OT: Great photo book

[Isaac Crawford]

For those of you that are worried about the direction that the photo world
is going, check out this great book. It's called "Primative Photography, A
Guide to Making Cameras, Lenses, and Calotypes". Talk about getting back to
basics! His premise was that he was afraid that in the near future, he would
not be able to work the way he likes to, he feared manufacturers dumping large
format films and printing papers, so he wanted to figure out how to do
photography without any commercially availible materials. His instructions are
pretty clear cut, and he takes you through each step of mking film holders
(wet and dry), making two different types of cameras, 3 different types of
lenses, making paper negatives, and making Calotype prints. It looks like a
blast to me, and easily doable. I'll get to use some of the older, funky, and
until now useless lenses I have floating around...
Even if you aren't going to make this stuff, it's an excellent resource on
lens abberations and early photo processes. Check it out! It's written by Alan
Greene.

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

135mm f1.8 FOR SALE

[Isaac Crawford]

I'm letting go my last Pentax lens, I've come to the conclusion that
I'll probobly never use an SLR again, I've fallen in love with
rangefinders... Its in great shape and I figured I'd let you guys have first
crack at it. I hope to have some emailable pictures by the end of the
week... I'm looking for $1000 US plus shipping. Email me off line. Thanks.

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: OT - Voigtlander Bessa L&R (but I mention ME Super)

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Voigtlander Bessa L&R (but I mention ME Super)


> No, it is a viewfinder camera. Rangefinder cameras by definition have an
> optical rangefinder. That means all those AF p&s cameras are not RF
cameras

> at all.

OK, I'll put on my nit picker's hat...:-) A rangefinder has, by
definition, a rangefinder in it. It doesn't have to be an optical one. Many
point and shoots use an electronic rangefinder mechanism, which is
automatically doing what a photographer would usually do manually, so I have
no problems calling them rangefinders (I put the Contax cameras in this
catagory too). Not that it matters a whole lot what we call them...:-)

Isaac

>
> Ciao,
> graywolf
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 85mm vs 77mm, and 43mm

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: 85mm vs 77mm, and 43mm


> Isaac Crawford wrote:
> Personally, I would much
> > prefer not to have to deal with equipment at all. But until that mind
> > projection thing I keep trying starts to work I guess I'll be stuck with
> > this stuff...:-)
>
> Which just goes to show that we're all different. For me, the machinery
> is part of the fun. I love a camera that has the solid feel of fine
> workmanship and good materials. I enjoy the precision of good glass,
> even if it's level of performance takes it beyond that which the eye can
> appreciate. To me, the machinery that accomlishes it is a joy to own and
> use.
> Paul

Wow, we really are different... Am I the only one that considers photo
equipment an expensive PITA? I won't say that I don't have fun using good
equipment, but I will use whatever I need to to get the image I want. I've
always assumed that that meant very good/expensive lenses, although I'm
finding some very useful cheap lenses...
My latest finds are some Russian lenses in Leica screw mount. I picked
up a 50mm f1.5 and a 35mm f2.8 (a biogon!) for less than $150 combined. The
35mm lens in particular is a sweetie. These lenses are made of aluminum,
have inconsistant focus resistance, and generally feel terrible, but they
produce some wonderful results, especially for people pictures. With grad
school looming in my future, I've thought quite a bit about making them my
only 35mm lenses and selling off my more valuable lenses for better
purposes. I still might, especially if my lack of shooting continues:-(  I'm
becoming more and more convinced that the style of 35mm shooting I'm falling
into relies less and less on optical "quality" and more on content. I save
my detail fetish for large format...:-)

Isaac
> -
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 85mm vs 77mm, and 43mm

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Len Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: 85mm vs 77mm, and 43mm


> Oh my God!  Isaac you nailed it with this post!  This list seems
> to be more about intangibles than images.  A lens can give
> fantastic results and all you will hear about it is how the lens
> feels, looks, weighs, handles, and balances.  Sometimes, it's
> enough to make a working photographer puke.  How many times I've
> wanted to scream "It does the damned job, doesn't it?"  If it
> gives us the results we want, can't we adapt just a little bit?
>
> Sorry.  Soapbox mode off.  Kevlar body armor on.
>

Well, I know that most of us here don't make a living doing this sort of
stuff, but it does seem that we lose sight of the real purpose of
photography fairly often. That purpose of course is to take pictures. Take
for example that silly thread a while back on weather or not digital cameras
take photographs... The pictures should always come first, questions about
technique should always come second. This isn't limited to this group to be
sure... I don't know how many times I will show a customer some equipment
that will suit their photographic needs perfectly only to have them say,
"It's nice, BUT, well, you know..." When I inform them that I don't know I
get answers ranging all over the place... "It's made in the Phillipines, "
"I don't like how it feels,", "It isn't made by Nikon" or even "It's the
wrong color". The one common thread is that it doesn't have a darn thing to
do with taking pictures. It always amazes me that what was such a pressing
photographic need suddenly is sidelined by something that is completely
beside the point photographicly. I will of course sell whatever the customer
wants to buy, but inevitivly they pick something that will not help them
with whatever they came in asking for.
I guess it's just a matter of priorities. Personally, I would much
prefer not to have to deal with equipment at all. But until that mind
projection thing I keep trying starts to work I guess I'll be stuck with
this stuff...:-)
Isaac


> Len
> ---
>
> > This all reminds me of a review of a Rega turntable I once
> saw. It was a
> > new model, a new new flagship. The reviewer praised everything
> about the
> > table, but finished up by giving it only a fair rating because
> it didn't
> > have enough "magic". I could just imagine the reaction from
> the folks at
> > Rega... "Well, we told our engineers to put a high priority on
> magic, but I
> > guess they didn't get the memo..."  I'm sure that Pentax feels
> the same
> > way...:-)
> >
> > Isaac
> > -
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 50mm 1.2 (compilation)

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: 50mm 1.2 (compilation)


> On 18 Dec 2001 at 18:01, Isaac Crawford wrote:
>
> > I doubt this... The Leica earned its moniker. :-) A rangefinder has
a
> > huge advantage over an SLR when it comes to light throughput.

> I just spent over three months travelling with only RFs in hand, 2 x M6
and
> Mamiya 7II so I have a little experience :-)
>
> Firstly the Mamiya has a far brighter RF patch than the Leica M6 (see
> measurements below) and secondly in really low light the RF patch in the
Leica
> isn't discernible however the SE-60/P50f1.2 still allows reliable focus.

(interesting info snipped)

I will have to try out this combo and see how easy it is to focus. I
have shot (and focused) in some pretty bad light (1/15 at f1.4 shooting
ei2400) with my Leica without any focus problems, come to think of it, I
don't know what I'd be taking a picture of if the light was any lower!:-)

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Mid 20th century look (was Re[2]: 50mm/f1.2

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:49 PM
Subject: OT: Mid 20th century look (was Re[2]: 50mm/f1.2


> Hi,
>
> > I've developed an interest in producing B&W photos with a "look" from
> > the mid-20th century, and have been experimenting with film that may
> > contribute to that look, along with giving consideration to lenses that
> > may also enhance such imagery.
>
> Interesting idea. Any particular photographers' work in mind?


Yeah, that's a pretty broad range. There aere a lot of different types
of photography being done in the 50's. Narrow it down a little for us and
I'm sure that we could help out...

Isaac
>
> ---
>
>  Bob
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Voigtlander lens

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: Voigtlander lens


> On Monday, December 17, 2001, at 04:15  AM, Michael Henry wrote:
> >
> > I s'pose I should get over this way of thinking, since Cosina (I
> > believe)
> > manufacture a few Nikon models.
>
> ...of course, the Nikons produced by Cosina aren't anything to write
> home about.  :)

I think that in addition to producing the junky FM and FE-10 models,
Cosina also makes the 45mm f2.8 for Nikon. Just goes to show that they can
build anything a client asks for...

Isaac
>
> I think that they bought the Voightlander name to get themselves some
> credibility in terms of quality.
>
> -Aaron
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Who recommended Ilford inkjet paper

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: Who recommended Ilford inkjet paper


> Whoever it was...thank you!

You're welcome!:-)
>
> I've just tried the Classic Pearl, which I like quite a bit, the
semi-matte,
> which I like a whole lot and the Fine Art paper, which is just beautiful!
>

Oo, Oo, something else to try... How does it compare to Epson's archival
matte paper? I've really taken to it for some images...

Isaac

> Mark Roberts
> www.robertstech.com
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: M lens testimonial

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: M lens testimonial


> I've heard (read) over and over that the 40/2.8 is an overpriced mutt, but
> I've never seen any photos attributed to it that make me say "Ick". Anyone
> know how it got such a lousy reputation?

IIRC the 40 is a "tessar" design and therefore not at its best until
stopped down a ways. I bet that if the 40 is shot around f8 or 11 it will
give acceptably sharp pictures. My guess is that some people spent too much
on it and then were disapointed with its performance at 2.8, hence the bad
rep.

Isaac
>
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> >I got some nice shots with the
> >40/2.8 and was quite surprised by the quality of the resulting film.
> >It's probably not quite as sharp as the 35/2, but it's definitely not a
> >bow-wow.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Avening's Photoshop 6 for Photographers

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: Avening's Photoshop 6 for Photographers


> Hi Cotty,
>
> Currently reading "Real World Photoshop 6", Blatner & Fraser, which is
> quite enlightening (when I get the time read). Fraser is a frequent and
> helpful contributor to the Epson list (where I lurk, occasionally), and
> I've read several of his Photoshop articles online.
>
> I would appreciate hearing comments about other books, however.

I was astonished at how good the Dan Margulis book on Photoshop 6.0 is.
I'm still trying to get a lot of the info through my head. The thing that I
really like is that it is a 300+ page book, and he only talks about color
correction, sharpening, and converting to greyscale. He doesn't waste my
time with techniques on how to turn my photo into a woodcut, how to make
drop shadows, or how to mask (which after I finished his book I will do much
less of). Highly reccomended...

Isaac
>
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Cotty wrote:
>
> >I just received a copy of Martin Avaning's 'Adobe Photoshop 6 for
> >Photographers' from a mail order book co. The online reviews were
> >positive - before I instigate it as my 'Book at Bedtime', any comments?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Cotty
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Can't we all just get along?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?


> I have two Pentax Lightseekers.
> 4x-16X AO -30
> 8.5x-32X AO -30
>
> http://www.pentaxlightseeker.com/products/scopes/
>
> The 4x16 Pentax is considerably more clear and appears to deliver
higher
> resolution than my 4.5x16 Springfield Armory 2nd Generation which is
> considered to be an excellent scope. It certainly sports more contrast. It
> wouldn't surprise me if the optics were produced in the same plant as
> Pentax's fine photo lenses. The exterior coatings appear to be the same,
but
> who can tell from looking. They are described as having a "Seven-layer
> multi-coating ."
>
> Anyway, they hold zero like granite (assuming good mount) and I give them
a
> "thumbs up". Better than Nikon as good as or better than Leupold. (The "as
> good as" part is because I know some folks swear by their Leupold, and
I've
> not put them through any "scientific" side by side testing.)
>
> Isn't your hunt worth a Pentax?
>
> Regards,
> Bob...

I have a customer that is an optomatrist. He shoots Canon for his
photos, which he calls "good enough" but uses Zeiss optics for where it
"counts", for his work in his office, and hunting...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: SUPER Super-Takumar

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: SUPER Super-Takumar


> That was for B&W, color, or both?
>
> How does the SMC Tak compare to the various k, m, a, fa 50/1.4 lenses?
>
> Dan Scott
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >A huge, flaming argument about this was what made me leave the LUG. I
> >claimed that a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar was the equal of the Leica
> >Summicron-M. The Leica folk hooted and hollered. A few months later,
Herbert
> >Keppler wrote a column in POP comparingthe Pentax Super-Takumar and
the
> >Leica Summicron-M. He concluded that there was little difference in
> >performance.
> >
> >I think the Super-Takumar is a slightly _better_ lens, myself.
> >
> >At least I can say that, around here. 

I don't know about "better", faster certainly, different definately. The
50mm f1.4 lenses (of various vintages) are one of the few Pentax lenses I
still shoot, that and the 135mm f1.8, so I am a big fan. I will also say
that you'll have to pry my 50mm summicron-M (current version) out of my cold
dead hands. It is the lens (and I guess the camera has something to do with
it too) that has kept me shooting 35mm. I *think* that I like the Leica
better in B&W and the 50mm f1.4 (A,M, or Super Tak, take your choice) for
color... don't ask me why, I don't think I can explain.

Isaac
> >
> >--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: OT: Re: Australians

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Australians


>
> Liberty is not about what you like not being curtailed or banned. Liberty
is
> about ...



Blah Blah Blah. Please take your definitions of liberty off list. This
is not a political philosophy mail list, it is (at the very least) a photo
equipment list. Thank you.

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: 50mm lens TOO sharp?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: 50mm lens TOO sharp?


> This is my first posting to PDML after reading damn near every posting for
> the past 2 months I figured it was finally time to subscribe.  So before I
> ask my question I just want to say thanks to the many who have
> (unconsciously) given me some great advise via their informative postings.
>
> Anyhow here's my current concern.  Before last week, I had only used my
> 50mm f1.7 to take scenic nature shots, and the results have been
> incredibly sharp and hence pleasing.  Last Friday, however, I used this
> lens to take some pictures of people at a Christmas party (it's the
> smallest lens I have, and I wanted to be someone inconspicuous).  In this
> case, I honestly have to say that my wife's point-and-shoot pictures came
> out better than mine! (well, sort of) Why? Well, I learned firsthand how a
> lens could be considered TOO sharp! While I appreciated a fast lens in
> such a dark restaurant, the sharpness of the lens hid NOTHING! Every
> blemish, pimple, wrinkle, you name it showed up in every picture. My wife
> is so self-conscious as it is, that I didn't even bother showing her the
> pictures of herself (I didn't want to hear about the pimple on her
> forehead all week).  Her "blurred" p&s pictures made everyone look
> glamorous while my shots highlighted the blemishes that makeup could not
> hide.  Well, you live and learn.  Now I know.
>
> It's just pretty funny / ironic to me that I traded in a not-so-sharp lens
> (35-80mm) to get a much sharper one, and then have to buy filters and such
> to tone it down and make the images softer (like the original lens). Well,
> I'll surely be photographing some people over the holidays.  Hence, when
> I'm in NY next week, my plan is buy a Tiffen Soft/FX3 filter (or something
> along those lines) from B&H.  Here's a silly question: Does anyone you
> have any opinions/ comments / suggestions/ experiences along these lines
> that may help me remedy this "sharpness problem"?  Thanks a million.
>   .jerome.

Just out of curiosity, were you using an on camera flash? The
combination of a sharp lens with front on flash will certainly reveal every
blemish known... I'd try to take the flash off the camera and/or use a soft
box on the flash to minimize the dermotoligist look... That way the final
images will still be sharp enough to be enlarged, and you'll have more
pleasing light to boot!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Airport & Postal Scanners Fogging Film

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Ken Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Airport & Postal Scanners Fogging Film


> Print this out and use this next time.  It's their own regulations.
>
> THIS DATA CURRENT AS OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2001
>
> 14 CFR -  CHAPTER I -  PART 108



From what I've heard from customers, the checkers put everything through
the xray. This might only happen in the DC area where I am... Still, I don't
really mind our security standards rising to the rest of the world's...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Airport & Postal Scanners Fogging Film

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: LeviL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: Airport & Postal Scanners Fogging Film


> > In the U.S., FAA regulation still gives you the right to request hand
> > inspection. The problem is in the rapid turnover of low-wage workers in
> > screening jobs. They often don't know this.

Just to be nit-picking, I don't believe that it is a "right". The FAA
has guidelines that do allow handchecking, but they are free at any time to
suspend those guidelines. I also believe that it is left to the discretion
of the checker as to if they will allow it or not. My advise is to call
ahead of time and arrange a hand check. Make it as easy as possible for them
and maybe they'll cooperate more...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Selecting a Loupe.

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Selecting a Loupe.


> >The Pentax 5.5x loupe is very nice, rated higher then the Schneider 4x
> >by Prac. Photog.
>
> No way. I tried the 5.5X Pentax too. It was good, but not as well as the
> Schneider 4X MC.

I'll agree with Alan here. I own both, and I now wish that I hadn't
bought the Pentax. There is much more distortion in the Pentax, and I find
that I don't see any more detail, even with the higher magnification of the
Pentax. The finest loupe I have ever looked through was the Schneider 6x
aspheric. It had a similar problem to the Pentax in that if you weren't dead
on, you get wicked distortion. I also like the Mamiya (rebranded?) 5x loupe.
It seems to be as sharp as the Schneider, but just a little more
magnification and better eye relief. The LX finder that has a magnified 90
degree viewer makes an amazing loupe. No distortion from edge to edge, and
very sharp. If you own an LX, it probably makes the most sense...

Isaac
>
> >I find the magnification sufficient, and I don't get eyestrain.
>
> This could be a problem with the Schneider 4X.
>
> regards,
> Alan Chan
>
> _
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Rangefinder shooting

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Paul Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax SMC-FA* 85mm/1.4 IF on E-bay


> Hi Tom,
>
> In the last two weeks i have started shooting with a Bessa-R rangefinder
and
> a Summarit 50/1.5 lense and the most difficult part about getting used to
a
> range finder has been being able to focus only with the centre patch. It
has
> made be realise that most of the time my main focal point is not dead in
the
> centre of the frame. I am alot slower with the rangefinder than with an
SLR,
> although i have only put a few roles through it, so time will tell.
>
> I do like being able to see outside of the viewfinder frame.
>

Welcome to the wonderful world of rangefinder photography! At some point
you'll have to ignore the focusing patch and start to zone focus (Use the
Force Luke!). I found myself missing too many pictures if I tried to get
critically focussed images in quick changing situations. Using a 50mm or
35mm lens it is far easier to walk forward until your subject is in your DOF
and WHAM, you get acceptably sharp images, but at just the right moment,
plus its much more fun!:-)
After some tests, I've found that my acceptable DOF with a 50mm lens is
around 6 feet deep at f8, focused around 6 feet (If I remember correctly,
its been a while since I've shot like this...). Sometimes I shoot with both
eyes open, sometime I only look through the viewfinder,  and sometimes I
only look through the eye not at the camera! That's the advantage of a 50mm
lens, I find it easier to "see" the frame without looking at a frame...
Of course, none of this helps a whole lot with limited DOF, but I don't
really think that's a great way to use a rangefinder IMHO. Too many hoops to
jump through, and easier with an SLR...



Isaac
> Regards,
> Paul
> - Original Message -
> From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Pentax SMC-FA* 85mm/1.4 IF on E-bay
>
>
> > Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > >
> > > Were these done with autofocus?
> >
> > No. AF doesn't seem to work for me below f/4...recomposing after locking
> > on the central sensor is usually enough to knock it out of focus at
> > really shallow DOF.
> >
> > Which leads to a related question which maybe you can answer. Like I
> > said, when using AF you often "lock-on" the sensor, then recompose the
> > image. With shallow DOF, this slight movement is often enough to change
> > the plane of focus enough to screw things up.
> >
> > Using a rangefinder seems to me to involve the same dance - line up the
> > images in the central area, then recompose. Do you find the act of
> > recomposing throws off your focus? From my limited use of rangefinders
> > it seems like the camera is moved less when recomposing as compared to
> > an slr and would minimize the effect.
> >
> > I'm still debating the purchase of a rangefinder.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Converted to digital photography !

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Converted to digital photography !


> Finally,  perhaps a new Pentax list should be developed for those who want
> to talk digitally.  I prefer the Pentax list only in the conventional
> photographic way.

Sorry, digital isn't going away, and there are fewer and fewer clear cut
boundries when it comes to conventional/digital processes. Most of my "good"
images are printed digitally these days even though they were captured on
film. If you are involved with photography in any way, digital will come
up...

Isaac
>
> Jim A.
>
>
> > From: "Cyril MARION" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:06:18 +0100
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Converted to digital photography !
> >
> > Hello the list.
> >
> > Fist of all, forgive me for this long post. But I wanted to shere these
> > thoughts with you. I just bought for my Club (an old-timer Car club) a
new
> > compact digital camera. Not a reflex, no. Just a standard 4 megapixel
> > camera. A Casio QV4000.
> >
> > To tell you the truth, I'm totally. surprised. Astonished. Converted !
> >
> > First of all, I like and practice photography since the late 70's. My
first
> > SLR was a PRAKTIKA MTL3 with a 50mm and a 135mm. Then my first PENTAX
was a
> > Me SUPER, bought new in 1981. I stayed with PENTAX since then (do not
ask me
> > why, it's just like this.) and I used several Program A and SUPER A (I
still
> > have a SUPER A now), one Z-1 (that I still have), several Zoom 70 R and
X (I
> > have a 70-X). On the lens side, my jewel collection is made of a 17mm
f/4,
> > an A 24mm f/2,8, two A 50mm f/1,4 and f/1,7, one A zoom 35-105 f/3,5 and
one
> > A 70-210 f/4.
> >
> > Like everyone of us I think, I started with black and white, easily
> > developed in a quickly transformed bathroom. Then I tasted slide
photography
> > (with a number of bad photos far more important !). Now 90% of my
pictures
> > are colour prints. Since 1996, I scan the best of my prints, to use them
for
> > web or to duplicate 10x15cm prints on colour printer. The scanning
operation
> > being quite long (with my HP 6300C scanner) I often ask my lab to give
me my
> > photos on CD. The offered resolution of 1500 x 1000 pixel is (for my own
> > use) sufficient. Well, for some years now, I practice "digital"
photography,
> > but with "classic" equipment.
> >
> > And then came the day when I used an "all digital camera". and then for
me,
> > everything changed !
> >
> > But what is so different from a 35mm SLR to an all digital camera ?
> >
> > One big only answer : instantaneity ! By viewing the pictures just after
> > taking them, one feel about the same magic as with a Polaroid, but with
even
> > faster response, and above that, without the feeling of wasting a print
if
> > the shot is not good. What a pleasure to have the possibility to judge a
> > shot immediately. The focus is not good ? One erase the picture and do
it
> > again. This part of the picture is too dark ? One re do several shots
while
> > overexposing until the right exposure is found. The subject moved or did
not
> > keep the pose ? One just has to ask a new second of attention and shoot
> > again. All the tricky photographical situations can be approached
without
> > any fear; the photographer is reinsured and never comes back home
without a
> > couple of good photos !
> >
> > Now that I am CERTAIN that digital photography will totally overpass
> > chemical photography in a very short period of time, what an attitude to
> > adopt ? At the date of today, my choice is very basic : either I buy for
my
> > personal use, one of these digital cameras, with a more or less futurist
> > look, not often cute (the Casio QV 4000 is ugly!) and I try to resell
all my
> > old equipment, either I wait. But to wait for what ? To wait for a
solution
> > allowing me to reuse all, or part of my existing equipment. To wait for
the
> > successor of the e-film in 24x36mm size for instance, to be able to
reuse my
> > SUPER A and my Z-1 and theur accessories. To wait for PENTAX to
manufacture
> > 24x36mm digital backs for my SUPER A and my Z-1. Or to wait for PENTAX
to
> > make a true 24x36mm digital SLR to be able to reuse all my lenses.
Today, to
> > wait corresponds better to my photographer's aspirations.
> >
> > I think I'm not alone in my case ! And in front of such a situation,
what do
> > the camera manufacturers think ? Why a so genius idea like the e-film
has
> > not given birth to a sellable product ? Have they received pressures
from
> > camera manufacturers ? Why the big manufacturers offer expensive
equipment
> > without any real interest for the amateurs ? Do they think they will
push us
> > to throw away all our ancient equipment, and buy one of their non
finished
> > digital mutants ? When will they offer us the digital equipment we are
all
> > wa

Re: MZ-S and a confession

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Bob Rapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: MZ-S and a confession



>
> But my rationale is, a camera is a light-tite box with a finder and
shutter.
> I fell for the gadgets of the later cameras when I bought a SF1n and later
a
> PZ1p. The former was stolen and the latter sold to make way for the LX.
Why
> the change in attitude? One weekend, I was having a "bad hair" day and was
> questioning the PZ1p and the 28-105 power-zoom lens. The purpose was to
> photograph some old stone churches (one of my favourite topics). I dug out
> my old Spotmatic with a 55 and 35mm lens. I proceeded to take the same
> pictures with both cameras. The results could be expected, the Spotmatics
> images were higher quality but the real surprise was the consistency of
> exposure on the negatives. The Spotmatic was actually more uniform.

I had a similar experience when going from my LX to a M6. At first I was
sort of bummed because I didn't have aperature priority, but then I noticed
that my exposures were always dead on with the Leica. The difference was
that I was involved in every decision instead of letting the camera do it
for me. From then on I shot the LX in manual whenever I could...

Isaac
> Bob Rapp
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Tempted by the dark side--help!

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Juan J. Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Tempted by the dark side--help!


> Thanks William and Chris. Now I can safely stay with my Pentaxes.
>
> I'll still try an FG, if say, I find one with 50mm lens for $50 or so,
which
> is not unlikely given the few bargains I've been finding lately.
>
> But you're right Chris, the Nikon FG-20 seems like a Program Plus more or
> less, and if the quality is as bad as Bill says, then I'm not surprised
I've
> seen so few of them for sale.
>
> j

The FG has to be the only camera from a major manufacturer that feels as
though it is ready to come apart at any moment, and it's normal. They are
also one of the worst sounding cameras of all time. If you must think of
Nikon, at least make it a respectable camera, like one of their FM or FE
models...:-)

Isaac
>
>
> =
> --
> Juan J. Buhler
> http://www.jbuhler.com
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax Ads

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Dave Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: pentax-discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:39 PM
Subject: Pentax Ads



>
> They also show that crocidile hunter guy with crocs snapping at his heals
> which is somehow suppose to make us want to bring a pentax with us on our
> adventures?  Not sure hwo effective that is.
>
> Say, here is a potential dumb thread, how would you advertise your
favorite
> pentax camera?  It has got to be better than the croc hunter ad.  Maybe we
> could award a prize for creativity.  I have a few items floating
around

Actually, there is a piece of Pentax promo lit. around that has Steve
Irwin talking about his K1000 and his MZ-S. I think that they could push the
nature and adventure angle pretty well with him if they wanted to. It would
be pretty easy to shoot footage of him taking pictures of various nasties
and then running for his life... "Whew, that was close, thank goodness the
MZ-S is made of magnesium, if I had an F100, I'd be dead for sure..." The
possibilites are enfless...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: OT: "Neutral" countries (was: Re: December PUG)

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: OT: "Neutral" countries (was: Re: December PUG)


> In a message dated 12/6/01 8:26:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Are not the Palestinian terrorists. with Arafat's tacic blessing,
killing
> > innocents?"
>
> Yes. But Israel retaliates not in kind, but by overreacting.
> A Palestinian blows up a bus, Israel blows up a village.
> Hardly fair. And not very likely to stop the Palestinians.

The thing that really kills me is that this "policy" has not worked at
all. There are more bombings, and there are more reprisials. At some point,
somebody will have to try a different approach. How long will it take all
parties involved to admit that they aren't interested in peace, they're
interested in getting even?

Isaac
> Of course we shouldn't talk about terrorism without mentioning Northern
> Ireland... or Bosnia, or former USSR provinces, can we?
>
>
> >
> > Carlos Royo wrote:
> >
> > >  The Israeli government don't deserve any support because they
> > > are killing innocents, like they have been doing for decades.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel J. Matyola
> >
>
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Photofinishing

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Photofinishing


> I'm always a little wary taking negative film down to the drugstore and
> having a 19 year old girl do the processing while talking to her boyfriend
> on the cell phone.

Oh yeah... And they have their Coke right next to the machine and
they're popping bubbles with their gum as they print... I walk right out of
those places!

Isaac
>
> Your point is very well made. It's not where, it's who.  Month's back I
> suggested we ALL mail our film to William Robb's Wal-mart as a joke.  Can
> you see the volume he would get?
>
> Tom C.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 8:27 AM
> Subject: Photofinishing
>
>
> > There has been some disparaging words here about "cheap"
> photofinishing vs
> > a "pro" lab, and I'd just like to put in my two cents... I work at a
place
> > that prices itself between places like Walmart and the various custom
labs
> > around here. While its true that in general we produce with more
> consistancy
> > than places like Walmart and Eckerd's, that isn't always the rule. What
I
> have
> > found to be the key issue is wheather the people running the lab care
> about
> > what they are doing moreso than where they are. I always tell my
customers
> > that photofinishers are like hairstylists (or barbars) in that if you
find
> > someone that does a good job, stick with them. If William Robb's Walmart
> was
> > near me, I'd be sorely tempted to get my 4x6's done there because it's
> obvious
> > that he cares, and he's got a killer price. That's an amazing combo, but
> > unfortuenetly, it's all too rare. Most of the time, I get what I pay
for.
> Most
> > places use similar (in capabilities) machines, even the "pro" labs for
> 4x6's.
> > The difference comes down to who is using and maintaining them...
> >
> > Isaac
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers


> In a message dated 12/4/01 10:42:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > > I agree 1000%.  Until I can do everything with digital I can with
> > > film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great
> > > results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it.  Let's see...
> > > I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let
> > > someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release.
> >
> > "Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs."
>
> Yes, but the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints.
>
> > always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink
> > need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras?"
>
> Precisely because you don't need the above to see prints. You don't even
need
> a computer: go to the drugstore-etc., open package and look. And why do
> digital advocates always assume that "Granny" has a computer or some other
> means to see their ofttimes shabby product?

See Mafud? This is what we are talking about, prints for "Granny". Do
you think Joe Sixpack goes to the local pro lab to get these done? Go to a
Wla-Mart, get your prints from digital media (at the same price as film) and
then send them to Granny.
>
> > good minilab into the purchase of your film
> > camera?"
>
> That's a Shibboleth.
>
> "If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab
and
> let them do
> > it...just like film.  Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for
prints
> > from digital files as from film.  This isn't a rant against you, Tom,
but
> > against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems
with
> > home printing."
>
> Another good reason to shoot film: ~you~ only need a camera and eyes to
shoot
> and Granny only need eyes to view them, the way it's been for more than a
> one-hundred years.
>
> What did ~you~ do before you had a digital? In that regard, the "digital
is
> equal to or better than film" argument falls squarely on its expensive
face.
> Those who argue the convenience of small format digital, without
considering
> the cost to an individual, disregard one fundamental fact: small format
> digital owners pay, in terms of replacing or upgrading equipment,
ink-etc.,
> huge sums of money to get what are essentially dinky home printed images.
> Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX.

I really wish you'd preface these sorts of comments with, "In my
experience". That way, when we say that things have changed, you could just
say that you haven't seen it yet, instead of trying to prove us wrong. The
facts of the matter are that for my customers that shoot a couple of rolls a
week, a $399 digital camera is saving them lots of money, and they haven't
noticed a drop off in quality for their 4x6 prints. Many do not do any
printing at all at home, we do it all for them. Cost of printing and ease of
printing are not (at least here) arguments against using digital cameras for
"regular" snapshooters...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Take a Chill Pill, Dudes!

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Take a Chill Pill, Dudes!


> In a message dated 12/6/01 8:24:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Okay, Mafud made a comment about how expensive digital prints are to
make.
> > This was in error.
>
> Not a true representation of what has transpired at all.
> Some disingenuous PDML members, proposing that such an event can happen
where
> ~they~ live, kept the harangue going, I merely responded. Turns out that
what
> I know as a "lab" is not what they (any of them) think of as a "lab."
What I
> meant by "lab" was a "pro lab" as opposed to what they meant, one of them
> equating his Walmart to my "pro lab."
> It appears I was correct in my assertions. No way would a "pro lab" (any)
do
> digital for the same price as film.

Wrong again. Our custom lab does all of their prints from slides
digitally (on a Lightjet 5000), and they are virtually (within a couple of
bucks) the same price as their Ilfochrome service. It is actually less
expensive printing directly from a digital file because there is no scanning
required. Perhaps your lab is not like this right now, but they will be, or
else they will disappear. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that
"No way would a "pro lab" (any) do digital for the price of film." How's
this, why would digital be more expensive? There is far less time involved,
fewer redos (if any at all), and potentially a much more streamlined
workflow at the lab. If any lab was "substantially" higher, I'd question
their pricing, and probably go to another lab.

>
> ". All our resident lab technicians have jumped all over him repeatedly
and
> made sure the rest of us know he's wrong."
>
> As we now know, your "resident lab technicians" are either mini(lab)
> technicians or they were referring to any place that develops film, ~not a
> "pro lab," as labs are generally known by professional photographers.
Since
> I'm a (retired) professional with 37 years in the craft, my definition is
far
> more suitable to the topic than theirs.

If you remember correctly, and you don't, you were initially railing
against digital photography because it cost so much to get prints done.
Well, it always costs to have stuff printed at a custom lab. But just like
in film, there are always alternatives, and for the vast majority of people
out there, these minilabs fit the bill. BTW, do you ever get 4x6 prints done
at your "pro lab"? Guess what kind of machines they use to print them...
> **No way does an in-store Walmart minilab equate to "lab" in my
professional
> terminology.

Just like your rather loose definition of civilian huh?
>
> "Is it really necessary to continue to taunt him about it? Let's let it
go,
> huh? You guys are like snapping dogs around a wounded bear."
>
As soon as he stops announcing that his experience trumps all other
actual realities, we'll stop.
> Hey Mike. You should have gone to...Walmart and done it yourself on their
> little do-it-yourself machine! You could have made yourself some beautiful
> wallet sized, 8 x 10 or any size you want and in far less time.  ~That's~
> what Walmarts are for.

Often times, an image will not require fancy printing, and even basic
equipment can give very satisfactory results, why go to a pro lab unless the
image requires it?
Isaac
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: OT: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers


> In a message dated 12/4/01 1:56:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Besides i still think i take better film flash then digital flash.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> I agree Dave. Lag time between pushing the shutter release and actuall
firing
> is, as you note-atrocious. Most under $500 digital flash gives you that:
> "shot in a dark room with ISO 100 film" look.

That's because the digital is usually only any good at the equivelent of
100 or 50 speed film... A big shortcoming in affordable digital right now
IMO...

Isaac
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: flash stuff

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: flash stuff
Outdoors, the distances are
> pre-measured, just as any artist measures and stretches their canvas.

Hmm... I wouldn't bother with 35mm in that case, which almost always
means manual flash... BTW, I hate shooting strobe pictures with 35mm.
Especially if its a paying gig. Give me my "Polameter" any day!:-)
>
> While "automatic" or TTL flash merely light the subject so the photo can
be
> taken, the proper use of manual flash can and does "paint"** the subject,
not
> just "light" them.
> **TTL and automatic flash blasts the subject, while strategically placed
> manual flash wraps light ~around~ the subject.

Just out of curiosity, why couldn't someone do that with TTL flash?
Wireless flash systems are pretty common, and some of them will even allow
"ratio" shooting as well. With high quality systems like Quantum's Qflash,
one could set up a multi light  TTL flash system using whatever ratio one
could want. Between flash exposure compensation and placement you could have
all the "wrapping" you could desire... Someone who knows their equipment
will be able to get the shot, one way or the other...

Isaac
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: flash stuff

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: flash stuff


> In a message dated 12/2/01 11:45:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>
> >
> > The formula is "get out my Sekonic and check".  I'd bet a dozen
> > doughnuts that my exposure will be more accurate than yours, unless you
> > remembered your tape measure.
> >
> > Seriously, you'd go to a professional gig with no meter?  Or is that
> > broken too?
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> Aaron, three things really tick me off: cold coffee, wet toilet paper and
a
> wise *ss like you.
> That said, you misaddressed the first post then totally ignored the
content
> of the second. The topic was "manual flash," not flash meters or even
flash
> meter accuracy.

Using a meter is a perfectly good way to deal with the situation you
mentioned, what's your problem?

> Can we say: "Manual flash"?
> Since you've brought your own foul brand of vitriol to the discussion then
> descended into your 'obnoxious' act, I'll sign off this topic.

Who's being obnoxious? If you don't like harsh responses, try not to
bait people into them. I believe that he mentioned that he'd use a ttl flash
system, and that wasn't good enough for you. He was considerably nicer than
I would have been considering the tone of your last couple of posts was
basicly "Well what would you do without your fancy gear? You'd be lost
because you aren't a real photographer..." At least that's how it seemed to
me, and apearently I'm not the only one...

Isaac

>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The best FINE PRINTER'S format

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:42 PM
Subject: The best FINE PRINTER'S format


> Issac (I think...I'm never really sure...) wrote:
>
> > I guess you could call me a large
> > format snob, I've never really considered 35mm all that great as far as
> > image quality goes.
>
> 35mm really isn't a printer's medium. In the '30s and '40s it was
considered
> "miniature," and no self-respecting photographer would think of turning in
> work done with one. The arguments used against foreshadowed the very
> arguments we're hearing against digital today.
>
> Oddly enough, 4x5 was once considered "as small as film should get" as
well,
> in comparison to "real" large formats which were used in stand cameras.
But
> it was so much easier to use, could be handheld (albeit often with flash),
> and was so handy that it came to predominate.

When people ask why I like to shoot with large format cameras, I usually
tell them that I'm lazy... I have, from the very first, found that it is
MUCH easier to get beautiful prints from large format negs. I have to work
like hell and jump through all sorts of hoops to get stuff I really like in
35mm. 35mm is great for snapshots and small prints, but almost all of my
"serious" shooting is of static things. This is why I'm looking forward to a
nice digital camera, for me it will easily replace 35mm for snapshots...


> This doesn't consider a lot of issues such as the fact that 6x7 can be
used
> handheld, 4x5 has movements and individual development of sheets of film,
> 6x7 lenses are faster, 4x5 is cheaper, etc., etc. All I'm talking about is
> the way viewers perceive prints.

This sounds about right, but I don't know if I could ever give up single
sheet development... For me that is the biggest advantage of LF over medium
format, the actual image quality probably isn't that much different, but it
is easier to print from a neg that has been optimally developed. I'm also
amazed at the current value of LF gear. We just sold a Linhof Color Kardan
with a Fuji 240mm lens for $800! Talk about bang for the buck! There are
much cheaper cameras out there, now might be the best time ever for trying
LF!

Isaac
>
> --Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: When "good enough" ain't: was Re: what I think of current digital cameras

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: When "good enough" ain't: was Re: what I think of current
digital cameras


> "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's true, there isn't as much info, but it just isn't needed for
most
> >people's photography.
>
> >From my collection of favorite PDML quotations:
>
> "'Information' doesn't have anything to do with art."
>  - Mike Johnston
>

Ohhh, that's good! I guess that explains how people are able to make
decent images with those minature 35mm negs...:-)

Isaac
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> www.robertstech.com
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: what I think of current digital cameras

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras


> In a message dated 11/25/01 3:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > "One hindrance slowing digital down, is that it's closely associated
with
> > computers.  Not everyone wants or cares about them."
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> > high percentage of people who buy digital cameras,
> > also have computers.  The rest, also a significant number, don't care
and
> > will continue using film cameras."
>
> Um-hm.
>
> > hink it's only a matter of time before digital imaging becomes  the
rule,
> > as opposed to the new-fangled exception."
>
> I would add, as you proposed above, "for those who have computers." At
what
> point computers stop their penetration into the American home is not
known,
> but the saturation point is near, with a huge percentage of "new"
computers
> being replacements as opposed to being bought by those who don't already
own
> at least one computer***.

But why? How many photographers own darkrooms? A vanishingly small
percentage. How many photographers use cameras that don't use batteries? An
even smaller percentage. What will stop joe six pack from bringing his
images to a photofinisher when he's done taking pictures from his cheap
digital camera? A growing percentage of my digital camera customers have no
intention of printing their own pictures, they treat it very much like a
film camera in that regard.
> ***I own four computers: 3 dead and 1 (this one) working.
> As the sales of "new owner" PCs steadily decline, fewer and fewer devices
> used by computers will be sold.

Then don't hook it up to a computer... Epson, HP, Canon, and olympus are
just some of the manufacturers of printers that do not require a computer to
make prints. These start at $100, so for around $500 you could have a camera
and printer that can make very acceptable (to the average consumer) 4x6 to
5x7 prints anywhere you have an outlet. This Epson printer can print much
larger, but I'm being conservitive in my acceptable print quality
assesments. These prices are bound to come down as well...
Every anti-digital argument seems to be made based on conditions that
existed two to three years ago. With the price of decent two megapixel point
and shoots hovering around $400, the time of digital only being for the well
heeled is almost gone. Next Christmas, two megapixel cameras will probobly
be around $199, and market penetration will really take off. Pentax has
already announced plans for a "disposible" digital camera... As market
penetration increases, you will see more and more photofinishers offer
printing services because the initial investment in equipment is potentially
very low (it can be unbeiliveably expensive, but the entry level is
literally $400...) and there are no more effluent headaches...
All this talk about computers for indigent families is a straw man, they
aren't going to own any cameras. Cameras are always a luxury, below a
certain income, they are an unjustifiable luxury. Most people will never do
their own printing, and within a couple of years, every photofinisher will
have some sort of digital printing service, so they will not have to. This
is the future, and in some places (Like DC, where I am) the future is now.
Our digital printing services are by far the fastest growing area of
photofinishing. All of our prints from slides are done that way, and we use
the same equipment to print directly from digital files. We also have
several printers that allow the customer to put in their memory card, push
the print button, and get their print minutes later. The most expensive of
these is $400...

Isaac
> One thing forgotten in the debate is most PDML members are well educated,
> with steady, good paying jobs and with a good degree of disposable income,
a
> factor always considered when buying a computer. But PDML members probably
> represent PC/MAC owners more than they represent "average" or lower middle
> class Americans, the "Joe Six-packs."
> As a class, PDML members have monies to indulge many of their whims,
"hobby"
> photography, the Internet and digital imaging being a few. But it is
> outrageous for the few of us to believe we somehow know how non-computer,
> non-digital camera owners feel or will do in the future. In this debate,
we
> have imperiously superimposed our own various indulgences on the American
> public, the vast majority of whom do ~not~ own computers or digital
anything.
>
> As America's massive layoffs continue, even fewer PCs/digital
> cameras/handheld devices will be sold.
> **America's youth, formerly the prime candidates for new desk/laptops,
have
> chosen instead to go handheld "wireless", with no or limited need for a
> computer for their basic communications, including Email, note taking,
> class/date/test scheduling, all tasks previously done with computer

Re: Shades of Photoshop

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Shades of Photoshop


> Mafud:
> >> Not in ~my~ experiences with Photoshop.
>
> Isaac:
> >>How many years?  What versions?  How much per day?  Any schooling?
>
>

Mike, I agree completely with your post, but I didn't write the above
sentence...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: what I think of current digital cameras

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Pentax Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras


> I'm STILL going to go down, belly on the ground, pounding my fists and
> kicking my feet.
>
> Tom C.

I've heard this sentiment many times, and I've never understood it. As
soon as digital cameras can do what I want at a price I like, I'll dump film
in a heartbeat. As long as my images look the way I want to, that is the
important thing. If I can do it more conviently and possibly less
expensivly, I'm all for it. I'd never dream of putting plegding allegience
to a certain process just because its all I've ever used, or even just
because all of my current equipment uses it. Images first, then the
process...

Isaac>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:50 AM
> Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
>
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > It seems you may be talking about the printing process where I'm talking
> > about the imaging process (the ability to record and capture the image).
> > Not sure.
> >
> > I agree that quality, may sometimes be subjective depending on the
desired
> > results or intended use.  In that case quality is perceived versus
> measured,
> > and is very much in the eye of the beholder.  I may like Monet, you may
> like
> > Picasso.
> >
> > But is that always the case (that quality is subjective)?  Let's compare
> > theoretical lenses A and B.  We run them through the same set of tests
and
> > have measured results.  Lets say lens B comes out on top.  We claim lems
B
> > is better, while lens A is inferior.  We don't simply say they have
> > different qualities.  We say one is of lesser or higher quality than the
> > other.  Lens A may very well not be able to produce as sharp, as clear,
as
> > distortion-free, as "robust" an image as lens B (in vernacular terms).
Of
> > course there may be some qualities that cannot be measured.
> >
> > The point I'm making (or attempting to make ) probably boils down to
> > this.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  A 35mm film frame has the ability to
> record
> > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists .  The
> "data
> > density" is higher, among other things.  This means that we are able to
> make
> > a larger image with the film, than with the CCD before we see
degradation
> > (fuzziness, grain, lack of definition, etc.)
> >
> > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras
may
> > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one
taking
> > the photos.  But try to do those things that most consumers don't do,
and
> > that I believe is where film wins out.
> >
> > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF.  The reason for using
> the
> > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image
at
> a
> > given print size.  That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not intending to argue or belabor the point.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
> >
> >
> > > Tom C. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Digital photography is not yet about QUALITY
> > >
> > > Well, I'm repeating myself, but I respectfully disagree. I was a hard
> sell
> > > on quality for many years. Photographs, however, do not have
"quality";
> > they
> > > have qualitieS.
> > >
> > > That is, the results of different films, cameras, formats, printing
> > methods
> > > and materials, alternate processes, and so forth and so on, each have
> > their
> > > own qualities. If you like one, you may not like another; but it's
safe
> to
> > > say that no one universal definition of "quality" can be agreed upon.
> > > Sharpness? But gum dichromate isn't sharp. Good color reproduction?
> > > Obviously not! High contrast? Many platinum prints don't have that.
> > >
> > > We all like some things and not others. John Szarkowski, the famous
> author
> > > of photographic books and longtime Director of the Department of
> > Photography
> > > at the Museum of Modern Art, hates carbro prints. Personally, I think
> > carbro
> > > color perfectly suits the work of the process's most famous
> practitioner,
> > > Paul Outerbridge, but I loathe Cibachrome prints--can't stand 'em. I
> > > personally really love the look of 35mm Tri-X, actually preferring it
to
> > > medium format black and white. Most would lean towards the other way
> > around.
> > > Many large-format devotees can't look at anything that's not made with
> > sheet
> > > film--they're just not interested. I like round prints, like early
Kodak
> > > pictures, or Emmett Gowin's or Sam Wang's. People have different
> opinions
> > > about the square. So

Re: The true cost of "free" digital?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital?


> Hi Joseph ...
>
> The photo is very nice, and I can see why you like it.  However, if
> there is detail in the negative, it can be printed conventionally.

Detail is one thing, but accurate colors in areas that need extensive
dodging and burning are another. There are many color correction techniques
that cannot be performed in the darkroom that are easily done in the digital
realm. After learning some of the possibilities of photoshop, I no longer
see any point to conventional printing in a color darkroom. It wouldn't
surprise me in the least if the digitally corrected image would not be able
to be duplicated in a conventional darkroom...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: APO Lenses (was Re: Layers, Sharp Focus, and New-Fangled Color Film)

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 12:57 PM
Subject: APO Lenses (was Re: Layers, Sharp Focus, and New-Fangled Color
Film)


> Now this I'd like to hear more about.  Can you elaborate on this point,
> specifically, how do manufacturers get away with labeling a lens as
> Apochromatic when it isn't?  Is the term "APO" used to imply that a lens
> is apochromatic, when, in fact, it's just a model name given to the
> lens?  Which lenses that are designated as "APO" lenses are not, in
> fact, apochromatic?  Which are?  Just a few examples would be
> appreciated.

The questions that arise are which three wavelengths of light, to what
degree do they converge, at what fstop and focus distance do they qualify,
and how do you measure this all crop up when you ask the above questions.
There isn't (AFIK) any standard for judging what apo correction actually
means. Therefore you end up seeing big difference between a Zeiss APO-Tessar
for the Hasselblad, APO Artar lenses for large format (only judged apo at
1:1 magnification), and a Sigma APO lens (God only knows what they use to
judge). The best advise is to ignore any APO designation that isn't
carefully explained, or better yet just ignore the APO designation all
together. In reality, there are very few types of photography that have to
have that kind of correction...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why is Kodak Gold Max evil?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Why is Kodak Gold Max evil?


> In a message dated 11/21/01 8:45:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > If you haven't shot it, Mafud, I think you really owe it to yourself to
> > try a roll of either NPS or NPH from Fuji.  They are gorgeous, smooth,
> > natural, low contrast negative films, with exceptionally tight grain for
> > their speeds.
> >
> But I have. Like most FUJI film, they still give brown to bluish to
greenish
> shadows on people of color, especially dark skinned people. Worse, really
> dark skinned people take on a orangey-red undertone.

See now, if you printed digitally, you could remove those casts
easily... (ducking for cover...)

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Why is Kodak Gold Max evil?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Why is Kodak Gold Max evil?


> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, William Robb wrote:
>
> > Please note, at the moment, the only Fuji films I like better
> > than the competing Kodak films are the Superia 400/800 vs Max
> > 400/800.
> > Not a bad record for Kodak actually.
>
> What do you think of Royal Gold 200 and 400?  I've heard that they tend to
> print too warm, but they're nice and cheap, so that's a plus.  :)

And how about the Supra films? Cheaper still... I really like the 400
and 100...

Isaac
>
> chris
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Light Boxes & Loupes

[Isaac Crawford]

> - Original Message -
> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Light Boxes & Loupes
>
>
> > Hi ...

> >
> > There are some higher magnification loupes that I'd like to check out,
> > but none of the shops in the area carry them.  A pity, too.  Pentax has
> > a 5x ~ 10x zoom loupe which is pretty good, and a bit spendy, and Mamiya
> > has a 4x~12x loupe that I'd like to check out.

The Mamiya loupes are amazing, they seem to be as sharp as the
Schneiders, but with better eye relief. They are also lovely to hold and
feel. They're all metal, not like everyone else that seems to be plastic.
The first time you thread one of their skirts on, you'll be hooked...
> >
> > I'm not sure a "good" loupe can be purchased for under $50.00.  Over the
> > past three weeks or so I visited several shops and examined about a
> > dozen loupes.  The inexpensive ones, while fine for a quick viewing, and
> > great for packing along when travelling, don't, IMO, offer enough
> > detail, sharpness, or comfort for long periods of viewing, to make them
> > a worthwhile purchase.  I'd love to be shown that I'm wrong ... anybody?

I worked in a slide duping lab. All we did all day was  look at, and
clean slides. When I first got there the lab people were given Peak loups
(around 35 dollar loups) and the timer had a Schneider. Well we howled and
screamed until we all had Schneiders. Let me tell you, it made all the
difference in the world, no more headaches, and no more missed dust spots on
the dupes. If you really want to see what a difference a dupe makes, try
looking through one 6-7 hours a day on a 10-15 thousand order...
One of the best loupes I've ever seen is a viewer made for the LX. I
can't remember the model number, but it sticks straight up from the camera
and has an eyepiece. Super sharp across the frame and very good eye relief
anf build quality. If you have an LX already, you might want to invest in
one of these as they are about the same price as a good loupe on ebay...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The PDML Digital Print Challenge

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: The PDML Digital Print Challenge


> Graywolf howled:
>
> > but I can tell you to rate an E (excellent) I will
> > not be able to see any sign of the halftone screen with my naked eye. I
kind
> > of feel that is a requirement for a print to be truely considered
> > photographic quality.
>
>
> Um, but can't you see grain with the naked eye in a lot of actual
> photographic-quality photographs? What's the difference?

I bet that years ago you would be marked down if your print showed
noticable grain, it wass considered a defect to most. Now grain is almost
"evidence" that it is a "real" photo and consequently you see many people
trying to maximize grain. I'm always amused by the people who tell me that
they don't like TMZ because it isn't grainy enough...

Isaac
>
> BTW they're not strictly speaking "halftone screen," just ink dots.
>
> --Mike
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Penn

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 11:34 PM
Subject: Penn


> Issac,
> Is half-blind Charlie still there? Jerry Smith? I knew one of the owners I
> think--used to dicker with him about my camera purchases. I went to the
> Corcoran. Made the walk over to the old E Street location many a time.
Sorry
> to hear they left the old building.
>
> --Mike

Jerry is still there. Believe me, if you had to work in the old building
you wouldn't mind leaving it!:-)

Isaac
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The suspense is over...

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message - 
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: The suspense is over...


> On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 03:53  PM, Isaac Crawford wrote:
> 
> > Funny, we've had it for a couple of months...
> 
> How big?  Maybe my order wasn't being shipped because of the sizes...or 
> maybe they've delayed the Canadian rollout.

Don't really know as I wasn't paying close attention until recently. 
> 
> Anyhow, the ultimate point is that quick dry = good, not quick dry = bad.

Agreed.

Isaac
> 
> -Aaron
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The suspense is over...

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: The suspense is over...


> On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 01:26  PM, Isaac Crawford wrote:
>
> > I got it at our wholesale price, which I'm sure would be the same as
> > yours!
>
> Yep, I was just trying to figure out what it was selling for at the
> retail level.  I've set a price, but I don't want to be overly expensive
> or overly cheap, y'know? :)
>
> Unless those guys tried Ilford's materials in the last few weeks, it's
> very doubtful that they tried the new stuff.  It really ~is~ new.  In
> fact, in Canada we haven't seen the glossy material yet, other than
> sales samples.

Funny, we've had it for a couple of months...

Isaac
>
> -Aaron
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The suspense is over...

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: The suspense is over...
>
> Our first roll of the new quick-dry pearl stuff finally arrived.  I
> agree -- it's gorgeous, probably the best I've tried so far.
>
> Those guys had probably tried Ilford's last foray into inkjet, and it
> DID stink.  The ink pooled, and the detail sucked.  This stuff, on the
> other hand, is awesome.  You can tell them apart at the retail level by
> the "quick dry" label.

It's a pity that they screwed up the first time. The guys at the store
swore that they used the new stuff, but I think that they are falling into
the old, "It's the same crap relabled" cynicism people tend to fall into
when you work in retail long enough...
>
> What printer are you using, Isaac?  I'm using an Epson 7500 here at
> work.  I'm looking for positive recommends for other printers so I can
> sell the stuff to my customers without worrying that they're gonna come
> back and want to kill me. :)

I'm using an Epson 870, I'm sure that the new printers would do just as
well.
>
> The glossy stuff hasn't arrived yet, but I have high hopes based on my
> experience with the pearl.
>
> Also, if you don't mind me being nosy, what did you pay for the stuff?

I got it at our wholesale price, which I'm sure would be the same as
yours!

Isaac
>
> -Aaron
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Film Developing

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: William D. Sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: RE: Film Developing


> Isaac,  what did it do to the grain?  I'm sitting here looking at last
night's negatives through my (admittedly cheap) loupe, and the grain looks
OK.
>
> Bill Sawyer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

It's easier to see than to explain. If you want two diametricly opposed
philosophies, take a look at some negs developed in Rodinal vs Microdol-X.
High acutance developers sharpen the edges of the grain which gives a very
"sharp" result. This also accentuates the grain in a film. Years ago,
Rodinal was only really recomended for slow films because to grain could
become "objectionable" with faster films like Tri-x. Nowadays, grain is
"in", and people are processing all kinds of films with high acutence
developers...
"Fine grain" developers like Microdol-X tend to soften the edges of the
grain which makes the grain less noticable, but also (IMHO) makes sharpness
less noticable. If you're really interested in fine grain, pick up an old
Yashicamat or an Autocord and revel in the fineness of the grain... and
don't forget to use a high acutance developer!:-)
You'll notice all of the stuff I put in quotes, that's because so much
of this is persomal opinion, and one man's soft might be another's sharp, so
experiment and see what looks best to you...

Isaac
>
>
> -Original Message-
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Isaac Crawford
> >
> > Ever tried Ilford Pan-F?
> > Pan-F in Microdol-X is my favorite combo. Maybe I'm weird.
> >
>
> I love Panf, but I usually develop it in d-76, PMK pyro, or I send it
in
> for dr5 processing. I tried microdol-x with tri-x and said yuck! I figured
> that if it was going to do that to the grain, I didn't want any part of
> it...:-)
>
> Isaac
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Penncamera.com?

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 11:53 AM
Subject: Penncamera.com?


> Issac C. wrote:
>
> > Hmmm... I get the "company" rate since I work there, so I don't really
know
> > off the top of my head. Check out http://www.penncamera.com/shop.cfm for
our
> > latest prices...
>
> Issac, is that Penn Camera in Washinton D.C., on E Street?
>
> --Mike

Actually, we're all one big happy family...:-) Penn now has 6 locations
around DC and they are a major player on the East coast. The E street
location has moved down a couple of blocks, but they are still on E street.
I work in the Springfield store (Take 395 south from DC until you meet up
with 95 south, that's Springfield). Penn is getting with the times, we now
have our own upload area to share digital images. You can even order prints
from there, they get printed on some fancy Noritsu unit that uses lasers (or
maybe LEDs?) to print back onto RA-4 paper a la the Fuji frontier system.
It's pretty exciting stuff. We're also stocking some interesting inkjet
papers now, and that is especially interesting to me now that I have a way
to print on them!

Isaac
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The suspense is over...

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: RE: The suspense is over...


> how much do they cost?
>

Hmmm... I get the "company" rate since I work there, so I don't really know
off the top of my head. Check out http://www.penncamera.com/shop.cfm for our
latest prices...

Isaac
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Isaac Crawford
> > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:00 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: The suspense is over...
> >
> >
> > Ilford inkjet papers are amazing! I just printed up some scans on
both
> > the perl and "smooth gloss" papers and I am amazed. The guys I work with
> > warned me that the Ilford papers suck, that you can't get detail, the
ink
> > pools, etc... This just proves what I've thought all along, if they were
> > great printers and photoshop users, they'd work somewhere else...:-)
I've
> > been very impressed so far, no more color darkroom work for me!
> >
> > Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Film Developing

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Film Developing


> Bill S. wrote:
>
> > I wrote a few days ago asking for pointers for developing Agfa APX 100
in
> > Microdol-X. Since no one responded, I presume no one had any experience.
That
> > being the case, can anyone suggest either a website or a darkroom book
that
> > might give the preferred dilution/development times for this
combination.
> > I've been to Agfa and Kodak websites w/o success, and have emailed their
> > respective technical people for their input.
> >
> > Is there any help here?
>
> How come you're set on this particular combination, if you haven't tried
it
> and (apparently) haven't had it recommended to you by someone who uses it?

I'm also curious. I haven't tried that combo, but I'd imagine it to be
rather "blah" looking. Of course I have that reaction to just about anything
souped in microdal x.



Isaac

>
> I'm not trying to be belligerent (honest), just curious.
>
> --Mike
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: The suspense is over...

[Isaac Crawford]

I'm using an 870, the 1270's little brother. I'm trying to figure out
how people are getting bad results. How did it suck? I have a feeling that
people are following the "conventional wisdom" and outputting only 300dpi or
so. Ilford states that their papers needs "start at 720 dpi". I haven't put
anything less than a 15 meg file to the printer, and those are for 8x10s! I
haven't worked out the dpi yet, but I'm sure that I'm well above the 300 and
even the 720 that has been recommended...

Isaac
- Original Message -
From: Bill Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: The suspense is over...


> What printer are you using?  I tried Ilford once on my Epson 1270 and it
did
> suck.
>
> Bill, KG4LOV
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> - Original Message -
> From: "Isaac Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:00 PM
> Subject: The suspense is over...
>
>
> > Ilford inkjet papers are amazing! I just printed up some scans on
both
> > the perl and "smooth gloss" papers and I am amazed. The guys I work with
> > warned me that the Ilford papers suck, that you can't get detail, the
ink
> > pools, etc... This just proves what I've thought all along, if they were
> > great printers and photoshop users, they'd work somewhere else...:-)
I've
> > been very impressed so far, no more color darkroom work for me!
> >
> > Isaac
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Buying a scanner

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:11 PM
Subject: Buying a scanner


> Also I might be able to get a scanner so I need you opinion on which
> brand
>   and model is best for around $500. Sorry my budget is very low but
> those
>   of you with kids will understand. I do know that getting a film
> scanner
>   will be very expensive so I am resorting to just the plain scanner.
>
> To get a high-quality scanner at near that price, look for a used Nikon
> LS-2000 on eBay. It was Nikon's high-end 35 mm. scanner until a few
> months ago, when Nikon brought out some new models. Now the price on
> used LS-2000s has dropped. I got mine for $576 and am very happy with
> it. Nikon meant this model for professional use. If you get a good one
> you will be happy. Otherwise, with a new $500 scanner, it will be a
> lower-quality model and you may or may not get results that you like.

I will once again reccomend the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. After the
rebate, you can get it for $550 brand new. I've been very impressed by both
the scanner and the software. It has very low noise in the shadows and it is
a 4000dpi scanner. Check out the archives of the filmscanner mail list to
get more info... http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/


Isaac
>
> Joe
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail

[Isaac Crawford]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry
shadow detail


> In a message dated 11/12/01 7:09:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > Another, real, bonus (even [especially?]for snapshots) is that, once you
> > have the setup on a shot that you desire, you can churn out copy after
copy
> > with a single press of a button.  In a darkroom, if a print takes twenty
> > minutes to make, so does every one after that.
> >
> > mike
> >
> Hmm, I seem to recall that once I have the color balance dialed into the
> enlarging head, I can expose about 12 8x10 (or other size) prints a
minute,
> producing 60 8x10s, dry-to dry prints in about 37 minutes.

How about two weeks later? Or maybe two months? After you get the new
balnce you can knock them out, but it will take a little time to set it up
again...

> Maybe what you say counts if one has a poor or B&W negative and must dodge
> and burn parts of it.
> My own experience with digital is that even the quality in the SONY Mavica
> leaves images with much to be desired once uploaded, nearly every image
> needing some sort of "tweaking" before you can print them.

True, but the Mavica sucks, don't judge digital by the worst it has to
offer
> Even then, what you get out of the printer (any) is ~NEVER~ what you see
on
> the monitor. ~Each~ digital image comes out different and take more time
to
> "finish" than chemical prints.

You have a badly calibrated system. Do you maintain the same temp for
you color processing? Then perhaps you should also calibrate your monitor to
your printer.


That does ~not~ take into account the sorry
> shadow detail in digital prints (and slides), no matter what kind of flash
is
> used.
> **Ever seen a digital print made from a slide with poor or no shadow
detail?
> You'd lose your lunch!

Actually, if the scanner can get the detail, you can have much better
shadow info than in a traditional print. This is because you can control the
contrast of different luminosities separately (and then the luminence of
each color can be changed independantly). In other words, I can increase or
decrease the shadows' contrast information without touching the highlights.
Try that in a darkroom!
> ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes
print
> three-four-five "tests" to get one "good" print, who says digital is
> "comparable" in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course,
one
> uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips.

There shouldn't be any tests after properly calibrating your system...

Isaac
>
> Mafud
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Tokina 300 2.8 (was RE: Tamron SP 300mm f2.8)

[Isaac Crawford]

John Mustarde wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:25:51 EST, you wrote:
> 
> >> While the subject of fast 300's is alive, has anyone any experience with
> >> the Tokina 300 2.8 - the old manual one, not the latest AF one - and,
> >> more to the point, has anyone actually seen one or know of one,
> >> especially old and beat up, and, ahem, for sale???
> >-
> 
> I have that lens, and it's great. It's nomenclature is Tokina AT-X SD
> 300/2.8. It is reasonably sharp wide open, which is great because
> there's no use carrying the extra weight of a 300/2.8 if the dang lens
> is soft wide open.
> 
> I've owned mine for less than a year, and it has exceeded my
> expectations in every respect. I got it for a Buy It Now price of
> about $825 on Ebay. The condition was pretty good, not mint, but not
> beat up either. But it didn't have a hood, which is an absolute
> requirement for me for long lenses. Luckily, I picked one of those up
> for just a few bucks on Ebay within a couple of weeks. Tokina still
> sells the hood, but they want about $150.

Just so you guys know, we have a Sigma 500mm f4.5 APO sitting in our
shop for $900. It's an "A" lens, but not autofocus. I don't know how
good or bad this lens is, but the former owner claims that it is quite a
performer. It looks nice and has its case with it...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Getting better lenses for my MZ5?

[Isaac Crawford]

Rob Geraghty wrote:
> 
> OK, maybe not the very best because I doubt I can afford them.  But I would
> like to get one or two *better* lenses for my MZ5 (ZX5 to those of you in
> the USA).  I've noticed there's a significant difference in sharpness
> between the Sigma f3.5-5.6 28-80 FA zoom and the old Chinon f1.9 50mm K
> mount lens (circa 1981).  The 50mm is much sharper, although it has some
> chromatic aberration which is disappointing - but then it's a cheap lens.
> It's frustrating to buy an expensive film like Fuji Provia 100F and not get
> the most out of it.

Expense is all relative... The most expensive lens that Pentax makes in
the "normal" range is around $500, which I consider pretty cheap for its
performance. Compare it to a current Leica 50mm (that's what I shoot
with primarily) and its a veritable bargain!
> 
> I've been trying to figure out what the sharpest lens might be that I'd get
> the most use out of.  The Pentax 50mm lenses get a very good rating at
> www.photodo.com, and it's a useful general purpose focal length.  I'm think
> that perhaps two lenses might be better - one for portraiture around 100mm
> and another for landscapes around 28mm.  My original idea was to get a
> 17-35mm zoom two go with the two existing zooms (28-80 and 70-300) to cover
> the most focal lengths with the fewest lenses, but sharpness has become an
> issue.  I've really noticed the difference between lenses when scanning the
> film at 2700dpi.
> 
> So far, the Pentax f3.5 100mm lens and the Pentax f1.7 50mm lenses look like
> good value.  Maybe for wide angle, the Pentax f2.8 28mm or f2 24mm?

Can't help with the wide angle stuff, though I've heard great things
about the current 35mm f2 and the 31mm. I personally favor the 50mm f1.4
myself, but there is rarely any sense made on this list when it comes to
the 50mm f1.7 vs 1.4 issue (I know I don't make much sense!). There are
some great short telephotos available. The 85mm lenses in general have
always been one of Pentax's strong points, and the current one is
apparently made specifically for portraiture. The 77mm is getting rave
reviews as well. The 100mm macro lenses are always a good bet, although
try and get the 100mm f2.8, the 3.5 is not nearly as nice a lens in many
regards. Pentax has also made many nice 135mm lenses, the current one is
supposed to be a real joy... So many lenses, so little time (or money)!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: T400CN Discontinued?? I don't think so...

[Isaac Crawford]

Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> 
> T400CN is still readily available to us, and we have not been informed
> of any discontinuations (is that a word?) from Kodak this year aside
> from Tri-X 4x5 in 25 and 100 sheet packs.  Our last order, just two
> weeks ago, came in fine.

Tri-X is no longer availible in 100 sheet packs either?! What kind of
quantities are they expecting us to buy?

Isaac
> 
> -Aaron
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Russian spotting scope adapter

[Isaac Crawford]

Doug Franklin wrote:
> 
> Hi Isaac,
> 
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 14:29:02 -0400, Isaac Crawford wrote:
> 
> > (http://www.surplusshed.com/list.cfm?Category=Telescopes)has them for
> > $12! Now I have an excuse for looking at cheap screw mount lenses of
> > varying focal length...
> 
> Have you tried them on K mount lenses with the M42-K converter?

I thought about this too, but then I realized that you can't put a K
mount lens on a screw mount body, and that's basically what I'd be
doing. So you can't do it... On the bright side, I have a couple of
lenses that I couldn't sell that I was wondering what to do with, and
now I know!

Isaac
> 
> TTYL, DougF
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Russian spotting scope adapter

[Isaac Crawford]

This topic comes up from time to time so I thought I'd share this info
with all y'all... I just received a couple of adapters that turn screw
mount lenses into spotting scopes. You can't change the eye piece, I'm
guessing that it's a 10mm. That means that you'd divide the focal length
of the lens by 10mm and you'll get the magnification. The adapter is all
metal and the optics appear to be fully coated (if not multicoated). The
views I'm getting with them are sharp sharp sharp! The best views come
when the lens is stopped down a little, but I'll try it lower light
later on tonight. Surplus shed
(http://www.surplusshed.com/list.cfm?Category=Telescopes)has them for
$12! Now I have an excuse for looking at cheap screw mount lenses of
varying focal length...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax AF viewfinders

[Isaac Crawford]

Erik Nordin wrote:
> 
> One of the things I've noticed with the modern AF cameras is the overall
> degeneration of the viewfinders compared to mechanical cameras. The image is
> smaller, less bright, and they never cover the entire image area (neither
> does the MX, but it shows more than the MZ cameras). At least not the Pentax
> ones. Why is it so difficult to put a decent viewfinder on the newer models?
> I've compared of course the LX, but also MX, with the MZ-3 and MZ-S and the
> difference is apparent. I just don't get it.

Agreed. If you really want to be sick, look in a Minolta 5, 7, or 9.
They have incredible screens. Granted, that's been one of Minolta's
strengths for a while (I believe that Hasselblad is still using the
Minolta screens), but really, couldn't Pentax come up with something
close? Even a cheapie Cosina clone we sold had a better finder than what
you see in any of the Pentax cameras... SIGH!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.

[Isaac Crawford]

Patrick White wrote:
> 
> "aimcompute" writes:
> >I guess it makes sense.  Up to now. digital photography has never really
> >been about "quality".
> >I find the Fuji Super CCD technology somewhat of a joke.  You can't end up
> >with more raw material than you start with.

The Nikon D1x uses interpolation in one direction (the width I believe)
without any obvious problems. 

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one

[Isaac Crawford]

Chaso DeChaso wrote:
> 
> Wasn't there a time when Pentax actually cared about
> being a leader?  Are they now content with always
> following (more and more distantly), at best offering
> products close to the others and cheaper?  This would
> be sad.  If they simply don't have the might to
> compete against N and C* anymore, at least
> they could do one thing really well - in the digital
> realm, this could have been the full-frame CCD SLR.

If this could have been done, Nikon, Canon, or Kodak would have already
released it. Pentax is at a huge disadvantage in the fact that they are
almost completely reliant on other manufacturers to supply chips. Kodak
and Canon can make their own and Nikon has dedicated enough money to
stay ahead of the curve. I for one saw the writing on the wall after the
zillionth delay of the Pentax and Contax cameras...

Isaac
> 
> Is Pentax to become the next Contax, who was fifteen
> (or however many) years late with autofocus?  Maybe
> Pentax will release a fantastic digital SLR in 2016
> when almost nobody remembers who Pentax is.
> 
> In any case, they really have to release something
> serious soon or they'll be wiped off the map.  (I
> don't care about digital products too much, I just
> want them to stay in business so that they can make
> lenses and film cameras for a while longer.)

That is what this announcement is all about... To show Pentax users
that we will have a digital body to use. How many D1 (X.h), D30, and S1
cameras do you think have been sold? I'm willing to bet that the
combined sales (in units) of those cameras wouldn't equal a tenth of the
ZX-M sales. It was important for Nikon to release the D1 so that they
could (re)capture the PJ market, and Canon will try and strike back. But
what do companies like Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus have to gain? What
they need are strong sales in the mid level markets. The release of a
high end and expensive digital body would do nothing but hurt the bottom
line of Pentax. 

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one

[Isaac Crawford]

Bruce Dayton wrote:
> 
> My concern is if you are going to do no better than the competition, and
> they are more entrenched, how are you going to compete.  The motto "We're no
> worse than the rest" comes to mind.
> 
> A full frame CCD was, IMHO, one of the big differences between the Pentax
> and a D30 or D1.  Pentax may be able to sell a lesser model to some of us,
> but it will *not* lure Canon and Nikon users away.  You don't really gain
> any market share.  At best, you may hang on to what you have.  But it seems
> that you are sending the same old signal, "we will not compete."
> 
> Gives all of use considering digital more reason to examine Nikon and Canon
> offerings.

It's sad to say, but I cannot imagine a company the size of Pentax
being able to one-up companies like Nikon and Canon. I have always
looked at Pentax as a manufacturer that learns a lot from their
competition and improves upon them... eventually...

Isaac
> 
> Bruce Dayton
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pushing and Pulling film

[Isaac Crawford]

William Robb wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Isaac Crawford
> Subject: Re: Pushing and Pulling film
> 
> > Also, what about hypering and other tricks astrophoto people
> have been
> > using for years? I seem to recall a technique of letting the
> B&W film
> > absorb hydrogen peroxide fumes to boost the film speed. I
> can't recall
> > if it was done before or after the exposure...
> 
> I have also heard about super cooling the emulsion in liquid
> hydrogen or some such for boosting speed. This sort of thing is
> done prior to exposure, and alters the basic emulsion chemistry.
> While certainly a useful technique for glass plate films, it is
> not really germain to the discussion at hand.
> William Robb

I dunno... I seem to recall being able to buy "hypered" film from
various telescope vendors... Granted, they were mostly doing it with
Tech pan and other slow fims, but I don't see why one couldn't do it for
faster ones as well...

Isaac
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pushing and Pulling film

[Isaac Crawford]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill ...
> 
> I agree with you 100%, but I'd like to throw something into this
> discussion that's not been mentioned before.  We've talked about it
> privately, and now seems to be a good time to bring it to the list.
> 
> There are some developers, notably Acufine, that allow one to rate an
> emulsion at a higher - sometimes a substantially higher - speed with no
> loss of shadow detail, which is what sometimes gets lost in a "classic
> push".  I don't consider using these developers to increase the speed of
> the film as pushing.  Rather, through some means unknown to me, they
> actually deliver negatives with a full range of shadow detail along with
> the higher speed rating.

Hmmm... I haven't used Acufine, but I have used Diafine quite a bit. I
find that shadow information suffers considerably when shot at the EI
recommended on the box. Of course, I've only ever processed Neopan 1600
(shot at 2400!) in it. I love the look of the results, but shadow detail
is not one of its strengths...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: K85 1.8Joy

[Isaac Crawford]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> << I picked up my 135mm f1.8 A* lens two months ago for the princly sum of
>  $230... Sometimes its better to be luck than good!:-) >>
> 
> Isaac. Would you like the correct lens shade? It will cost you around 12% of
> the lens' price!
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Peter
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Is that about $27? I'll take it... eventually. This month is shaping up
to be a little tighter than I had thought. I'll let you know when I can
get it (if it hasn't already been sold...).

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Manual Focus Bodies & Lenses

[Isaac Crawford]

Michael Nosal wrote:
 Minolta still lists the X-370, though I don't know if it is currently
being
> produced or not.

Yes it is...
> 
> Phoenix has two manual focus models, the P1 and P2.
> Vivitar has several manual focus models.
> 
> Konica has the Hexar RF with manual focus.
> 
> Voightlander is making big business with their new rangefinders and manual
> focus lenses. They are even releasing new lenses for the original Nikon
> rangefinders!

They are also making manual focus lenses for SLRs. Check out
cameraquest for info on the 75mm f2.5 and the 100mmish macro lens...

> 
> Samsung makes the SR4000, with Schneider lenses.

Ahem... Schneider branded lenses... Schneider USA quickly disabused me
of any ideas about Schneider actually making the lenses. They are
designed by Schneider, but built by Samsung (or whoever it is that makes
their lenses for them). I'm not sure that this camera actually exists
anymore, it didn't do very well in the market. I'm also not sure if
there were ever any Schneider branded lenses other than the 50mm Xenar
(a tessar).

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Manual Focus Bodies & Lenses

[Isaac Crawford]

Sas Gabor wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 19 Oct 2001 at 7:15, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> > Does Pentax now make any manual focus bodies and lenses that can be
> > purchased new?
> 
> (I think of 35mm SLRs.)
> 
> Yes, the MZ-M and some A series lenses.
> 
> > On a similar note, besides Leica, Olympus, and Contax, does any other
> > manufacturer produce manual focus cameras and lenses?
> 
> The ones I know of:
> - Nikon just come out with the new and exciting FM3a. They also have FM2 and F3.

The FM2 and F3 are officially discontinued I believe. There are
probobly lots of them left on shelves though...
> - Minolta makes X700, X370 and some MD lenses.

The X700 was discontinued last year...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Manual Focus Bodies & Lenses

[Isaac Crawford]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Does Pentax now make any manual focus bodies and lenses that can be
> purchased new?

They currently manufacture the ZX-M and the 50mm f2.0 A. I have heard
conflicting reports about weather or not Pentax is actually making other
A series lenses or just selling old stock. Pentax still sells the 135mm
f3.5 in SM, but I doubt they're making them any more...
> 
> On a similar note, besides Leica, Olympus, and Contax, does any other
> manufacturer produce manual focus cameras and lenses?

Well, Nikon has their FM3A, but I don't think that they are
manufacturing any new manual focus lenses. The "new" 45mm lens is
supposedly manufactured by Cosina. That doesn't make it a bad lens
(quite the contrary actually), but it would mean that Nikon wasn't
making it. 
Minolta is currently offering their x370 camera and some lenses. I
personally would rather have the ZX-M, but I'm biased... There are some
other various manufacturers still making manual focus cameras like
Zenit, Cosina (Nikon FM-10, Olympus OM-2000, Vivitar, etc) and whatnot,
but I can't really recommend them. Well, I'll (sort of) take that
back... We sold one of the Cosina clones called a promaster 2000. It
wasn't a great camera, but it did have the highest magnification
viewfinder of any 35mm camera that I have seen in the last 20 or so
years. It was very similar to an MX, but it was brighter! The other
clones that we sell (FM-10 and OLY OM-2000) do not have that finder (and
of course they don't take K mount lenses like the promaster does!). Like
I said, it certainly doesn't give you a lot of confidence when you hold
it, but it is cheap (about $175 new if I remember), and it has that
kick-ass finder...

Isaac
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: MZ-S; Built to last

[Isaac Crawford]

Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> 
> Bad analogy ... Timing belts are used because they are cheaper and
> lighter, but are a replaceable item.  They stretch and sometimes jump
> the sprockets, and when they break can cause problems that can destroy
> an engine.  Timing chains, which are even stronger, will sometimes
> stretch and need replacement if used in a powerful engine, although
> their replacement interval is usually longer than the belts. They,
> too, have been known to jump a sprocket.  Older engines, with gear
> driven camshafts, last indefinitely and are more precise.  You'll note
> that racing engines generally use gear drives because they must have
> absolute reliability and absolute timing accuracy.
> 
> Since we're talking about a "rubber" belt, my concern is that it will
> stretch or break after a while, causing misaligned frames or failed
> film transport.  Gears do not have this problem, but they are more
> costly to manufacture and implement, which is most likely the real
> reason Pentax uses a belt drive.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were using some sort of teflon
or nylon belt, and at the low torques we're talking about it may outlast
several other parts of the camera...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Teleconverter for 135mm f1.8?

[Isaac Crawford]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> <<  OK, I finally own a lens that could actually make sense to use a
>  teleconverter, a 135mm f1.8. Has anyone tried this combo? Are there any
>  converters in particular that would work better, any to avoid? Thanks
>  for any info!  >>
> 
> Isaac,
> 
> If you've got one of the Pentax A135/1.8's, I'd start with these...
> A 2X-S
> A 1.4X-S
> F 1.7 will work if you have an autofocus body
> T6-2X is old, but does well too.
> 
> Regards,  Bob S.

Thanx. Once I get my K mount body, I'll experiment a little with these
converters...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Teleconverter for 135mm f1.8?

[Isaac Crawford]

OK, I finally own a lens that could actually make sense to use a
teleconverter, a 135mm f1.8. Has anyone tried this combo? Are there any
converters in particular that would work better, any to avoid? Thanks
for any info!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Possible problem for digital MZ-S?

[Isaac Crawford]

Here's a link describing a possible problem with the soon to be
released (we hope) MZ-S digital (and any other camera using a 24x36
sensor). It seems as though there is more of a problem with wide angle
lenses than anything else, but the entire point of a 24x36 sensor is to
be able to use wide angle lenses! Well, I guess we can still take
advantage of DOF control and improved noise as long as we use longer
lenses...

Isaac

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&page=3&message=1557193
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: To Zx-5n or not...

[Isaac Crawford]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 9/30/01 11:01:11 PM !!!First Boot!!!, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 
> << What is the ZX-5N going to
>  to for me that the ZX-7 cannot? The only things I can think of are
>  selectable metering modes and auto exposure bracketing. With this
>  particular camera, I'd leave the meter on matrix all of the time and
>  I've always thought that auto exposure bracketing was a silly feature,
>  so no great loss... Am I missing anything else? To be honest, the silly
>  "picture" modes appeal to me for the possible use by other people, but I
>  could do without them... >>
> 
> I have both cameras and rarely use the ZX-7. IMO, the ZX-5N is a better
> camera with more features, and is just as easy to use as is the ZX-7.

Hmmm, what features do you use on the ZX-5N that aren't on the ZX-7?
This will be my first AF camera so I'd like as much feedback as
possible...

Isaac
> 
> Phyllis T
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

To Zx-5n or not...

[Isaac Crawford]

Ok, so I bought my first K mount lens in a while, a 135mm f1.8 A* of
all things, and I need a camera to put it on. I've decided that I would
like a lazy man's camera  to go along with my M6. I've looked at the
ZX-M, ZX-7, ZX-5N, and the MZ-S. I don't like the plastic mount on the
ZX-M (I might even want auto focus one day too) and the MZ-S, while
nice, is just too expensive for me. So, that leaves the ZX-7 and the
ZX-5N... The only lenses I anticipate using are the 135mm f1.8, 50mm
f1.4, and maybe the 77mm f1.8. I'd like to get the camera for easy
people pictures, especially with a flash. The fanciest thing I imagine
doing with this set is use aperture priority, but I'd want it to be
simple enough to hand over to someone else who isn't a camera person.
So here's the first of several questions... What is the ZX-5N going to
to for me that the ZX-7 cannot? The only things I can think of are
selectable metering modes and auto exposure bracketing. With this
particular camera, I'd leave the meter on matrix all of the time and
I've always thought that auto exposure bracketing was a silly feature,
so no great loss... Am I missing anything else? To be honest, the silly
"picture" modes appeal to me for the possible use by other people, but I
could do without them...
Another question is which 50mm f1.4 should I get? I've used the A
series to great effect before, but are there any advantages to using the
FA version (other than the obvious)? 

Thanks for any advice!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Pentax SM lenses FS cheap!

[Isaac Crawford]

I just bought my 135mm f1.8 that I had been waiting for... Got it for
less than $300 from a store! Guess its better to be lucky than
good...:-) Anyway, I've decided to go to an all K mount system and so my
screw mount lenses must go... This list has given me an amazing amount
of info over the years, so you guys get first crack at them... The glass
is great and the aperture blades work fine on all of them. Cosmetics
range from great to OK, no ugly lenses though!

Super Tak 200mm f4 with original hood and lens cap $50
Super Tak 85mm f1.9 with original cap $100
SMC Tak 135mm f2.5 with original hood $70
SMC Tak 50mm f1.4 $10

All prices are plus shipping in US dollars. Please contact me off list
if you are interested. Thanks!

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Replacement for Agfa Ultra 50

[Isaac Crawford]

Paul Jones wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I never did any really large enlargements with Ultra 50, but found it quit
> fine grained.
> 
> I'll give those two you mentioned a try.
> 
> I loved colour saturation of Ultra 50, i think the main thing i'm after is
> the punchy colours.
> 
>  its a shame they discontinued it.

If you haven't yet, try royal gold 100. It's a little high in contrast
for my tastes, but it certainly has punchy (if different) colors. It is
also considerably finer grained than the Ultra 50.

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Build quality of 3rd party lenses

[Isaac Crawford]

Cotty wrote:
> 
> Hi Frantisek,
> 
> I've always found the build quality of Tokina AT-Xs exceptionally good. I
> have a 90mm 2.5 Macro and a 28-70 2.6/2.8 zoom (and until recently a
> manual 80-200 2.8 SD zoom) and they are all well built - ver much like
> Pentax MF lenses. Sturdy, maybe slightly heavy, lots of metal, solid. I'd
> always consider a Tok.
> 
> Sigma EX - wise, I have the 70-200 APO 2.8 zoom and although the more I
> use this lens the more I like it, it does not engender the same sort of
> feel. That isn't to say that it is poor quality - Sigma have come of age
> with lenses like this, but there is more plastic (or poly-wossname type
> material) used, less metal. This helps the weight, but I just don't get
> the feeling that it will last as long somehow. Maybe that's why I'm
> enjoying it more - cos I have to in the time available ;-)
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Cotty

In my experience of buying and selling used equipment, most lenses
aren't built very well today regardless of who made them. The FA* lenses
are an exception, along with other camera manufacturers top end lenses.
I've never seen a third party manufactured lens that can stand up over
time like the FA* lenses. Even the metal bodied lenses are suspect. I'm
not convinced that the Tokinas are put together any differently than say
a Tamron, they just use metal barrels instead of plastic. I've seen the
same problems with both Tamron and Tokina over time, loose barrels,
focusing past or not focusing to infinity, wobbly mounts, stiff or loose
aperture ring, and aperture blade problems (oily, not closing, sluggish,
etc.). 
I've never met a Sigma that I could trust. From top to bottom they seem
to me to have the worst build quality of the big three. Keep in mind
though that they seem to be as well built as a cheap Pentax (or Nikon or
Canon, etc.) like the current 28-80. So it isn't as though they can't
give decent results, just don't expect them to last the rest of your
life...

Isaac
> 
> ___
> Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Check out the UK Macintosh ads
> www.macads.co.uk
> 
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Pentax EI-200

[Isaac Crawford]

Jon Hope wrote:
> 
> At 01:23 24/06/01, Isaac wrote:
> 
> >To be fair, you weren't using it with ideal accessories. Nobody doing
> >real shooting uses an 8 meg card. I know you weren't going to shell out
> >the bucks for a high capacity card just to test, but they do pay for
> >themselves quickly... The use of good rechargeable batteries is also
> >mandatory as you've found out!:-) With those two requirements out of the
> >way, you'll find yourself snapping pictures like mad, and they won't
> >cost you any more to shoot! It really can be cheap to shoot with
> >digital...
> 
> Ok, I'll be fair. I live in Australia, so I'll use Australian prices. One
> set of rechargeable AA batteries is $30.00. As they usually last less than
> a set of Alkalines I'd probably need three sets, if the rate of use of
> alkalines is any indication. 

Then you're using the wrong rechargeable... The newer NIMH batteries
should last significantly longer than alkalizes in digital cameras. Of
course, that is a small amount of money as compared to whole package. 





If I want a bigger flash memory card, a 64MB
> version is $160.00, or 128MB is $340.00. I'd probably want the 128MB card
> (112 JPEGs or 16 TIFFs). Add that to my initial $1200 outlay on the camera
> and I'm up for $1650 (ish). That would give me a 2.1MP camera and
> associated stuff. If I wanted a 3.34MP camera, I'd be up for the best part
> of $2,400.
> 
> It is hard to decide whether the EI-200 is any better than, say, an MJU2,
> which costs about $250. The extra $1400 (ish) would pay for an awful lot of
> film and developing.

You should lose quit a bit of flexibility as compared to the MJU2, you
can't shoot in different types of light (tungsten, fluorescent,
daylight, etc), you'd lose whatever macro feature the Pentax has, you'd
lose the wysiwyg (for focusing at least, more or less for the actual
framing) screen, "instant" feedback as far as how the shot came out, and
of course you don't have the extra time expenditure at the lab. It's not
really fair to either camera to compare them... If those features are
ones that you would like to have (and if they're not maybe you don't
really want a digital!:-), I think that they would be worth, say another
500-600 bucks. That still leaves $800, but depending on how you shoot,
you may or may not make it worth your while. There are many people that
do!
> 
> One thing I didn't mention was that I didn't take my Z-1p with me yesterday
> to shoot alongside the digital. Every time I tried to get the shot I wanted
> with the digital I found myself thinking that I could just switch the lens
> to a [insert focal length here] on my Z-1p. I understand that the EI-200 is
> really just a point and shoot, and should be compared with other point and
> shoot cameras, however, I don't think I could go back to using a P&S as my
> standard camera.
> 
> If Pentax really want to scoop the pool, all they need to do is bring out a
> digital MZ-50 for the same price as the MZ-S. They wouldn't get them out
> the door quick enough.
> 

I'm sure that they would if they could! Hopefully they're working on
it. I think that being the first to offer an affordable digital SLR
sounds very Pentax, don't you?:-)

Isaac 
> Cheers
> 
> Jon
> 
> Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind
> 
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Digital Film (WAS: RE: CCD back for Pentax?)

[Isaac Crawford]

Nicholas Wright wrote:
> 
> --- Isaac Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >   The biggest problem with this approach is that you
> > give up some of the
> > most positive features of digital photography...
> > instant viewing,
> > adjustable white balance, removable media, editing
> > in camera, and
> > instant wysiwyg for things like exposure
> > compensation. If you're willing
> > to put up with the inferior image quality of
> > digital, you should at
> > least get to use the positives of that medium!:-)
> >
> > Isaac
> 
> First of all, I never said it was a perfect option;
> just a viable one. And for $700 if/when it is made for
> the z1p I will have one in my bag. :) But I really
> think that the limitations are really, imo, not really
> limitations. It's like the site says, "film, but
> digital." 

Like I said, all the "quality" of digital with few of the positives...
For $700 you can get a 3 megapixel camera with LCD screen, manual
exposure (and you can see the effects of compensation immediately),
histograms, flash synch, removable media, and even a zoom. That camera
will kill any digital film equipped camera in all areas except long
lenses.



The main reasons that I prefer digital over
> film is; 1) Elimination of waste no chemicals, little
> packaging, reusability, etc; 2) Reduction of cost and
> time. This unit fulfills those needs. But, I think, it
> is a technology a little ahead of it's time. It does
> need work.

It is actually quite a bit behind the times. It has no features to
speak of, low resolution, requires external (proprietary) devices to
view/load/ download images, and is very expensive to boot. I'm afraid
that this project will be DOA. The only way that this could be viable is
if you could replace the entire camera back. This way, it might be able
to take advantage of some of the positives that digital photography
offers by incorporating an LCD screen. I used to think that the "digital
film" thing was a good idea until I used some real digital cameras. 

Isaac
> 
> Nick
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
> http://buzz.yahoo.com/
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: MZ-S gripes

[Isaac Crawford]

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> Mark wrote:
> 
> > Absolutely. Seeing an LED bargraph go up for overexposure and down for
> > underexposure just plain makes sense.
> 
> But the point wasn't if it makes sense isolated. But whether it makes sense in 
>conjunction with its control dial which goes left right. For me at least, theres no 
>"logic" direction for a  left/right wheel in order to make, say, the scale go up.
> In addition, that the bar graph goes up for overexposure certainly isn't in hamony 
>with other, older Pentax bodies. On eg. the LX making the the bar graph go up means 
>shorter shutter speeds - underexposure.
> Most people, and all text books, visualize exposure as varying around a zero value 
>on a horizontal scale. Hell, all trains of numbers that relate to each other are 
>visualized on a horizontal scale. The same is the case for the aperture scale used in 
>calculating exposure.
> 
> Pål

Didn't we all learn with the good old match needle? It went up and down
too, and it never seemed to confuse people. The shutter speed indicators
in my LX are vertical, as are a couple of other Pentax cameras. I have
never heard of this being a problem before...

Isaac
> 
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)

[Isaac Crawford]

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> Isaac wrote:
> 
> > It's easy, you can't change a lens' illumination angle. Coverage of a
> > lens is defined by its illumination angle, not the size of the circle of
> > illumination. If what you say above is true, I should be able to shoot
> > 8x10 film with my SMC 50mm f1.4, and I can't... The angle of
> > illumination is set by the design of the lens, along with its
> > resolution, distortion, etc... The resolution of a given area inside of
> > the circle of illumination, at a given size (i.e. at a given focusing
> > distance) will remain constant no matter what size of film you project
> > that image onto. If you change the focusing distance (increasing the
> > size of the image circle), the resolution can indeed go down, but for
> > other reasons involving the reproduction ratio...
> > As you point out, the larger formats rarely need to have as high a
> > resolution, so the designers do not put the extra expense into the
> > lenses typically, but it is theoretically possible to design a lens for
> > 8X10 that will have as good a "resolution" inside of 24x36 as a good
> > 35mm lens.
> 
> I certainly agree but was not exactly what I meant with my admittedly rather bad 
>example. When designating equal lenses (MF and 35mm) I was thinking of overall 
>performance. Eg the two lenses projects the same information content (total number of 
>lines for instance) but on circles with different size. These lenses will then have 
>the same resolution and be equally sharp on the finished product; eg a 8X10 print. 
>This what I mean with the same quality. An MF lens with the same l/mm as a 35mm 
>system lens can resolve a hell of lot more information in total than the 35mm system 
>lens  simply due to the larger area of the  MF lens. Or in another way, a MF lens 
>doesn't need the same resolving power as a 35mm lens to appear equally sharp on  a 
>reproduction of a certain size.

Right, but that's not what the thread is about... I think... We were
talking about the lenses, not how much the film can resolve. If you take
in the same angle of view in both 35mm and medium format, odds are that
the medium format image will contain more information just because of
the density of info on the bigger neg. I thought that we were talking
about putting a medium format lens on a 35mm body. In that case the
medium format lens will resolve the same as it ever did, just over a
smaller area. 
> If a lens have a certain l/mm it will be constant regardless of format. But I won't 
>say that l/mm are equal comparable issues when comparing 35mm and MF lenses. For the 
>same angle of view a MF lens and a 35mm lens with the same l/mm the MF lens resolves 
>a hell of a lot more in finished photograph because theres a hell of a lot of more 
>mm's on a MF negative/positive. Hence, whats constitutes a good MF lens is something 
>different than whats a good 35mm lens. 

But not if they're both on a 35mm body... Once again, you are right
about there being fewer resolution demands put onto a medium format lens
(for the same amount of enlargement) when taking medium format pictures,
but a lens' performance does not decrease just because you switch
cameras. A lens will always perform the same weather its on a 35mm
camera or medium format camera. Theoretically, if you wanted to see how
your MF lens performs on 35mm, just crop out a 24x36 area from the
center of your image...

This is probably the core of the issue. As you say it is possible to
design a LF lens to be equally good as a 35mm but I wonder if it is
common or even viable on a consistent basis.

No on both counts I'm afraid... I only jumped in because it sounded
like you were saying that a lens' performance would somehow decrease
just by switching cameras. I think we both agree that in practical terms
MF optics just aren't as good over a 24x36 area...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: MZ-S & IR film

[Isaac Crawford]

"Jaros³aw Brzeziñski" wrote:
> 
> If the camera manual states that the camera uses IF rays to "count" the sprockets of
> the film for transport it means that you cannot use an IF film in it. It is 
>unfortunate
> but theoretically improves the eveness of spacing between frames and defies film
> transport errors. Anyway Pentax users should be happy that IF control of film 
>transport
> found the way into Pentax cameras that late - Canon users have been all too familiar
> with that problem for quite a while.


Actually what it really means is that you should try it and see, they
can make no gaurntees. I've seen many a rebel owner succesfully shoot IR
film with just the sprocket holes fogged. Others weren't so lucky and
some of the image area became fogged. Its certainly worth burning a roll
to test...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Medium Format to 35 (WAS: Digital MZ - MR 52 projet still in the air ???)

[Isaac Crawford]

Pål Jensen wrote:
> 
> Isaac wrote:
> 
> > Except the fact that the camera/lens combo would be rather awkward
> > because of the larger lenses, no autofocus and stop down metering, there
> > would be no compromises... Seriously though, I can't see many pros
> > putting up with those limitations on a really expensive body, digital or
> > no...
> 
> I believe most of them will use it instead of a polaroid back. For these 
>applications (checking exposure, light setting etc) a digital slr with MF lenses 
>might be useful

For 5 grand?!? You could buy a whole RZ setup with that kind of money.
If someone needed polaroid capability, they probably didn't buy Pentax
to begin with, and if they did, it would make more sense to invest in a
studio camera that has a conventional polaroid (or digital) back. The
price of the digital camera would have to come down significantly to
make sense as a polaroid replacement...

Isaac
> 
> Pål
> 
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

How to shoot negs for printing...

[Isaac Crawford]

I see a couple of people asking why their bracketing doesn't show up
they way they expect it to on neg films... I think its important to
understand what exactly you're trying to accomplish... Usually people
are trying get "lighter" or "darker" prints by manipulating the neg
exposure, and that is counterproductive. If you want lighter or darker
prints, they have to be *printed* light or dark, and as always, the
better the neg, the better the print will be. When you shoot neg film,
you want to capture the most amount of information you can without
blowing out your highlights regardless of how light or dark the
resultant print will be. In fact the more exposure you give a neg, the
better your shadows will look! Not just in detail, but the "blackness"
of the blacks will look much better as well. The less exposure you give
a neg, the worse the print will look, with very, very few exceptions.
Ask any printer and they will tell you that working with a "fat" neg is
always the best...
If you really want to see the differences in exposure between frames,
you need to get a contact sheet made. 4x6 prints from the 1 hour place
will hardly ever give you any real info as far as exposure goes... Many
of the new machines start out with it making its best guess and workers
can only "fix" things they see are obviously wrong in the monitor. In
other words, even if you tell the people to make no adjustments, many
times that will mean that the machine will make its adjustments, and the
operators won't "correct" the bad guesses. Which way is better depends
on the person at the machine!:-)
So how do you get lighter and darker prints? Make the best exposure you
can, and then *tell* the lab what you are after. If they won't (or
can't) do this, its time for a new lab! Sometimes its easiest to just
get the whole roll processed and then bring back the negs for reprints
(along with the original for comparison) for the particular shots... 
Of course the best way to get the prints looking the way you want them
to is to do them yourselves! With an OK film scanner and an OK printer,
you can get results that are far better than the typical 1 hour place.
IMHO doing it yourself is the best teacher you can have. Hope this
helps!
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Market segments (was Kodak dumbing down...)

[Isaac Crawford]

It's no secret that photography is dominated by point and shoots and
disposable cameras. The people who bought these have bought into the
whole "easy use" marketing scheme. There is of course the more advanced
users that buy more advanced cameras, but they (we) are in the minority.
Why is it so shocking then that Kodak would follow suit? Why not cater
to the most successful market segment? Is not knowing about films speed
any worse than not knowing about apertures and shutter speeds? If people
are going to bemoan the "dumbing down" of photographers, they should
look at the camera manufacturers, they are the ones promising that you
don't need to know about photography to make a good picture. The hell of
it is that they are right for many people. We all hate the Rebels and
N65s and ZX-50s, but guess what, they can produce excellent pictures
with the dial set on the smily face! They don't know squat about the
technique of photography, they just need to know which film to put in
the camera, and Kodak will tell them. I'm with William though, I hope
that they make the labels such that there is minimal confusion, it
should be easy enough to do... Of course there will always be the group
that can't figure anything out...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Re: Nasty Kodak rumor, or the sloppy truth: the dumbing down of NorthAmerica??

[Isaac Crawford]

> 
> Hi Issac ...
> 
> Boy, do i disagree with you.
> 
> > To me, Kodak's decision makes perfect sense. Keep in mind that 95% of
> > people don't know about film speed, and don't care.
> 
> Where/how did you arrive at that figure?  Was a survey made of
> this?  Had you said many, most, a great percentage, or something
> similar, I'd not quibble. But with a specific figure which shows an
> overwhelming majority don't know AND don't care, I'd have to take
> issue and ask more more details.
> 

It's called hyperbole... OK, the majority of people coming into the
camera store that I have worked in for the past three years don't know
about film speed, and don't seem to care. They just want to know what
film to use in sunny situations...

> > Think about it, do you know every detail of every activity you engage in?
> 
> Not every detail, but enough information about every activity so
> that I'm knowledgeable about the important things, the significant
> things.
> 
But for many people (I'll even say most), knowledge of film speed isn't
important! My point was that many people couldn't care less about film
speeds, they just want to know which film to use for outdoors and which
to use for flash, etc... This is what Kodak is giving them.
> In fact, none of the examples you cite matter much, if at all, in
> terms of the user being able to properly use and enjoy his
> equipment.

And I will say that what Kodak is doing will allow people (some for the
first time perhaps) to use their equipment properly and enjoy the
results.
> 
> > Every day I would have to explain to people what
> > speed they need, now I don't. I think that the
> > packaging is a good idea for this market segment.
> 
> Yes, if the market segment is the one that caters to the lowest
> common denominator 

Hello? What do you think has supported Kodak all these years? Verichrome
pan? VPS? Custom R prints? What has supported them all these years is
the consumer print films and the resultant pictures of Bobby's 2nd
birthday, Disney world vacations, and family gatherings. Hell, wasn't
Kodak's original slogan, "Push the button and leave the rest to us," or
something like that for the original brownie?



and, perhaps, to sales people who are too lazy or
> ignorant to properly explain film speed to their customers.  This is
> EXACTLY what dumbing down is all about.
> 
Think of it this way...To joe consumer, what is the difference between
ASA 100, 200, and 400 vs. sunny, general purpose, and flash... well,
anyone can figure out the second set, and many would have to ask about
the first. Kodak is simply making the terms more accessible to regular
consumers, is that such a terrible thing? Kodak is simply completing the
circle that the camera manufacturers started. If you have a camera that
will do everything (or nothing in the case of disposable!), why do you
have to worry about ISO ratings? How come we didn't hear about the
dumbing down of photographers when Pentax put the little smily face on
the ZX-50? Well, people say, "For the market the ZX-50 is aimed at, it's
a good thing..." It's the same damn thing that Kodak is doing...
As far as the salesman being lazy, I will resist saying some unpleasant
things... It comes down to not wasting time, mine or theirs. Good
salespeople will not hesitate to explain film speed, if they are asked.
But the question is usually not, "What do these numbers mean?" it is
usually, "Which film do I use outside?" If someone can come in, see what
they want, and buy it without keeping me from another customer that has
more involved questions, everyone wins.  Also remember that there are no
salespeople for people to ask in many places (grocery store, drug store,
etc..) Once again, I think that this makes sense for the consumer market

Isaac
> - --
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

OT New List

[Isaac Crawford]

Here's someting I saw on the Leica list, and it may apeal to some of
you (us) gearheads out there. Its a list about optics and testing. The
guy who is starting the list is a very serious tester, and he has a
great website about optics in general and Leica optics in particular.
Here's the intro from the man himself:


After considerable thought, I have finally decided to create my
own 
list. It is focussed on the quest for and study of high quality 
photographic imagery.
There is so much information and experience about this topic (also
known 
as image clarity or the imaging chain) at other lists like Minox, 
Olympus or Pentax, that is being disregarded or mis-interpreted,
but is 
of high relevance to the pursuit of optimizing the 
optical-mechanical-chemical  potential of the analogue
photographic 
process.
Anyone can post to the list, using whatever make of camera, but my
personal contributions will be Leica-biased.
There is only one requirement I wish to address: if you post
results, 
make sure there is a solid scientific basis for your results.
I would prefer this list to contain the most substantiated and 
trustworthy facts  about this most fascinating and rewarding
topic. As I 
am aware that the quest for ultimate image quality transgresses
the 
borders of camera companies, I would  hope that this list can
present 
facts that are rewarding to anyone who is in the same area of
interest 
and can accept that most current photographic companies do deliver
products that need an objective assessment to be used in the most 
rewarding way.
It is my conviction that the joy of photography is to be found in
the 
result, not the instrument. I am also convinced that the use of
the 
Leica camera (M and R) can enhance this joy considerably, but only
when 
the operator has an open eye to the general optical,  physical,
chemical 
and engineering basics that govern any photographic process and
the way 
Leica has implemented these facts and theories.
The wealth of knowledge that is collected by as example Minox or 
Hasselblad users, is of interest to anyone in the same area of
searching 
for the ultimate in image quality and I am sure that sharing this 
knowledge is a worthwhile effort that can benefit all, whatever
the 
choice of camera model.
The goal of this list would be to be a forum for ideas and methods
for 
image evaluation and methods and techniques for improving upon the
state 
of the art of image quality, which comprises all aspects of
photography 
from exposure to  development and enlargement and choice of
materials 
(films, lenses, cameras, tripods, filters, enlargers, etc).

The name of the list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Erwin


I hope to see some of you there...

Isaac
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .