Re: 16-50 redo
They are yes, and it promises to be an outstanding lens. Mike Muizenbelt did a short review of a pre-release copy on Youtube. It is focussing fast and accurate, and is amazingly sharp, even in the corners. However, since I already have the older one (SDM) which works OK, and also have the K1 with 24-70 en 15-30, an upgrade is not really worth it at some 1400 Euros/dollars I think ;-) Regards, JvW > On 15 Jul 2021, at 08:49, Larry Colen wrote: > > It looks like Ricoh is coming out with a new version of the 16-50: > > http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/star_lens/special/sp_da16-50/interview/ > > My first thought is that they really ought to have made it a 15-50 or some > other adjustment to the range just so it isn’t confused for the original. > > I also note that this bodes well for K-3 iii owners, but maybe not so well > for the K-1 crowd. > > In any case, it will be interesting to see how it actually performs once it > is available. > > > -- > Larry Colen > l...@red4est.com > > > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. ------ Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The ist D
Great video Juan! I like your style of street photography very much. Had an MX as wel as an Ist-D myself, the latter died with a failing CF card-slot, but it was a nice cam indeed. Regards, JvW > On 29 Jun 2021, at 23:31, Steve Cottrell wrote: > > Lovely job Juan. Great audio mix, nicely edited, and you’ve settled on a > standardised set of captions (nice touch with the movement). The one issue > with shooting close-ups is that small imperfections are visible - including > dust. I always give things a wipe down first, lessens the smudges and bits of > crap stuck to things ;-) > > Top job. We have an *ist D as well so was more than a little interested. My > Mrs uses it with a kit lens and it doesn’t disappoint - fine for web images > and I even print from it occasionally. She likes to photograph plants which I > print on an Epson P50 (black+5 colour) at A5 size to make into cards. > > I recently did a paid gig for a boat building charity - a day’s shoot and a > couple of day’s edit: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoEVsvYZ71E > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > On 29 Jun 2021, at 18:13, Juan Buhler wrote: > > I uploaded a little video "review" of the old ist D: > > https://youtu.be/D7AppzyiFII > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: animal portraits with the K-70
Nice ones Henk! I like the fox, although it seems sligthly less sharp than the doe … Regards, JvW > On 30 Jun 2021, at 21:41, Henk Terhell wrote: > > Finally I made the decision to get a new Pentax APS-C camera to attach to > the 55-300 PLM now fitted on the K-1. > There is so much loss in pixels with a crop lens on the K-1, though I'm happy > with the sharpness of the 55-300 PLM. > The new K-3 III has a fixed screen which is a dealbreaker for me, wheras the > KP is already off the shelves here. > So I got the K-70 which is about one third of the price of the K-3 III and > has all the features that I need with the exception of GPS. > This afternoon I went outside to get some first pictures. > It looks as if some animals were waiting to pose for the new K-70. > Both pics at 300 mm are much cropped as I couldn't get closer: > https://flic.kr/p/2m8sQAw > https://flic.kr/p/2m8Anpy > > Henk > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: It's about that time, kids
Done! > On 1 May 2021, at 00:04, Doug Brewer wrote: > > Been covering the PDML bill for a few months and would appreciate any aid in > the effort. > > paypal d...@alphoto.com <mailto:d...@alphoto.com> > > Thanks ever so much -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Vintage Photos of NYC
Nice one Daniel, really enjoyed going through them! Regards, JvW > On 23 Apr 2021, at 18:09, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/vintage-photos-of-new-york-city > > Dan Matyola > *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery > <https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery>* > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: R I P Ashley
So sorry to hear that Ann! Apart from a good companion, she was a good photo-model as well ;-) > On 23 Apr 2021, at 20:14, ann sanfedele wrote: > > July 16th 2005 - April 18th, 2021 Best cat ever.. so glad to have had her > for almost 16 years. Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PDML Debutante
Hi Peter, > On 21 Apr 2021, at 22:52, P Stevens wrote: > > As for my photographic interests, I will photograph any thing and immediately > regret it 95% of the time. The other 4.9% i regret when I look at them later. > > My ability to write frequently needs the reader to guess my intent or > meaning, my brain to finger connection spotty at best. So any of my emails > should never be taken seriously. Well, that seals it. You should fit in just perfectly here ;-) Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: And now for something different
Hello Juan, > On 4 Apr 2021, at 18:46, Juan Buhler wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, what was the input to the Neural Network? >> Keywords, descriptions? > > No, it's just the pixels themselves. I'm using a pretrained convolutional > neural network, or CNN. You know how Google Photos is able to separate > photos into categories, with dogs, food, mountains, etc? That is done with > a neural network of the same type. > > These CNNs will output the confidence they have that an image belongs to > one of many classes they were trained for. But in the process they compute > a vector that sort of encodes what "features" exist in the image. Features > are things like lines, dots, patterns, and also combinations of things that > might form "higher level features", like eyes, bicycle wheels, etc etc. > These vectors are of very high dimension, in this case 2048. > > It turns out that points in this 2048-D space will be close to each other > if the images they come from are similar to each other. > > The process I'm using computes and saves this vector for each image. That > alone allows me to do image similarity search, by comparing these vectors. > > In order to make the plot, I use a technique that "folds" those 2048 > dimensions into two, so I can find a position for each image on the plane. > Okay, interesting, thanks for explaining! I have been doing something remotely similar with face-recognition on multiple live video-streams a few years ago, for supermarket customer-following systems ... > Hopefully I succeeded in making that explanation not too technical? > Not at all, I am a programmer too, mainly making disk and filesystem recovery software, in plain ‘C’ ;-) Regards, JvW ------ Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: And now for something different
Interesting Juan! > On 3 Apr 2021, at 23:22, Juan Buhler wrote: > > I made a plot of about 3000 of my photos (all posted to my photoblog over > the years) according to positions in the plane that come from a neural > network. > > Without getting into technical detail: images that are close to each other > are semantically similar to each other. So there are areas of photos with > dogs, others with bicycles, on the beach, etc etc. > > https://twitter.com/juanbuhler/status/1378455676444270593 > > To see the high res image and zoom in, look at the file directly: > > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyFA3LlU4Ag0QRQ?format=jpg=4096x4096 > Just out of curiosity, what was the input to the Neural Network? Keywords, descriptions? > I thought it was an interesting way of seeing a collection of photos and > discovering emerging visual themes. Also it's what I do for a living so I > figured why not. > Indeed, touching on ‘big data’ ;-) Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: DP initial review of K-3 III
Exactly my thoughts Bill, well said! > On 1 Apr 2021, at 16:37, Bill wrote: > > On 4/1/2021 8:27 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: >> Am 01.04.21 um 16:02 schrieb pen...@dfsee.com: >>> The actual battery charge-circuitry is now built-in to the camera itself, >>> which is an advantage in some situations, but less so in others >> I think this deserves the grand prize for the most idiotic idea of all >> times. So, once the battery is empty, I put the camera aside for the >> time it takes to recharge and then I can use it again? >> For many years, the solution of recharging spare batteries outside of >> the camera seemed to me to be the only sensible way. Even my car has a >> 230 volt socket, so I can use the supplied Pentax battery charger on the >> road. >> Or what am I getting wrong here? > > What you are getting wrong is that you can buy an accessory battery charger, > either from Pentax or a variety of aftermarket companies. > Think of it as part of the price of admission. > In Canada, I can get a third party charger for about 40 dollars. I expect the > K3III will cost close to Can$2500.00 when released. > I'm not in the market for this particular camera, but if I was, I wouldn't be > bitching very hard about an extra less than 2% for an accessory charger. > Oh, unless you haven't upgraded since the K20, it's the same battery as has > been in use since 2009, and the same charger. > You might just have a battery charger sitting around your house if you think > about it. > > bill > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: DP initial review of K-3 III
> On 1 Apr 2021, at 03:35, P. J. Alling wrote: > > Actually I think the article said the opposite, no direct usb charging, but > it does include an external battery charger. Hmm, not exactly. I had an extensive talk with Mike Muizebelt this morning (the guy who did one of the K3 III reviews on You-Tube) What is included is a wall-plug type charger unit with USB-C cable, that plugs into the camera. The actual battery charge-circuitry is now built-in to the camera itself, which is an advantage in some situations, but less so in others (when wanting to charge a second battery for example). An external charger is still available as a separate purchase, and the latest versions are USB-C based as well, with a fast charging unit, and a separate battery-charger module that uses USB-C as its power input (from that fast charger unit, or any other USB-C power source) (You can buy the USB-C powered battery charger separate as well, much cheaper without the fast-charge power-brick) BTW: Mike told me the thing that blew him away was fast and accurate focusing. AF-S as wel as AF-C (tracking) (Note that he IS a Pentax ambassador, so slightly biassed I guess, but I’ll take his word for it on any day) > > On 3/31/2021 3:43 AM, Toine wrote: >> 2000 That hurts! >> The most amazing part: a battery charger is not included. Charging >> from USB C only. >> Not to mention the fixed LCD screen. >> -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: DP initial review of K-3 III
> On 31 Mar 2021, at 18:52, Bill wrote: > > On 3/31/2021 1:43 AM, Toine wrote: >> 2000 That hurts! >> The most amazing part: a battery charger is not included. Charging >> from USB C only. >> Not to mention the fixed LCD screen. > > The fixed LCD screen was planned from the get go. The camera is built around > an apparently fantastic viewfinder. > I suspect Ricoh knows their market, and knows that their customer already has > an external battery charger. > Indeed, I have two of them, the older trusted one that came with the K1 I think, and the new one that uses an USB-charger unit. The charger part can be connected to camera directly as well, to charge the battery inside. No problem. The USB charger should be usable for my safari-trip as well, where only USB power is available from the CAR batteries ;-) I pre-ordered a black K3 III, to be used as the main camera on a safari-trip to Botswana, with the 150450 attached for wildlife, and also take the K1 with me as a backup, and to use the 24-70 en 15-30mm on, for landscapes. Glad they both take the same DLI-90 battery Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR6. Issues
+1 > On 26 Dec 2020, at 21:43, Henk Terhell wrote: > > I have never used face recognition in LR 6. > So far I've not seen a crash problem. > > Henk > > Op 2020-12-26 om 17:12 schreef l...@red4est.com: >> https://petapixel.com/2020/12/24/adobe-lightroom-v6-is-falling-apart/? >> >> LR6 is breaking -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-3 mk iii hands on video
Hmm, interesting. So they improved a little bit on the green-button method, nice! Regards, JvW > On 25 Dec 2020, at 15:31, Henk Terhell wrote: > > Definitely a nice camera except for the fixed screen. > The easy use of legacy lenses is also attractive, as explained in their > Product Stories vol. 8: > https://pentaxofficial.com/en/7492/ > > Henk > > Op 2020-12-25 om 05:57 schreef Larry Colen: >> Posted on the fb pentaxians group >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwarim_kr6M >> >> -- >> Larry Colen >> l...@red4est.com >> >> >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. ------ Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Happy Ann day
And a happy Ann-day from Amsterdam ;-) Regards, Jan Van Wijk > On 10 Dec 2020, at 18:08, Larry Colen wrote: > > I hope Ashley gets on board and treats you right today. > > -- > Larry Colen > l...@red4est.com > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Jan van Wijk; https://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PDML Photo Annual 2014 - NOW AVAILABLE
Ordered a hard cover one yesterday too ... Growing into a nice collection :) On Tue, 13 May 2014 16:11:29 -0400 Daniel J. Matyola wrote: I ordered my hard cover copy as soon as I received the first message that it was on sale. It looks great online; I can't wait to see the finished product. Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com Flickr : jvw_pentax -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5
Thanks Marco. I wish I had seen your post before placing my order with Precision Camera as referenced in Fernando's post. According to UPS there is a package on the way so hopefully I'll be a satisfied. In case there is a problem with Precision Camera, I'll keep your offer as a backup plan. Thanks to everyone who posted on this question. I knew the PDML would help me out. - Original Message - From: Marco Alpert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:01 PM Subject: FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 Hi Kevin, I have a FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 that I've only used twice and is in essentially mint condition apart from a very small abrasion on the lens hood. Complete with all original packaging. $325 including shipping in the USA if you're interested. - Marco On 3/22/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 28-200 quite working several months ago (Finally!). I never liked that lens anyway. So now I needed a new walking lens. I began saving my pennies for a FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 only to find out now that they've been discontinued. I can't find one anywhere. Can anyone direct me to some place that still has a FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 or recommend a good alternative. Thanks. Kevin Thornsberry -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Resubscribed after a year and need help with acronyms please...
PESO: PAW: It's been a while since I've been on the list so what passes for the lingua franca is a little beyond me right now. Thanks for the help. Marc
CLA in USA/Canada recommendations
Hello everyone, I need to send out my K1000, ME Super, and Program Plus for cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment. I've found Phil's Camera Service (www.philscamera.com) and Premier Camera (www.premier-camera.com) through search engines. Does anyone have any experience and feedback on either of these two or recommendations for others? Thanks, Marc
For Sale: SMC Pentax 40mm f2.8 pancake lens
Pentax SMC 40mm f2.8 pancake lens for sale. Good condition, light wear on the aperture ring. Rear cap and front clear filter included. Great small lens. Makes a pocketable go anywhere camera out of an MX or similar. $150 shipped in United States. Outside the US we can work something out. Thanks. Rob
Re: OT: Artsy Phartzy Shot
The combination of blur and grain just works. Nice. Rob
Re: OT:Film lives,Kodak cameras dont
They are actually still going to make film cameras but just not for the US or Western European market. They will still be selling film cameras in China and other places where many people have never owned a film camera. They see a lot of growth potential. They are also phasing out APS cameras everywhere though will still be making APS film They still making money on 35mm film and film products so we still have a ways to go before they get rid of it. I would assume paper and 120 and sheet film as well. Keep buying it. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040113/tech_eastmankodak_4.html Rob
How is the 35/2 Super-Takumar?
I seem to see a lot more of these than the K or M 35/2's around. Is it a pretty good lens at the wider apertures? I've read about something radioactive in the coating which yellows but other than that can't find too much on them. Is the yellowing a problem when shooting black and white or does it function like an instant built in filter? I'll probably use it for black and white exclusively. Rob
Using screw mount lenses on K-mount body
What do I need to know about using a screw mount lens on a k-mount body (MX)? I know you need an adaptor and there's some difference in metering. Stop down metering which I don't quite understand. In general does this work out pretty well or is it a pain in the a** and I should just look for K-mount equivalents of the lenses? Some of the ones I want seem to be much more abundant (and inexpensive) on e-Bay in their screw mount forms. Thanks, Rob
MX CLA in NYC?
How's that for alphabet soup? Anyone have recommendations for where to get a Pentax MX a cleaning, lubrication and adjustment in New York city? Thanks, Rob
Re: Is there an analog only Pentax list?
At 8:57 PM -0500 1/9/04, Paul Stenquist wrote: I agree with your assessment of the K35/2.0. On the other hand, the M35/2.0 is a very nice lens and is quite compact. It's one of my most frequently used lenses. Is the M35/2 a pretty fast focusing lens? Just wondering how it would be for a street lens where you want to focus quickly. Some lens seem to snap into focus more quickly than others. Although I'm sure it's pretty subjective. Thanks for the info. Rob
RE: Is there an analog only Pentax list?
At 5:08 PM + 1/10/04, Malcolm Smith wrote: Nick Clark wrote: The MX with the 40mm f2.8 pancake lens makes a great rugged carry anywhere kit There are a few here that carry this combination; mine lives in a coat pocket. I just picked up one of these (a week too early it seems as there are like 10 on Ebay right now). Haven't shot much with it yet so am withholding judgement. First impression is that it's damn small though a bit tough to focus the small focusing ring. Also looks significantly dimmer in the viewfinder than the 50 1.4 (only other lens I have for comparison). Gonna shoot some film with it and see how it looks. Rob
Is there an analog only Pentax list?
Just joined the list, so I apologize if this has been asked a million times. Is there some kind of Pentax discussion list that is just for analog and preferably the older, all manual cameras? Thanks. Rob
Re: Is there an analog only Pentax list?
At 5:30 PM -0500 1/9/04, frank theriault wrote: There's also a YahooGroups Spotmatic list. Again, not quite so active as this one. So, Rob, what older Pentax gear are do you have/are you interested in talking about? I've got an MX. Mostly I'm interested in just seeing what people have to say about lenses. I've found some lens review sites around on the web and many of them are compilations of comments from this list so I figured I'd go right to the source and see what was going on. Just started shooting with the MX again after a year of shooting exclusively with a Rolleicord V and wanted to get a coupla lenses to compliment the 50/1.4. Probably something shorter and something longer with the same build quality and a similiar look and feel to photos (good bokeh, mostly shooting at or near wide open). Something that goes well with Tri-X for handheld, available light, street and travel photography. Maybe the 24/2.8 and one of the 85's or 100's. Three seems like the perfect number. Can bring them all without much overlap. Though the K 35/2 is also appealing... Maybe add an LX sometime in the distant future. Rob
Re: Is there an analog only Pentax list?
At 4:36 PM -0800 1/9/04, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Which 50/1.4 do you have? The M. Just developed some pictures taken with it and am very pleased. I'm not crazy about the K35/2.0 ... oh, it's a fine optic when stopped down a bit, and i even like it wide open, but it's a little large for my taste. Much prefer the smaller size of the K35/3.5. If you can find one, the K30/2.8 is a great compromise between size and weight and aperture, and, IMO, a better lens all around than the K35/2.0 ... since I've gotten the 30mm I rarely use the 28 or either of the 35's. I had read somewhere that the K 35/2 was one of the best of the 35's and that the M wasn't as good. I've never seen one so I don't know the size/weight difference. Not sure if I'd like the 30/2.8 as I don't really like 28's and I'd like something faster and less rare. The K24/2.8 is another fine lens, although methinks it's a bit wide for good street photography, but I guess that depends on your definition of the practice and your shooting style. I had a 28mm 3.5 and just didn't really like it very much. Not the lens quality so much as the perspective, sorta too wide or not wide enough. Total personal preference. So I thought the 24 might be more fun. I was just flipping through some photos I'd cut from the paper, sort of documentary style stuff and many of them were pretty wide angle. Also might be nice for indoor stuff like churches etc while traveling. I'm going to keep my eye out for the 85 1.8. Thanks for all the info. Rob
Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
Bill, Are you sure it's only down to aliasing? At any rate; do you know how stopping down affects aliasing? cheers, Jostein Quoting William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: mike wilson Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!! http://home.online.no/~jooksne/istd_aberr.htm There also seems to be some blue fringing on the vertical part of the railing, where it contrasts with the white foam of the stream. This is also visible on the top of the lower horizontal rail. Ain't aliasing a wonderful thing? William Robb - This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Summit report 2
There's a limit to how long msg. My cellphone can produce, so I have to send in parts. The tent I are at the summit of the 1540 m high mountain Ormtjernskampen, with nothing better 2 do I thought I might as well C if I could post 2 pdml from the phone...:-) Cheers, Jostein
Summit report 1
Hi gang. Just a brief hello from a trekking pdml'er. It's pitch dark outside now, after a wonderful autumn day with all the bright colours I was hoping for. 5 rolls have been through the 645. Right now I'm well tucked in for the night, listening to the wind rustle the tent. (More coming) Jostein
Re: Re: *ist D and FA J mounts
Hi George, the aperture simulator corresponds with the lens minimum aperture, in stead of full open. The only position which makes it usable (at least gives a valid exposure) with pre A cameras. I stand corrected. I assume that the FAJ lenses behave like A/F/FA lenses when set to the A aperture. This means, of course, that the aperture simulator is fixed at the minimum aperture. This will allow correct and P and Tv operation with the A and P bodies. Furthermore, it will allow correct exposure with K and M bodies at the smalest aperture. No other aperture is possible with the K and M bodies. Cheers, Boz
Re: *ist and TTL flash exposure with M-lenses
Hello Stefan, Stefan Ittner wrote: There seems to be a consensus in this group that the *ist will be able to to work with M-lenses if the exposure is adjusted when not shot wide open (e.g. 2.8 lens shot at 5.6 = tell camera to overexpose by 2 stops). But what about flash pictures shot in TTL mode? AFAIK, here the camera measures the light that actually reaches the film plane and turns off the flash as soon as the correct exposure is reached. Therefore, metering will also work properly for _stopped-down_ M lenses. This should at least work if you photograph in total darkness (right?). Congratulations on your excellent understanding of the K-mount and your _VERY_ clean thinking!!! I think that what you say is absolutely correct. But what if there is also some (or lots of) ambient light? I guess that the camera normally takes into account when shutting off the flash that some more light will reach the film plane before the shutter closes again, as the flash normally fires just after the shutter is fully open. I am not sure. It is, of course, easier to just ignore the problem, and I imagine that in the beginning TTL systems did. Modern systems might actually underexpose the flash some so that the ambient light does not lead to a combined overexposure. In any case, I _GUESS_ that if you set the exposure manually (not using the exposure compensation dial), you will get properly exposed images, both with and without flash. If you set exposure via the exp. comp. dial you will get properly exposed ambient images but overexposed flash images. Does anyone have some experience how the MZ-50, which also has a crippled KAF mount, reacts in these circumstances? I am quite certain that the results from an MZ-50 and *ist will be the same, so if someone makes a test, we will know... Back to Arnold Stark's idea. If the *ist does DOF properly with K and M lenses and is able to combine DOF preview with exp. lock, then even most of the inconvenience of the crippled mount is solved. You simply press exp. lock WHILE HOLDING the DOF preview button. This is a great idea that does not cost Pentax anything in hardware and almost totally overcomes the limitations of the crippled mount, so it will be inexcusable if they did not implement it. On the other hand, even this will not work for flash exposures... Cheers, Boz
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi, Pål Jensen wrote: According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different way of aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount? Yesterday I sent a mail with long Kaf3 speculation, but somehow it didn't make it. So, here is my SPECULATION in short: - FAJ lenses and the crippled bodies will now officially be called Kaf3. Sadly, the *ist and *ist D might be in this group too. - Kaf3 = Kaf2 - PZ - mechanical aperture coupling - The compatibility-table looks like this: - Ka, Kaf and Kaf2 bodies and lenses are Kaf3-compatible - A, F, and FA lenses are OK - A, P, SF, Z/PZ, MZ/ZX bodies are OK - K and M lenses and bodies are Kaf3-incompatible and will not be supported by new products Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Cheers, Boz
RE: Does the PZ-20 have a panorama switch?
My Z-20 does not have Panorama switch. But I think - Z-20P has Raivo
Re: Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
Hi Arnold, Not so fast! I do not see, why K or M lenses should not work with future Pentax SLRs. No technical reason, I grant you that. But if they made the marketing decision to leave out aperture rings away on some lenses now, they will leave them out on some more soon, and then they will probably build a body that can only work in the A aperture setting or without an aperture ring... Wait, they already have build such bodies (MZ-30, MZ-50, MZ-60), maybe the'll build some more (MZ-20, MZ-4, MZ-2, MZ-1, MD-1, etc.)... Cheers, Boz PS: Anyone want to buy a like-new K 85/1.8, K 35/3.5, or K 35/2 ?
Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]: More from the FA lenses manual: - FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the matte-field for non-auto focus camera My first thought: Pentax must have gone completely mad. How am I going to set the aperture after I have manually focused with my manual-focus camera?!? My second thought: The AFJ lenses must have a mount that acts as if the aperture ring is permanently in the A position. So the lenses should be usable in P and Tv modes on the A- and P-series bodies. While this is not fatal, the K-mount loses its strongest selling point --- the compatibility of new and old equipment. I can see major headaches coming when I try to explain on the KMP which camera works with which lens in which mode... Cheers, Boz
Re: Re[2]: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Hi Alin, Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 11.02.2003, 17:23:30: I haven't downloaded the manual, so I'm asking you to check if there's anywhere SMC mentioned in the lens designations. Pentax is very careful with this. If it's no SMC then we can safely assume these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization. All lenses discussed in the manual are referred to without the SMC prefix, also the lenses which we know have SMC. But the manual itself is entitled SMC Pentax-FA Interchangeable Lens Operating Manual. Cheers, Boz
Re: ping
On 25 Dec 2002 at 13:01, Bob Blakely wrote: pong... Time to raise the periscope again! Thanks, Bob!
Re: OT: Tripod recommendations please
I discovered Manfrotto makes a nice kit for not too expensive (about 120 EUR in france). It consists of Manfrotto 190D legs and their standard 3-way head. 190D is like the more famous big 055 but : - a bit smaller :1.82m max. - about 0.55m compacted (maybe less than 2 feet) - a bit lighter (1.7kg versus 2.3 kg). - twist release legs with screw/unscrew mechanism. It is really a sturdy tripod but if you are taller than 1.85m the bigger 055 will fit you better. Hopefully this is not the case for me. Good luck, Thibault Grouas. Hi folks, Would anyone like to recommend a decent tripod to me? Requirements: must be fairly sturdy must extend to about 5 feet in height without extending any central mech. must have twist-release legs (eg not pull out clasps etc) must compact to about 2 feet in length head not important 3-way/pan and tilt/ whatever. No balls! All thoughts considered. Thanks, Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
- Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:48 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Brad Dobo wrote: I vote to have a non-prime clause added to the FAQ. Of course, the one calling themselves, 'gfen' doesn't like me much anymore, so I don't see that happening! Actually, Brad, I still love you down inside, I just wish you'd stop being so purposely obnoxious. That is hardly something I'm doing at all gfen. That said, I'll be glad to add prime lens to the list of phrases I added into the FAQ awhile back. However, I'm afraid you'll forever have to deal with camera people of all brands referring to fixed-focal-length lenses as prime lenses. For years, I tried to paitently explain to people that what they called industrial music was not, in fact, industrial music because it wasn't released on a given record label. It was a losing fight, eventually I gave up, referred to it by a more correct pigeon hole when I said something, and moved on. Eventually, your prime-versus-fixed-focal-length crusade will reach this point, as well. And, finally, I don't care how advanced the world becomes, a prime lens (thhpt!) will always be marginally better than a zoom lens based on the sheer physics of it.. Less glass which can be specifically corrected for a given length that doesn't need to be optimized for a range of lengths. Will the difference be noticiable by mortal humans? Probably not, though. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Brad, That is really the problem. You have nothing to compare it with. Unless your techs have shooting experience with the lens, they have the same problem. If they give you any answer other than I don't know (assuming they don't use the lens in question), that should give you a lot of pause in accepting their credibility on other issues as well. Same goes for your Instructor. Well, as I said later, I have a zoom to shoot at ~77mm. You don't necessarily have to shoot the lens to have a good informed opinion of it. Techs of different types know all sorts of tidbit of information that can be made into an informed opinion. Being an authority/expert can be intoxicating, and a common sign of this intoxication is the willingness to act as an authority/expert even when straying into unfamiliar territory. It's no sin, it's just human nature. No kidding, that is a epidemic here. My own experience with the 77/1.8 is that it is different than my other good lenses (and I have good lenses). http://pug.komkon.org/02jan/dad.html is one shot taken with the 77/1.8, even if no one else can tell a difference between that an another lens, I can. I use most of my lenses quite regularly and in similar circumstances. I don't get that result from them when I use them the same way. Looking through the viewfinder with the 77/1.8 is also a slightly different experience from doing that with my other good lenses. I hope this doesn't sound like I worship the 77/1.8, because I don't--its focal length isn't a great one for me. If I could get the same results from my M135/3.5 or my FA 35/2 I'd ecstatic, but I don't---and I still love them. Doesn't keep me from recognizing a difference, though. Well, you can look back, but I'm pretty sure I never said it didn't take good pictures, in fact, I think I said it probably took good or superb pictures (that's when I was talking optics, not build quality) Guess I'm starting to ramble. Rambling is always good! Hope that makes sense, It did. Dan Scott Brad
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
As well, you drive around in a Jag enough and it'll become as dull as a Chevy. If many Russians were to try out a Chevy instead of an old beat up Lada, they'd have the same feelings you did with the Jag. Brad. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 You are mixing up the joy of using it, the feel the fine tuning and the beauty with the end result— getting from point A to point B. I doubt anyone at point B could tell if you arrived in a Jag vs a Chevy. In a message dated 11/21/02 11:27:23 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If something is truly high quality, or really special, the difference between it, and the plebian is painfully obvious. William Robb
Re: Terminology lesson. Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Well, I haven't read the posts that have flooded in the past 30-60mins or so, but am I good at motivating the list, even with disagreements and all that, or what? I'll take Cdn money orders as 'gifts' for stimulating conversation on the list, feel free to contact me off-list (as some have) and I can give you the mailing address vbg Anyhow, hope there isn't too much mail to handle, as I'm going out to see some friends (one is to practice interior decorating shots), watch some varsity hockey, maybe a major-junior A game later and have some brews, and I'll have my camera gear, so while you all discuss equipment and such, I'll be out using mine! Ok, check back in with you all later on, don't give me too much to respond to! ;-) How about those Mazda commercials? 'zoom zoom' :) (For the record, I'll take an old perfect condition Corvette or a brand new one over any Porsche or Jag :)) Almost all in good fun and discussion (even though some of you can be darned stubborn!!! (forgivable) Regards, Brad!
Re: flash cord F5P or F5PL
Hey Alan, Don't forget you need the Hot Shoe Adaptor FG too. The problem is, F5P is rather short while F5PL is very very long and not suitable for outdoor IMO. A tough choice. Rather like the cable releases for the MZ-S. The 1.5ft CS-105 or the 10 foot CS-130. Middle of the road would be perfect. Brad regards, Alan Chan _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: No Subject
Well, it's too bad I wouldn't find Limited stocked in the city or else I could at the very least go try one out, see what all the fuss is aboot! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:53 PM Subject: No Subject Brad, Imagine how expensive they would be if they were made of steel. You're seeing all these expensive plastic lenses because that's what they are making these days. I don't think it's the plastic that is expensive, it's the lenses and the little motors and stuff in them that make them autofocus... Vic PS. The limiteds are actually a good comparison. They are outrageously expensive because they combine the mechanics of autofocus lenses (which is not cheap) with the build quality of the classic manual focus lenses. That comes at a dear price and one that few of us choose to pay. So, instead, they build less expensive plastic autofocus lenses. Don't get me wrong, I like my plastic autofocus lenses but I love my steel, brass manual focus lenses... In a message dated 11/19/02 7:27:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reasons?! I didn't think photography and any reasoning were related. I happened to see an add in a flyer by Henry's (Toronto boys shall know of) of a 'pro' Canon USM this that the other 16-36mm f-something, and for a cheap plastic as you say, it was $2700Cdn. Maybe you're made of money William Robb raising goats on the flatlands, but that seemed to be pretty pricey to me. It was plastic, definitely not cheap! I been seeing a lot of very pricey and 'supposedly' very good lenses from other brands, and a lot of them are plastic too. Oh and please do not mention Limiteds, that's getting old on me.
OT: Re: Lens manufacturers
Hey Kevin, Suddenly and investment of this magnitude lessens somewhat. Certainly a new outfit of another make would be cheaper. But if I applied that theory to my car, I would be driving a cheap Japanese import. It would still get me from A to B. But I prefer the added reliability, familiarity and comfort of something a little more expensive. My Toyota RAV4 is anything but cheap! Indoor fabrics are ugly, but the problems stop there ;-) Here they are a pricey car brand. Better than American? (I'm not) After experience in a lot of these cars, I say import is far more reliable than any (well, strict GM cars) American I/we have had. I'm a devote fundamentalistic GM/American car fan turned completely around and saw past the fundamentalist haze and noticed how darned nice some other cars were! Kind regards Kevin Brad
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
Yup, indeed I did. Meant what I said, did what I meant. I had my reasons. I don't see the need to explain them to you however. You had to reply, it was on the list, that's fine, that's why it was there. It was public but related to him only. The rest of your comments are subjective and repetitive, I have another view. To each his own and so forth. I have my mysteries, and you have yours 'gfen'. Thanks for the email, Brad - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas And one posted out to the list when you event MEANT it to be private (first line, to william robb and no one else). However, you couldn't either take it off list or bite it back, but you had to do it openly for some reason?
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas
And here I was thinking I was the only vain person. Beauty marks are vanity! I thought it was 'who cares how it looks, it's how it works and the person behind it' So 'brassing' aka plain old wear. Or marking up plastic, doing whatever, doesn't matter. Anyhow, I don't keep the cameras long enough anyhow to care how they look used. Another email from the other side, who cares little of the minor vocal list tow the line or we'll insult ya group, but represents the view of 80% of list ppl ;-) I'm a crusader, like the guys who ran around and got killed because the earth moved around the sun, not the other way around. Folks get so mad, you upset me, I kill you for radical and non-conforming. Of course we are talking Japanese products here. Whoa Nelly!?! Who let the 's**t' fly?! Brad g - Original Message - From: Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:26 AM Subject: RE: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re:WideangleDilemmas -- -Original Message- -- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:32 AM -- -- Maybe the guys who make this stuff know something we don't? -- -- Sure they do, we just don't know what. :) -- -- Plastic cameras don't get beauty marks. They start out ugly, and -- as time goes by, they get uglier. -- -- I too think plastic bodies (lenses or cameras) tend to look -- ugly as they -- aged. But that's rather subjective. -- -- regards, -- Alan Chan -- -- Alan, My MZ-5, purchased used, has some wear marks that are hard to describe. I would think it would be hard for someone to comment that the 'brassing' looks good. Definitely not as nice looking as the wear (brassing) on my metal cameras. And yes, even my MZ-S has wear marks on it - definitely not as noticeable just slightly lighter coloration. Trying not to displace TV's standard on this list, César Panama City, Florida in Dayton, Ohio
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Rob, a good fair email. No attacks or insults. You disagreed a lot. Well that's all fine with me, I don't expect everyone to say 'Ya, you're right'. If someone can post in a friendly adversarial manner (that make sense?) I like that. It's only the emails that some send that tell you how bad you are and how good they are and toss in little insults or similar, those are bad. I wish I had the time to address your email more on a point by point basis. Maybe later tonight, little busy now. I have been told that the Ltds. are more expensive, not because they are so superior in build and optics (but not saying they aren't) but that they are for a select few, like some here, and thus command a far higher price, as they are a 'different' lens, so to speak. Just this quickly: No, we couldn't name a dozen or two, because there are only 3 in total so its not hard to remember them - 31, 43 and 77. I meant the reasons why they are what they are, you'd point to this and that with build, and this and that with optics. That's the 'couple dozen' things. Hope that clears that up. If I get a chance to try a Ltd. I will do so, then maybe take back my words, but don't count on that too much. I'm not so critical of lens performance as a good group of you are. To myself, they are silly looking, something like the fixed lenses on an old 35mm Germany camera I have (fungus problem, was given to me, found in the bottom of a box). Arent you the one who has just been advocating not judging a book by its cover? This part I'm lost on. I have not a clue as to whether that camera is good or bad in it's day or now, just that the limited lens looks very similar to the lens on it. Does this help? If not, explain further please! Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: RE: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Can I get into this without any trouble? non cut and paste area Not to step on yours or anyones' toes, but look at it from such a less extreme critical viewpoint. People have a hard time accepting that a zoom, will beat some fixed-focal length or the 'pride' term is prime lens. No trouble from me (hopefully). Don't worry about my toes, but I have to say, the difference between the 24-90 and the 77 ltd as I said is clearly visible under even small enlargements. Heck I can see it on 6*4s! You can see every eyelash and hair on someone's face. Its not being extreme critical, it hits you like a truck its so obvious. Likewise with the 24, when you can see rocks in the sea below some cliffs with that, but with another lens its just a blur on the sealine its pretty obvious. The first time you see it REALLY awakens you, and you re-evaluate all your kit. I dont care about what terminology you wish to use, and pride doesn't come into it. I have always loved zooms and to this day they are still my most used lenses. Since the 24-90 first came out in the UK it has been my number 1 lens and takes between half and 2/3rds of my photos. Until may(ish) of this year the only prime I had was an old Centon 500mm mirror which hardly holds any pride for me. When I got the 77ltd I was absolutely gobsmacked. That's not to say I now look down on my zooms, and I still use the 24-90 and my Sigma 17-35 for much of my shooting as it means I don't have to keep changing lenses. However when I get the chance and can cope with the discipline, I will use the 24 and 77 as much as possible as they REALLY are in another league. Now this may be partly due to the fact that the primes I have chosen are top of the league and I have no doubt that many of the standard primes wouldn't hold as much appeal for me. Have I used all of these, no. I'd make a small wager that if I looked at comparison photographs, I couldn't tell which from which. My eyes have been checked recently. I'm just not that critical. Know what I mean? If/when you use the 77 you will change your view - guaranteed. As I said above its not a question of being critical - when you see the difference you will be hit by it. So there is that point and then the Limiteds are another. This group (which is not wholly representative of any Pentax customers or close) is in love with the Ltds. Why? You and others could name a dozen or two quite fast. To me, they are ugly little silver metal lenses of fixed (limited) local lengths of 'odd' numbers. Right, I have never owned one or tried one. For myself, it not blind love or ego love or status love. I don't have and am not interested in the 31 or 43 as I don't shoot much at those lengths. They are not wide enough for most of my landscapes and not long enough for my portraits. When I used a zoom, I found I wanted my portaits around 70-90, so I don't care about
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Despite the remarks against the post, it was a very good common sense post *and* a nice fresh approach in an email that none of us has come up with to date. Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:16 AM Subject: Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105 I fear that some new photographer is going to read this discussion and think that if they don't have a ltd lens, a prime lens of every focal length, FA* lenses ... they can never hope to get good pictures. I don't remember anyone ever said this, until now... 1) All Pentax lenses are very good. Most are great. Some are excellent. Have you ever used ALL Pentax lenses? 2) You, I and 90 per cent of the people on this list could not tell the difference between a picture taken with the worst Pentax lens and the best when viewing a 4X6 inch print. That figure goes to 95 percent if the picture is viewed on the Web and 100 per cent if proper technique is not used. Do you know at least 90% of the list members here? The worst vs the best Pentax lens with 4x6 prints? Have you actually tried it? 3) Generally speaking, many high-quality third party lenses are as good and sometimes better than Pentax lenses. Sure there are some. I do not know how many. I haven't used many to draw this conclusion. However, flare control is what SMC lenses good at. 4) People who own a particular lens will rarely speak poorly about it. The amount of praise is directly related to how much they paid for it. I bought a brand new Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 manual focus. Popular Photography said it was great. I say it sucks big time, mechanically and optically. I bought a brand new Sigma 24/2.8 manual focus. Great sharpness and colour. Horrible flare control and materials. I bought a brand new FA*85/1.4. Every test shows it's a top quality lens. I say it's useless until f4. FA77/1.8 is way better optically. I bought a brand new FA43/1.9. It's built quality is good. But I say it has nothing special optically. I bought a brand new Z-1p. The plastic elepiece sucks. It was scratched in no time. I bought a brand new... I think I should stop. Btw, how many people you know exactly in this World in order to draw this conclusion? 6) People who talk ad-nauseum about lenses (And we all fall into this at times) are more likely to be collectors rather than shooters. Proof? 7) It is better to be a shooter than a collector. Photographers collectors have different objectives. Better? What do you mean exactly? 8) Most people on this list (myself included) tend to be collectors as much as shooters. Please don't drag down everyone on the list with you. Especially when you don't know many list members here. 9) The best lenses are the ones you use. That could means many things. 10) A good tripod and ball head can turn a $150 lens into a $1,000 lens . I doubt it. 11) If you don't want to use a tripod, don't waste your money on very expensive lenses. Sharpness is not everything. regards, Alan Chan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Poor list behaviour WAS Re: Terminology lesson. WAS Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Bwhahaha! Love the email. You know, children tend to be cruel, and I got all sorts of variations on my name as a kid, now, my friends call me all sorts of even worse ones. You picked one used before here, not very original and not the best one if you want to act like a child. Hey Dodo Prime also means: YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness So where did you look that up William? I myself used a rather heavy Oxford Thesaurus, larger than most big dictionaries. We know Oxford is where it's at if you using real English English. I wonder, what did you leave out of yours? I did not edit mine at all, it was there, word for word, thesaurus to mail. Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. Uhh...right, so because of that, it must be true. So during WWII the major of German people were correct in their support and action towards other minority or disabled people? Retarded people are now referred to as challenged, though they used to get the label dodo. William, really, look at the FAQ, go to a government website, or the UN site, or any civil and human rights website. You should know better, but perhaps you don't, but the disabled persons you mentioned, officially (for the Canada 2001 Summer Games) are wrong. As a volunteer for the event, she was given words not to use when addressing disabled persons, and both were not to be said or tolerated. I bet I know what you call African-Americans to your buddies. Herb was an angel compared to you. In photography, try and be a little more open-minded and less rigid. In life, please seek to reform your poor attitude, and try and be a little more sensitive to others, and practice toleration. I really hope no one on this list that has a child with developmental difficulties, that's something they shouldn't see or hear at any time or place. Brad. Hey Robb, Hey Dodo Prime also means: YOUTH , adolescence, greenness, juvenility, puberty, pubescence, spring, springtide, springtime, youthfulness I see you in there somewhere, after adolescence, but before puberty. Just an observation from someone who knows goats. Like I said, it's just a word that got applied to a specific lens type. Whether this implies a lack of understanding amoung several million photographers, or a lack of understanding from one person (you are a person, right?), you tell me. A prime lens will meet the narrow minded criteria you have selected as the one true meaning of the word far more often than any other lens type (I guess that would be zoom, but could also be varifocal, or even convertable). Why would the term get changed? Its just a word. Perhaps you are right, sometimes we arbitrarily start to use new words to describe the same old thing. Retarded people are now referred to as challenged, though they used to get the label dodo. Cheers William Robb
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas
- Original Message - From: Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:38 AM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS -- Re: Wideangle Dilemmas Brad Dobo schrieb: BTW: The optics of the FA*24/f2 gets verdict of 8.8 for optics and 9.0 (out of 10) for mechanics, whereas the FA20-35 gets 9.6 for optics and 9.0 for mechanics. *I think it is ridiculous to put these two lenses in the same league meachnically. My conclusion is that Fotomagazin verdicts and supers (the FA20-35 got one, the FA*24/f2 did not) are very questionable.** The curves themselves tell more.. * are mine. Mechanically? Explain this? One will break the other won't? High-tech plastics and metal components on one are worst than another? I'm lost. Perhaps I don't know what 'mechanics' means in respect to a lens. Mechanics here means build quality, play, robustness, smoothness of focusing etc While the (mostly metal, heavy) FA*24/f2 may not have the very best build quality, I consider it to be much more solid than the FA20-35/f4 which features no high tech material but just just cheap and lightweight platic. When in the shop I had the opportunity to buy one or the other, the better build quality of the 24 convinced me. Arnold Ok, well, the FA20-35/f4 has solid mechanics then. It has 'high tech' materials. Everyone has said similar, and I've used it. Cheap and lightweight plastic? HAR. Old-fashioned view. There is nothing cheap about the plastics used nowadays. There's more RD money in strong plastics than metal. Lightweight. I hope so, who wants a heavy lens when you can have the same thing lighter? No balance arguments, not at lenses this size. I guess carbon-tripods are cheap and lightweight too, it's only carbon, not metal, and it's light. No, that arguement doesn't work does it?
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Both lenses passed the looks test. 28-105 looks good on a MZ-5n, 24-90 looks good on an MZ-S. That's all there is to it! I found that. The SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] in silver, looked great on the MZ-5n and not great on my MZ-S. And the rest of what Wendy said was true about the 24-90. But back to the other... Terrible to focus manually, and it was easier to 'zoom' by just pushing or pulling out the barrel instead of the zoom ring, it was sloppy that way...heh...poor mechanics? g
Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas
- Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:02 PM Subject: Re: SMCP FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or the FA* 24mm f/2 AL WAS --Re:WideangleDilemmas Pentax Guy wrote: A disposable in the hands of a good professional beats everyone here with all the best paint, metal and glass in the world. There are some good professionals here. Thus your statement is incongruous. Pentax Professionals? I thought Pentax wasn't professional in anything? I've seen that posted many a time. I sell the odd photo here and there, by some definitions, I'm a professional? HAR! My photos are good, but I'm far from 'good' There is nothing out of place or absurd about that comment. I don't want to put down anyone that makes money or a living using Pentax, do so and more power to you, but they are few and far between. 'Good' is also a word that can be interpreted quite differently. You have taken a very narrow view of 'good professionals' Paul.
Re: Re[2]: we're back
Ok, time to show my ignorance. This 'Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weedend'. What is it? Something grand or an inside joke around here? I've been hearing about tours and such and am even thinking about looking to be a free assistant to any lowly professional photographer in the city. Why don't I type these things in for search on the internet, I don't know, lazy I guess, then again, typing all this to get the same information is rather silly. Brad - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:37 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: we're back You are welcome back. However, for penance, you must attend the Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weekend next June. Bill Okay, seems like a good time to come back. That is, if you'll have me... Cotty
Is there a Pentax Future?
I was in Dortmund last week. The two major department stores Karstadt and Saturn no longer sell Pentax. Also in two of three photo shops there was no more Pentax gear at stock. I talked to two shop assistants and they told me, that the SLR sales have dropped so dramatically that they have reduced their product range to the two big ones (Nikon and Canon). This seems to confirm the descent of conventional SLR cameras. On the other hand this makes niche products more promising. Hard to say... Lots of stores here don't handle Pentax at all (some never, some not anymore they just don't sell). For this to occur in what is supposed to be Pentax's market (Europe and such), makes me wonder. How many camera companies have come and gone since Pentax has been around? At Dave's Camera Repair shop is a beautiful museum of great cameras long gone. Dare we count the brands? Nothing lasts forever, is Pentax winding down? This new age is different from the past, small stores close to bigger ones, large once family owned businesses (Eaton's in Canada, to name just one of many) have gone. Whatever happened recently to all those little computer stores, or all those 'brand clone' computers? Big Box, mega companies. Does Pentax fit the model in the camera world? New models and a DSLR as death throws?sp? and last ditch efforts? We have rumours, little facts. What is Pentax's status in Japan? Won't change my stance on Pentax, love the stuff, and will use it until I can't buy a roll for less than $100 :) Then go digital, with, well, hopefully Pentax and K mount. All this is a valid question. Anyone here fear this? They seem like a 'loss leader' type in the industry and am I wrong with them being a still distant 4th? When will they publish some new material for lens, accessories, and such? Why aren't they? And what's with the lack of ads? Is Asahi Optical Co. on it's last leg? Could this be THE END? (sorry, dry humour there) They've had once heck of a run Or is North America a pain with trading, shipping, duties and taxes and laws? Will NA just be cut out? Please, this is real stuff, real questions. I've stated I love my stuff and will continue to use it. But no one has ever raised the question but loves to speculate on everything else. So I'm tossing it out. Be open minded. Since we've all gone through withdrawal when the board was down, this topic may light the fires. Brad
Used gear and stuff
You know, I hate having not enough money to spend freely on equipment, such interesting and great stuff here, at good prices too :(( I didn't know there was a SMCP-F Zoom 24-50mm f/4. I thought I knew most of the current or semi-current lenses, this one is new to me. Anyone want to donate their equipment to a good cause? (me :)) Now, not related exactly, but can anyone tell me, if I'm assuming correctly why the Pentax teleconverters (not the AF 1.7x) do not support AF? Is that true? Are there some around, or third-party ones? Brad. - Original Message - From: Lindamood, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:04 AM Subject: FS: Pentax SMC 24mm and SMC-F 24-50mm Excellent condition Pentax SMC-F 24-50 f4.0 Zoom Lens. Like my SMC 24mm f2.8 for sale now also, this is in terrific condition. Constant f4 aperture of this model is convenient for flash use. I have priced this to sell. Gotta move some gear. Pentax SMC 24mm f2.8. This is in unused perfect mint condition, no problems whatsoever, with hard case. Also priced to mve.
Pentax Posters
Hey folks, Anyone have a link or links of the poster? The bigger the better, wanna show it to someone without having to take mine out of the tube until it's mounted. Thanks, carry on, Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: great body and performance, shame about the back cover
- Original Message - From: Andrea Rocca [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:54 PM Subject: MZ-S: great body and performance, shame about the back cover . The back cover of the MZ-S is of the same quality of those found on £ 200 entry-level slrs. Its completely made of lightweight plastic, including the hook of the lock. The corresponding hook on the body is also made of plastic, whereas the back plates of other upper range cameras have rock solid components, often with a double locking mechanism to prevent accidental opening and ensure that if the camera is dropped, the back will not open and fog the film - which is the worst that could happen to a working photographer. I suppose that for general use it does the job, allthough it still feels flimsy (it clicks and creeks slightly when squeezed) for a £700 camera. I wonder if Pentax have a Nikon or Canon saboteur in their design team :-), - and I reckon that they should address this issue by bringing out an alternative pro back, made of metal or and without the date function, because, again IMHO, the present back plate disqualifies the camera from the slr upper echelons - which, considering how good the rest is, is silly. Andrea London, UK. Ya, I love my to pieces, but the back cover was a disappoint the moment I saw it. My MZ-5n QD cover with an AF button. Weak, doesn't seem to fit the rest of the camera. As well, while it's a very rare time I use the date feature, but I thought perhaps they'd update it a bit, it's exactly the same as every other, would have liked to see something along the lines of what Nikon or Canon has. Brad
Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but did you read the careful comments in the release, time for this, that, or read between the lines, 'It may not work out and we have discontinued further development [until cheap full-frame sensors are well established]' Don't laugh too hard, they made a big deal the last time toojust because it was an AP article doesn't mean it's a done deal. Just humour me, put those dying for this DSLR, what *if* it doesn't materialize? Brad - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 10:44 PM Subject: Re: BJP confirms Pentax Digital plan Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Assuming I did not misunderstand what he was trying to hint at, I could see where the styling cues of the new DSLR could be derived from the Limited lenses so that they look JUST RIGHT on this body. Usual disclaimers and all that ... Michel wonder if that means a chrome body like the silver MZ-S. Herb
Re: Optio 330GS, slave flash, messing around
While I only have the lowly Optio 230, same goes, great value and fun! - Original Message - From: Tim S Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:41 PM Subject: Optio 330GS, slave flash, messing around Just messing around tonight with my 330GS and a cheap pocket slave flash, discovered that the trick to using it is to activate red-eye mode then pull the slave out of pocket after the first flash (assistant required if trying this on a distant subject). Had some reasonable results, shows the insufficiency of the built in unit. This is my fave shot though - MZ50 is on the kitchen countertop, Optio set to -2.0 comp, slave flash is dropped inside a red plastic drinks cup to the right of the MZ50. http://www.timkemp.karoo.net/mz50.jpg I like the 330GS, great value. And fun. ICQ 51280452 MSN Messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan
That's all quite interesting. Will have to see what Pentax does with it. The MZ-5n is/was a fine camera, got one myself. If they are keeping the MZ line to some degree, perhaps some added features but keep that classy looking MZ-5n style? Keep it affordable. Really, I think Pentax's larger problem is advertising, at least in North American. I'm disgusted about the pitiful display in a dirty counter beside the junk used they have Pentax placed. Without any knowledge, like they didn't know Nikon and Canon were leaders, and no sales person prodding them, they'd never pick up a Pentax even to look, it is that bad. Now, my shop is one isolated place, but there is still a lack of knowledge of Pentax in NA. I've spoken with Pentax Canada about my store, they *may* send in a Rep to shake things up. If so, they'll have a better display, or they'll say (*## you Pentax, you don't generate sales for us anyhow, we'll stick to the top three. Bad? From my viewpoint yes, it's my place, they are good. But with no Pentax, there's no me. As for everyone else, well, it probably won't hurt the stores sales a bit, and perhaps it better to have no display than a very crappy one that doesn't do Pentax any justice. Whoa, a bit side-tracked, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Artur Ledóchowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 12:38 AM Subject: Re: AP (16/11) - Pentax UK Confirms digital SLR launch plan Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who decides these things, btw? Is this something the manufacturer sets up or what? These things are decided by the market or to be more precise - by two factors: first - something known as the public opinion, second - by the mass media (mostly the photo magazines). The market is all about the competition and it's obvious that the customer compare the cameras, that are of similar specifications. The magazines do the same. One can complain about how more or less objective various tests are but cannot deny the fact that they shape the customers' opinions. So no producer can ignore these factors unless wants to be out of the competition (which actually happened to Pentax to some degree:)). Mind that I wrote the MZ-5n/3 is CONSIDERED to be a rival:)) But don't you think the advanced amateurs need some fresh air from Pentax?:) MZ-S is not the least expensive beast and I know there is a need for a camera that would be as simple yet advanced and affordable - just as the MZ-5n/3 was for recent years. All above is of course IMHO:)) Regards Artur
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hey Dan, Intriguing, what makes you say that? On the lighter side, I didn't think we ever admit to Pentax errors? ;-) On the more practical side, I'm looking at my lens now, read your email and decided to pull it out. By design this lens has a very thick and long hood. I cannot see a reason for anything additional. However, I can see it if you are referring to a hood that isn't of real benefit of shading the lens, but needs one for 'protection' then sure. But I'll just stick to what I know, Pentax doesn't list one for it like every other lens that doesn't have one built in, even the cheapest consumer zooms. They told me it doesn't need it. I respect them. In class we discussed lenses and the instructor also said because of the construction of true macro lens, a hood is not necessary. In any case, I'm interested to hear your reason why it does. I have never had trouble with it in that respect (usage, just not people telling me so). Spill yer guts Dan ;-) Regards, Brad - Original Message - From: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:49 PM, Brad Dobo wrote: I talked to Pentax on this one and they don't make a hood for the lens, because it really is not needed at all. I have the FA version. Putting a UV type filter on will not be protecting the front element anyhow, and with the SMC is not needed. In fact, you would just degrade the image, and what am image that lens can make! Use it as is and enjoy the view, so to speak ;-) Brad. They are wrong. It does need a hood. Dan Scott
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
heh...for those with the screw mount lenses and perhaps cameras to go with them, using your example, we could call them 'screwed' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. K-Mounters is even better. Debra Wilborn wrote: (snip) Hmm, I'm definately liking K-Mounties. I need to find a red coat and a horse.
Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Yep, no doubt the same, no 31L. Where are you located Herb? Is this just Canada or everywhere? Brad - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: 200mm macro: FA* vs A* Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I actually do remember us having this conversation. What a mind! Anyhow, I'm just looking now and I don't see a date at all. Since it's missing a Macro and the FA 24-90mm we know it isn't up to date. Nice to have one that was though eh? Brad. sounds like it is the same as the one i have. there is no 31mm Limited either, right? it's close to 2 years out of date. Herb...
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
Hey, that's ok Frank, I'll reply to your post, clear up anything, add, whatnot, but after this, it's just like the bokeh, I won't even open emails regarding, so just a heads up for people so you don't waste your time. Pass the word because everyone was going to jump on me while I just wrote an honest email. I knew it, but I had to tell Rob this guy makes us all look like peanuts. This guy sounds like an a-hole, Brad. He is actually a very nice nice man, I've even seen his gf, hot. Big house. Crazy astro-photography equipment (he lives outside the city, so little light pollution) He is so good with very new people, and he's got every answer for anyone more advanced, and he'll spend the extra time and be nice and explain to someone how f/5.6 at 1/60 is the same exposure as f/4 at 1/125 (I got that right?). He says anyone on the Net is a crap hobbyist, yet he's had no contact with anyone on this list, hasn't seen anyone's work, knows nothing about anyone on this list (except you). I could be wrong, frequently am. I don't think I said that, and if I did, it's partly wrong. There is a lot of information here, that's why I'm here, you're all ahead of me, and it's Pentax, so here I be. The thing is, the web and internet is not for everyone. He could care less about anything on here, he's too busy, and he knows most/all the stuff, besides the rare gem or two, that's here. Seems to me that there are a few pros here, and a few serious hobbyists whose opinions are worthy of consideration. But to him, everyone here is a crap hobbyist. Yup. I'd say he's a pretentious, pompous a-hole. He's not, and he'll laugh when I tell him about this. But I probably won't and drop it unless he says, 'Brad, how's the PDML going?!' You boys and girls already know what I think, the internet can be great, and it can also be a load of crap. Sure, ya gotta be smart to sort through it. What if you don't have to? They also have a store attached to the studio. They deal with reps., and he studies optical physics books. He knows what's on here already, without having to go on. And just to repeat myself, because he deserves it, he's a stand-up super guy. Really impressive. He's not going to quibble and debate issue here, he doesn't care and doesn't have time. Now, I told one person off-list about this. But you should hear his thoughts on 'bokeh'. You won't like it. So tell me: if, as you say If I had to listen to him or anyone here or anyone on the web you guys claim is a God, I'd pick him, then why do you even seek any opinions from this list? Why not just go to your instructor (but don't bother him while he's counting his piles of money) in the first place? It might save lots of time... Well, it's a person to person thing. It's hard to connect, so to speak. I got him during classes, and I've visited a bunch of times while he worked. There is only so much, PLUS, this group is Pentax, not Nikon (although he is actually just as well versed in other systems), I mean, he doesn't always use a Nikon in the studio or field, he's got his large and medium format Hassleblads and whatever (I really don't know that area) He also has all the neat Nikon digitals PS, DSLR, latest and greatest. He has a real life spy camera he showed us, James Bond crap, he had some laser sight stuff that I dunno what he did with it, besides what he said was measure exact distances. He hates Canon. Respects Pentax. Not bad. So anyhow, it wouldn't save time. I've already said in this post and in many others that most of you are beyond me and I have much to learn here, and I do, and (usually enjoy it). You're also Pentax, and that's a big help because you just can't go buy books and such on Pentax like you can with Nikon and Canon systems. For myself, this is a valuable place of information. So ya, he thinks anyone spending time being a tech. spec. wizard generally means they lack real creative talent. He also thinks that beginners or above that buy all the latest high end stuff. Extreme stuff, are also making up for a deficiency in talent. I guess he has his rights and reasons, just as you do about what you think of him. I have a need for the Web, and list, but I'm a small fish, he doesn't. In fact he tells me to get off this stuff and learn in the field. Forget about the internet. Well, I can't. I'm a computer nerd first actually. If given force-choiced between photos and computers, I'd dump my Pentax right off and upgrade like heck on this and my other systems. Sorry, but your post really ticked me off. Hey, don't be sorry. You have a right to your opinion, I'm not angry, because now I know how to handle the list. I won't get into debates that leads to insults, or if I do, I stop reading them and let people blast away at nothing. I think your mis-informed, but that could partly be my fault. I hope I made up some of that ground here. Maybe not. I tried. But I must say and defend someone who knows
Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away
William, Jeff I'm glad you brought it up, I missed the CV as well ;-/ Brad - Original Message - From: Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away HE HE HE. Now it's funny. Jeff - Original Message - From: Norman Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: Swiss camera thief gives himself away Short for resume? curriculum vitae http://www.google.com/search?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8q=curriculum+vitae spell=1 William Kane wrote: What's a CV? Dan Scott wrote: On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 01:52 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_699887.html Burglar leaves his CV at the scene of the crime See, optimism at its worst.
Re: MZ-S can you ...
Hey Leon, My bad, should have known about the TTL issue. But that is the old rule of thumb isn't it? I've read it in a few books I think, that the white handkerchiefs reduce one stop per layer? Brad - Original Message - From: Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:31 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... Brad, White hankerchiefs have no effect when using TTL. I
Re: Pentax Upgrade
Which model? Well, we shall see if I get it. ;-) Right now I don't want anyone from this list running over and bidding me up. Hehe. Just for that I went on ebay, pulled every 50mm lens and added $50US to each and every one ;-) Perhaps we shouldn't even be allowed to say 'ebay'? g But I did consult with Stan Halpin's Pentax site, reading the feedback about various ##-###mm lenses. Doe :-) aka Marnie
Re: MZ-S can you ...
Oh, not to be so...erm..cannot think of the term, but I knew it with flash, it was used in an example in a large text where the author was using a F4 I think and the SB-28 speedlite. He talked about that 'trick' when talking about that system. Brad. - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad is incorrect. The compensation dial does affect ttl flash output just as you described. I calculate that I've done it about 1500 times this year with AF500FTZ's. Now, does it work with this particular flash you're talking about? Hell if I know, but it *should* work with any TTL flash. What sort of modification did you make? Did you have data imprinting on? Not only that, but the white handkerchief technique *will* work when using TTL flash. The meter has no way of knowing that there's anything over the flash head cutting its output so the exposure it sets will be wrong for the amount of light that actually gets out of the flash. I've used this technique with the PZ-1p and the AF400FTZ. I've also used the manual compensation technique that Tom describes. tv -Original Message- From: Leon Altoff [mailto:leon;bluering.org.au] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 8:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MZ-S can you ... Brad, White hankerchiefs have no effect when using TTL. I know that on the Z1, MZ-3 and MZ-5n you can set the camera to manual and use the exposure compensation on the camera to affect the TTL flash output. On the MZ-S this does not appear to be the case. I have a custom built flash with 2 heads, that used to be an AF240FT which I use for macro work. It's far lighter and easier to carry than 2 of any sort of flash and I'd like to use it with the MZ-S. Without the capability to do flash compensation and auto bracketing it makes it a lot less useful. Leon On Sat, 9 Nov 2002 06:45:54 -0500, Brad Dobo wrote: Dare I weigh in? MZ-S can you ... do anything, yes! ;-) I may be wrong, I frequently am, but I do believe the EV dial on the camera only 'tricks' the camera's meter. Nothing to do with flash. So, IMO, the AF360FGZ is the only one capable of doing 'flash compensation'. Of course, you can use white handkerchiefs to cut the power (the old rule was one layer for every stop?). Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: Leon Altoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 3:04 AM Subject: MZ-S can you ... Hello all, I have a question for my fellow MZ-S owners out there. Is it possible to do flash compensation with older digital flashes like the AF-240FT? I did a few test shots using the camera set in manual mode and dialing in compensation on the camera compensation dial, but every picture came back with no change. So has anyone managed to do compensation on an older flash or can it only be done with the AF360FGZ? Thanks for all help. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com Photography and writing
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Oh no, another one of these.Instead of playing by the rules, and actually proving something, another member chooses to argue and more so, put down another member, a favourite pastime here. I stopped reading after the first paragraph as I knew the rest was.. 'Bokeh' must be truly important to get such a long winded and opinionated response. For such a suble, minor, subjective thing, some of us are sure getting upset. I plan on visiting the art department at my local U, and specifically photography and see what who ever is around has to say on the subject. When I don't know, but I'll let everyone know what happened, anything from pulling out an article about it from saying 'Bokeh? What was that? I didn't understand.' From there perhaps I can look into the subject in more depth, or get a feeling from someone highly educated in the field thoughts on 'bokeh'. Amateur hobbyist photographers serious or not, cannot be of aid. Emails saying bokeh is real, I like it. Or it's meaningless lingo referring to a blotch of many colours that form no shape. Or, I found in so and so, this Are all perfectly fine. Then we all know where we stand on the issue. If someone points out something of value, not some hobbyist view or a online Shutterbug issue or a UK tabloid trash online mag. I can then verify and learn and say, ya, bokeh is something. I was wrong. All I said was I think it's nothing. No need for panty bunching...so, let's keep it civil eh? Bandwagon members are free to help defend the poor author of the email with insults and demeaning comments. We are unmoderated. And I'm a favourite target, but am hardened to such things by now. Of course, you could impress me by saying nothing...and others that don't want to see such muck slung all over and have to leave the list. Then the author and I can take this off-list for the benefit of all. Number one, it's obvious you've not done sufficient reading about what bokeh is, so all your current 'arguments' are specious. It does exist, you're just not adequately educated in the subject to be able discern it by yourself. You need training. The rest of your argument is merely supported by your lack of knowledge about it, so will not considered in this discussion. To say These are all online resources which because of their nature, are suspect... is a head in the sand attitude and is doing nothing but hindering the possibility of your _ever_ understanding it. The online sources are not original works, you know. They most frequently draw from other hard copy sources. They're online siimply because it's a far faster and far more convenient way to access the information! Don't you (or they) understand that concept? If you had an online copy of some highly respected, scientifically accepted text, would you still come up with, Well, it's from an online source, and as such is not considered valid information. How about a bible? Any information found in the bible by way of having found it online, automatically makes it suspect? Sadly, I suspect you would. Sig. You have to start thinking for yourself, instead of parroting all the illogical, uninformed and stilted rules and regulations that come out of acadamia... Enough of my rambling... keith whaley
Re: Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?!
- Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Re:OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! colleagues. To argue that all information posted on the web is suspect, simply because it's posted on the web, and that information in books and periodicals has more legitimacy because you can pick it up and hold it in your hand (especially considering some of the books for sale in book stores) is a rather ridiculous notion, to say the least. Only part I really read and can respond to. It's not a matter of holding something in your hands. Material published in books or journals and such are written by someone that earned a right to speak on the topic. You may disagree of course. This is not a perfect world. But authors of serious material in journals and books are edited and regulated. They are backed up by facts that can be reproduced by others in that field. It's not a perfect world. I could choose and write a book on photography, would it get published? What company would want to put their label next to my name and opinions? Could I conduct a study on photography and submit it to a respectable journal? Yes. Would it ever see print? No. If you are in a post-grad position you are surely aware of the revisions some are forced to make before something is published. It's serious stuff. Can I make a website? Yes. Can I write my photography opinions on it? Yes. Can I post links all over the place to it? Yes. Will it come up in search engines? Yes. Can anyone read it? Yes. Is it informative? I'll be the first to say no, of course not. If you choose to publish an accepted version of the Bible on the Internet, it is The Bible. You can copy a book or article to the internet, and it is a book or article, just on the internet. But the problem is that anyone can write anything on the internet, it is generally unregulated and is not scrutinized beforehand, so what does that make it? Anything you want to make it. It is not reliable. Anyone can make up an identity and how often do we check their credentials? Not often enough if you answer fairly.
Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: Re: OT: Is BOKEH real?!?! Was -- Re: If You had to pick one lens . . . Here's a paragraph from the web source Robert Soames Wetmore posted, which is: http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v17/msg11841.html Mike Johnston is speaking here: In 1997 I helped introduce a new term into the lexicon of North American photographers: bokeh, which was my own rendering of a katakana term more properly romanized as _bo-ke_ or boke (a spelling which provoked a hail of puns and jokes on a pronunciation that was totally incorrect). It's the Japanese word meaning blur, specifically the visual properties of the way a lens renders out-of-focus areas in pictures. _PHOTO Techniques_ presented three articles on the subject: What is 'Bokeh'? By John Kennerdell, an American-born photographer based in Bangkok; Notes on the Terminology of Bokeh by Oren Grad, an M.D. / Ph.D. researcher at Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA; and A Technical View of Bokeh by Harold Merklinger, who is Senior Scientist at the Canadian Defense Establishment Atlantic in Halifax, N.S. All these senior scientists' and researchers' emanations are probably suspect too, because they were found online, not so? keith Ah-Ha! Keith, you didn't read through your red haze of anger. You have produced evidence. That is what I wanted!!! I can go and pull up bios on these people, check credentials, read published material. Of course, if I look into Abt Associates in Cambridge, MA and there is no record of Oren Grad being related there or anywhere and no record of his materials, then it's a fraud, happens all the time on the Internet. I'm not saying what you just posted is. But now I can use a better method to check it's authenticity and read more about him/her and their research. And perhaps learn more about bokeh.See?
Re: How much film do you need?
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:45 AM Subject: Re: How much film do you need? at home on a regular basis I like to have at least 5 rolls each Tri-X, Scala and Kodachrome 64, all of which I buy in 20s from 7dayshop.com. This has replaced the low-on-fags panic I used to get when I still smoked, over 10 years ago. I tend not to stock up on colour print film, but just pick it up as and when I need it. Hahaha! Love that term..won't mention which, seems, just odd ;-) I get that panic, with smokes, with novels (always need a second one in case I finish one at 1am) and to make this on-topic, I have a wack of Velvia and Provia 100F and 400F in the fridge, and here in a drawer, a huge glut of film I really need to clear out. Looks like a ton of Superia and Reala in various speeds, Delta 400s Delta 3200s, FP4s, and enough batteries to power a small city for a day. When I go away on a photo trip I plan my film budget by reckoning an average of about 5 rolls per shooting day, with 10 rolls for the first 2 or 3 days to get the over-shooting out of my system. Then I add 1 roll per non-shooting day, and a few for luck. This seems to work quite well. I don't get nervous about film. Sometimes I bring way to much, sometimes I don't bring enough. If I have way too much, I shoot too much and pay a fortune later. If I don't have enough, I tend to be careful and use it wisely. This seems the best and cheapest way. Brad
Re: Filter/Hood question about 100mm macro
On 7 Nov 2002 at 1:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Put a high quality UV filter on and protect the lens, your investment and your fear of accidently scratching the lens... If the FA is like the A100/2.8 macro you'd really have to go out of your way to scratch the front element. Most of my fingerprints/marks end up on the rear elements, can you get rear UV filters? Ya, they are called sunglasses ;-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: FA*200/2.8 matter again...
I cannot believe such bad luck. I can easily see why you'd give up on them. Now I'm afraid to inspect my lenses that closely and worried about the new FA 20-35mm f/4 AL that is on it's way. Pardon my french Alan but I'd go and tear a Pentax a new a*e over this. FA*..bad Brad - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 3:28 AM Subject: Re: FA*200/2.8 matter again... Hi Rob, There is some dust inside this 200mm, so to the 1st one I returned. However, what concerns me is the scratches present behind the 1st element (on 2nd or 3rd I think). There are many of them in all different directions actually, not circular. It definitely looks like cleaned by hand. When the light was pointed from different angle, cleaning marks were revealed too (but totally invisible if if the light was point directly). This is my only brand new lens with so many scratches and cleaning marks. My 2ndhand F*300/4.5 has cleaning marks too, but not scratch. My brand new FA100/2.8 has 1 hairline scratch inside, but this 200 has a lot. All my other Pentax lenses are fine even after years of use. Since this is the 4th lens that I have tried recently (and all 4 are faulty), I think I am ready to give up and ask for a full refund. I have known there are qc problem with Pentax products for years, but I have never expected to be so unlucky. Looks like I won't be buying any Pentax lenses in the near future. :( regards, Alan Chan I shone a halide desk-lamp through mine both ways, I'm now a little blind I think however I did spy with my working eye heaps of dust boulders and one small hair (which looked like a fungus filament but wasn't). However when I view it under normal light it looks fine (and so do the images that it makes on film). I don't believe that many photo enthusiast spec lenses are delivered completely free from dust even factory fresh (my new APO Leica lenses weren't) however finger prints and wipe marks shouldn't be tolerated. Are all your other lenses much cleaner than this 200? Cheers, Rob Studdert _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Hooray!!!! My lens comes in tomorrow!
I just got an email from Pentax confirming they had shipped the lens via Purolator to the dealer for me, so tomorrow I have a new toy! I feel like a little kid again :-) David Brooks, your gal is lovely indeed. She made the magic happen! Big thanks to all that helped and looked around, especially Vic, who found one. If I hadn't received the email today I was planning on making the drive to Burlington. Now, where did that camera go.uh oh.j/k g Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
My little poll on lens and what is happening
Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). So (well actually I had done this before the poll) I made the necessary calls and emails about getting it. To my dismay, I got a line from a couple different sources I know all too well. It's currently not in stock at Pentax Canada (What DO they STOCK? Really? Anyone know?) but it is expected in approximately 2 weeks (read 1 month) then get it to my retailer. Once again I'm left waiting for this lens. It's the same sad song. So, gonna try out Henrys, see if they stock it, and will perhaps buy from them (but they are pricey). Any other ideas? Just to note, no one else in London stocks this. Lack of patience ;-) ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
I will try those today Dave. As for third party -- no way! Support Pentax! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:23 AM Subject: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Brad. Try Vistek at 416 365 1777 or Dennis at Merkle Camera at 416 495 0456. I have been to Henrys downtown a few times this year when buying used equioment for the D1 but stopped to look at the Pentax displays aswell.They had several Prime and Zoom lenses last time but type eludes me at this time. 416 868 0872.Henry Downtown. What about a third party one.?? Dave Begin Original Message From: Pentax Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 05:44:04 -0500 To: PDML \(Pentax\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My little poll on lens and what is happening Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). So (well actually I had done this before the poll) I made the necessary calls and emails about getting it. To my dismay, I got a line from a couple different sources I know all too well. It's currently not in stock at Pentax Canada (What DO they STOCK? Really? Anyone know?) but it is expected in approximately 2 weeks (read 1 month) then get it to my retailer. Once again I'm left waiting for this lens. It's the same sad song. So, gonna try out Henrys, see if they stock it, and will perhaps buy from them (but they are pricey). Any other ideas? Just to note, no one else in London stocks this. Lack of patience ;-) ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658 End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: What do you carry with you
Heh, just had a funny thought, do we all have trucks or SUV-type vehicles? Seems many do, and fits with the gear we may carry or the places we may want to go 4WD :) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:46 AM Subject: Re: What do you carry with you Hi Kevin. I have 3 bags that carry equipment for different aspects of whats on the agenda todayg My s/f 500 has most of my film cameras/lenses/film for my horse work,and usually : Kodak 160VC Kodak 160NC Kodak RG 200/400 Agfa Optimma II 400 An SF-1,K1000 and several Primes and Zooms Kodak Tmax 400 or Delta 400 BW film 280T flash Tha s/f 300 houses my digital gear,D1 and two zooms and a flash,3 cf cards and spare nicad battery My old Blacks camera bag is my truck bag.It has my IR camera,(SP500)my BW camera,(SP) and my MF camera(Yashica-Mat). I keep several rools of BW film and 1-2 rolls of 120 film for what ever i come across.Occasionaly i carry all 3 bags.My SO stays home then,no room in the truckG Dave Begin Original Message From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whats in your carry all? Kind regards kevin End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
Ya, got that Dave. Well, not 'got that' as in 'bought that'. I ordered here and pressed the time issue with the store. You contact was very nice in telling me if I have any difficulties with the store, to let her know what store, and she would assure me a Pentax Rep would immediately fix the situation. I like that. I take back some of those Pentax Canada comments ;-) Thanks Dave! (Btw, how is that new highway 404 coming along? g) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Closest Henrys has is the SMCP-F 17-28 F 3.5 4.5 at $769.00 Dave Begin Original Message From: Pentax Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey folks, Thanks thanks and thanks again for the responses. Wide did win out in the end (FA 20-35mm f/4 AL). Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening
Vic, oh no!!! I think I really just committed to a store here. I guess I could cancel, but I don't like that If only you sent 2 hours ago! I'll think on it. Maybe will cancel order and call your store and hold it and make the drive. Regards and thanks! Brad - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:44 AM Subject: Re: My little poll on lens and what is happening Brad don't know if you got my earlier message I'm getting a lot of bounce back lately. Burlington Camera has the 20-35 in stock. I think it's about $800 Cdn. Vic In a message dated 11/6/02 10:24:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ya, got that Dave. Well, not 'got that' as in 'bought that'. I ordered here and pressed the time issue with the store. You contact was very nice in telling me if I have any difficulties with the store, to let her know what store, and she would assure me a Pentax Rep would immediately fix the situation. I like that. I take back some of those Pentax Canada comments ;-) Thanks Dave! (Btw, how is that new highway 404 coming along? g)
Re: What do you do when...
Well, that was different :) I was picturing the complete camera as silver, not the traditional top-area. Glad they didn't made it how I had imagined! Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: RE: What do you do when... See http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/camera/mzs-sp/index-spec.html -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 17:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What do you do when... I'm trying to picture my camera in silver.ew :) Brad - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: RE: What do you do when... It does in Japan - you know the place where you get the black limited lenses! Makes sense doesn't it (NOT)! -Original Message- From: Brad Dobo [mailto:brad.dobo;rogers.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 17:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What do you do when... Does the MZ-S actually come in silver?? (no snickering!) Brad
OT: A simple question on the What do you carry thread
Just wondering folks, Do you all carry a camera EVERYWHERE? Like, you're out of milk, you run to the store and get some and drive back. Would you have a camera on you? (leaving gear in car doesn't count) Or, like in my neighbourhood, we have 'supermailboxes', it's about 4 houses down, if I (or you) went to get the mail, would you have a camera on you? I'm serious, and wondering how serious some of us are. I can say that most of the time I actually do have a camera on me. But it's just my little Optio 230 in a pocket that I forget is there half the time. ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: What do you carry with you
I have a Toyota 4x4. I sold the Porsche for it so I could get to more of the inaccessable places. Kind regards Kevin Heh, and used the extra money to buy some serious glass too I hope? On a scary noteI went up to the Bruce Peninsula on my way to Tobermory last summer, I was driving a Saturn 4dr. I decided I wanted to get to the water and some *possible* caves. The roads became smaller and smaller, and then fit perfect, expect the road wasn't a road but a series of deep puddles of mud, why I continued, I do not know, but I kept going. Finally I hit the Canadian Shield rock, and it was better, no road at all now, drove over what I thought were simple cracks, then arrived and did some exploring. I walked back to the 'cracks' only to find they were between 6 to 12 inches across and I couldn't see the bottom. How I got to the cliff safely and back again, I do not know. What topped it all off was the pictures were horrid ;-)
Personal Poll, opinions wanted
Hey folks, Ok, I have the money to buy a lens. I can only get one, I know the basic two I want. (Bruce Dayton, don't answer ;-)) I have: FA 50mm f/1.4 FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 [IF] Now, just in case in the future when I have to go digital, I'm 'hoping' I can still use k-mounts, but just in case, I'm only going to get these two lenses to have a nice range to work with. That's it for me and Pentax glass (unless I win the lottery) I'm looking at: FA 20-35mm f/4 AL or Used 300-600mm fixed focal manual focus. probably about 400mm I have leaning towards one, I won't say which, but I'm interested in what anyone has to say considering the lenses I have now. Thanks! ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
Re: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted
Party-pooper Dave, Whoops! I was replying to all the comments to the individuals privately, must have let that one slip! There goes my secrets! ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted I'm also the guy who votes no at all our staff meetings too :) Dave(more glass is better)Brooksg Begin Original Message From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:20:58 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Personal Poll, opinions wanted Hey Rob, Well, I'm going for new, and was leaning towards the wide, and so far everyone is for it but Dave. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
- Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. Actually, I wasn't joking. I would have put a smiley or a g after my comment if I was. I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put ettes after their name. The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female listers to mere accessories, and not full participants. Since there are far fewer females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to making sure such a perception isn't perpetuated. I know you were joking. As to whether it was funny, I leave that to others. I didn't find it particularly so. It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I was mildly offended by it, and pointed that out. My last words on this topic. regards, frank Brad Dobo wrote: I know you are joking Frank. It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders so it's not sexist. It's still funny. Bradley - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. sexist comment. not funny Pentax Guy wrote: That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
Wow, just back from never leaving and you're trying to start with me? My last words on this topic. To anyone. Brad - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:02 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. Actually, I wasn't joking. I would have put a smiley or a g after my comment if I was. I know there are male cheerleaders, but they don't normally put ettes after their name. The way I interpreted it, your comment would be relegating the female listers to mere accessories, and not full participants. Since there are far fewer females here than males, I think we have to be especially sensitive to making sure such a perception isn't perpetuated. I know you were joking. As to whether it was funny, I leave that to others. I didn't find it particularly so. It's not the most offensive comment I've seen here by a long shot, but I was mildly offended by it, and pointed that out. My last words on this topic. regards, frank Brad Dobo wrote: I know you are joking Frank. It was funny, and I know male cheerleaders so it's not sexist. It's still funny. Bradley - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:40 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. sexist comment. not funny Pentax Guy wrote: That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
My friends call me an idiot when they learn how much I spend on camera stuff, so, I'm 'hey idiot' ;-) Brad - Original Message - From: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, Treena Harp wrote: I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ... So do I... Oh, wait, that's not what you meant. Anyways, teh short answer is it doesn't matter what we call ourselves, however, my girlfriend has a name for me and everyone else on this list: You camera dorks. It works, and its descriptive! -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
DSLRlessians? ;-) - Original Message - From: Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 8:25 PM Subject: RE: OT: What we call ourselves. Takumarshians? Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:wlachan;hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 12:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. SMCists? regards, Alan Chan I like Pentaxistes better than Pentaxians. I saw this in another thread. _ Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Re: OT: What we call ourselves.
That would be our cheerleader section. - Original Message - From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: OT: What we call ourselves. I prefer 'Pentaxettes' ...
Re: FS: K30/2.8
For Sale: K30 f2.8 Just wanted to say that IMHO this really is an excellent lens. Very light and rugged, focus is very pleasing, and the optics are awesome. It has so little distortion for a lens that wide. And it is plenty sharp, and pretty usable wide open. I've also found that BW shots with sun directly on frame render quite nicely : the negative is not over-burned and you can get some nice detail around the sun easily. And flare resitance is nice. This is by far my most used lens during trips since I bought it. It has became one of my favourite pentax lenses. I've found one that is almost mint so this one has to go. Lucky you, they are hard to find, and it is even hardest in mint condition !
Re: Wish lens Poll - COMPLETED, please no more votes
Hopefully, you find the results of this polls as interesting as I do. they may also be useful to Pentax Corp. (I hope)
Re: Poll: Primes that we wish Pentax had built
PRESS RELEASE Pentax is proud to announce the ultimate and first ever produced K-series lens for the 35mm market since more than 20 years : The new SMC Pentax 1:2 34mm light reportage manual focus lens. This lens reproduces the look, feel and mechanical standards that prevailed during the original K-mount era (approx. 1975-1980), and embedding cutting-edge optics. The whole lens is built in titanium making it the lightest lens of its class on the 35mm market. It is sold with dedicated lens-hood (clip on type) and with a little matching case. Order now ans get a free set of yellow and red filters for BW photography ! Specifications of the Product Lens name: SMC Pentax 1:2 34mm Length: 24mm Diameter: 63mm Weight: 130g Filter Thread: 49mm Other: Titanium-made and black-painted, Ghostless Coating, really sharp at f/2.8 Opinions from the press A nice lightweight lens for discrete reportage with something like an MX. You would take it everywhere you go because of its compactness and speed. Sharp wide open, it sharpens up a lot at f/2.5 thanks to the nice detent setting between f/2 and f/2.8, and it becomes really sharp at f/2.8. Of course it is awesome at f/4 - f/5.6. Very clear depth of field diagrams on the lens allows you to focus and hyperfocus very accurately, even in the night thanks to phosphorescent letters. Focuses up to 0.25m and has awesome bokeh comparable to 50/1.4's. Gives extremly good results with films like tri-X. This lens will not be a limited series, and because it does not use a much too complicated formula nor any AL elements, the price is reachable by most mid-range pentax budgets. Pentax to release its best lens ever for 35mm « Arnold Stark » [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : Hello PDML, yes, now I would like to ask you to, what prime lenses would you like that Pentax would have built in k-mount at some time in the past (starting 1975), or that Pentax would come out with now If in the past or now the Pentax boss owed you a favour, what prime lens would you have asked him to make/would you ask him to make - Please send your whishes to the PDML in the next 48 hours (1st step). - I will collect your proposals and send the list of all proposals to the PDML (2nd step). - Finally you will be able to choose 3 of the proposed lenses in your vote (3rd step). Please propose only realistic lenses. (For example: If you want a 500/f1, the diameter of such lens needs to be bigger than 500mm, and I do now want to make guesses about the weight of such lens). Please use this form to describe the lenses that you propose: Lens name: Length: Diameter: Weight: Filter Thread: Other: Examples: The known Pentax prototypes, which will be on the list, too: Lens name: SMC Pentax Birds Eye 1:2.8 8.4mm Length: ~12 cm Diameter: ~10.5 cm Weight: ~ 600g Filter Thread: - Other: Circular Fish-Eye Lens name: SMC Pentax 1:1.4 20mm Length: 65mm Diameter: 80mm Weight: 445g Filter Thread: 77mm Other: K series Lens name: SMC Pentax-M 1:1.4 35mm Length: 62mm Diameter: 65mm Weight: 420g Filter Thread: 58mm Other: M-series Lens name: SMC Pentax 1:2/300 Length: ~300mm Diameter: ~ 160mm Weight: ~ 4.5 kg Filter Thread: 150mm, 52mm Other: - Have a lot of fun with this poll, and thanks in advance for your contributions. Arnold ___ |Thibault Grouas| | http://photofr.ath.cx | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I___I
Re: Pentax at Photokina (mostly gone OT)
Beware not to confuse digital with electronical or mechanical. My MX is mechanical, an MZ-S is electronical, but none of them are digital. I guess a 100% digital automobile for instance would have a driving software running on and replacing the usual tasks of the driver (turning, accelerating, braking...), while connecting to an online database to get appropriate road and GPS info. While in modern cars some parts may be digital (GPS assistance), most of the remaining parts are mechanical (engines) and/or electronical (braking or turning assistance). While mechanical/electronical machines reduces our needs of pure human work (like in industry or farming) digital avoids us to think and to take decisions. Therefore I think a huge difference is to be stated between those terms. And those against digital maybe the proud defenders of mechanical and electronical machines ! If washing machines were to become digital, loaded with a software that would choose what water temperature to select depending on the type of clothes you put in, won't you prefer selecting the appropriate program by yourself ? just my 2.54 euro cents on the topic... I guess we should give up automobiles, farm machinery, assembly lines and all automation so we can go back to carving horse carts out of wood. Alan Chan wrote: I am native I know. But digital does not make things better. Just look at the unemployment rate all over the world due to computing automation. As far as I can see, computers are here to take over our jobs. :(
Re: The Great PDML Print Challenge
Hi all, New to the PDML, i enjoy working in the darkroom and would be interested in an upcoming print challenge. I brought back from this summer's car trip through Spain, Marrocco and Mauritania 30 rolls of tri-X so i'll have plenty of interesting things to work on this fall ^-^ Most of the shots were done with the Pentax K 30mm 1:2.8 i just bought recently. I'am making the first prints and i must say...the 30mm looks pretty nice. Almost no distortions at all, very high resolution/sharpness and very nice rendering of shapes textures (sort of a 3D effect). A nice step better than K 28/3.5 i used before, which is heavier and less bright. I had to travel light and only brought with me one body (MX) and three lenses : K 30/2.8, M 50/1.4 and K 85/1.8. I used the 30mm for about 85% of the shots, the 85mm for 10% and the 50mm for 5% (mainly for low-light situations and during the night). The 30mm was really pleasing to use ! Have a nice day, Thibault Grouas Hi Gang; Yet another entry trickled in today in the mail. I think we only have 11 entries to go Not wanting to rush art, and all.. but it is only 6 identical prints. I'd have mine done except I burned out 3 spare lamps in a quarter hour of mis-using my compensating timer William Robb - 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 .
