptive. Hiding it on your person doesn't preclude you from using it, >>and why would you take it if you weren't planing to use it. >> >>Photographers or the taking of photographs should be banned from certain >>venues in some situations. I'd suggest that you learn to work with >>available light rather than trying to overpower it with a strong flash. >> >>Shel >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Markus Maurer >> >>> Hi Shel >>> I had all the gear hidden in two neutral pockets exactly for >>that reason. >>> I do that always at least for the second body and the large flash and >>other >>> parts on strolls too just for security reasons. >>> The guy just wanted to say "No" and was not even brave enough >>to admit it. >>> Usually. small local cultural institutions are thankful for any free >>> publicity. >>> >>> thanks >>> Markus >>> >>> >>> >>-Original Message- >>> >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:18 PM >>> >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>> >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>Try not carrying all that gear. Seems to me that using a >>flash during a >>> >>theater performance is rude and disruptive. At least that's >>the way it >>is >>> >>at the shows I've seen. >>> >> >>> >>Shel >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> [Original Message] >>> >>> From: Markus Maurer >>> >> >>> >>> Maybe I was just lucky before. I always got permission to take >>> >>photographs >>> >>> after some talk and on most events they do not even ask. They assume >>you >>> >>are >>> >>> from the press when you carry two cameras, monopod and an >>> >>impressive flash >>> >>> and are quite >>> >>> self confident. And the actors/musicians/subjects liked it >>a lot when >>I >>> >>sent >>> >>> them prints afterwards. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nothing helps against stupid men >>> >> >>> >> >> >>
Re: excellent price on Pentax 24-90!
I took a few shots with yours in March and liked it ... :-) ... I just wasn't willing to pay twice as much for it. It will be interesting to put it to the test and see which I like more. Godfrey On Jul 9, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Pat Kong wrote: Godfrey, I think that you will enjoy the 24-90. It's a tad heavier than the 28-105. I have both. On the *istDS, I've found that I use the 24-90 more indoors these days as I need things *just* a bit wider. But for in-town walk arounds, I'll take either lens. Let me know if you find that colors with the 24-90 "pop" just a little more than the 28-105 (this is highly subjective, I know). Pat in SF --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Couldn't help myself ... at $200, I ordered one. Now I'll be able to do a direct comparison of the two lenses. Godfrey
Re: K/M/A f/4 100 mm macro vs FA-100 f/2.8
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! My answer to similar question was to buy Tamron 90/2.5 SP lens in Adaptall 2 mount. It is fast and quite excellent optically. Is this a 1:2 macro? It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1 macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working distance from the subject - less intrusive! How well does the adaptor work? I mean, does it hurt the performance in any way? I guess I'm a bit sceptical to using an extender, based on the fact that the whole point would be to replace a 2X macro focusing teleconverter (which I've used mainly with 50mm lenses).. Boris
Re: Memory card management
Digital management: - every evening or after every session, download to primary computer into temp directory - next time I'm working on the computer, run DNG Converter on all files in temp, transferring files into working directory - auto-backup every evening to external archive directory all new original PEF, JPEG, DNG and .PSD work files (2x since I make two replicas of my archive hard drive) All files are automatically cataloged with iView Media Pro at the same time the backups are done. I can then tag, categorize, and otherwise keyword stuff at leisure, the backups pick up any changes to iView archive files as well. .XMP sidecar files are also picked up at the same time. The process is to me much faster and easier to keep working than anything I ever did with film. I wish my film archives were half as well organized ... I always found it very tedious to do. I can find anything I've created a digital rendering of for the past 20 years in less than 3 minutes ... that's 120,000+ images now. Godfrey On Jul 9, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Pat Kong wrote: Hmmm, I had that system down. No film tail? Canister marked as exposed? Off to processing. Archiving meant displaying suitable shots or putting them into chronological albums. Negatives were filed chronologically as well by event. The transition to digital means downloading images to PC, burning a CD (or two) for archiving and safety purposes, editing images as needed, saving those files as well, and then printing the ones I want. Oh yeah, and deleting the images from the memory card. Now I will be archiving CDs. The ultimate goal for me is to display the ones I like or putting them in a physical album to tell a story. Sharing electronically, while a nice perk, still isn't the main agenda. I can enable myself with high-tech gear, but some friends & family are still behind the times. --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (None of this mattered with film...) You couldn't re-use film either. Film management is determining whether a particular roll is exposed, transporting it without damage, processing it, and archiving it. To me, that's a lot more work than creating images on a storage card and then erasing them once I've retrieved them for use.
Re: PAW: Cat Content
One doesn't always know what Boris means when he uses English . It's just my personal preference to use the word photograph in some contexts. Using the word "shoot" never bothered me until one Thanksgiving I met a woman who literally shot a cat because it crossed into her yard one time to many. Anyway, based on comments made on the list by certain participants about shooting cats, it may be better not to give them fodder for more stupid comments. Shel > [Original Message] > From: E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 7/9/2005 1:38:43 PM > Subject: Re: PAW: Cat Content > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >Perhaps "photograph" is a better word choice than shoot, Boris. > > > Are you *quite* sure he meant what you think he meant, Shel?? > :-) > > (Maybe he knows what the animal-lovers will say, and wants the reaction > from the animal-haters, huh?)
Re: PAW: Cat Content
On Jul 9, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Jim King wrote: Great shots, Boris! I have two cats and I must agree that it's not easy to photograph them. Mine are camera-shy; the best I've been able to do is this one: http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/40467945 Agreed - great kitty shots. Here's some of ours: http://gallery.leica-users.org/zeni/Bugpeek - Port taken w/ Pentax 67-II w/ 90/2.8 http://gallery.leica-users.org/zeni/kittynikkor - Magnolia taken w/ Nikon F3 w/ 50/1.2 http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/irc/Boxpook.jpg - our late buddy George, not sure what camera http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/irc/sunpook.jpg - George again, not sure what camera
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
Perhaps you're missing my point. USING a flash is, imo, rude and disruptive. Hiding it on your person doesn't preclude you from using it, and why would you take it if you weren't planing to use it. Photographers or the taking of photographs should be banned from certain venues in some situations. I'd suggest that you learn to work with available light rather than trying to overpower it with a strong flash. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer > Hi Shel > I had all the gear hidden in two neutral pockets exactly for that reason. > I do that always at least for the second body and the large flash and other > parts on strolls too just for security reasons. > The guy just wanted to say "No" and was not even brave enough to admit it. > Usually. small local cultural institutions are thankful for any free > publicity. > > thanks > Markus > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:18 PM > >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time > >> > >> > >>Try not carrying all that gear. Seems to me that using a flash during a > >>theater performance is rude and disruptive. At least that's the way it is > >>at the shows I've seen. > >> > >>Shel > >> > >> > >>> [Original Message] > >>> From: Markus Maurer > >> > >>> Maybe I was just lucky before. I always got permission to take > >>photographs > >>> after some talk and on most events they do not even ask. They assume you > >>are > >>> from the press when you carry two cameras, monopod and an > >>impressive flash > >>> and are quite > >>> self confident. And the actors/musicians/subjects liked it a lot when I > >>sent > >>> them prints afterwards. > >>> > >>> Nothing helps against stupid men > >> > >>
Re: PAW: Cat Content
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Perhaps "photograph" is a better word choice than shoot, Boris. Are you *quite* sure he meant what you think he meant, Shel?? :-) (Maybe he knows what the animal-lovers will say, and wants the reaction from the animal-haters, huh?)
Re: About Sigma: beware ??
I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy to have paid 1/3 the price. Sigma has had poor, lower quality, non compatible lenses in the past but do any of the newer Sigmas still have these problems? Most reviews I have seen of the EX and DG seem to report at least good results. So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens? Powell
Re: The instigation of enablement
Sounds to me like PAS - Pentax Acquisition Syndrome... CZ NC On Jul 9, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Since joining the list in February, I've experienced enablement in the worst way. I have acquired no less than one body, three primes, one zoom, a camera bag, everything necessary to process black and white film, a film scanner, at least one photo magazine subscription, a handful of random assorted other goodies, and one digicam. I hold Bill Robb ( and most of the rest of you ) personally responsible. But not Frank. Based on my limited experience, he's the only one immune to this nonsense. To continue a recent survey trend, how has the list inspired ( coerced ) you to become enabled? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
RE: How-to use flash with lenses wider than 28mm
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Markus Maurer wrote: thanks anyway. Why did you use a diffuser when bouncing, does that spread the light even more? Yes, it spreads it more. It also softens it. I always use a diffuser and avoid pointing the flash straight. Remember, there is a great difference between the FOV of a 18 and a 24mm lens. I'm talking about bigger rooms like you meet at concerts or other events or in large restaurants for example. You may run out of juice in this case. Kostas
Re: PAW: Cat Content
David Savage wrote: A. Isn't that cute. What he said.
Re: The instigation of enablement
I really want to see César's answer to this -- but I suppose he's busy putting up plywood and purchasing bottled water and canned goods just now ... ERNR
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
Hi Shel I had all the gear hidden in two neutral pockets exactly for that reason. I do that always at least for the second body and the large flash and other parts on strolls too just for security reasons. The guy just wanted to say "No" and was not even brave enough to admit it. Usually. small local cultural institutions are thankful for any free publicity. thanks Markus >>-Original Message- >>From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:18 PM >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Subject: RE: No entry for photographers for the first time >> >> >>Try not carrying all that gear. Seems to me that using a flash during a >>theater performance is rude and disruptive. At least that's the way it is >>at the shows I've seen. >> >>Shel >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Markus Maurer >> >>> Maybe I was just lucky before. I always got permission to take >>photographs >>> after some talk and on most events they do not even ask. They assume you >>are >>> from the press when you carry two cameras, monopod and an >>impressive flash >>> and are quite >>> self confident. And the actors/musicians/subjects liked it a lot when I >>sent >>> them prints afterwards. >>> >>> Nothing helps against stupid men >> >>
RE: How-to use flash with lenses wider than 28mm
Hi Kostas maybe you saw in my last posting that I was not welcome as a photographer for the first time ever at the puppet theater :-( thanks anyway. Why did you use a diffuser when bouncing, does that spread the light even more? I'm talking about bigger rooms like you meet at concerts or other events or in large restaurants for example. greetings Markus >>-Original Message- >>From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 10:00 PM >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Subject: Re: How-to use flash with lenses wider than 28mm >> >> >>On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Steve Larson wrote: >> >>> Hi, you can try bouncing, but I think you will still get the >>tunnel effect. >> >>Too late for this time, Markus, sorry. I took the following with the >>18/3.5 and the AF500FTZ at 24mm, with a (Stofen?) diffuser and off the >>ceiling. >> >>http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~kavousan/18flash.jpg >> >>Kostas >>
Re: ist Ds clearance?
Pentax's timing is always so exquisite. However do they do it so consistently? The August issue of Pop Photo has a three-page spread on the DS -- just in time for the camera to be discontinued. Joe
RE: No entry for photographers for the first time
Try not carrying all that gear. Seems to me that using a flash during a theater performance is rude and disruptive. At least that's the way it is at the shows I've seen. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer > Maybe I was just lucky before. I always got permission to take photographs > after some talk and on most events they do not even ask. They assume you are > from the press when you carry two cameras, monopod and an impressive flash > and are quite > self confident. And the actors/musicians/subjects liked it a lot when I sent > them prints afterwards. > > Nothing helps against stupid men
'"yellow" marked 55/2 Takumar'?
Is he referring to the known yellowing issue? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7527079733 Kostas
Fuji have gone mad
I have failed to post this for quite a while: I was watching the Confederations Cup (football, for those who don't know) and was amazed to see huge ads on the pitch for FujiFilm. I thought it was dead! Kostas (even I have been shooting Konica over the past couple of months)
