Re: PESO - Neve Tzedek series #1

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hello Boris ...

I know a little about Neve Tzedek - about its history and unique character.
This photo shows nothing of the place, shows not one iota of what the area
is about, captures nothing of its character or history.  It's a nice pic -
somewhat graphical in quality - but it could be from anywhere - any town,
city, or village almost anywhere in the world.  Show us Neve Tzedek, not a
sign or a piece of a wall.   What a disappointment.  The whole city is open
to you, and this is what you choose to present?  I'm disappointed.

Shel 


> Boris Liberman wrote:

> I recently went for a shoot to Neve Tzedek. Neve Tzedek is The First
>  neighborhood of Tel Aviv. That is the city was founded just there...
> This is extremely fascinating place.

> > http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1062967&ref=author

Re: PESO - Neve Tzedek series #1

[Michael Spivak]

Hi Boris
Some more info about the neighborhood it was founded by Rotshild
himself. it's been the REALLY beginning of Tel-Aviv and it's REALLY
different from the whole spirit we know now. When you walk there
between the older houses you feel different... it's amazing how the
place can bring you back in time 50-60 years... I really love this
place (you know... ;-) )

About your photo - It's nice... but it's an Israelian photo. People
who don't know the language will have difficulties to understand it.
you didn't show the beauty of the place.. Nor the amazing colors nor
the amazing spirit of it... you have the right photos man... why did
you choose to show this one?

Michael


On 10/3/05, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently went for a shoot to Neve Tzedek. Neve Tzedek is The First
> neighborhood of Tel Aviv. That is the city was founded just there...
> This is extremely fascinating place.
>
> Here is one shot from a little series I shot there. Hebrew writing means
> "The planned electricity outage has been *canceled*"...
>
> http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1062967&ref=author
>
> Please click on the image and choose black as a background.
>
> Thanks.
>
> As usual the honest and brutal opinions are sought after.
>
> Boris
>
>


--
Yours
Michael

Help: Internet Photo Gallery Generator

[John Celio]

Hey y'all, after putting together the Spin Doctors gallery I posted earlier, 
I decided I'm never going to post many photos if I don't make it faster and 
easier to do.  So, I have a question:


Are there any programs out there that will help you set up a complete 
gallery on your own website?  I do not want to use Flickr or Photobucket or 
any other site, I want to keep the photos and the pages and whatnot on my 
own site.


I'd prefer this program feature complete page template customization, so I 
can make the resulting pages look like any other page on my site.


Thanks!

John Celio

--

http://www.neovenator.com

AIM: Neopifex

"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Bruce, et al ... I made a mistake.  I thought the 14mm x 21mm sensor was
larger than the one in the D bodies.  I retract my comments about it being
a good idea.

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Kevin Waterson 
> Date: 10/2/2005 10:20:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
>
> The reality is that everyone but Canon has done this, because no one
> else has a full frame sensor.  All the other manufacturers would be
> foolish to not provide some wide angle lenses to compensate for the
> crop factor.  However, if they made full frame ones, they would be too
> big and heavy and too expensive.  All you have to do is compare the
> size/weight and price of the 15/3.5 to the DA 14/2.8 to see that.
>
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Bruce
>
>
> Sunday, October 2, 2005, 9:58:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> KW> This one time, at band camp, "Shel Belinkoff"
> KW> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> KW> I dont know that imposing further limitations is the key to progress.
I think
> KW> Pentax have made-their-bed with the APS size by releasing lenses to
suit.
>
> KW> Kind regards
> KW> Kevin
>  
> >> Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
> >> released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
> >> sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail
price
> >> of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of
this
> >> sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
> >> seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to
come
> >> out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?
>

Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned

[David Oswald]

I wasn't shooting RAW.  I know, I know... but these are vacation snaps, 
not contest submissions. ;)  I fit 340 on each 1G card, and used about 
half of the 512meg card.  I figured that if I really started to run out 
I would just pick up another SD card on the road.


For the price of a portable hard drive and reader I could buy another 
lens. ;)


Jens Bladt wrote:

I would have used up the 2.5 GB in a single day or two.
How did you manage without a portable harddrive/cardreader?
Regards

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. oktober 2005 06:57
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Back from vacation: Lessons learned


I just got back from two weeks of vacation in Hong Kong and Philippines.
I brought with me the following camera equipment:

Pentax *ist-DS
SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 (IF)AL
SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4
SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF)
AF330FTZ
2.5 gigs of SD cards.
110V quick charger
Two sets of NiMH batteries (one in the flash, one in the camera).
Waist / shoulder bag large enough for all of the above, yet small enough
to carry everywhere.

Things I discovered:

Lenses:  I've renewed my appreciation for the 16-45 lens.  Around my
home town it doesn't get as much use for some reason, but on vacation,
especially travelling with my wife's family, it's just so convenient,
and a great working focal length range.  Image quality leaves nothing to
be desired.  And its build quality is solid.  Since I don't have a lot
of time to devote to each shot when I'm on vacation with a group, the
convenience of this zoom lens really shines.  Its wide angle capability
is also really useful.  I liked the lens before this trip; I love it now.

The primes, while good for low light use and extremely sharp, are just a
little too much hastle to use on an on-the-go type of vacation.  At the
beach I was reluctant to change lenses a lot, and when with the rest of
my wife's family I just didn't want to slow down enough to mess around
with these lenses.  This is a complete 180 from how I am around my home
town.  Near home, I take the time to get the most out of these nice
lenses.  It really surprised me to find how little I used them on
vacation though.

The 28-105 continues to be a great companion to the 16-45.  What can I
say... I loved this lens on my ZX-5n, and still like using it on the
*ist-DS.  Again, the convenience of a zoom on vacation outweighed the
performance gains of the primes.  Maybe I just got lazy huh?

Flash: The AF330FTZ has got to go.  It's obnoxious to have to dive into
the camera's menu again and again until I get the right level of flash
for the picture.  In general, it overexposes my shots, but individual
results are so varied that I can't just set it and forget it.  I'm going
to have to get an AF360FGZ and step into the 21st century.  It was a
complete disappointment when I tried to use it to punch up the
foreground in a near-dusk shot.  I had to fiddle several times to get it
right.  On my ZX-5n, it just worked, every time.  The *ist-DS is too
sensitiveto overexposure, I suppose. Whatever the reason, I think I need
a flash more dedicated to the *ist-DS's needs.

Batteries:  I should have carried one additional set of NiMH's, or at
least a multi-voltage charger so that I could charge in my hotel room in
the Philippines.  I never missed a shot due to depleated batteries, but
at one point I did find myself running my charger across the street to
an Internet cafe where the attendant allowed me to plug it into one of
his 110V power supplies.  I tipped him.  I should have carried a
multinational charger.

At my rate of shooting, I was able to get about three to four days out
of a charge.  To accomplish this I had to keep the LCD viewing to a minimum.

Bag:  The Tamrac bag finally gave out.  It came unstitched along one
seam, and one of its die-cast buckles shattered. ...strange, the same
thing happened to me on another Tamrac bag a couple months ago.  Anyway,
I'll have to start looking for a replacement.

Dave

RE: Back from vacation: Lessons learned

[Jens Bladt]

I would have used up the 2.5 GB in a single day or two.
How did you manage without a portable harddrive/cardreader?
Regards

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. oktober 2005 06:57
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Back from vacation: Lessons learned


I just got back from two weeks of vacation in Hong Kong and Philippines.
I brought with me the following camera equipment:

Pentax *ist-DS
SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL
SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 (IF)AL
SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4
SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF)
AF330FTZ
2.5 gigs of SD cards.
110V quick charger
Two sets of NiMH batteries (one in the flash, one in the camera).
Waist / shoulder bag large enough for all of the above, yet small enough
to carry everywhere.

Things I discovered:

Lenses:  I've renewed my appreciation for the 16-45 lens.  Around my
home town it doesn't get as much use for some reason, but on vacation,
especially travelling with my wife's family, it's just so convenient,
and a great working focal length range.  Image quality leaves nothing to
be desired.  And its build quality is solid.  Since I don't have a lot
of time to devote to each shot when I'm on vacation with a group, the
convenience of this zoom lens really shines.  Its wide angle capability
is also really useful.  I liked the lens before this trip; I love it now.

The primes, while good for low light use and extremely sharp, are just a
little too much hastle to use on an on-the-go type of vacation.  At the
beach I was reluctant to change lenses a lot, and when with the rest of
my wife's family I just didn't want to slow down enough to mess around
with these lenses.  This is a complete 180 from how I am around my home
town.  Near home, I take the time to get the most out of these nice
lenses.  It really surprised me to find how little I used them on
vacation though.

The 28-105 continues to be a great companion to the 16-45.  What can I
say... I loved this lens on my ZX-5n, and still like using it on the
*ist-DS.  Again, the convenience of a zoom on vacation outweighed the
performance gains of the primes.  Maybe I just got lazy huh?

Flash: The AF330FTZ has got to go.  It's obnoxious to have to dive into
the camera's menu again and again until I get the right level of flash
for the picture.  In general, it overexposes my shots, but individual
results are so varied that I can't just set it and forget it.  I'm going
to have to get an AF360FGZ and step into the 21st century.  It was a
complete disappointment when I tried to use it to punch up the
foreground in a near-dusk shot.  I had to fiddle several times to get it
right.  On my ZX-5n, it just worked, every time.  The *ist-DS is too
sensitiveto overexposure, I suppose. Whatever the reason, I think I need
a flash more dedicated to the *ist-DS's needs.

Batteries:  I should have carried one additional set of NiMH's, or at
least a multi-voltage charger so that I could charge in my hotel room in
the Philippines.  I never missed a shot due to depleated batteries, but
at one point I did find myself running my charger across the street to
an Internet cafe where the attendant allowed me to plug it into one of
his 110V power supplies.  I tipped him.  I should have carried a
multinational charger.

At my rate of shooting, I was able to get about three to four days out
of a charge.  To accomplish this I had to keep the LCD viewing to a minimum.

Bag:  The Tamrac bag finally gave out.  It came unstitched along one
seam, and one of its die-cast buckles shattered. ...strange, the same
thing happened to me on another Tamrac bag a couple months ago.  Anyway,
I'll have to start looking for a replacement.

Dave

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Bruce Dayton]

The reality is that everyone but Canon has done this, because no one
else has a full frame sensor.  All the other manufacturers would be
foolish to not provide some wide angle lenses to compensate for the
crop factor.  However, if they made full frame ones, they would be too
big and heavy and too expensive.  All you have to do is compare the
size/weight and price of the 15/3.5 to the DA 14/2.8 to see that.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Sunday, October 2, 2005, 9:58:54 PM, you wrote:

KW> This one time, at band camp, "Shel Belinkoff"
KW> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

KW> I dont know that imposing further limitations is the key to progress. I 
think
KW> Pentax have made-their-bed with the APS size by releasing lenses to suit.

KW> Kind regards
KW> Kevin
 
>> Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
>> released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
>> sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail price
>> of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
>> sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
>> seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to come
>> out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?

OT: Back in Lake Charles after Rita the Ravager

[Sid Barras]

Hi pentax gang,
I'm back in Lake Charles, actually been back 5 days now, but I also  
have a phone line that works with my modem now too. Still no  
electricity.


But I'm much more fortunate than about 50% of the population here in  
Calcasieu Parish. (and about 100% of the population of Cameron  
parish, our southern, coastal neighbor)


A full report to follow, with pictures; as soon as I get the trees  
off my roof, and tarps laid down to keep the rain out of my attic.  
Structure of my house is basically undamaged. The vast majority of  
the lovely old live oaks in this area survived. The "water  
oaks" (what I've always called them-- a taller oak tree, with a  
smoother, whiter bark, and an upright growth habit, and these are  
deciduous, though their leaves don't "color" as they drop in autumn)  
are what have mainly devestated the area around here. These trees  
have fallen over, roots and all (and they seem to share a shallow,  
weak root system) and crushed many, many homes around here. Most pine  
trees that have not survived "snapped" in the middle of the trunk, as  
opposed to simply toppling over as the water oaks have. These oaks  
and pines are probably 95% of the trees that fell. Of the others, the  
most common "fallen" varieties are sycamores, magnolias, and cedars.  
Most of the pecans and other hardwoods still stand.


Well, I'm blathering on. More to follow, and more to the point, pics  
for pentax people to peruse..


Sid

PS: Mark, I saw your post-- a South Louisiana pdml gathering sounds  
great. I'm sure we have a few fellows within the "Houston to New  
Orleans" sphere as well... Also, did you hear that Avery Island has  
fairly well survived too?

AF330FTZ exposure problems (was Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned)

[John Coyle]

It does sound like a body problem!  I wonder whether there is a 
communication problem affecting the quench circuit:  this occurs to me 
because I did have some dodgy exposures with the AF330FTZ on one occasion 
until I noticed that the unit was not mounted squarely in the hot-shoe, so 
not all of the contacts were firm.  Seating it properly made them go away, 
but it's probable that this will only happen when there has been some wear 
on the shoe.


HTH

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia

- Original Message - 
From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned


I keep the camera in the standard multi-segmented mode.  I just 
double-checked, and verified that it's still in that (correct) mode.


The camera does have a problem with its internal flash; it always fires at 
full throttle.  I keep meaning to send it in to Pentax for service, and 
will definately do so before the warranty is up.  But I needed it for the 
trip first.  But my AF330FTZ problem isn't as severe as the camera's 
internal flash problem.  The AF330FTZ overexposes shots.  The camera's 
internal flash completely burns out the shot from such strong 
overexposure.  I'm sure that's a different issue.


John Coyle wrote:
Dave, do you think the problem might be your metering mode?  I would 
expect the use of averaged metering to cause this type of problem, and 
have been successful with the same sort of set-up (*ist-D and AF330FTZ) 
using spot metering.

John Coyle
Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com)
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned





Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


Are these with pre-flash, Dave?



Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ.

If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the 
flash EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed.  This 
is particularly a problem if the background is out of flash range; in 
other words, the subject is close but the background is distant.  But 
regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting with the flash 
at night.


If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the problem 
remains, but isn't as significant.


If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the 
problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose.  Though 
sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a little too 
much even in daylight conditions.


I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. 
Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev isn't 
enough.  Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't enough 
to balance things out.  In this case, I have to switch the camera over 
to manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness via f-stop 
settings for the lens.


What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of a 
cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the 
foreground.  I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you 
familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the cable-car 
tram).  There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the city lights 
in the background and her properly exposed in the foreground.  I've 
taken this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the AF330FTZ.  But I just 
absoutely couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS and AF330FTZ.


It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter for 
the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to cut the 
flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure.  Heck, the 
camera's "night shot" mode is pretty much MADE to do this.  But even 
without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv mode and set 
the shutter speed relatively slow.  The rest should be handled by the 
camera and flash.


The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until I 
switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera to 
Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture 
myself. By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation and 
the shot was ruined by her boredom. ;)


The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL).

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Kevin Waterson]

This one time, at band camp, "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I dont know that imposing further limitations is the key to progress. I think
Pentax have made-their-bed with the APS size by releasing lenses to suit.

Kind regards
Kevin
 
> Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
> released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
> sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail price
> of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
> sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
> seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to come
> out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?

-- 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. 
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Re: OT: Brand new silver LX

[Juan Buhler]

On 10/2/05, Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My LX is black and doesn't have wheels.

Also, your LX is probably not  "OT" here  :)

j

--
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com

Re: Viewfinders

[John Francis]

Actually, you'd need a whole one stop faster a lens if you wanted to
enlarge the (cropped) viewfinder image of a *ist-D to match the size
of the viewfinder image in the MX.

But that's not relevant.  The complaint was that the *ist-D didn't
have the same brightness, or the same magnification, as the MX.
That's not so - at the same magnification, the viewfinder images
appear equally bright.  Obviously at the same magnification the
*ist-D has a smaller image.  But that's because it has a smaller
sensor, and the different viewfinder image sizes reflect this.


On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 11:58:47PM -0400, graywolf wrote:
> Except to match the MX the *istD viewfinder would have to have a 1.425x 
> magnification, and you would need to use a 1/2 stop faster lens to get 
> the same brightness, everything else being equal.
> 
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> John Francis wrote:
> 
> >Err - it does.
> >
> >According to Boz's equipment page, both have 0.95x magnification
> >with a 50mm lens mounted.
> >
> > 
> >

Re: OT: Brand new silver LX

[Jim Apilado]

My LX is black and doesn't have wheels.

Jim A.

> From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:17:59 -0700
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: OT: Brand new silver LX
> Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:18:05 -0400
> 
> As I mentioned here a few months ago, I just bought a brand new silver LX.
> 
> I'm bringing it to the SF PDML next week so you guys can check it out,
> but for the rest, you can look at this page:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/8r6fm
> 
> :)
> 
> j
> 
> --
> Juan Buhler
> http://www.jbuhler.com
> photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
> 

Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned

[David Oswald]

I keep the camera in the standard multi-segmented mode.  I just 
double-checked, and verified that it's still in that (correct) mode.


The camera does have a problem with its internal flash; it always fires 
at full throttle.  I keep meaning to send it in to Pentax for service, 
and will definately do so before the warranty is up.  But I needed it 
for the trip first.  But my AF330FTZ problem isn't as severe as the 
camera's internal flash problem.  The AF330FTZ overexposes shots.  The 
camera's internal flash completely burns out the shot from such strong 
overexposure.  I'm sure that's a different issue.


John Coyle wrote:
Dave, do you think the problem might be your metering mode?  I would 
expect the use of averaged metering to cause this type of problem, and 
have been successful with the same sort of set-up (*ist-D and AF330FTZ) 
using spot metering.

John Coyle
Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com)
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned





Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


Are these with pre-flash, Dave?



Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ.

If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the 
flash EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed.  
This is particularly a problem if the background is out of flash 
range; in other words, the subject is close but the background is 
distant.  But regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting 
with the flash at night.


If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the 
problem remains, but isn't as significant.


If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the 
problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose.  
Though sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a 
little too much even in daylight conditions.


I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. 
Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev 
isn't enough.  Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't 
enough to balance things out.  In this case, I have to switch the 
camera over to manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness 
via f-stop settings for the lens.


What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of 
a cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the 
foreground.  I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you 
familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the 
cable-car tram).  There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the 
city lights in the background and her properly exposed in the 
foreground.  I've taken this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the 
AF330FTZ.  But I just absoutely couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS 
and AF330FTZ.


It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter 
for the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to 
cut the flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure.  
Heck, the camera's "night shot" mode is pretty much MADE to do this.  
But even without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv 
mode and set the shutter speed relatively slow.  The rest should be 
handled by the camera and flash.


The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until 
I switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera 
to Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture 
myself. By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation 
and the shot was ruined by her boredom. ;)


The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL).

Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned

[John Coyle]

Dave, do you think the problem might be your metering mode?  I would expect 
the use of averaged metering to cause this type of problem, and have been 
successful with the same sort of set-up (*ist-D and AF330FTZ) using spot 
metering.

John Coyle
Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com)
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - 
From: "David Oswald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned





Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


Are these with pre-flash, Dave?


Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ.

If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the flash 
EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed.  This is 
particularly a problem if the background is out of flash range; in other 
words, the subject is close but the background is distant.  But 
regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting with the flash at 
night.


If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the problem 
remains, but isn't as significant.


If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the 
problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose.  Though 
sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a little too 
much even in daylight conditions.


I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. 
Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev isn't 
enough.  Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't enough to 
balance things out.  In this case, I have to switch the camera over to 
manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness via f-stop settings 
for the lens.


What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of a 
cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the 
foreground.  I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you 
familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the cable-car 
tram).  There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the city lights in 
the background and her properly exposed in the foreground.  I've taken 
this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the AF330FTZ.  But I just absoutely 
couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS and AF330FTZ.


It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter for 
the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to cut the 
flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure.  Heck, the 
camera's "night shot" mode is pretty much MADE to do this.  But even 
without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv mode and set the 
shutter speed relatively slow.  The rest should be handled by the camera 
and flash.


The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until I 
switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera to 
Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture myself. 
By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation and the shot 
was ruined by her boredom. ;)


The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL).

 

Re: Brand new silver LX

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Juan Buhler"

Subject: OT: Brand new silver LX



As I mentioned here a few months ago, I just bought a brand new silver LX.

I'm bringing it to the SF PDML next week so you guys can check it out,
but for the rest, you can look at this page:

http://tinyurl.com/8r6fm


http://www.vespausa.com/products/LX.cfm
?

William Robb 

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Shel Belinkoff" 
Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...





Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail price
of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to come
out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?


Even more of a crop factor.
No thanks.

William Robb

Re: My Skinny Family

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I have some additions to my skinny family. Embossed leather skinned ME-F 
and 6x7.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/05_03_skinnyfamily/index.htm

With the 6x7, I tried the suggestion of putting silicone around the 
eyepiece, but it turned out somewhat messy. The bumpons aren't that 
pretty either, but they work.


Take The Beatles song "Lady in Black" and sing it like "Pentax in Red" ;-).

Cheers...

Boris

PESO - Neve Tzedek series #1

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I recently went for a shoot to Neve Tzedek. Neve Tzedek is The First 
neighborhood of Tel Aviv. That is the city was founded just there... 
This is extremely fascinating place.


Here is one shot from a little series I shot there. Hebrew writing means 
"The planned electricity outage has been *canceled*"...


http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1062967&ref=author

Please click on the image and choose black as a background.

Thanks.

As usual the honest and brutal opinions are sought after.

Boris

Re: Viewfinders

[graywolf]

Except to match the MX the *istD viewfinder would have to have a 1.425x 
magnification, and you would need to use a 1/2 stop faster lens to get 
the same brightness, everything else being equal.


graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---



John Francis wrote:


Err - it does.

According to Boz's equipment page, both have 0.95x magnification
with a 50mm lens mounted.

 

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Whoops!  I thought it was larger than the sensor size in the current Pentax
D siblings.  I now see that it's not. Oh well 

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert 

> > I've not been reading all the messages in this thread, so maybe I missed
> > something about this.
> > 
> > Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
> > released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
> > sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail
price
> > of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
> > sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
> > seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to
come
> > out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?
>
> A sub-APS sized sensor with 1.7x crop factor, no thanks.

Re: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Adam Maas]

The *ist D has an MTF Program Line as well.

-Adam


David Oswald wrote:

There is an additional difference between F and FA lenses in general. 
FA lenses can communicate MTF data to the camera body which is used by 
the PZ-1p, MZ-S, and *ist-DS (and maybe others).  The *ist-DS uses 
this info in AutoPic mode and any of the pictograph modes.  It doesn't 
use this data in P mode.


F lenses don't communicate this information.

Since not all bodies use the information, and the modes that I use the 
most on the *ist-DS also don't use the info, it really probably 
doesn't matter to most people whether you've got an FA or an F lens, 
except for other possible differences not related to this particular 
feature.


By the way; it's very hard to find any official information on this 
subject from Pentax.  I'm basically paraphrasing what one of Pentax's 
reps told me a few years back, and with regards to how the feature 
works on the *ist-DS, adding my own conjecture seasoned with comments 
I've read here and in other forums.


DAve

Glen wrote:

I noticed that there are Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 zoom lenses with both F 
and FA suffixes. What is the difference? The F version is a LOT 
cheaper on the used market. I think they are both autofocus, so I 
suppose the difference might involve how the camera metering works 
with the lens?


Does anyone have any comments on the quality of these two particular 
Pentax 70-200 zoom lenses? If I were to get one, it would be for use 
on an *istDS. I hear that some of the non-DA lenses don't do so well 
on the DS camera, so I would want to avoid lenses that didn't get 
along well with the DS.


Also, I'd love to find an on-line chart that described what all these 
lens suffixes represented.


thanks,
Glen

Re: Dust on Your Sensor

[Rob Studdert]

On 2 Oct 2005 at 19:51, David Oswald wrote:

> I've read that some "canned air" can actually blow small amounts of oil 
> onto the sensor.  No thanks!

Canned air can eject propellant if it's used incorrectly but not likely oil, 
compressors can eject oil and water though, however if they are fitted with 
appropriate filters it's not a problem.


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: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Rob Studdert]

On 2 Oct 2005 at 19:25, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

> I've not been reading all the messages in this thread, so maybe I missed
> something about this.
> 
> Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
> released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
> sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail price
> of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
> sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
> seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to come
> out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?

A sub-APS sized sensor with 1.7x crop factor, no thanks.


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: Difference between F and FA lens?

[David Oswald]

There is an additional difference between F and FA lenses in general. 
FA lenses can communicate MTF data to the camera body which is used by 
the PZ-1p, MZ-S, and *ist-DS (and maybe others).  The *ist-DS uses this 
info in AutoPic mode and any of the pictograph modes.  It doesn't use 
this data in P mode.


F lenses don't communicate this information.

Since not all bodies use the information, and the modes that I use the 
most on the *ist-DS also don't use the info, it really probably doesn't 
matter to most people whether you've got an FA or an F lens, except for 
other possible differences not related to this particular feature.


By the way; it's very hard to find any official information on this 
subject from Pentax.  I'm basically paraphrasing what one of Pentax's 
reps told me a few years back, and with regards to how the feature works 
on the *ist-DS, adding my own conjecture seasoned with comments I've 
read here and in other forums.


DAve

Glen wrote:
I noticed that there are Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 zoom lenses with both F 
and FA suffixes. What is the difference? The F version is a LOT cheaper 
on the used market. I think they are both autofocus, so I suppose the 
difference might involve how the camera metering works with the lens?


Does anyone have any comments on the quality of these two particular 
Pentax 70-200 zoom lenses? If I were to get one, it would be for use on 
an *istDS. I hear that some of the non-DA lenses don't do so well on the 
DS camera, so I would want to avoid lenses that didn't get along well 
with the DS.


Also, I'd love to find an on-line chart that described what all these 
lens suffixes represented.


thanks,
Glen

Re: Dust on Your Sensor

[David Oswald]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Over in the LeiCanon list, this product was mentioned as a goo choice for
dust removal and sensor cleaning.

http://www.visibledust.com/

What do you use ... I may need to add some sensor cleaning stuff to my kit.



I've read that some "canned air" can actually blow small amounts of oil 
onto the sensor.  No thanks!


I have a blower brush.  When I need to clean the sensor, I take the 
brush portion off the blower, and just give a few strong squirts of air 
in the direction of the sensor.  So far I've never needed more thorough 
cleaning than that.


I'm afraid to use those sensor cleaning kits.  If I can remove it with 
air, that seems the safest technique.

Re: Viewfinders

[Shel Belinkoff]

Which makes critical composing somewhat difficult ... at least it does for
me.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: John Francis

>  And in any case you won't find any
> AF Camera with as large a viewfinder image as you get in the MX;
> there has to be somewhere to display the additional information.

Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned

[David Oswald]

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


Are these with pre-flash, Dave?


Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ.

If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the 
flash EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed.  This 
is particularly a problem if the background is out of flash range; in 
other words, the subject is close but the background is distant.  But 
regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting with the flash 
at night.


If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the problem 
remains, but isn't as significant.


If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the 
problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose.  Though 
sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a little too 
much even in daylight conditions.


I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. 
Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev isn't 
enough.  Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't enough 
to balance things out.  In this case, I have to switch the camera over 
to manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness via f-stop 
settings for the lens.


What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of a 
cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the 
foreground.  I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you 
familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the cable-car 
tram).  There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the city lights 
in the background and her properly exposed in the foreground.  I've 
taken this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the AF330FTZ.  But I just 
absoutely couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS and AF330FTZ.


It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter for 
the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to cut the 
flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure.  Heck, the 
camera's "night shot" mode is pretty much MADE to do this.  But even 
without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv mode and set 
the shutter speed relatively slow.  The rest should be handled by the 
camera and flash.


The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until I 
switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera to 
Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture 
myself.  By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation 
and the shot was ruined by her boredom. ;)


The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL).



By the way, someone earlier mentioned that it was curious that I would 
like the combination of the 16-45 and the 28-105 rather than 16-45 and 
50-200.


In my opinion there are a couple of ways to look at zooms.  The first 
way (the way I used to look at them when I first got into photography) 
is that zooms allow you to cover a lot of focal lengths with few lenses. 
 From that perspective, it makes sense to have no overlap in your 
lens's focal lengths.  A 16-45 and 50-200 would give the maximum 
possible breadth of zoom range with only two lenses.


But as I've spent more time with photography I've found that I prefer to 
look at zooms as lenses of convenience; a means of reducing how often I 
change lenses.  With that in mind, overlap of zoom ranges is good if it 
means that each lens is a comfortable range of focal lengths to use. 
What I mean is I can put the 16-45 on my camera and just keep shooting 
until I have a shot that really requires something longer.  I can put 
the 28-105 on my camera and also keep shooting until I come across a 
shot that really requires something wider.  Each of those lenses is a 
good working lens; just that one is more convenient when I have more 
shots that need longer focal lengths, and one is more convenient when 
more of my shots need shorter focal lengths.


If I were carrying the 16-45 and 50-200, on the other hand, I would not 
be able to keep the 50-200 on the camera and just keep on shooting as if 
it were a normal lens.  It's a telephoto lens, that's all.


So while I'm losing the 105-200 range by carrying the 28-105, I feel I 
more than make up for in convenience.


And with a DSLR, I frankly don't often have much need for anything 
longer than the 135mm lens that I also mentioned is in my camera bag.  I 
do own an 80-320, but left it home for this vacation because I knew it 
would be only used for one or two shots.


Dave

Re: Viewfinders

[John Francis]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 04:30:21PM +0200, Juan Buhler wrote:
> I picked up my MX last night. I heven't used that camera in over a
> year. The size of the viewfinder and its brightness, compared to the
> istD, makes me want to cry.
> 
> I know the istD viewfinder is not too bad, by current standards. But
> what would it take for a not full frame camera like the istD to have a
> similar viewfinder, in brightness and magnification?

Err - it does.

According to Boz's equipment page, both have 0.95x magnification
with a 50mm lens mounted.

I've just put an F50/1.7 on my *ist-D, and an A50/1.7 on my MX.
Looking through the viewfinders, magnification and brightness
looks as close to identical as I can measure with the naked eye.
Sure, the image area in the MX viewfinder covers a larger angle
than what I see through the *ist-D; that's because of the crop
due to the smaller sensor.  And in any case you won't find any
AF Camera with as large a viewfinder image as you get in the MX;
there has to be somewhere to display the additional information.

So why does everyone say the MX (or ME Super, or ...) have much
brighter viewfinders than the *ist-D?  Is it because people are
comparing an MX with an f1.4 lens to a *ist-D with an f4 zoom?

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Shel Belinkoff]

I've not been reading all the messages in this thread, so maybe I missed
something about this.

Pentax buys their sensors from Sony, iirc.  Sony has just announced, or
released, a new camera, the DSC-R1, which uses a Sony-made, 10mp CMOS
sensor with the dimensions of 14mm x 21mm.  The camera has a retail price
of $1,000.00.  Seems like Pentax might do well to take advantage of this
sensor if they can, and if Sony's putting out a camera for $1,000.00 it
seems that the sensor price might be reasonable enough for Pentax to come
out with a very competitively priced camera.  Any comments on this?


Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Bruce Dayton 

> The crux of the problem here is sensor suppliers.  Pentax is moving
> just as fast to release the *istD successor as Nikon is to releasing
> the D200 - both are waiting on the sensor.  Until then, all either can
> do is make another variation of the 6mp Sony sensor.  Pentax has the
> *istD, DS, DL, DS2 and Nikon has the D100, D70, D70S and D50 - amazing
> how they basically match model for model.

PESO - follow up 3 skimmers skimming (OT - not Pentax)

[Christian]

http://home.mindspring.com/~c_skofteland/id32.html

The first two are new and show the birds with the lower beak in the water.

Comments always appreciated.

Thanks

Christian

OT: Brand new silver LX

[Juan Buhler]

As I mentioned here a few months ago, I just bought a brand new silver LX.

I'm bringing it to the SF PDML next week so you guys can check it out,
but for the rest, you can look at this page:

http://tinyurl.com/8r6fm

:)

j

--
Juan Buhler
http://www.jbuhler.com
photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com

Re: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Fred]

> If anyone is looking for a surprisingly good zoom for the *ist-D/Ds/DL it
> would be the SMC P- FA 28-200 IF AL.  I really hated it on film, but it
> comes into it's own on the *ist-D. It's a bit soft at f3.8/5.6 but
> stopped down a stop or two it becomes  amazingly sharp.  I shot a few
> test frames of a brick wall and was very happy with the results.  It
> makes a great complement to the FA 20-35mm.

I used one of these lenses on my DS for shooting a couple hundred shots at
a child's birthday party recently (mostly outdoors, with maybe 1/4 of the
photos indoors using flash).  I figured that "it's just a birthday party",
and that it, as a minimum, had to do a better job than a lot of the P&S
"competition" there.  However, it did work better than I expected.  Now,
I'm not going to blow up prints beyond 4x6's or maybe 5x7's, but it
certainly worked out better than I was expecting.  It really was a
convenient lens to use, too.  (I can't believe that I'm saying good things
about some 28-200 zoom lens - .)

Fred

Re: GESO: stuff from my bus/train trip

[Scott Loveless]

All very wonderful photos, Ann.  I'm particularly fond of "High Desert
Morning".  Good to have you back.

On 10/2/05, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep adding to this
>
> random order due to photo.net but my laziness, too
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=518950
>
> A couple are from bus or train window -
> all digital - sorry, not ist
>
> ann
>
>


--
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com

--
"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman

Re: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Fred]

> Sorry Fred, I should have looked at mine.
> I took the name directly from Boz's site.
> You are correct, it DOES NOT say ED on the lens.

Hi, Don.  I am surprised that Boz claims that it has "extra-low dispersion
element(s)", and that he names it as and "ED" lens.  It certainly does not
come labeled as an ED lens.  I have heard (here on the PDML) of conjecture
that it does have a low dispersion element, but I don't know what proof
exists for that.  As for its performance, I have one that I bought "new old
stock", still in the box, and it never seemed to live up to the reputation
that some wanted it to have.  I originally tried it out on film (manually
focusing it, but I recently tried it as an af lens on my DS, and it still
doesn't impress me.  Sample-to-sample variance has been claimed for the
differing opinions on this lens, and so maybe that's it, and maybe I just
got a bad one...

Fred

Re: PESO: Early Autumn

[Jack Davis]

Tim,
The top leaf is out of focus. 
Looks like "something" took a bite out of another.
Seriously, a well composed and bold example of a colorful crisp fall
day. It takes you there.

Jack

--- Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=193957
> Just a little picture for you to criticize in my absence (I'm going
> away for
> work for some days). The title translates something like Early
> Autumn. 
> I'm trying to keep it simple, playing with a cliché, trying to add
> something
> new to. 
> 
> And I do know that the top leaf is out of focus ;-)
> 
> *istDS, Sigma DC 18-50mm 1:2.8 EX, 18mm, 400 ISO Raw, f/5,6, 1/800
> Both the camera and the leaves are handheld.
> 
> 
> Tim
> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
>  
> Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
> (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
> 
> 
> 
> 




__ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Joseph Tainter]

I love mine too (on film). But the standard disclaimer comes from Dario:

http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm


--

I recall suggesting to Dario that I thought he might have focusing 
problems with his F 70-210 in this test, that that the entire test 
should be redone focusing on a brick wall. He agreed, but I guess he 
never redid the test, or took down these invalid results.


Joe

Re: Super Takumar vs. SMC Takumar

[P. J. Alling]

I have a couple of Super Takumar's and they are quite good.

Peter Spiro wrote:

Today at a camera fair I passed up what might have been a good deal on 
a SuperTakumar 35mm f/3.5 lens.  I'm hoping to find the multi-coated 
version instead.   Does anybody have experience in using both kinds?  
Is there a noticeable difference, e.g., in contrast, under ordinary 
shooting conditions?   (I've never actually used a Super Takumar lens, 
but I used to have some pre-multi-coated Olympus Zuiko lenses which I 
recall had quite low contrast, and this has prejudiced me against 
these older lenses.)







--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: Dust on Your Sensor

[Paul Stenquist]

I use a sterile ear syringe that I bought new in a drug store. I keep 
it in a box so it won't get contaminated and blow my sensors about once 
a week. Haven't had to use anything more severe.

Paul
On Oct 2, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Over in the LeiCanon list, this product was mentioned as a goo choice 
for

dust removal and sensor cleaning.

http://www.visibledust.com/

What do you use ... I may need to add some sensor cleaning stuff to my 
kit.



Shel

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Mishka]

There are no fast and light normal lenses for APS bodies.
There are no small and light and reasonably fast wides
(similar to 24/2.8 and 20/2.8) for APS bodies.

best,
mishka


On 10/2/05, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My comment wanted to highlight that buying an APS-C body + ultra-wide lens
> will cost less than buying a FF body, while staying within a given system
> (Pentax or other).
>
> If one thinks it's time to switch (and I've been tempted again and again),
> then buying an APS-C body is even more the way to go, for not spending a
> fortune all at once.
>
> If one wants to choose within the widest possible range and has no money
> problems, again I don't understand your doubts. In that case the choice is
> obvious: switch to Canon and buy what suits you best.
>
> Dario
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 7:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
>
>
> >I wouldn't have a problem buying another lens or lots more lenses.  The
> >question is whether I feel it wise to invest in more K-mount lenses when
> >I'm not sure Pentax is going to be around in a couple of years, or if they
> >will be producing the camera I wish to purchase.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >>To: 
> >>Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
> >>Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:34:06 +0200
> >>
> >>Buying an extra lens (ultra-wide) will cost you less than buying a FF SLR
> >>and then you'll gain a bonus telephoto lens in your outfit. That's all.
> >>
> >>Dario
> >>
> >>- Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>To: 
> >>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:15 PM
> >>Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
> >>
> >>
> >>>I agree with you to a large extent.  I'm whining because I would like my
> >>>lens/camera combo to produce results like a 35mm camera body, i.e., a
> >>>28mm lense produces an image on the sensor with the normal 28mm FOVm
> >>>instead of 42mm.
> >>>
> >>>Tom C.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:17:02 +
> 
> Formats are only names now. A 645D would probably be no larger or
> heavier than the current Canon D1s Mark II, and Pentax has already said
> it's sensor won't be true 645 dimensions. Most prosumers cameras and
> some pro models will probably remain APS-C. It's all just semantics.
> Paul
> 
> 
>  > That's what I'm hoping for in the future,  FF 12+ MP.  I would have
> little
>  > desire to carry a 645D around with me when other makers would offer
>  > essentialy the same in a 35mm size body.
>  >
>  > Tom C.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > >From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>  > >To: "pentax list" 
>  > >Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
>  > >Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:29:56 +0100
>  > >
>  > >On 29/9/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
>  > >
>  > > >I guess that sort of sums my feelings.  I agree with Paul that I
> haven't
>  > > >found 6 MP inadequate, but then what have I to compare it to?
> Suppose we
>  > > >took a photo and wanted to crop it by some factor for display or
>  > >printing.
>  > > >Assuredly a 12, 16 etc., megapixel camera will allow this to be
> done
> with
>  > >a
>  > > >higher degree of (dare I say resolution) quality, than a 10MP > >
>  >camera,
> or
>  > > >than a 6MP camera.
>  > >
>  > >Excuse me for being a complete dolt here. But can someone tell me
> what
>  > >the point of an APS-C sensor DSLR at 16 or even 12 MP is? Sincerely,
> I
>  > >fail to see it.
>  > >
>  > >If they're going to cram 16 MP onto a chip that size, why not just >
>  >make
> a
>  > >24x36mm sensor?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >Cheers,
>  > >   Cotty
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >___/\__
>  > >||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
>  > >||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
>  > >_
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Rob Studdert]

On 2 Oct 2005 at 17:57, Toralf Lund wrote:

> Always glad to amuse ;-)
> 
> Personally I must say I'm slightly amused when people talk about how 
> much money they save on buying a digital camera, because I always get 
> the feeling that they are rationalising their buying decision after the 
> fact, rather than giving a real reason why they bought one. And that the 
> cost is *nothing* is also part of the somewhat annoying digital hype, I 
> think.

I knew I had to buy a digital camera, apart from the saving in cost per print I 
knew that I would have far better control over the quality of my printed 
images, no more issues over scratched films blamed on my perfectly clean camera 
bodies and no more bad print crops etc.

> I take it as given that people on a list like this would want to store 
> *uncompressed* files. I also assume CD/DVD backups are good enough for 
> most purposes - if you want true professional grade backups, you may 
> actually end up with a price higher than the one of film. I don't think 
> I could find DVDs I would trust at quite as low a price as you quoute. 
> I've been figuring more with a *CD* cost of something like that, perhaps 
> a little more (between 5 and 10 NOK). A nice thing about using CDs as a 
> basis, is that you can essentially fit one film's worth of uncompressed 
> files on a CD. So it all becomes a comparison between a film and one (or 
> possibly two) CDs... And *maybe* I'd use CDs rather than DVDs just 
> because they hold fewer files each, and I'd thus reduce the impact of 
> disasters like complete disintegration (or "separation") of the media.

I'm much happier storing my image files on DVD, in fact I migrated all my old 
CD back-ups to DVD as soon as it was economically feasible. DVD media is 
inherently more robust than CD however either will provide long term data 
integrity well if stored and handled. The media that I use is generally Imation 
DVD-R, this media sells as white labelled discs in spindles of 25 units, and 
the price here is less than AU$25 per spindle (like virtually every other top 
end brand). Every DVD I have written successfully has verified and has been 
reliable on later reading, I have no concerns about "separation" etc, I'm 
storing all my DVDs the same way that I did my CDs and all of them are 
perfectly readable even though some are more than 10 years old. I believe that 
optical media longevity is a non-issue, I expect each and every one of my 
optical disc media to outlast my film library.

> So you *really* save that money? Around here, they both do and don't 
> print cheaper from files. I mean, they do tend to quote lower prices in 
> advertisments, but those prices are sometimes only applicable if you 
> print in very high volumes. And I have found mailorder services that 
> offer "package prices" on film development that will give print costs at 
> least as low as the ones on digital.

It's nothing to do with volume around here, if you provide a finished file for 
straight print even a single print will save you significant money, subsequent 
prints simply lead to a greater saving.

> This is what I'm not quite willing to do. Yes, most people do have a 
> computer, but if you say that handling digital images doesn't lead to a 
> higher cost of ownership because you want more powerful equipment and/or 
> need to upgrade more often (and possibly get new problems of various 
> kind), then I don't believe you.

I had a very capable computer system before I bought my digital camera, it was 
designed for digital editing of still images and audio, direct digital capture 
just made the whole process more streamlined. My current system should be good 
for at least seven years as was my last system. The reality is that a very 
capable computer is pretty inexpensive these days and when coupled with the 
appropriate software provides the control that you could only achieve by 
spending far more money on a conventional darkroom and equipment.

> And you do need some kind of a computer, I think, at least if you want 
> to save money. If you let the labs do the job for you, you will easily 
> end up with a higher cost than for film. I guess you have one really 
> low-cost option in the stand-alone camera media/CD/DVD/camera i/o units, 
> though...

Not so, some people want the control that a computer provides some don't. For 
instance I have an associate who is computer illiterate and who owns and uses a 
DSLR, they print straight to a little Epson printer which reads cards directly. 
It's not how I'd like to operate but this person is very pleased and they do 
win print prizes at their camera club so it's fulfilling their requirements. I 
do write this persons files to disc as a favour but as they only shoot JPG so 
it wouldn't be costly to have it done at a bureau either.

Some people throw away their negatives after they receive their prints, digital 
shooters are allowed to do just the same. I'd bet that the vast majority of 
reprints/

Re: Difference between F and FA lens?

[P. J. Alling]

If anyone is looking for a surprisingly good zoom for the *ist-D/Ds/DL 
it would be the
SMC P- FA 28-200 IF AL.  I really hated it on film, but it comes into 
it's own on the *ist-D.
It's a bit soft at f3.8/5.6 but stopped down a stop or two it becomes 
amazingly sharp.  I shot a
few test frames of a brick wall and was very happy with the results.  It 
makes a great complement

to the FA 20-35mm.

Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:


On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Don Sanderson wrote:


BTW: The 70-210s always seem to get better reviews than any
of the 70-200s. The SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED is indeed a fine
lens, though a bit pricey.



I love mine too (on film). But the standard disclaimer comes from Dario:

http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm

Can't remember if Glen has the *ist-D?, if yes, the new DA50-200 may 
be a good choice.


Kostas





--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Re: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[graywolf]

Everclear.  95% ethanol. Available at your local liqueur store.

It has the advantage that if the light fails you can use it to get 
drunk. It was developed to clean parascope lenses during the war. Mixed 
with pineapple juice in the South Pacific to make Torpedo Juice (a 
beverage that made the jungle go away for awhile).


Only thing wrong with it as a lens cleaner (in the US) is the alcohol 
tax makes it rather expensive.


graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---



mike wilson wrote:


Cotty wrote:


I have a friend who asks:



Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is still
available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and 
tissues,

they seem OK but...




In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

It would almost certainly just be propanol or isopropanol (propan [1 
or 2] ol) which should be purchasable from their local chemist.  The 
Hama fluid will be just the same.

Re: Super Takumar vs. SMC Takumar

[Mat Maessen]

The SuperTaks are multicoated, it's just not the SMC coatings, which are better.
And darnit, I've been looking for a SMC/Super Takumar 35/3.5...

-Mat

On 10/2/05, Peter Spiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today at a camera fair I passed up what might have been a good deal on a
> SuperTakumar 35mm f/3.5 lens.  I'm hoping to find the multi-coated version
> instead.   Does anybody have experience in using both kinds?  Is there a
> noticeable difference, e.g., in contrast, under ordinary shooting
> conditions?   (I've never actually used a Super Takumar lens, but I used to
> have some pre-multi-coated Olympus Zuiko lenses which I recall had quite low
> contrast, and this has prejudiced me against these older lenses.)
>
>
>

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[P. J. Alling]

But you're actuarially dead at 99.

Toralf Lund wrote:


John Forbes wrote:


I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.



No, I maintain that we have a nearly 50% chance of surviving... I'm 
not joking either, we really do - statistically ;-)


- T





--
When you're worried or in doubt, 
	Run in circles, (scream and shout).

Super Takumar vs. SMC Takumar

[Peter Spiro]

Today at a camera fair I passed up what might have been a good deal on a 
SuperTakumar 35mm f/3.5 lens.  I'm hoping to find the multi-coated version 
instead.   Does anybody have experience in using both kinds?  Is there a 
noticeable difference, e.g., in contrast, under ordinary shooting 
conditions?   (I've never actually used a Super Takumar lens, but I used to 
have some pre-multi-coated Olympus Zuiko lenses which I recall had quite low 
contrast, and this has prejudiced me against these older lenses.)

RE: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Don Sanderson]

Sorry Fred, I should have looked at mine.
I took the name directly from Boz's site.
You are correct, it DOES NOT say ED on the lens.

Don


> -Original Message-
> From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 5:25 PM
> To: Don Sanderson
> Subject: Re: Difference between F and FA lens?
> 
> 
> > Peter is right, the "Pentax-F 70-200/4-5.6" has been called a "ringer"
> [snip]
> > for the "SMC Pentax-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED". BTW: The 70-210s always seem to
> > get better reviews than any of the 70-200s. The SMCP-F 
> 70-210/4-5.6 ED is
> > indeed a fine lens, though a bit pricey.
> 
> Be careful with that "ED" designation.  It is not "official" Pentax
> nomenclature for that lens, and is only wishfully applied by some from
> conjecture (which not all - at least not I - would agree with).
> 
> Fred
> 

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi Cot ...

Quite familiar with Clyde Butcher.  Was introduced to him some years ago
through an article in B&W Magazine.  Amazing work!  Thanks for the book
recco.  Didn't know about it.

Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 
>
> >This is *right* up your street, Shel. Look for it second hand.
> >
> >
> >
> >HIGHLY recommended.
>
> For reference:
>
> 

RE: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Photo-slut =  Shutterbabe.  I see she's in your list 

I've got Ken Light's book as well Truth Needs No Ally (which I've yet to
read), the other reccos will go into my list.  Thanks!  I figured you'd
respond with at least a couple of good suggestions.


Shel 


> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W 
>
> who or what is Photo-slut? Google presents me with a list of porn sites.
I'm
> sure that can't be what you mean*.
>
> A few grabbed from my shelves - you may already have some:
>
> Don McCullin "Unreasonable Behaviour"
> Deborah Copagen Kogen "Shutterbabe"
> Greg Marinovich & Joao Silva "The Bang-Bang Club"
> Eve Arnold "Film Journal"
>
> All of them must-reads, but start with "The Bang-Bang Club" or Don
McCullin.
>
> Idle thought: I wonder if, when he retires, there'll be a newspaper
article
> entitled "Done McCullin'".
>
> Not biographies, but good all the same, in a similar vein to the Magnum
> book:
>
> Ken Light "Witness in Our Time"
> Howard Chapnick "Truth Needs No Ally"
> John G. Morris "Get the Picture"
>
> There are several good bios of Capa, plus his 'autobiography' and the book
> "Russian Journal" by Steinbeck.
>
> I'm sure I have a few others somewhere. If I can remember or find them
I'll
> let you know.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>  Bob 
>
> * but hey - thanks anyway! 

Re: Peso - Blue Butt

[Kenneth Waller]

Thanks Ann.
I'm enjoying your wonderful travelogue!

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Subject: Re: Peso - Blue Butt



Kenneth Waller wrote:


Tom, thanks for commenting.
This was taken last year - end of Aug early Sept.
I had forgotten about it until I got a critique from a pro photo friend 
who

stated it was amont the best barren ground bear shot he had seen!
Wanted to know what others thought.

Kenneth Waller


Well, we don't want your head to get TOOO big ,
but IMHO it is a terrific
photo, Ken -- 


I didn't get to see when you first posted it (I
gather) cause I jsut
got back on list a day or two ago -- fortunately
someone who commented
left the link on their post :)

ann

Re: Adobe camera raw 3.2

[Glen]

At 04:17 PM 10/2/2005, Derby Chang wrote:



New version of ACR.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html


I just bought the download version of Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 
yesterday, and I notice it includes Camera Raw version 3.2. (Elements 4.0 
is so new, that it isn't on the shelves of any of the retailers that I 
checked with, but you can buy it direct from Adobe right now.)


I already had Elements 2.0 and I got the upgrade to 4.0, as an internet 
download, from their on-line store. It only cost $69.99 USD. That's a lot 
cheaper than Photoshop CS2.  ;)


I haven't had much time to use it yet, but it's much nicer to browse and 
open Pentax RAW files with Elements 4.0, than the Pentax software which 
came with my camera.  :)


take care,
Glen

Re: Peso - Blue Butt

[Kenneth Waller]

Bob, thanks for the comments.
Even though I wasn't seeking comments on the Bio page, I appreciate yours.
Thanks

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Subject: Re: Peso - Blue Butt



Ken,

Every time I see one of your Denali pictures, I want to go back.
I love the Bleached Blond - California look of the bear.
This shot is close up and shows the size of the bear well.
Plus Focus and DOF are great.

On your first URL - your bio page, I don't care much about
the workshop leaders liking your photos.  You could 'appreciate'
learning from them, but your stuff stands on it's own merits and
is as good as any I've seen.  So go toot your own horn!

Regards,  Bob S.

On 9/28/05, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I gave the wrong URL Duh
should be:

http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html

Comments solicited - yeah, nay or other wise

Kenneth Waller

RE: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Wow!  I didn't know about Fire in the Wind.  You know how much I like
Dickey Chapelle ... Jeez, just writing her name brings a tear to my eye.

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W >
> on the subject of Millers, the biography of Lee Miller is very good.
> Although she wasn't exclusively a photographer, she led a life to be
> admired. Not least, she liberated Hitler's bathtub.
> http://www.npg.org.uk/live/womiller.asp
>
> On the subject of women at war, you could try "Fire in the Wind: the Life
of
> Dickey Chapelle" by Roberta Ostroff. I haven't read it, but will do
> sometime. I believe there may be a film under production about her life
and
> death.

Re: My Skinny Family

[Derby Chang]

Hi John,

The leather I used was quite soft - the sort of thing you get for 
wallets and purses. I do wish it was a bit thinner though.


D




John Forbes wrote:

Wow.  Most impressive.  Cesar is not going to like this, Derby.  
Expect a  response.


I'm amazed you used cowhide.  I once made a case for my Leica from  
cowhide; stiff as anything, and very thick.  The Leica needs 
re-skinning,  and as winter is fast approaching in the Northern 
hemisphere, I feel a  project coming on.


John


On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:21:05 +0100, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


I have some additions to my skinny family. Embossed leather skinned 
ME-F  and 6x7.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/05_03_skinnyfamily/index.htm

With the 6x7, I tried the suggestion of putting silicone around the  
eyepiece, but it turned out somewhat messy. The bumpons aren't that  
pretty either, but they work.


D








--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Glen]

At 04:29 PM 10/2/2005, John Forbes wrote:


If none of them are any good, then the exercise will have cost me nothing
except time.  Had I used film, I would have taken half as many pictures,
and spent say £10.00, whether the pictures were any good or not.  That's
where the cost saving comes in.  Trials and mistakes cost nothing.

Actually digital has cost me a lot of money.  It has rekindled an old
interest in photography, with the result I've spent a fortune on lenses.


This is definitely a good thing.

I'd much rather put my money into new lenses, than on wasted film.  ;)


take care,
Glen

Re: Dust on Your Sensor

[Tim Sherburne]

I've been following this advice. It's worked well so far.



t


On 10/2/05 9:47, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff"
> Subject: Dust on Your Sensor
> 
> 
>> Over in the LeiCanon list, this product was mentioned as a goo choice for
>> dust removal and sensor cleaning.
>> 
>> http://www.visibledust.com/
>> 
>> What do you use ... I may need to add some sensor cleaning stuff to my
>> kit.
> 
> Canned air. At some point, I will hit up a high end cosmetics counter and
> see if I can get a brush that looks to be the correct size. I refuse to pay
> the kind of money the specialty companys want for what is, in essence, a
> polyester/nylon makeup brush.
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: My Skinny Family

[John Forbes]

Wow.  Most impressive.  Cesar is not going to like this, Derby.  Expect a  
response.


I'm amazed you used cowhide.  I once made a case for my Leica from  
cowhide; stiff as anything, and very thick.  The Leica needs re-skinning,  
and as winter is fast approaching in the Northern hemisphere, I feel a  
project coming on.


John


On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:21:05 +0100, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


I have some additions to my skinny family. Embossed leather skinned ME-F  
and 6x7.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/05_03_skinnyfamily/index.htm

With the 6x7, I tried the suggestion of putting silicone around the  
eyepiece, but it turned out somewhat messy. The bumpons aren't that  
pretty either, but they work.


D





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

I suspect Toralf is alluding to the fact that more than half of the human  
beings who have ever lived are still alive today.  As they haven't yet  
died, we cannot be certain that they will.  (This is very worrying.)


I just wish that everyone on this list shared one hundredth part of  
Toralf's optimism.


John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:08:22 +0100, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


All regarding Pentax' eventual demise, the following gents opined:

Toralf Lund wrote:


John Forbes wrote:


I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.


No, I maintain that we have a nearly 50% chance of surviving... I'm not  
joking either, we really do - statistically ;-)

 - T


Surviving what? Certainly not death, my friend.

When you die, you die. That's demonstrable. And provable. The physical  
body does anyhow...
There IS no demonstrable proof for what happens to the non-physical  
body, if theree really IS one, in spite of so much time and money spent  
all over the world to convince "believers" that there IS such a thing as  
an afterlife.


So, if you believe in one, and it makes you feel better, good for you.

Until we get there, none of us will be able to prove we DID survive  
death.


After we get there, we STILL can't prove it, quite apparently, so we  
have to take someone else's word that some "spiritual life" continues.


Ultimately, we will have no particular control over it, so I'd stop  
concerning myself about it, and get on with what life's left to us,  
individually.  


keith whaley

I've been on my way there since I was born, I'm just a little closer now.
Either way, it's okay by me. I've lived well, and will leave most of the  
place(S) I've visited better off for my having been there.

That brings a smile to my face, and will certainly ease what's to come!

And, in case any of you thinks s/he has dibs, I'm taking my Optio S4  
WITH Me!  ;-)


keith whaley









--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: PESO: On My Way Home

[Tim Øsleby]

It took me more than a second to find her/him. But I had a pleasant time
looking ;-)
In other words, it's an interesting photo. I like the colours, the light,
and the lines.

Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)

> -Original Message-
> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 2. oktober 2005 22:07
> To: pentax list
> Subject: Re: PESO: On My Way Home
> 
> On 2/10/05, Rick Womer, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >I was walking home from work yesterday, on a beautiful
> >autumn afternoon, and came upon this fella soaking up
> >the last rays of the sun:
> >
> >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3773799
> >
> >Technical: Pentax Optio 33L, -1.7 stops exposure
> >compensation, cropped and contrast boosted a bit in PE
> >2.
> >
> >Plaudits and brickbats welcomed.
> 
> 
> Took me a second or two to spot him. I like it, well done Rick.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 

PESO: Early Autumn

[Tim Øsleby]

http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=193957
Just a little picture for you to criticize in my absence (I'm going away for
work for some days). The title translates something like Early Autumn. 
I'm trying to keep it simple, playing with a cliché, trying to add something
new to. 

And I do know that the top leaf is out of focus ;-)

*istDS, Sigma DC 18-50mm 1:2.8 EX, 18mm, 400 ISO Raw, f/5,6, 1/800
Both the camera and the leaves are handheld.


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
 
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds 
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Bruce Dayton]

Just a minor correction - the big 1 player is releasing new stuff
often.  Frankly, Nikon has a huge hole in their lineup along with
Pentax and are taking just as long to fill it.  That is the spot that
the D100 holds.  The D70 is more a bottom end camera, especially with
that horrid viewfinder.  The D100 came out before the *istD, and Nikon
just doesn't have any replacement until the D200 is available for
sale.  It has been quite a long time.  Yes, they have the D2x, but if
you have priced one, you would easily see that there is a big hole
around the Canon 20D level that no one else has filled.  I think this
is mainly due to everyone but Canon relying on an outside source for
sensors.  I know that Nikon has a D2h type body, but it is really
designed for a specific use - still not like the 20D.

The crux of the problem here is sensor suppliers.  Pentax is moving
just as fast to release the *istD successor as Nikon is to releasing
the D200 - both are waiting on the sensor.  Until then, all either can
do is make another variation of the 6mp Sony sensor.  Pentax has the
*istD, DS, DL, DS2 and Nikon has the D100, D70, D70S and D50 - amazing
how they basically match model for model.

I would really have to say, that everyone but Canon is slow to market.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Sunday, October 2, 2005, 7:29:18 AM, you wrote:

TC> Sorry.  Stepped out to take some photos. :)

TC> I've never claimed Pentax makes bad products.  I've only called into
TC> question their slowness to market, the fact that the 2 other big players are
TC> releasing upgrades/improvements to which Pentax has no answer in over 6
TC> months, and their market direction.  I don't actually have a burning
TC> overwhelming need to express these points of view, but I searched the
TC> internet from A-Z and figure the PDML is the most logical place to talk
TC> about it.

TC> If all the list said "Tom you're full of it", I might have to step back and
TC> reassess my viewpoint.  That hasn't been the case however.


TC> Tom C.




>>From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>To: "pentax list" 
>>Subject: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
>>Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 22:31:54 +0100
>>
>>On 1/10/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>> >That pretty well sums it up for me. Good post, John.
>> >Paul
>> >On Oct 1, 2005, at 4:05 PM, John Forbes wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tom,
>> >>
>> >> The continual negativism on this forum doesn't make it a better place,
>> >> and it certainly doesn't HELP Pentax.  What is does is to distort
>> >> people's assessment of Pentax's true position.
>>
>>Now boys..
>>
>>Let's be honest...this *is* a discussion list, right?
>>
>>And come on - Tom's line is not really negative. He's just trying to
>>encourage debate, right Tom?
>>
>>Tom?
>>
>>Right Tom?
>>
>>(where is the bugger?? ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>   Cotty
>>
>>
>>___/\__
>>||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
>>||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
>>_
>>
>>

RE: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Don Sanderson wrote:


BTW: The 70-210s always seem to get better reviews than any
of the 70-200s. The SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED is indeed a fine
lens, though a bit pricey.


I love mine too (on film). But the standard disclaimer comes from 
Dario:


http://www.dariobonazza.com/t04p13e.htm

Can't remember if Glen has the *ist-D?, if yes, the new DA50-200 may 
be a good choice.


Kostas

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Christian]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: Photo Bio Suggestion?


> Hi Shel,
> Deborah Copagen Kogen "Shutterbabe"
> Greg Marinovich & Joao Silva "The Bang-Bang Club"

I've read both these and can second the recommendation.

Christian

Re: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Fred]

> Peter is right, the "Pentax-F 70-200/4-5.6" has been called a "ringer"
[snip]
> for the "SMC Pentax-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED". BTW: The 70-210s always seem to
> get better reviews than any of the 70-200s. The SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED is
> indeed a fine lens, though a bit pricey.

Be careful with that "ED" designation.  It is not "official" Pentax
nomenclature for that lens, and is only wishfully applied by some from
conjecture (which not all - at least not I - would agree with).

Fred

My Skinny Family

[Derby Chang]

I have some additions to my skinny family. Embossed leather skinned ME-F 
and 6x7.


http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/05_03_skinnyfamily/index.htm

With the 6x7, I tried the suggestion of putting silicone around the 
eyepiece, but it turned out somewhat messy. The bumpons aren't that 
pretty either, but they work.


D

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

You talk about "confronting it" as though there is actually some kind of  
problem.  I'll let you into another secret.  Just because Herb Chong says  
there's a problem doesn't mean there is one.  This is all just a lot of  
hot air.  (In my opinion, and there are no facts here, which is why it's  
such a pointless discussion.)


Anyway, I think we've done this to death as well.  I'm trying to go  
through some pictures at the moment in the hope there'll be something  
worth posting.


John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:18:04 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 2/10/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:


I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.

Do we worry about it?  No.  We just go on until it happens.  Is that
"pretending", or is it being pragmatic and not worrying about something
one has no control over?


Doesn't mean we can't discuss it. In fact discussions about death are
amongst the most thought-provoking of all topics. To confront a thing is
to try and understand it as best one can.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[keith_w]

All regarding Pentax' eventual demise, the following gents opined:

Toralf Lund wrote:


John Forbes wrote:


I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.


No, I maintain that we have a nearly 50% chance of surviving... I'm not 
joking either, we really do - statistically ;-)


- T


Surviving what? Certainly not death, my friend.

When you die, you die. That's demonstrable. And provable. The physical body 
does anyhow...
There IS no demonstrable proof for what happens to the non-physical body, if 
theree really IS one, in spite of so much time and money spent all over the 
world to convince "believers" that there IS such a thing as an afterlife.


So, if you believe in one, and it makes you feel better, good for you.

Until we get there, none of us will be able to prove we DID survive death.

After we get there, we STILL can't prove it, quite apparently, so we have to 
take someone else's word that some "spiritual life" continues.


Ultimately, we will have no particular control over it, so I'd stop concerning 
myself about it, and get on with what life's left to us, individually.  


   keith whaley

I've been on my way there since I was born, I'm just a little closer now.
Either way, it's okay by me. I've lived well, and will leave most of the 
place(S) I've visited better off for my having been there.

That brings a smile to my face, and will certainly ease what's to come!

And, in case any of you thinks s/he has dibs, I'm taking my Optio S4 WITH Me!  
;-)

keith whaley

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:

>This is *right* up your street, Shel. Look for it second hand.
>
>
>
>HIGHLY recommended.

For reference:






Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Bob W]

Hi,

on the subject of Millers, the biography of Lee Miller is very good.
Although she wasn't exclusively a photographer, she led a life to be
admired. Not least, she liberated Hitler's bathtub.
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/womiller.asp

On the subject of women at war, you could try "Fire in the Wind: the Life of
Dickey Chapelle" by Roberta Ostroff. I haven't read it, but will do
sometime. I believe there may be a film under production about her life and
death.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

> Phew, you are a speed reader :)
> 
> A few months ago, Trent Parke did a talk at the World Press 
> Photo exhibition here in Sydney, along with his partner 
> Narelle Autio. He'd just got off the plane from Paris after 
> attending the Magnum general meeting. The meeting sounded 
> exactly like it was described in Miller's book. Lots of bored 
> photographers, not interested in the business side of the 
> company, taking photos of each other.
> 

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  Got books on HCB,
>WES, Capa, Chim, Lange, Weston, Adams, Photo-slut, Hillers, and a few
>others.  Suggestions?  Looking for more than pictures ...

This is *right* up your street, Shel. Look for it second hand.



HIGHLY recommended.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Bob W]

Hi Shel,

who or what is Photo-slut? Google presents me with a list of porn sites. I'm
sure that can't be what you mean*.

A few grabbed from my shelves - you may already have some:

Don McCullin "Unreasonable Behaviour"
Deborah Copagen Kogen "Shutterbabe"
Greg Marinovich & Joao Silva "The Bang-Bang Club"
Eve Arnold "Film Journal"

All of them must-reads, but start with "The Bang-Bang Club" or Don McCullin.

Idle thought: I wonder if, when he retires, there'll be a newspaper article
entitled "Done McCullin'".

Not biographies, but good all the same, in a similar vein to the Magnum
book:

Ken Light "Witness in Our Time"
Howard Chapnick "Truth Needs No Ally"
John G. Morris "Get the Picture"

There are several good bios of Capa, plus his 'autobiography' and the book
"Russian Journal" by Steinbeck.

I'm sure I have a few others somewhere. If I can remember or find them I'll
let you know.

--
Cheers,
 Bob 

* but hey - thanks anyway! 

> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 02 October 2005 22:00
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Photo Bio Suggestion?
> 
> Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  Got 
> books on HCB, WES, Capa, Chim, Lange, Weston, Adams, 
> Photo-slut, Hillers, and a few others.  Suggestions?  Looking 
> for more than pictures ...
> 
> 
> Shel 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

GESO: Spin Doctors

[John Celio]

Hey everyone.  I was fortunate enough to attend the Spin Doctors concert in 
San Francisco last June, and I took a ton of photos while I was there.  I 
kinda forgot about the photos, but the new Spin Doctors album's arrival on 
my doorstep last week helped me remember to post the decent ones:


http://www.neovenator.com/gallery/files/d6/index.html

Sorry some of them are so dark.  Most of them were shot at ISO 1600, and the 
incredible graininess makes editing difficult.  Lens used was the SMC 50mm 
f1.2.


John Celio

--

http://www.neovenator.com

AIM: Neopifex

"Hey, I'm an artist.  I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a 
statement." 

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Derby Chang]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Got it, read it, loved it  ... thanks!

Shel 

 


[Original Message]
From: Derby Chang 
   



 


Shel Belinkoff wrote:

   

Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  
 



 

Not really of one photographer, but the Russell Miller book on Magnum is 
an interesting read.
   





 



Phew, you are a speed reader :)

A few months ago, Trent Parke did a talk at the World Press Photo 
exhibition here in Sydney, along with his partner Narelle Autio. He'd 
just got off the plane from Paris after attending the Magnum general 
meeting. The meeting sounded exactly like it was described in Miller's 
book. Lots of bored photographers, not interested in the business side 
of the company, taking photos of each other.


D




--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Toralf Lund]

Cotty wrote:


On 2/10/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

 

And I 
wouldn't be surprised if the norm becomes there is no norm,
   



Yeah, he's not been about for a while. Must be at a cell phone cover
conference in Brazil.
 


Yeah, I thought so ;-)





Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_


 

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Toralf Lund]

John Forbes wrote:


I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.


No, I maintain that we have a nearly 50% chance of surviving... I'm not 
joking either, we really do - statistically ;-)


- T

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:

>I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.
>
>Do we worry about it?  No.  We just go on until it happens.  Is that  
>"pretending", or is it being pragmatic and not worrying about something  
>one has no control over?

Doesn't mean we can't discuss it. In fact discussions about death are
amongst the most thought-provoking of all topics. To confront a thing is
to try and understand it as best one can.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Toralf Lund]

John Forbes wrote:

I don't know where "no cost" came from.  I don't think anybody 
claimed  that.


Actually, you did say "cost is zero until and unless you want to print." 
But I was referring more to how I notice "no cost" generally seems to 
pop up as an argument in discussions like this, or should I say, as part 
of the digital photo hype.




Perhaps a better way to look at this is to say that it costs nothing 
to  take some pictures and see how they come out.  [ ... ]



Had I used film, I would have taken half as many pictures,  and spent 
say £10.00, whether the pictures were any good or not.  That's  where 
the cost saving comes in.  Trials and mistakes cost nothing.


I won't contest that. I guess what I'm saying that's how the argument 
should go. Yet you find that even in "serious" comparisons between film 
and digital, it has turned into "taking pictures costs nothing". I can't 
help getting a bit annoyed when I see that. It's almost as bad as 
"digital is simpler". (Simpler how? Or for whom? And how can it get 
simpler than handing your film over to someone else, and get finished 
prints back?)




Actually digital has cost me a lot of money.  It has rekindled an old  
interest in photography, with the result I've spent a fortune on lenses.


There's also that aspect to it, of course ;-) Personally I've used quite 
a bit of money on equipment because I've sort of rediscovered film lately...


- T

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Got it, read it, loved it  ... thanks!

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Derby Chang 

> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> >Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  

> Not really of one photographer, but the Russell Miller book on Magnum is 
> an interesting read.

Re: Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Derby Chang]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:


Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  Got books on HCB,
WES, Capa, Chim, Lange, Weston, Adams, Photo-slut, Hillers, and a few
others.  Suggestions?  Looking for more than pictures ...


Shel 




 



Not really of one photographer, but the Russell Miller book on Magnum is 
an interesting read.


D

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

Yes, just as the cost of film is zero until and unless you take a picture.

John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:56:58 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



John Forbes wrote:

I don't know where "no cost" came from.  I don't think anybody claimed   
that.




John Forbes, 01/10/2005 23:06

I think the two biggest advantages of  digital are the much greater  
control that you have over the image (I'm  talking about colour here,  
it's not the same with b&w), and the fact that  the cost is zero until  
and unless you want to print.














--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[John Forbes]

That's useful advice, Mike.  I presume that's what you do?

John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:49:19 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Cotty wrote:


I have a friend who asks:


Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is still
available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and  
tissues,

they seem OK but...

  In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

It would almost certainly just be propanol or isopropanol (propan [1 or  
2] ol) which should be purchasable from their local chemist.  The Hama  
fluid will be just the same.










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[Jostein]

Cotty,

The Kodak fluid is just ammonium nitrate dissolved in water. It does 
next to nothing to remove grit from the lens. Personally I would 
recommend against it. The ones Shel mentioned are better stuff.


Jostein

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "pentax list" 
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 10:09 PM
Subject: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?



I have a friend who asks:

Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is 
still
available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and 
tissues,

they seem OK but...


In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

Thanks




Cheers,
 Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[mike wilson]

John Forbes wrote:

I don't know where "no cost" came from.  I don't think anybody claimed  
that.




John Forbes, 01/10/2005 23:06


I think the two biggest advantages of  digital are the much greater control that 
you have over the image (I'm  talking about colour here, it's not the same with 
b&w), and the fact that  the cost is zero until and unless you want to print.

Photo Bio Suggestion?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Looking for a neat and interesting photographer's bio .  Got books on HCB,
WES, Capa, Chim, Lange, Weston, Adams, Photo-slut, Hillers, and a few
others.  Suggestions?  Looking for more than pictures ...


Shel 

Re: PESO: On My Way Home

[John Forbes]

Another instance where a title is helpful!

Nice pic.

John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:07:03 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 2/10/05, Rick Womer, discombobulated, unleashed:


I was walking home from work yesterday, on a beautiful
autumn afternoon, and came upon this fella soaking up
the last rays of the sun:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3773799

Technical: Pentax Optio 33L, -1.7 stops exposure
compensation, cropped and contrast boosted a bit in PE
2.

Plaudits and brickbats welcomed.



Took me a second or two to spot him. I like it, well done Rick.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Re: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[mike wilson]

Cotty wrote:


I have a friend who asks:



Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is still
available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and tissues,
they seem OK but...



In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

It would almost certainly just be propanol or isopropanol (propan [1 or 
2] ol) which should be purchasable from their local chemist.  The Hama 
fluid will be just the same.

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

I'll tell you a secret.  I'm going to die!  You, too.

Do we worry about it?  No.  We just go on until it happens.  Is that  
"pretending", or is it being pragmatic and not worrying about something  
one has no control over?


John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:28:36 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 2/10/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:


There is not a cat in hell's chance of a constructive debate on Pentax's
future.  Every month Herb Chong posts some figures.  Every month various
people wail and gnash their teeth.  Nothing new or enlightening ever
emerges.  Nobody knows what Pentax is planning, so instead we get
fantasies and predictions of doom.

The Chongites think that Pentax might pull out of photography.

The rational souls note that Pentax is profitable, and not about to go
down the plug-hole tomorrow.  Further ahead, who knows what the future
will bring?  Nobody here, that's for sure.

It's all very boring and unconstructive.

The sensible thing is just to forget the whole issue.


...and pretend it doesn't exist.


--->  ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_










--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

RE: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[Mark]

I'm in NY, and I've never heard of Kodak cleaning solution.  But if I think
I know what you're using it for, ever try Residual Oil Remover (ROR)?

Works great for me.  Works on the lens body, the camera body...I use a lens
pen as well for cleaning the lens surface if it's real fussy.

Mark



-Original Message-
From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 4:09 PM
To: pentax list
Subject: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

I have a friend who asks:

>Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is still
>available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and
tissues,
>they seem OK but...

In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

Thanks




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Jens Bladt]

I know that a Norwegian guy is selling his F 4-5.6 70-210mm, which is
superior to both of the two mentioned 70-200mm lenses.
Write to my home email if interested. I'm definitely not selling mine :-)

Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. oktober 2005 20:47
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Difference between F and FA lens?


The camera metering should work identically with either lens.



The Pentax FA is a SMC lens, (with power zoom), and you can see it here:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/FA70-200f4-5.6.html
The Pentax F is a non SMC (bargain lens) and you can see it here:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/_non-SMC/pen-F_70-200f4-5.6.html.
This lens looks a lot like the SMC-Pentax 70-210mm F, but don't be
confused it's a very different beast.

The two 70-200mm lenses have the same optical formula according to Boz's
site.

The price difference is probably due to the SMC glass and Power zoom
capability.

Glen wrote:

> I noticed that there are Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 zoom lenses with both F
> and FA suffixes. What is the difference? The F version is a LOT
> cheaper on the used market. I think they are both autofocus, so I
> suppose the difference might involve how the camera metering works
> with the lens?
>
> Does anyone have any comments on the quality of these two particular
> Pentax 70-200 zoom lenses? If I were to get one, it would be for use
> on an *istDS. I hear that some of the non-DA lenses don't do so well
> on the DS camera, so I would want to avoid lenses that didn't get
> along well with the DS.
>
> Also, I'd love to find an on-line chart that described what all these
> lens suffixes represented.
>
> thanks,
> Glen
>
>


--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).

RE: Daily Update-Pentax Petition and Petition Survey

[Don Sanderson]

Hi Bob, I'll update the results list every few days as
I get the time.
It takes several steps to clean it up, remove the 
personal info and format to .pdf, .xls or delimited text.
I have to go thru all the steps each time I update it. :-(

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 3:26 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Daily Update-Pentax Petition and Petition Survey
> 
> 
> Show the accumulating results. Please.
> 
> Regards,
> Bob...
> --
> --
> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy;
> if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
>  - Socrates
> 
> 
> From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > 1333 hits on the web page and 143 submissions so far.
> 
> 

Re: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Is your friend set on Kodak fluid and ~tissues~?  There are, imo, at least
>two much more superior fluids available, and I thought tissues went the way
>of the Dodo bird with the advent of micro-fiber cleaning cloths or the
>ubiquitous use of  fine quality cotton T-shirts.
>
>ROR and ClearSight make two of the better cleaning fluids, and ClearSight
>has a great micro fiber cloth. I prefer ClearSight, but use both.
>
>http://www.ror.net
>
>http://www.clearsightusa.com/oscommerce/catalog/index.php?cPath=21
>http://tinyurl.com/bqxzn

THANKS Shel, I'll pass it on.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

RE: Difference between F and FA lens?

[Don Sanderson]

Peter is right, the "Pentax-F 70-200/4-5.6" has been called
a "ringer" for the "SMC Pentax-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED".
Watch for the "SMC" in the name, it will be absent from the
cheaper, non-SMC Pentax-F and Takumar-F lenses.
My experience thus far with the Pentax-F and Takumar-F lenses
has been very disapointing. Contrast has been well below their
SMC counterparts, flare resistance has been much lower.
Confusing enough?
BTW: The 70-210s always seem to get better reviews than any
of the 70-200s. The SMCP-F 70-210/4-5.6 ED is indeed a fine
lens, though a bit pricey.

Don

> -Original Message-
> From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 3:02 PM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Difference between F and FA lens?
> 
> 
> That's the SMC F 70-210.  Which I mentioned in my post.  There was no 
> 70-200 version of this lens, (nor is there one mentioned on Boz's site), 
> if I remember correctly.
> 
> Rick Womer wrote:
> 
> >I don't believe that you guys are completely correct.
> >
> >IIRC, there was a non-SMC (Takumar) 70-200 F zoom,
> >quite inexpensive.  Though it was sharp, it was very
> >prone to flare.
> >
> >However, there was also an SMC F 70-200 F zoom, shown
> >on Boz's site here:
> >
> >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/zooms/long/F70-210f4-5.6.html
> >
> >The FA 70-200 has a power zoom motor, is not very well
> >built, and is optically mediocre (I have one).
> >
> >The SMC F 70-200 has a considerably better reputation.
> >
> >The FA lenses, as a group, have a chip that sends MTF
> >data to the camera body (so that the MTF program
> >exposure will work), and send focus distance to the
> >body (used for metering and flash).  The F lenses do
> >not send MTF information, and I don't think they send
> >focus distance either.
> >
> >Some FA lenses have power zoom motors, and some do
> >not.  The more recent ones do not.
> >
> >Rick
> >
> >
> >--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>The camera metering should work identically with
> >>either lens. 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>The Pentax FA is a SMC lens, (with power zoom), and
> >>you can see it here: 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/long/FA70-200f4-5.6.html
> >  
> >
> >>The Pentax F is a non SMC (bargain lens) and you can
> >>see it here: 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/_non-SMC/pen-F_70-200f4-
> 5.6.html.
> >  
> >
> >> 
> >>This lens looks a lot like the SMC-Pentax 70-210mm
> >>F, but don't be 
> >>confused it's a very different beast. 
> >>
> >>The two 70-200mm lenses have the same optical
> >>formula according to Boz's 
> >>site.
> >>
> >>The price difference is probably due to the SMC
> >>glass and Power zoom 
> >>capability.
> >>
> >>Glen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I noticed that there are Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 zoom
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>lenses with both F 
> >>
> >>
> >>>and FA suffixes. What is the difference? The F
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>version is a LOT 
> >>
> >>
> >>>cheaper on the used market. I think they are both
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>autofocus, so I 
> >>
> >>
> >>>suppose the difference might involve how the
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>camera metering works 
> >>
> >>
> >>>with the lens?
> >>>
> >>>Does anyone have any comments on the quality of
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>these two particular 
> >>
> >>
> >>>Pentax 70-200 zoom lenses? If I were to get one,
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>it would be for use 
> >>
> >>
> >>>on an *istDS. I hear that some of the non-DA
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>lenses don't do so well 
> >>
> >>
> >>>on the DS camera, so I would want to avoid lenses
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>that didn't get 
> >>
> >>
> >>>along well with the DS.
> >>>
> >>>Also, I'd love to find an on-line chart that
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>described what all these 
> >>
> >>
> >>>lens suffixes represented.
> >>>
> >>>thanks,
> >>>Glen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>-- 
> >>When you're worried or in doubt, 
> >>Run in circles, (scream and shout).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >__ 
> >Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> When you're worried or in doubt, 
>   Run in circles, (scream and shout).
> 

RE: UK readers, Kodak Cleaning Solution?

[Shel Belinkoff]

Is your friend set on Kodak fluid and ~tissues~?  There are, imo, at least
two much more superior fluids available, and I thought tissues went the way
of the Dodo bird with the advent of micro-fiber cleaning cloths or the
ubiquitous use of  fine quality cotton T-shirts.

ROR and ClearSight make two of the better cleaning fluids, and ClearSight
has a great micro fiber cloth. I prefer ClearSight, but use both.

http://www.ror.net

http://www.clearsightusa.com/oscommerce/catalog/index.php?cPath=21
http://tinyurl.com/bqxzn

Shel 

> [Original Message]
> From: Cotty 

>
> I have a friend who asks:
>
> >Would you by any chance know if Kodak lens cleaning solution is still
> >available? Can't find it anywhere. Got some Hama cleaning fluid and
tissues,
> >they seem OK but...
>
> In the UK, anyone have a pointer??

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

I don't know where "no cost" came from.  I don't think anybody claimed  
that.


Perhaps a better way to look at this is to say that it costs nothing to  
take some pictures and see how they come out.  Today I went to see the sun  
going down over the river, and shot about eighty pictures.


If none of them are any good, then the exercise will have cost me nothing  
except time.  Had I used film, I would have taken half as many pictures,  
and spent say £10.00, whether the pictures were any good or not.  That's  
where the cost saving comes in.  Trials and mistakes cost nothing.


Actually digital has cost me a lot of money.  It has rekindled an old  
interest in photography, with the result I've spent a fortune on lenses.


John

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 16:57:20 +0100, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Rob Studdert wrote:


On 2 Oct 2005 at 13:04, Toralf Lund wrote:


I've never been able to believe that the cost is quite zero, though.  
Not for the pictures you want to keep (whether you print them or not),  
anyway. Storing & maintaining data on a digital medium costs  
something, too - especially if you want any kind of security.


Care to make a real estimate of your cost per picture? [ ... ]




Not John but I'll put my 2c worth in as I am always amused when this  
type of discussion pops up.



Always glad to amuse ;-)

Personally I must say I'm slightly amused when people talk about how  
much money they save on buying a digital camera, because I always get  
the feeling that they are rationalising their buying decision after the  
fact, rather than giving a real reason why they bought one. And that the  
cost is *nothing* is also part of the somewhat annoying digital hype, I  
think.


Good DVD-R media is now less than AU$1 per disc and even creating  
duplicate discs and storing the bloated *ist D RAW files the cost works  
out at less than AU$0.006 per image.
I take it as given that people on a list like this would want to store  
*uncompressed* files. I also assume CD/DVD backups are good enough for  
most purposes - if you want true professional grade backups, you may  
actually end up with a price higher than the one of film. I don't think  
I could find DVDs I would trust at quite as low a price as you quoute.  
I've been figuring more with a *CD* cost of something like that, perhaps  
a little more (between 5 and 10 NOK). A nice thing about using CDs as a  
basis, is that you can essentially fit one film's worth of uncompressed  
files on a CD. So it all becomes a comparison between a film and one (or  
possibly two) CDs... And *maybe* I'd use CDs rather than DVDs just  
because they hold fewer files each, and I'd thus reduce the impact of  
disasters like complete disintegration (or "separation") of the media.


Prints are less costly as I don't print anything myself and my print  
bureau (and most others) charge less to print (to photo paper) from a  
finished file than they do from film.
So you *really* save that money? Around here, they both do and don't  
print cheaper from files. I mean, they do tend to quote lower prices in  
advertisments, but those prices are sometimes only applicable if you  
print in very high volumes. And I have found mailorder services that  
offer "package prices" on film development that will give print costs at  
least as low as the ones on digital.


Yes the initial fixed costs for equipment were higher than for a  
similar quality of film camera. However if you are willing to discount  
the purchase of a computer (which most of us have in any case and which  
by all rights isn't strictly necessary)


This is what I'm not quite willing to do. Yes, most people do have a  
computer, but if you say that handling digital images doesn't lead to a  
higher cost of ownership because you want more powerful equipment and/or  
need to upgrade more often (and possibly get new problems of various  
kind), then I don't believe you.


And you do need some kind of a computer, I think, at least if you want  
to save money. If you let the labs do the job for you, you will easily  
end up with a higher cost than for film. I guess you have one really  
low-cost option in the stand-alone camera media/CD/DVD/camera i/o units,  
though...


At the end of the day, I think the real issue is the "cost" of  having  
to do *some* kind of data management task, or differently put, one of  
the most important reasons why I haven't got a digital camera, is that  
I'm not sure want to have equipment where I *have to* do a lot of work  
on digital images (but then again, *I* do a lot of that in my job, so I  
prefer to avoid it on my spare time.)


I've been thinking that digital cameras *really* start to make a  
difference as and when the media used in the camera itself becomes so  
cheap and reliable that you can simply keep that as a "master copy"...


and the camera is used to shoot regularly the savings in film purchase  
and processing can be significant and easily reconciled.

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, John Forbes, discombobulated, unleashed:

>There is not a cat in hell's chance of a constructive debate on Pentax's  
>future.  Every month Herb Chong posts some figures.  Every month various  
>people wail and gnash their teeth.  Nothing new or enlightening ever  
>emerges.  Nobody knows what Pentax is planning, so instead we get  
>fantasies and predictions of doom.
>
>The Chongites think that Pentax might pull out of photography.
>
>The rational souls note that Pentax is profitable, and not about to go  
>down the plug-hole tomorrow.  Further ahead, who knows what the future  
>will bring?  Nobody here, that's for sure.
>
>It's all very boring and unconstructive.
>
>The sensible thing is just to forget the whole issue.

...and pretend it doesn't exist.


--->  ;-)




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: Daily Update-Pentax Petition and Petition Survey

[Bob Blakely]

Show the accumulating results. Please.

Regards,
Bob...

By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy;
if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher.
- Socrates


From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



1333 hits on the web page and 143 submissions so far.

Re: Adobe camera raw 3.2

[Derby Chang]

Derby Chang wrote:



New version of ACR.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html




Hehe...they've finally listed the ist DS as a supported camera.

D

--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Shel Belinkoff]

Hi,

I've been reading this thread off and on, and while, for the most part, the
debate and the technical stuff doesn't interest me too much, it makes for
an enjoyable read.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the new sensor that Sony is using in
their recently announced (released?) DRC-R1.  It's a 14mm X 21mm, 10mp CMOS
sensor, and it seems (to me, that is) that the size is a good compromise
between cost, size, and pixel count.  The camera has a retail price of
$1,000.00 which means that the sensor can't be ~that~ expensive, and since
Pentax has been using Sony sensors, it may well be that, at some point,
they may be using this one as well.

Any thoughts on this?

Shel 
"Am I paranoid or perceptive?" 


> [Original Message]
> From: Toralf Lund 

> Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. All I'm saying is that it's far too early 
> to say anything definite about the APS-C format (which the Nikons 
> technically aren't, as far as I know, but the difference is perhaps too 
> small to mention.) And no, I'm far from sure that FF will reach the 
> price I suggested anytime soon, but let's not forget that there is 
> something between 1x and 1.5x or 1.6x, too. Something I'd really like to 
> see, is a 1.2x crop, just because I like round numbers ;-) And I 
> wouldn't be surprised if the norm becomes there is no norm, i.e. that 
> there won't be classes of cameras with exactly the same picture format 
> as with film, but rather variations across the lineup for a given lens 
> mount, and also different formats for different producers.

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[John Forbes]

There is not a cat in hell's chance of a constructive debate on Pentax's  
future.  Every month Herb Chong posts some figures.  Every month various  
people wail and gnash their teeth.  Nothing new or enlightening ever  
emerges.  Nobody knows what Pentax is planning, so instead we get  
fantasies and predictions of doom.


The Chongites think that Pentax might pull out of photography.

The rational souls note that Pentax is profitable, and not about to go  
down the plug-hole tomorrow.  Further ahead, who knows what the future  
will bring?  Nobody here, that's for sure.


It's all very boring and unconstructive.

The sensible thing is just to forget the whole issue.

John


On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:19:13 +0100, Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Well put, Tom. People are "not even talking about the same thing" here.

I believe most contributors in this and similar threads really want a
constructive debate on this important issue; the future of Pentax.

But for some reason the debate ends up in a dead end, people attacking  
each

other instead of discussing the issue.

Why is this happening, why does this debate end up like a dog fight, over
and over again? I think the answer is pretty strait forward. The debaters
are simply not listening to each other. That’s the reason why you're "not
even talking about the same thing".


Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds
(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)


-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2. oktober 2005 16:40
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: RE: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

And here I think is a key item in this discussion I'd like to bring to
peoples attention.  I'm not picking on Jens here, I promise.  He wrote:

>I am in fact a very proud owner of a *istD and a MZ-S.

The thing is, I'm a proud owner of Pentax equipment as well.  No one  
here

is
attacking anyone's purchasing decision.  Keep on enjoying your Pentax
equipment.  If someone's self-esteem has been injured so that they must
defend Pentax no matter what, well I'm sorry.

The discussion seems to go:

Statement:  "I'm worried about Pentax and their future viability in the
market place".

The response seems to be:  "I like my Pentax camera, how dare you say
anything negative about Pentax".

We're not even talking about the same thing.

Tom C.






>Whenever I have some money to spend - I go for some nice glass. F. 2.8  
or

>better, regardless of the focal length.
>Right now I'm testing a Sigma 2.8/70-200mm AP0. I'm considering a used  
FA

>2.8/80-200mm in stead.
>
>At first the MZ-D was predicted to have a price tag of 10.000 USD. I
would
>probably never get it anyway.
>The people who judge, buy or order my photographs never ask what camera
>brand I use.
>Only the photographs are of any interst.
>
>
>Jens Bladt
>Arkitekt MAA
>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
>-Oprindelig meddelelse-
>Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sendt: 1. oktober 2005 23:11
>Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Emne: Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...
>
>
>That pretty well sums it up for me. Good post, John.
>Paul
>On Oct 1, 2005, at 4:05 PM, John Forbes wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > The continual negativism on this forum doesn't make it a better  
place,

> > and it certainly doesn't HELP Pentax.  What is does is to distort
> > people's assessment of Pentax's true position.
> >
> > You wouldn't think so from some of the posts, but Pentax is a
> > profitable company. It clearly went through a hard time when it was
> > forced to abandon the MZ-D, and I personally think it has bounced  
back
> > from that rather well.  A company with less financial muscle, and  
less
> > commitment to photography, would have given up then.  The fact that  
it

> > didn't speaks volumes.
> >
> > As the more level-headed members of this site point out, the current
> > DSLR range (the D, incidentally, is still available) meets the needs
> > of most people, even most PDML members.  Yes, it would be nice to  
have
> > extra bells and whistles, but most of us don't actually need them,  
and

> > many of us wouldn't pay very much for them. That's not to deny that
> > there are some photographers whose needs are clearly not well served
> > by the present line-up.  However, they are a small minority, and  
with

> > luck (and a little time), the D replacement will address their
> > problems.
> >
> > It is noteworthy that there are now very few list members left who
> > have not bought a Pentax DSLR.  Clearly, there must be something  
good

> > about them.
> >
> > In my view the Pentax DSLRs provide a much better picture-taking
> > experience than any 35mm film camera, and I expect my two D bodies  
to
> > be active for some time to come, whatever the future of Pentax.   
That

> > means I will continue to buy lenses.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:20:45 +0100, Tom C <[EMAIL

Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax...

[Cotty]

On 2/10/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:

>And I 
>wouldn't be surprised if the norm becomes there is no norm,

Yeah, he's not been about for a while. Must be at a cell phone cover
conference in Brazil.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_