f/1.2 vs. f/1.4 (was: Re: the ultimate digital potrait lens)
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe it's only a half-stop from 1.2 to 1.4. Here's how f/stops compare. I don't remember where I got these numbers. I may have derived them, so feel free to question them. f/1.2 is 0.45 stop faster than f/1.4 f/1.4 is 0.62 stop faster than f/1.8. f/1.4 is 1.0 stop faster than f/2.0 f/2.0 is 0.67 stop faster than f/2.5. f/2.5 is 0.33 stop faster than f/2.8. f/2.8 is 0.7 stop faster than f/3.5. f/3.5 is 0.3 stop faster than f/4. f/4 is 0.25 stop faster than f/4.5. f/4.5 is 0.67 stop faster than f/5.6.
f/1.0 vs. f/1.2 (was: RE: the ultimate digital potrait lens)
JCO wrote: BTW, if you need an extra stop over a F1.4, then a F1.0 is the answer. Canon just released a EF 50mm F1.0, $2500 list price. I doubt that Canon's 50/1.0 is geared toward serious photographers who find f/1.2 limiting. It sounds more like fuel for a pissing contest. Who buys the Noctilux, anyway--photographers or doctors?
Re: Quote of the day
You don't get a second chance on first impressions. ...unless you're Bill Murray on Groundhog Day.
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Mike wrote: I personally don't expect the *ist D to be less expensive than the 10D. As long as it's not too much more, it will be all right. I doubt anyone would bother about an extra hundred dollars when it comes to buying the camera that's right for them. for them--but they will look closely at price if the camera is being bought as a gift.
OT: Insane pricing of audio cables (was: Re: *ist D lens compatibility)
Heck, that's nothing. Ray Kimber of Kimber Kable marketed a pair of speaker wires that cost $15,000. I'm NOT making this up. Anyone who thinks he can hear the difference between a $15,000 pair of speaker wires and a pair costing $150 of that should be required to first take a blind listening test with a top-rated $150 pair in an A/B comparison. If he picks the costlier pair fewer than 3 out of 3 times, he must settle for the $150 pair and write a $14,850 check to the charity of my choice.
*ist D's ISO range (was: Fw: unanswered and unasked)
I raised the question twice, I believe, in the days before you joined. I do a lot of shooting at ISO 800 to 1250. It would be a pity if the *ist D could not be used to shoot indoor school plays. There is no secret method for goosing the ISO speed. Whatever Pentax delivers, we'll be stuck with. Mike J asks us to stay calm; the ISO range may not yet be fixed. Tony Gieske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: New to the list and a little surprised that no one seems to want to know the ISO specs on the *ist D. Are they like the D100 or are they like the 10D? I'd sure like them to be ISO 100 to ISO 6400. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps if no one cares it's because there's some secret method of goosing the speed of the chip in post. Could this be? Has anyone tried it with those earlier models?
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
In the perfume world, where image is everything, discounts are shunned. Companies might offer a rebate, or a bonus, but that high selling price adds valuable mystique.
What camera is this used on/for?
I agree with Fred appears to be the original magnifier, used for the K series and Spotmatics. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915712799category=15240 You also ask: How does it attach to the camera? Does it take up the hot shoe? No, it slips over the eyepiece, flipping down on a hinge when you need it. It does make the camera harder to fit in a bag, however. Have you ever used one before, and do they really work? I had one on all three of my SLRs. It truly makes focusing much easier, especially when your lens is a wide angle. Of course, when using the magnifier, you're looking at only the central portion of the image. I'd still be using them, but they kept knocking out my contact lens, and after losing a lens, I decided I couldn't afford to continue using the magnifiers, so I sold them.
Re: Kodak Portra 400 BW
I read some nice things about it at photo.net. Do a search. Excellent tonality.
OT: an X without a Y
Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. -- Jed Babbit (Former US Under-secretary of Defense) Reminds me of the 1970s T-shirt and bumper sticker: A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
Re: Preping for the *ist D
Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't buy CF-cards in advance, even more that with camera's the prices on memory stuff including CF keeps dropping. Wait as long as you can afford to ... Good prices can be found at http://www.ecost.com . Click on Digital Media Blowout or search for the following word: memory
Re: Shoveling in Chicago
Got 12 inches here, but I don't use it as a rule. Boom boom. A couple weeks ago, one of the US television networks showed the funniest moments in game show history. In one scene, The Newlywed Game's Bob Eubanks asked, Where did you get married? Upstate New York, answered the bride. Did it snow? Not during our wedding, the wife explained, but I got eight and a half inches on my honeymoon.
Re: more boring numbers
JCO wrote: f/2 +0.666 = f/2.519 f/2.8+ 0.666 = f/3.563 Thanks, JCO. Now I know that if I add a 1.7X TC to my SMC 200/2.5K, I'll get a 340/3.6. That sure beats a 300/4.5, which at any rate is really only 280mm.
Re: Price undercuts
At 08:29 PM 3/5/2003 +0300, you wrote: Sorry Paul, but this doesn't sound right. One cannot literally lose on every such sale of software, unless the price was lower than that of a bunch of empty floppies (wholesale). Of course, they could lose money on the product, but not like this, and that'd be a completely different story. Here's how Lotus lost money; I'm making up the numbers, so just pay attention to the way it worked: Lotus needed $300 million to recover its development and marketing costs. Lotus expected to sell the package to newcomers for $200. Lotus offered the package to Borland users as a sidegrade for $80. Lotus expected to sell 200,000 packages at $80, 2 million packages at $200. Total: $16 million + $400 million = $416 million. Instead, Lotus sold 800,000 packages at $80, and only 1.4 million at $200. Total: $6.4 million + $280 million = $286.4 million.
Re: On Topic or Seeking some advise
Boris, 50mm is too long for crowded shots. Many street shooters prefer 35mm, or even 28. My 35 (SMC 35/2) is very long, even without its metal hood. A shorter 35, or a pancake (Pentax 45/2.8, Ricoh-Chinon 40/2.8, Ricoh 28/2.8, or Cosina-Porst-Vivitar 40/2.5) with the hood off. On the other hand, given that an SLR makes some noise, a bit of distance could be an advantage. Around town, I get my street shots with a 135/2.3, my go-everywhere (outside) lens. But then, I don't try to stay invisible.
Re: On Topic or Seeking some advise
Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea of (candid/stealth) street photography keeps crossing my mind more and more often. Since I never did this, I am asking those of you who are experienced in such a thing for advise. Namely, would ME Super and 50/1.7 lens be a good way to start. I really think that AF and film advance noise of ZX-L is a bad thing here. So what could I start with? I suggest that you join the Yahoo group, Street Photography. You will find like-minded people. Are you willing to consider using a rangefinder or scale-focusing compact camera? Since they can be nearly silent, they might be a better choice than an SLR. If so, read about them at http://www.cameraquest.com You might also want to join the Classic Rangefinders group. I think it, too, is a Yahoo group, but you can learn about it at Cameraquest. I belonged to that group during my 18-month excursion into fixed-lens rangefinders and compacts. Perhaps you will decide to use a compact fixed-lens camera that's shirt-pocket size. If so, you live quite close to former PDMLer Daphne, who has tried just-about all of them (Rollei 35S, Contax T*, Minox 35, Olympus XA, Nikon 35Ti, others) and usually owns three or four at any one time. In fact, she is getting out of SLR photography to concentrate on compact 35 photography, which suits her shooting style. She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I favor the later Minox 35 models that use a needle for exposure reading: GT-S, GT-E, and GT-X. If you're still interested in using an SLR, many list members favor the combination of a pancake lens and an MX. All the pancake K-mount lenses are quite good; you shouldn't need the 43/1.9 Limited, which incidentally is noticeably thicker than the pancakes, almost as thick as a 50/2. I think you would find autoexposure useful, but try to stay with a small, quiet manual-focus model; your ME Super is probably the best choice (quiet shutter, no motor). For those who don't already own an ME Super, the manual-focus MZ-M (ZX-M) would make a small, very light package, but the MZ-5n has a quieter shutter. Their smaller viewfinders won't be a major problem, for many of your shots will be accomplished by prefocusing, perhaps using the hyperfocal setting. I tried about eight fixed-lens rangefinders and compacts; many were discussed on Cameraquest. For lens quality (wide-open sharpness and color), I preferred full-size (f/1.7) Yashica Electros. But it is impossible to lock exposure, even by keeping the shutter release partially depressed. And I found that doing it the alternative way--changing the ISO setting--took considerable time and coordination.
Re: *ist D price issues
The basic problem is that a DSLR costing $1500 USD is not inexpensive. As someone recently pointed out, a Spotmatic probably cost a higher percentage of median take-home pay than a DSLR costs today. The problem is, housing, driving, college, and healthcare cost much more, and we want many more things (cellular phones, PCs, big-screen TVs, high-speed Internet) that compete for our discretionary money.
Re: *ist D price issues
Pål wrote: By putting it into an irresistible, sexy body (look at the Optio S). Who would you date; a sexy playboy model or an ugly rocket scientist? Im shallow enough to make that decision a no brainer, and so are most people. If only life were a James Bond film, where the rocket scientist (or nuclear physicist) DOES look like a playboy model :)
Re: K loupe compatible with Yashica and Canon?
I couldn't say. But I do know that Minolta eyepiece accessories will fit Ricoh SLRs.
Unsubscribing
I have a rare chance to earn some overtime pay in the weeks ahead. That will leave no time, I'm afraid, for PDML. So farewell, until ... ? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The LCD of the *istD can obvioulsy be used as a viewfinder
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Diagnostician's version of Occam's razor: When you hear hoofbeats, don't think 'Zebra.' That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were higher, Pentax would have said so.
Re: Olydak
Rüdiger wrote: look at the 2.8/300. It has a filter size of 112mm like the a 35mm 2.8/300 and it is no smaller. The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110 Pocket system, as this has also a factor of 2. So the diameter should be only 56 mm. The diameter would be 56mm if the Olympus lens were equivalent to 300mm on a 35mm camera. This is an actual 300mm lens, equivalent to 600mm.
Re: 85/1.8 v. 85/2 for portrait - EX: Tradeoffs: old vs. new,
I wrote: Its diaphragm has something like 12 blades, for incredibly even lighting. Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, what does a round aperture have to do with even lighting (over the frame?)? Quite a bit, I thought. I believe that Contax has always stated this in its T*-series brochures. I thought that the cheap, 2-blade diaphragm/shutter combo found in the Minox 35s and other 1970s/1980s shirtpocket 35s were known to cause vignetting. No?
Where DLSRs will be bought (was: Re: More *ist D from PMA)
In the USA, many buyers shop for a digital camera in an electronics superstore like Best Buy-not in a camera store. If a DLSR gets under glass at those stores, it will greatly affect that brand's DLSR market share.
Why do digital zooms start so unwide?
On an SLR zoom, we expect the focal range at 28mm, even 24 mm. Yet on nearly every digicam, the zoom starts at an equivalent focal length of 35 to 38mm. Why so unwide? I think it's that, early on, the camera is specified to have a prescribed zoom ratio-say, 4:1-and the marketing people tell the engineers, We can sell more cameras with a 35-140 zoom than with a 28-112. Customers buy the 35-140, unaware they are being shortchanged until their back is to the wall and they need a 28 or 24mm wide angle. I doubt the average digicam buyer is willing to use his auxiliary wide-angle attachment. Do film compact zooms start at 35 to 38mm also?
Idiosyncrasy (was: Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!)
Pål wrote: The Limited lenses: more idiosyncratic than anything else! Well, dont forget that 1990s Olympus retro point-and-shoot that was shaped like an old flashbulb and had an equally bizarre name. What was it again?
Is zoom quality better with a small frame size?
Could a zoom lens designed for an APS-sized sensor have less distortion or vignetting than a zoom lens designed for full-frame 35mm? In other words, is it easier to design a no compromise 5:1 or 10:1 zoom for the smaller format? Would a hood, for example, be able to work well over a greater range of focal lengths?
RE: Olydak
Steve Desjardins wrote: It seems like Olympus did the obvious/safe thing and created an interchangeable lens version of the E-10/20. They must have made some other changes, because their E-10 literature claims that interchangeable lenses cannot ensure the proper lens-to-CCD distance within acceptable tolerances.
Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?
Pål wrote: In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy a Canon. I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of functions, value, ease of use, and accessories. Few will find PDML and other user forums in which people bash Pentax for substandard support.
Re: Olydak
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words they aren't taking advantage of the format, They're still selling 35mm lenses on a sub 35mm format. It's nice to have a longer lens but you can already do that with Nikon, Canon, and soon with Pentax. I thought it was all about smaller, lighter, (less expensive), kit for the equivalent of your 35mm system. I don't see that with the Olydak. Well, Peter, I didn't mean it that way. I thought the Oly 300/2.8 is designed to project the entire image onto the sensor, not just the middle 50 percent of the image. When I said equivalent to 600mm, I meant in magnification. But I see your point: If the rear glass can be much smaller, why is the front full size?
Re: Brand names (WAS: Re: How about a 600/2.8 or a 100-400/2.8-3,5?)
Pål wrote: Nikon, on the other hand, is by far the most valuable name associated with photography there is according to marketing and branding specialists. Forget Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss, they aren't even in the ballpark. Canon is nowhere near Nikon in this regard but the brand name is now almost as well known as Coca-Cola and Sony. Indeed, last year, a coworker was shopping for a digicam. I've decided to get a Nikon, she explained, because that's what everyone I know uses and that's what they tell me I should get. She wanted me to help her decide, Which Nikon? I urged her to try the model before buying it to make sure she felt comfortable with its interface. I was using my company's Nikon CoolPix 900 or perhaps a slightly earlier model. I worked with some fairly bright engineers, but it took them more than 10 minutes to figure out how to change the ISO from 100 to 400 and turn off the flash, even with the Quick Reference chart and full manual in front of them.
Re: Pentax glass, old vs. new (Re: *ist D lens compatibility)
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The older teles were very nice, and the newer ones that I've used are on par or better. Mark Roberts added: And the Limiteds (wide, normal and tele) are in a class by themselves. Most of us would agree with the PDMLer who wrote that the SMCs were superior in build quality. But it would be difficult to state categorically that the older designs were better: Some M and A lenses that were derived from the original SMC designs proved to be lesser lenses: 28/2M 28/2K 28/3.5M 28/3.5K 35/2M 35/2K 50/1.4M 50/1.4K 85/2M 85/1.8K 100/2.8M 105/2.8K 135/3.5M 135/3.5K 150/3.5M 150/4K Some K (SMC) lenses were never produced in M or A series, and are considered superb even by today's standards: 24/3.5K 35/3.5K 500/4.5K Some M or A lenses that were derived from SMC designs were optically equal or superior: 24/2.8A = 24/2.8K 200/2.8A = 200/2.5K 400/5.6M 400/5.6K 400/5.6A 400/5.6K Some M or A lenses were new optical designs, equal to or better than their SMC antecedents: 16/2.8 A fisheye 17/4 K fisheye 20/2.8 A 20/4 K 85/1.4 A* !! 100/2.8 A macro = 100/4 K macro 135/1.8 A* !! 200/4 A* macro 300/2.8 A 300/4 M* = 300/4 K And a few M or A lenses were new optical designs that were inferior to their SMC antecedents: 135/2.8A 135/2.4K With the F and FA series, the company seemed to start with a clean sheet of paper and began to improve on their A designs: 24/2 FA 35/2 FA 50/1.4 F and FA 100/2.8 F and FA macro 135/2.8 F and FA 300/4.5 F and FA And of course, the FA Limiteds, which virtually have no equal: 31/1.8 43/1.9 77/1.8 I'm surely omitting some lenses, but my point is: Some M and A designs improved on the Ks, some fell short. The 1990s to 2001 period saw a wave of fresh designs that equaled or surpassed anything from the good old days.
FW: Re: *ist D lens compatibility
Jostein wrote: Buying even a relatively cheap DSLR is such an investment that it seems pretty wasted to top it off with ultra-cheap consumer grade lenses. Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm connecting two computers to our good speakers. The setup requires several pairs of cables, and the more I read, the more I realize that a cheap cable can nullify my investment in good speakers and sound cards. It's bizarre to read epinions.com and find a pair of $60 1-meter cables described as entry level
Re: *ist D price issues (WAS: Re: *Ist focusing issues)
Back in the early 1990s, when Borland's Quattro owned the PC database market, Lotus tried to steal market share by offering a deep introductory discount for Lotus's new product to anyone who would send in Page 1 of the Borland Quattro manual. Lotus would lose on every such sale, but they figured they needed to do this in order to gain a foothold. Borland responded by taking out full-page ads that offered a free Page 1 to anyone who requested it! I'm concerned that Canon or Nikon, with their deep pockets, will lower the prices of their DLSRs just long enough to knock Pentax out of the race.
Re: Five things I love about Pentax
1. the LX (and its huge auxiliary viewfinders) will be there when my eyes will need one in a few years 2. SMC 3. great prime lenses, both in manual focus and autofocus 4. the fact that the Ricoh XR-P can use Pentax lenses 5. the long-lived continuity of the K mount
Re: Vignetting and aperture blades
I guess I was wrong. I was unable to find the correlation between number of blades and evenness of illumination. Only these comments, which suggest that the Sonnar lens with more blades may be worse: From http://www.photo.net/contax/t3 The recomputed Sonnar lens of the T3 has virtually no light fall-off, an improvement over the T2 (which isn't as bad as some people say). However, this lens has only 5 iris blades and out-of-focus highlights are pentagonal, apparent especially in night scenes. The T2 has a near-circular aperture with 7 blades. -- Andrew Hall, August 15, 2002 I read all over that the lens does not suffer from light fall off at all apeture. However my experience is otherwise. I also see light fall off in many pictures taken by other T3. See all the above pictures and you can see that vignetting is very apparent. Check the following sites as well: http://myalbum.ne.jp/cgi-bin/a_menu?id=ac473797 http://www.dpgallery.com/resource/t3/t3gallery-andrea.asp -- Wee Keng Hor, November 11, 2002 - From http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002TQ8 : 3) Can anyone compare shrpness for the T3 with the Contax T. I always found the T sharper than the T2. Since the lenses were supposed to be the same, I assumed it was due to the difference in roundness of the aperature ring. Aperature priority on the T2 is a phony (only good up to 1/125 of a second shutter speed) and I usually used program. In this mode the T2 ignores the aperature ring and uses the shutter blades to form the aperatue, just as in all of the cheapy PS's. Thus not a very round aperature. -- Jay Goldman , July 31, 2001; 05:00 P.M. Eastern
Re: *ist D Pentax prime lenses
Paul Eriksson wrote: Does anyone have experience with the Tokina or the Tamron? Cotty don't you have the Tokina (ATX version) for your D60? The Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 is said to be outstanding. Unfortunately, Tokina has never made it in Pentax mount. The earlier Tokina SL-17 (RMC) is not nearly as good as the AT-X. Nor is it anywhere as good as the Tamron SP 17/3.5. It may even be the same as the Vivitar 19/3.5. The Tamron is said to be outstanding for its eerie lack of distortion. It has two shortcomings: low saturation and contrast, and lack of sharpness below f/8, at least in the corners. Well, on a DSLR, saturation and contrast are easily recovered after the shot; and the Tamron won't be using its corner glass, just the center, so sharpness across the frame should improve.
Re: Jerusalem Snow
My son lives in Jerusalem. He tells me that many of the zoo animals were filled with anxiety by the strange stuff.
4 megapixels is enough, said Olympus (in 2000)
In the Camedia E-10 press conference on 22 August 2000, the President of Olympus, Mr Masatoshi Kishimoto gave the following remarks. We will stop the research on high resolution CCD. We have been continuously developing high quality digital camera with high resolution CCD. But E-10's 4M pixels CCD is able to give very satisfactory results even in enlarged prints. I think this is the end of the high resolution CCD competition. 5M or 6M pixels are too much for consumer use. Operation, design and other added values are more important from now on. This quotation and other Olympus views on CCD development can be found at http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/camera_technologies.html ; scroll down to Olympus CCD Philosophy.
Re: FS: Cosina 50mm F1.2
Ryan Brooks wrote: I've got a brand new Cosina F1.2 (yes, 1.2, not the Ebay 1.2) 50mm = lens for sale in K-mount. Got some beautiful picks with this guy, very warm = lens. Asking US$90. [Paul Franklin Stregevsky] Ryan, Surely you mean 55/1.2, not 50/1.2, yes? 58mm filter, right?
Re: my 35-45mm digital dilema what lens???????
adphoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i love using depth of field and a very bright viewfinder so my choices are: vivitar 28mm 1.9 series 1 ** vivitar 28mm 2.0 ** sigma 28mm 1.8 pentax 28mm 2.0 pentax 30mm 2.8 pentax 31mm 1.9 limted pentax 24mm 2.0 sigma 24mm 1.8 vivitar/kiron 24mm 2.0 anyone had any experiences with any of these lenses and can comment on flare, optical quailty especially centre sharpness wide open and stopped down to f4 especially the asterik ones ta Vivitar Series One 28/1.9--a great choice, but give up hope; you'll never find one. Vivitar 28/2.0: Essentially the same as the Kiron 28/2, which didn't impress me--great sharpness and close focus (12 inches, 0.3 m), but mediocre contrast and saturation. Actually, the Vivitar Close Focus came out later and may have improved on the Kiron. There were four 28/2s: Two in 49mm filter threads, two in 55mm. In each filter size, one version could close focus, the other could not. If you get the Vivitar, go for the 55mm whose distance scale includes 0.3m. Sigma 24/1.8: For years, this was the choice for those who couldn't afford a Pentax. But all Pentax 24s are outstanding and affordable; the f/3.5, f/2.8s, and f/2. Since you've bought some pretty pricy lenses (Tamron 400/4 et al.), you should be able to afford the real thing. Sigma 28/1.8: I used to own the original, manual-focus version (58mm threads) but sold it before taking a single shot! I had four f/2-class 28s at the time. It earned mixed reviews. It's very hard to find, in manual or autofocus. would look closely at its successor, the 28/1.8 autofocus only version (77mm filter). Sigma introduced a 20/1.8, 24/1.8, and 28/1.8 around 2000, and from what I've read the 28 outperforms the others in sharpness and evenness of illumination from wide open to about f/4. It's also bargain-priced below $200. Pentax 30/2.8: My first choice if you don't need sharpness till f/4. Get it, and you can probably do without a 35. Pentax 31/1.9 Limited: Owners rave about this lens with an almost religious fervor. Many will tell you it's their favorite lens. It exemplifies the 3D effect and outstanding build that makes the Limiteds so prized. It's just so expensive...especially when used as a normal lens (48mm equivalent). Kiron/Vivitar 24/2: Some have written that it's lacking in contrast till f/8 or so. It rated midpack in a 1990 comparison of third-party 24s. My first choice: Any Pentax 24; since you like a bright view, then the 24/2 FA. My second choice: Pentax SMC 28/2K (hard to find, but they show up now and then for $250 to $350) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: K 400-600/8-12 Reflex
IL Bill wrote: Anyone have any information on the above lens? I have seen Boz's site on it, but want to know more from someone who's actually used it. You want me to have actually used a lens before I pontificate on its merits or lack thereof? There go three-fourths of my postings. :)
Now it's Rollei's turn (was: Re: OT: More Leica Lust)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3354item=2915311123; rd=1 If you have trouble copying and pasting the link, it's item 2915311123, titled ROLLEI RANGEFINDER 35 RF NEW JUST RELEASED!!! (Thanks, Daphne!) Watch Stephen Gandy (http://www.cameraquest.com) drool over this one!
RE: The Hundred Percenters
I have a question for the hundred percenters. Let's say you viewed the following on a good color monitor: - a dozen high-quality images that had been shot with black and white film, and - a dozen high-quality images that had been shot with color print film, then saved in grayscale. Then I asked you to tell me, Which 12 were shot in black and white? Of the 12 you chose, how many would be the real black and white shots? You can see where I'm going here: I doubt many of you would score very well. I'll bet that at least four of your dozen choices would turn out to have been shot in color. For photographers who, like me, are more concerned with getting a great JPEG (which thousands can view) than getting a great print (which few will ever view), color offers a way to have it all--to present an image in color or black-and-white, and filtering techniques that are not available to the black-and-white shooter. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news for Pentax: Bad for Minolta
Taz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm new to the list and have been spending the evening looking at some of your posts. The introductions of the *ist and *ist-D seem to be bringing in an unusually large number of new names to PDML. Welcome aboard, Taz. You wrote: I have Minolta and Pentax gear... Which generation of Minolta do you own: manual focus, or autofocus? It manual focus, I would pick up all that great classic glass by Vivitar Series One, Soligor C/D, and Tokina AT-X, all available dirt-cheap in Minolta manual-focus mount. I seem to just like to collect it with no really good reason to justify it...lol. And the idea of selling any of it bugs me too much. I'll probably just have to put it all in my will. Consider giving or lending it for a year or two to your local school's camera club, or to an aspiring young photographer or a relative who has the potential to become one. When I was ready to part with my Zenitar 20/2.5PK lens, I recognized how little it would net on the used market. So I gave it to the local art teacher's teen daughter, who was using her father's MX. She was delighted. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news for Pentax: Bad for Minolta
Ah--Minolta autofocus. Never mind. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hands up and be counted
John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I don't personalise it, in 1968 the Spotmatic cost about 8 times the average weekly wage in England. Today, the *ist D at US$1300 will cost about three times the Australian industrial average wage. OK, now we're talkin'. That's impressive. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Good news for Pentax: Bad for Minolta
From what I've seen, people may be buying SLRs, but they aren't using them on a regular basis. I seldom see another SLR at public events. I don't see them out on the street. When I shoot a school event, I'll see maybe three or four other SLRs. One will be autofocus; the rest are vintage models like the Canon AE-1. Ditto for my town's annual parade day: The numbers may grow, but the percentages remain strongly in favor of classic models. A month ago, I was taking my lunchtime walk and was delighted to see a high-school-age young man walking with a Cosina-made Nikon FM10 and its bundled 35-70 (I think) zoom lens. It turns out he was doing his homework assignment for a photography course. The only other SLR that I've spotted in seven months of walking was a PZ-1P and 70-300 zoom. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Hundred Percenters
Fair enough, William; I'll recast the question: Let's say you viewed a high-quality printout on high-qulaity paper of an uncompressed, high-resolution digital scan of a dozen... William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, since there is no way to view an image on a computer monitor without taking an extremely hich quality loss, the arguement is moot. Making the presumption that images should be made for the widest possible distribution at the lowest possible quality is pretty derogatory to those who view quality as job one. There is still a huge number of photographers who are interested in the highest quality standard possible.
Re: All Is Right In The Pentax World!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems that in _many_ products, failing to offend has become more important than managing to thrill. I agree. A recent article in Time or Newsweek examined precisely this point in explaining why owners of Volkswagen Passats LOVE their car on an emotional level that Honda hopes to capture in its redesigned (and traditionally inoffensive) Accord. Glenn, you'd like my Monster job listing. I've written my goal as something like, To write manuals that kick ass.
Re: 200 dpi monitors? (was: Re: The Hundred Percenters)
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you have a monitor that does 4K x 3K. they exist. Herb, 12 megapixel displays don't exist, except possibly in the rarefied world of grayscale medical CRTs. Even then, I doubt it. Maybe you're thinking of virtual desktops. On older operating systems, companies like Matrox, ATI, and Number Nine offered virtual desktops that let you double or even quadruple the maximum resolution that could be seen at once. All you had to do was to move your mouse cursor beyond the edge of the display, and the hidden part of the desktop would instantly pan into view. I lived for these virtual desktops. When writing a one-page essay in 9.5-point type, I could use Matrox's Double Tall virtual desktop, which turned a display resolution of 1600 by 12000 into a virtual resolution of 3200 by 1200. In this way, I could magnify the page to about 200 percent to work comfortably, and never have to use FrameMaker's scroll arrow. Unfortunately, starting with Windows 2000 Microsoft banned the use of virtual screens. Their reasoning: You don't need them anymore; just buy a second monitor. As though setting two monitors across lets me achieve twice the height. For about $1400 you can have a pair of 2,048 x 1,536 CRTs running at 85 Hz side by side, giving you 6.2 million pixels (3.1 million each). For the same price ($600 per monitor, $100 per card), you can goose a pair of Matrox boards to each run a single CRT at 4.1 million pixels, yielding 8.2 million for a pair. Or, if you have the space, set up four such displays. Short of buying one of those IBM 9.1 megapixel flat displays, using a high-end CRT with a Matrox monitor is the only way to see more than 3.1 million pixels at once. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Daylight Fill-Flash w/ 280 on Super Program
The Super Program is my mail flash camera, and now I know why I haven't managed to use fill flash: I don't take it off of autoexposure. No wonder people buy newer camera bodies; fill flash needn't be calculated: You can just tell the camera, Make it so. Right? At least, the Ricoh XR-X3P (their final high-end body) makes fill flash a snap (using the built-in flash; I don't know about hotshoe flash). [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: vs1 28mm 1.8 72mm filter
The ad is mistaken; it is the classic 28/1.9. There is no Vivitar 28/1.8. The only 28/1.8 lens I'm aware of is the new Sigma autofocus. http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915155403category=46 87 is this a new version
FS: some classic lenses
Stan, Your ambivalence toward selling the 85/1.8K tells you all you need to know. Don't do it! You'll regret it. I sold my 85/1.8 screwmount, and even though I don't like using screwmount adapters, that lens was simply the best-built lens I've ever used; I still mourn for it. At least the screwmount version is easy enough to find again. Not so the K mount. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 200 dpi monitors? (was: Re: The Hundred Percenters
Herb, Your first link didn't work for me (too long, even though I copied and pasted it?), but the second link did: http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/lifesciences/solutions/medical.html OK, it's the T221 flat-panel, the same model I was talking about, now available for about $7000. But it's 9.2 million pixels (3,840 by 2,400), not 12 million (4,000 by 3,000). You're right: It came out in 2001, not 2002. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 200 dpi monitors? (was: Re: The Hundred Percenters)
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bandwidth and optical resolution are two different things, just because a monitor can sync to a HF signal doesn't mean that it can resolve it. In fact sync-ing to a frequency that is higher than the phosphor triplets can resolve leads to moire patterns (often masked due to inter pixel spill) which cause colour shifts and gamma errors, ie bad bad bad for photo editing. Rob, True enough for horizontal resolution. But as my earlier post pointed out, there are no phosphor triplets in the vertical axis, but continuous phosphor stripes. As for your second comment: I don't believe that this is likely, I doubt that the screen can actually resolve 200dpi, it might sync at this rate but not resolve it. Any URLS, models, specs? As you'll see in the URLs below, the T221 is an active-matrix liquid crystal display. http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/lifesciences/solutions/medical.html http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/lifesciences/pdf/T221_brochure-final.pdf It uses amorphous silicon technology, which has allowed a breakthrough in addressable-transistor resolution. Before the T221, amorphous silicon was used chiefly in military displays, such as head-up displays. For more on this breakthrough, see http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,23102,3372077,00.html In 1994, as a contractor for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), I coauthored a report on flat-panel display technologies: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/disk1/1995/9505/95050 4.PDF It's been like a pleasant dream to see several military only display technologies enter the civilian sector, some (like conventional AM-LCDs) even becoming near-commodities.
RE: K 85/1.8 vs screw 85/1.8 or 85/1.9
Levente -Levi- Littvay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, but based on its appearance they are QUITE different. So you say optically they are identical? You have another option: Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 85/1.8 (multicoated, 58mm filter, Manual/Auto switch), available in M42 screwmount (but not K mount). According to PDML's Frantisek V., it and the Pentax 85/1.8 are nearly identical in optical formula and performance; perhaps not quite as good at flare resistance, but respectable nonetheless. Build quality, too, is very nice. It seems to be much more widely available in Europe than in the United States. It sells for about the same as the Pentax SMCT 85/1.8, sometimes less. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What film do you use?
All C-41 color: For low-speed outdoor, Kodak Royal Gold 100 or Kodak Portra NC 160. However, I just bought a brick each of Fuji Reala 100 and Agfa's 160 pro color film; the Agfa is said to blow away the competition in lpm resolution. For medium-speed outdoor and indoor with flash, Kodak Portra NC 400 if it's on hand, Kodak Gold 400 if I've run out. For available light, Fuji NPZ 800 shot at ISO 1000 or 1250 and push-processed 1 stop. I even use this with diffused flash and the results are acceptable (to me). However, Portra 800 seems like a more sensible compromise for combining flash and nonflash high-ISO shooting. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Do you speak/write Italian? OT
Check out these online translation sites that handle Italian: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ http://www.translate.ru/ Designed for Russian speakers, but usable by the rest of us. I've used it when writing to a Russian dealer. The site appears to have changed its home-page interface. Can one of our Russian speakers please tell us how where to click to find the English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish interfaces? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: =?x-unknown?q?P=E5l's_lust_for_Sexy_Camera?=
1. Canon Elph (APS). 2. Yashica Samurai (half-frame). 3. Rollei A110 (110). 4. Contax T* (35mm) 5. Olympus XA (35mm) Pål Jensen wrote: I expected something with built in lust factor. Something that made peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they had to check out. Lawrence Kwan [EMAIL PROTECTED] replied: This is getting more and more unbelievable (perhaps I haven't subscribed to PDML long enough :-) ). Pal, can you name me one camera in the history of 35mm SLRs that would evoke such universal emotional response? No camera in the world can elicit my lust... absolutely not. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frame size (was: Re: Position: *ist-D D10)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:45:48 -0500 Bill wrote: I just looked it up. APS negative is16.7 x 30.2mm, half frame of course is 18 x 24, making the half frame about 16% smaller than APS. And Minox subminiature size is, I think, 8 x 11mm. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ricoh KR-5 Super III
I'm not familiar with that Ricoh body; it may have sold under one name in North America, and another name elsewhere. For example, the XR-M in the USA is called the XR-X elsewhere. To see where that body fits into the Ricoh lineup, and to read the manual, see http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ . By the way, I am unable to bookmark that URL in my browser; it simply won't take. Each time I want to find the site, I must go to Google and type Butkus Chinon. Does anyone else have this problem? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FA 300/4.5 question
Thomas wrote: Still, I like the F more than the FA because of it's sturdy tripod mount. I'm waiting for someone to buy one of each size of Canon's three auxillary tripod mounts, find out which one (if any) fits the FA 300/4.5, and inform the list. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ON and OFF symbols (was: Re: *ist D photos)
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 0 and 1 as equivalent to off and on connect only after you have been around computers. the ISO committee that decided this along with a lot of other symbols were aiming for a lot lower. since none of you guys bother reading the documentation for the symbols themselves, there is nothing more to be said from me. I'm working on a technical manual whose procedures were originally written by a bright engineer. Yet in his drafts, he consisently writes, Turn the power switch on (O), using the letter instead of the digit. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:Test
My posts don't seem to be making it through. Make sure your email program is in Plain Text or Simple Text mode. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hands up and be counted
John Coyle wrote: In 1968 ... A Spotmatic in England at that time cost 122 pounds and a bit - six weeks of my pay, rounded. An *ist D is forecast to be priced about US$1300-$1500: let's strike an average at $1400. I currently pay myself a basic wage of US$635 per week, and take profit-sharing of the rest. John, I have no idea how your earning power has or hasn't changed over 35 years. A more meaningful comparison would ask, How does the street price compare with the median personal salary in the country of sale? I'd even settle for median household income. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: No Flash that reverts to Flash (was: Re: Hands Up II: What About the Film *ist?)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:57:12 -0500 From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Caveman wrote: I definitely hope that the pop-up flash on the *ist could be permanently turned off ;-) If not, then some duct tape will certainly solve the problem ;-) I can't help but share this cartoon, reprinted in the current Newsweek; it may be meaningful only to Americans: The Government has downgraded the terror alert from duct tape to masking tape. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: Effective WHAT? (Digital *ist)
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you talking about the post you quoted or about apparent focal length? I'm not sure what you mean by interpolated... Chris, I was not referring to your superb explanation about a DSLR's cropping effect, which I've saved for future reference. Rather, I'm answering a question posed last night or this morning about how Fuji can claim 6 million effective pixels from a camera whose CCD has only 3.1 million pixels (or some such numbers). I tend to fall a half-day behind in my responses to PDML threads. I receive PDML Digest at two addresses: home and work. I compose many messages at work but send them from home so that my work email address can't be gleaned by spammers. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D photos
Ken, When PDMLers of the future examine the archives, they will credit you for revealing the first photos of the *ist D. Thanks from all of us. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist D photos
Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I just fell in lust again.for the tenth time today. In the 1970s, lyricist/composer Stephen Schwartz (Pippin, Working, Pocahantas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) wrote a song, Proud Lady. Sung by a brash young man (She calls me a swine--she's mine!), the lyric ends, And I finally found my one true love...for the twenty-third time! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: How things change so quickly
I wrote: I bought my first hard drive in 1991. It was 105 megabytes and cost $725, or $7 a megabyte. At Best Buy this week, you can now buy a 120 gigabyte hard drive for $100. That's nearly 7,000 the capacity for less than 1/10 the price (in real dollars). Oops! I was mixing and matching the capacity comparison with the cost comparison. Someone has probably corrected my math by now. That'll teach me not to try math before sipping my morning coffee. That's 1,142 times the capacity, at roughly 1/7000 the cost per gigabyte. What a difference 12 years makes. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MF Normal Lens
Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In that case, get an original K-series SMC 55/1.8. It's the closest you'll come to the screwmount Tak feel in a K-mount lens (albeit with a rubber-texture focus ring) and the same lens formula as the Super-Tak (but with multicoating). I think they're usually quite cheap. I love my classic $30 55/1.8K dearly, but only from f/5.6 f/22. I used it to take some parade shots on a cloudy day at, I think, f/2.8. There was a shot of a red-coated horseman, but the detail in his face was so lacking--as though someone had placed a stocking over his head--that I was embarrassed to submit it for April's cliché PUG theme. For f/2, f/2.8, and f/4, I use my Ricoh Rikenon P 50/1.4...which, coincidentally, can no longer close down beyond f/5.6. Yeah, it's a pain to have to keep two 50s to get decent results across the aperture range. If I knew then what I know now, I'd probably overcome my aversion to autofocus lenses and get a 50/1.4 FA. Or I may return to an XR Rikenon 50/2, which rivals the Rikenon P 50/1.4 at f/2 to f/4 and doesn't have the P tab to get in the way when I want to mount the lens quickly. Unlike the XR 50/1.4, the XR 50/2 optical formula was not improved when Ricoh added the P setting. Unfortunately, neither was the coating, which remained single, or the body, which remained aluminum. Also, the P 50/1.4 delivers more saturated color, possibly because it is multicoated.
Miranda (was: Re: ebay item question)
Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb. Miranda used to own Soligor. All of Soligor's great C/D lenses should be available in Miranda mount: the 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and assorted zooms. . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to unsubscribe?
Steve Pearson wrote: I have tried a few times to unsubscribe, due to the fact that I travel. ... However, for some reason, I can't unsubscribe? Does anyone know who to contact about this problem? It seems like I have seen other posts about this same problem. Steve (and Teresa), Don't feel stupid; the instructions leave out some vital information. First of all, be sure you are sending your request to the proper address, shown at http://www.pdml.net/dbrewer/p2.html: To unsubscribe from the mailinglist, simply send a message with the word 'unsubscribe' in the Subject: field to the -request address of that list To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: unsubscribe To unsubscribe from the digest, write a email like this: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: unsubscribe But here' what the instructions fail to mention: Your email client must be set to plain text--not Rich Text, not HTML. It's unbelievable that this requirement--which applies to unsubscribing and subscribing alike--is still not stated on the PDML page, after all the problems that you, I, and others have experienced. Even more unbelievable: Nowhere in the welcome email are we reminded where to send messages--namely, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, the welcome message begins, You have added to the subscriber list of: [EMAIL PROTECTED] But that's not where I send my messages, even though I receive the digest. In fact, until last year, the web page, too, failed to state the address for posting a message to PDML. The address doesn't appear in the archived messages. The first time I joined, I had to write to a PDMLer to ask, Where do I post a message? After I joined, two new subscribers wrote to me with the same question. Leaving out vital information is an all-too-common human failing. Years ago, the Society for Technical Communication mailed out a brochure inviting members and technical communication students to attend a seminar. I called the person whose phone number appeared as the contact and said, I'd like to attend the seminar, but I have just two questions: WHERE is it and WHEN is it? Sir, she replied curtly, if you'll read the brochure, you should find all the information you need. That's what I assumed, I explained, but I've read it through twice now, and I can't find the place or time anywhere. Hold on. Then, after a pause of several seconds, I heard, Oh my god...Oh my god... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
David Barts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So, should I even consider a K2 or KX? Absolutely! I owned a KX and found that even when I wasn't using MLU, my prints seemed sharper because of the low vibration. The K2 adds autoexposure. Only the KX allows MLU in real time or with the timer. I sold the KX simply because I don't shoot enough still life shots to make it worth holding on to a manual-exposure camera. Is there anything in particular to watch out for with these bodies? Make sure the aperture viewing window is aligned. I bought a KX where it was out of alignment. Metering can be off, too, after all this time. I learned this from the guy I sold mine to; I couldn't tell, because I routinely set out to overexposure my color prints for saturation and sharpness. The magnification (0.88x) is generous, but be prepared for a dim view. Also, as I recall, the KX lacks a split image focusing aid. I don't' know about the K2. Or should I just forget about it and spring for an LX? Big difference in price! For much less than a KX, consider a Ricoh XR-1 (manual-exposure only) or XR-2 or 2s (manual and autoexposure). Same magnification, 4 to 1/1000 second shutter (mechanical on the XR-1). You'll get MLU when using the spring-loaded timer, a very low-vibration body, a nifty built-in viewfinder blind, and access to an accessory winder (the XR Winder 1, 2 fps) that offers the nicest, most secure grip I've ever felt in a camera grip. I use an XR-2s (Sears KS Auto) as my outdoor ISO 100 camera. Like the KX, the Ricoh XR-1/XR-2 bodies use a trapped needle. But the Pentax has a cool trick up its sleeve that the Ricohs lack: The needle floats to indicate changes in lighting, even when you're not partially depressing the shutter. Also, the KX meter is sensitive to 1/3 stop; the Ricohs, 1/2 stop.
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. ... Photography can be expensive. By mounting a 300/2.8 + 1.4X TC on a partial-frame DSLR, you can attain long (small-birdable) focal lengths AND fast f/stops. I've basically called a moratorium on acquiring fast glass, betting that one day, the 200 and 300mm glass I already own will be magnified by a DSLR at no cost in brightness. If Pentax won't do it, there's always the other guys.[Paul Franklin Stregevsky] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greyscale image
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did mike post an image too? Mine was the one with the greyscale image title of the post. Which image are you reffering to? No, Mike didn't post an image; I simply answered in haste and forgot who has posted the image. The image in mind was the original Renaissance image that you later revealed was shot with an old Zeiss lens. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question for USA (Miami or near) members
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:49:18 +1000 From: jcoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dalelabs.com/ in Hollywood, Florida, very close to Miami. John Coyle wrote: Can anyone recommend a good quality lab that can make high quality 8x10's (or larger) from a scanned negative, in both mono and colour? An actor friend of mine is visiting Florida to do some promotional work, including some photo-signing sessions, and was bemoaning the weight of 1100 prints to take for handing out to the adoring fans, so I suggested sending a scan and having them done locally. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Value of K 3,5/18?
Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I private person is selling a SMC(K) 3,5/18mm lens in mint condition. He is asking for a bid. Any idea what a 'reasonable' price might be? Peter, I've seen these go for anywhere from US $500 to $900. A few have gone on German Ebay for less, probably because so many sellers will sell only within Germany or the European Union. The lens is very difficult to find. If you want it, buy it. You will have no trouble reselling it, especially if you keep it in mint condition. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: K-mount lenses that lock on Pentax bodies
I believe that any Ricoh-brand lens that features the P setting is in danger of locking onto any Pentax AF body. In other words, any Rikenon P lens. The older, XR Rikenon lenses are safe. Chris raised the larger question: Did Vivitar, or any other company, make lenses for Ricohs that cannot be used on an MZ body, or was it just Ricoh who made them? In the five years I've been on the list, postings have named Ricoh as the only brand whose lenses could be a problem. With all the Tokina fans on this list, I would think that someone would have alerted the list by now if a Tokina lens were a problem. As for Tamron Adaptall, I assume one should be careful to use the K, KA, or KAF mount, and not the Ricoh mount. Perhaps someone can clarify the situation with Chinon lenses. As I recall, Chinon designed its bodies to work in Program mode with both Rikenon P and Pentax A lenses. I don't know which contact was used by its own lenses, the A or the P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Safe payment types. Was: Re:PayPal, C/C, and fees (WAS: RE: FS: MZ-S, KX...
Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the US clear things electronically? I know in the past US sellers didn't like Canadian bank MO because it could take forever to clear. That meant sending Postal MO that would clear quicker. I've heard horror stories about how long personal checks can take to clear in the US. Nick, A couple months ago, I sold a lens to a Canadian. He paid me with a Canadian money order; I forget whether it was a Postal money order or a bank money order. Anyway, two days after I mailed it to my credit union, I received a message on my answering machine: Because the money order was foreign, it would take a few days to clear. It took about four business days. I was surprised; I had assumed that a money order is as good as gold. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Greyscale image
Impressive tonality, Mike. I especially like the detail visible in the corduroy fabric of the dress at the right. You hit the exposure right on the money; nothing is burned out; a stop under, and you wouldn't be able to see the face of the fellow at the left. I can't wait to hear what lens this was taken with. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicked Fujifilm Finepix F700!
Rüdiger wrote: I'm not impressed. I see your point, Rüdiger; you have found some true deficiencies in the old and new Fujis. Nevertheless, for my money, Fuji is still the digicam of choice for photographers like me, who like to be able to shoot without flash at ISO 800 to 1600. No other nonprofessional digicam delivers comparable results at these ISO settings...if they can reach them at all. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Distance scale markings (was: Re: More Pentax news/rumors (Now taking a poll))
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, when I use small cameras, I find I don't use the scales anyway. For me, they are just another way to confuse me when I should be concentrating on picture taking. I rely on distance markings--and the DOF scale--to get maximum depth of field when shooting many scenes around my house (indoors and out) with my fisheye, 20, or 28. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vivitar Multi Coating (VMC) color, usage
Here's the first photo I've seen where you can clearly see the VMC lettering (Vivitar Multi Coating), yet the glass looks yellowish, like a single-coated lens: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2911988064indexURL=2phot oDisplayType=2#ebaylargephotohosting I still find it strange; the VMC glass on my Vivitar Series One 28/1.9PK and 135/2.3PK is bluish. The glass on my 135/2.3 screwmount was yellowish but single-coated. Evidently not all bayonet-mount VMC lenses were multicoated. Here's the 135/2.3 in Olympus mount: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2912232044category=3344 Can you see the VMC letters between 72mm and Vivitar? I can't. I just checked my 135/2.3PK: It says VMC (which I knew) but is decidedly yellowish (which I had forgotten). Kinda makes you wonder: Just how improved was the VMC coating over the single coating on these tele lenses? I have reported before that my now-sold screwmount 135/2.3 + K-mount adapter delivered about a half-stop faster shutter speed than my SMC 135/2.5PK, while my 135/2.3PK does not. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OT: PayPal, C/C, and fees (WAS: RE: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses)
Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not offer a 3% discount for people who don't use Paypal. Include the 3% in your original price, then offer the discount. This is a more attractive option for the consumer. They think they are getting a better deal. Shaun, you clever devil: I think you've found a loophole that I can applaud! Would anyone here care to try it out during their next sale? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OT: PayPal, C/C, and fees (WAS: RE: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses)
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ebay doesnt allow that. they ended a bunch of my auctions one time for doing that. I take back all the nice things I just wrote about Shaun's bright idea. :) For some reason, Shaun's attempt to turn the rules upside-down reminds me of a tactic I used to contemplate. Before smoking was banned on buses, Greyhound Bus allowed smoking in the back four rows. As a militant opponent of public smoking, I always wondered: What would happen if a bunch of nonsmokers arrived early, claimed the back seats, and refused to smoke? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The FLAGSHIP
Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A camera has to be perceived as a flagship by owners of other brands to have any credibility as a flagship. Agreed. Look how many consumer-grade scanners have been marketed as professional scanners. Or how the Tiger computer catalog will routinely slap the word professional on a $29.95 CAD package. Corel and Tiger together call various Corel products the choice of professionals. But few professionals earn their living using these bargain-basement products. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses
Tom Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can take PayPal but you will need to add the 3% fee. Tom, PayPal does not allow its Premium or Business members sellers to require the customer to pay the 3% fee. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who shoots Ricoh body with Pentax lenses?
Colin wrote: And which bodies are you using? Some of them seem pretty well-built, like the KR-5 KR-10. Some seem pretty mediocre. Recommendations? I'd skip over the commodity-level KR-5, KR-10, and their spinoffs. For me, the 1984 XR-P is the standout choice. See my recent post on that body. In 1985 Ricoh introduced a less full-featured version, the XR-20sp and KR-30sp twins. Basically, they're an XR-P without TTL flash capability, the aperture window, TV mode ((1/25 second), tri-program mode (only one or two program modes), and a built-in intervalometer. Except for the TTL flash, they use the same accessories as the XR-P; so do the XR-10 and KR10, I think. In 1987 the XR-P was replaced by the XR-M (XR-X outside of North America). The colorful, full-featured viewfinder is roughly the same as the XR-P's, but the aperture window is gone, the viewfinder magnification dropped from 0.88x to about 0.78x, and a built-in winder was added instead of giving you the option of three winder/motor/grips. Also, an optional side flash was added to keep the body low profile. Also, the XR-M has a spot meter. I don't know, but I suspect that the XR-P's oversize mirror and mirror dampening system was removed. In the 1990s the XR-M was replaced by Ricoh's final top-end model, the XR-X3pf. The optional side flash was replaced by a built-in top flash covering 28mm. Other enhancements were made, largely in metering modes, flash modes, and motor speed. The bright pentaprism was retained throughout. if you're more of a traditionalist, look back to 1981's XR-2s (also sold as Sears KS Auto). Its closest Pentax counterpart is the K2. The XR-2s offered manual and autoexposure, plus mirror lockup via the mechanical timer. The shutter was 1/1000 second horizontal, the same shutter used on the Nikon FM. The XR-2s's viewfinder (like that of other early Ricohs) indicates exposure by means of a needle instead of the LCDs adopted on the XR-P. Alan Chan is correct that most Ricoh bodies are not as durable as most Pentax bodies. The XR-1 (all manual), XR-2, and XR-2s and on through the XR-6 were probably the sturdiest, best-made Ricohs. Later models feel less substantial. Manuals for virtually all Ricoh SLRs can be found at http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ . I have had no trouble using my XR-P and XR-2s with three Pentax lenses (35/2K, 55/1.8K, 200/2.5K). Using Ricoh lenses on Pentax autofocus bodies is a different story: You must not use a Rikenon P (program) lens on a Pentax autofocus body, or you may never get be able to remove it. I mean this literally, not facetiously. The P thingie will lock into the Pentax AF hole. All three times that a lens screwed up a body's autoaperture mechanism, or the lens's autoaperture mechanism got damaged, the lens had just been mounted on a Super Program. Twice the lens was a Vivitar Series One zoom and the camera was damaged; the third time (last week), it was my Zenitar fisheye that got damaged. I don't know whether the Super Program is the root cause or a coincidence. But for various reasons, if I were to replace it I'd replace it with a second XR-P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: *ist complete specifications
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vertical shots in mind? If so, how will the camera know you're going vertical? I don't know, but Nikon's F5 also knows when it's being held vertically. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rubinar... ?? Re: Best cheap telephoto?
arathi-sridhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/pentax_cameras_lenses.htm Wow, I knew about the Rubinars, and of course the Zenitars, but I had no idea that the Rubinar mirror lenses are available in K mount. Not that it makes a big difference, I suppose: You can't stop down a mirror lens, so you're not losing anything when you buy an M42 version and use a screwmount-to-K adapter. These are the best Rubinar prices I have ever seen. You can do a little better on the Zenitars on Ebay and other dealers. Rubinar mirror lenses do claim bragging rights in the brightness department. Be aware, however, that f/5.6 in a mirror lens may not yield as fast a shutter speed as f/5.6 in an all-optical design. Or so I have read. I don't know anything about the Rubinar 300/4.5, but I think you'd be happier if you could afford a used Sigma APO Macro 300/4. They sell used for about $300 on U.S. Ebay. I have a Ricoh XR Rikenon 300/4.5K that I like very much, but I've seen only three for sale in five years. It sells for about $250. The Rubinar 500/5.6 weighs either 1200 or 1600 grams; I've seen both figures. Here are my collected comments on the Rubinar 500/5.6, unedited: The Rubinar 500mm/5.6 is huge with a diameter of 105mm or something like that all the way to the lens mount. On Contax site: http://www.cdegroot.com/archives/yashicacontax-slr/199805/msg00030.html: Hello Michael, If you wouldn't fix on Zeiss optics, there is a good *new* inexpensive 500/5.6 mirror lens. It's a M42 mount MC Rubinar 5.6/500 Macro, a Russian lens, with an excellent optic quality. As an M42-Contax /Yashica mount adaptor will be easily available, you can use it mounted on your RTS without any inconveniences. I don't know the prices of it in other countries, we can buy it for 250-300 USD in Japan.very heavy (1.6kg), bulky and roughly made lens. But seems to produce photographs of acceptable quality. --Yoshihiko Takinami, Osaka, Japan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Dirty cheap for an apochromatic ;-) supertele. Mathias was very pleased with the quality of the 500mm/5.6, he rated his sample higher than an Sigma 400mm/5.6 APO. What is very interesting to me is mirror 500mm/5,6. They sell it with adaptall T2 for various camera brands. Thomas Jakubowski, October 22, 1999; 05:09 P.M. Eastern: Peter, I have an optics background, so making my most recent selection of a lens was based on cold physics. I purchased a mirror lens (Schmidt_Cassegrain). 500 mm. $250. Here's what I didn't get: 1. chromatic and spherical aberration - reflective optics by definition do not carry the same baggage as refractive optics. 2. bulk and length: the lens weighs in at about 10 ounces, and is about 6 inches long. there's no need to counterbalance a camera with 20 inches of lens while sitting on a tripod. Believe me, this lens was easy to carry and to change. 3. Poor Photographs: By definition, these lenses have only a small depth of field. For example, the Promaster I purchased has only about = inch at 12 feet. This could be considered a (fatal) flaw, but I used it to my advantage. I do flower photography, and was able to come up with shots as never before. Flower is in focus, foreground and background completely out of focus, and now I have prize-winning photos that started out as mere photographic studies. 4. Poorly lit/exposed photos: This particular model has a diameter of 3.5 in for the primary mirror. That alone pulls in plenty of light. Caveats: This lens has a fixed focal length, which means that you cannot use a camera body that offers autofocus. It also means that you control your exposure by modifying exposure time. My experience has been with an Olympus OM-1 camera. Once I mastered the focusing of this camera/lens combination, I produced photos so impressive that my wife actually wants them hanging on the living room walls! - Bob Atkins , October 22, 1999; 06:07 P.M. Eastern: Here's also what you got. You got a slow lens. You got a manual focus lens. You got a lens with a fixed single aperture. You got a lens with greatly reduced MTF in the critical 10-70 lp/mm range due to the central obstruction inherent in the design. You got a lens that renders out of focus highlights as donuts and generally has poor bokeh (search the QA forum if you're not familar with that term). You probably got a lens with a curved field and off axis coma too. While mirror lenses don't suffer from chromatic aberrations, they do suffer from all the other aberrations common to refractive lenses to a greater or lesser extent. For $250, you don't have too much to lose, and if you are happy with the images, that's great, but mirror lenses aren't really an alternative for serious photographers needing high technical quality images, images of moving subjects (MF tracking can be tricky), or images on slow film (too slow in evening/morning light). They have their place (I actually own one myself), such as when hiking long distances when weight REALLY matters, but
Re: M42 EBC Fujinons
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anybody have mucho experience the M42 Fuji EBC Fujinon lens lineup? I just bought an EBC 50mm F1.4 for kicks but havent got a clue about the rest of their lineup. They seem to be pretty scarce compared to the Takumars... I know simply that Fuji made two superlong Fujinon T lenses in M42 screwmount: a 400/4.5 (5 elements, 4 groups, 1990 g, close focus 8 meters) and a 600/5.6, both using EBC (Electron Beam Coating) multicoating. I've never seen the 600 for sale, and I've seen just one 400. But I don't track the Other section of Ebay. The Auto switch of Pentax lenses won't work on Fujica screwmount bodies, at least not on all Fujicas. I assume that Fujinon lenses will not work in Auto mode on some or all SpotMatics. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: If Pentax just made _ONE_ real, old-style Pentax...
Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd even buy a plain vanilla MX if they still made one. Anyone want to speculate what it would sell for if Pentax built one now? (Less than an FM3a, I'm sure... Maybe Pentax should outsource its manufacturing to Cosina. Unfortunately, fine as the new Cosina-Voigtlander lenses are, Cosina's bodies (RF and SLR) are, at best, second-rate. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me these photos were cropped. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, I wrote: I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me these photos were cropped. Rob Studdert replied: Hi Paul, If images from your wide angle lenses are exhibiting curvature at the edges then they are poor lenses (I'm assuming that this is how you derived your opinion?). Perspective distortion will render straight lines straight wherever they lie in the frame. If a scene is shot wide where all subjects in the frame are a distance away (5 metres plus) perspective distortion isn't very noticeable, only when subjects are up close (a metre or less for 20 or 24mm) does the perspective distortion become really apparent. Rob, It wasn't so much the absence of barrel distortion as the lack of the familiar converging vertical lines effect and elongate faces that you invariably find at the edges of a wide-angle photo. The faces of people at the edges looked normal, and you'd be hard-pressed to find vertical lines that were slanted. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pentax, wake up! (was: K and M lenses are now obsolete)
Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Coating on Filters?
I seldom check a lens's rear element for cleanliness. One of my recurring fears is that in the year 2030, I'll discover that on each of my lenses, the rear element has a big smudge that has been degrading my results for decades. Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or, to put it another way, putting any filter in front of the lens will cause _some_ image degradation (loss of contrast or sharpness). An SMC filter will cause the least degradation. In some instances, the difference is hardly visible, but for people to whom it matters, the few extra dollars are money well spent. [EMAIL PROTECTED]@verizon.net
Jerry?
Jerry in Houston, are you the same PDMLer who used to sign off as Jerry Houston? When I was building my set of K-mount lenses from 1998 to 2000, there were a handful of PDMLers whose comments influenced me the most. Jerry Houston was one of them. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: End of K-mount?
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share. Could that happen in the USA? I thought that only occurred in Ayn Rand's epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, where Hank Rearden spends years perfecting a copper-titanium alloy (Rearden steel) that gives him a competitive edge over other bridge builders, only to have the Government force him to share it. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
