Re: Unidentified subject!
Do you need to switch it off? I've left mine on for months/years with no ill effects. The display times out... The batteries survive. If I remember right, the lock mechanism is pretty simple. It's a spring and a ball bearing in below the gray button. If you take the switch off, you can see it and fix it. But you might need a special tool to unscrew the nut around the shutter release. Regards, Bob S. On 1/28/06, Cholland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a SuperProgram that I admit has been in my bag for a long while since I've had my DS around. Anyways, I decided to use it last night. Turned it on, shot some pictures. Now here's my problem: I can't switch it back to the locked position. It seems like the gray button you press as you slide it back to L (or into 125x or Bulb) won't press down. (I can switch between Auto-shutter and Manual modes, but you never had to press the gray button to change between those). Anybody have any clue if there's a remedy for this? This is my first/favorite camera and it would be a real shame to me if it was stuck like this. Thanks everybody.
Unidentified subject!
I've got a SuperProgram that I admit has been in my bag for a long while since I've had my DS around. Anyways, I decided to use it last night. Turned it on, shot some pictures. Now here's my problem: I can't switch it back to the locked position. It seems like the gray button you press as you slide it back to L (or into 125x or Bulb) won't press down. (I can switch between Auto-shutter and Manual modes, but you never had to press the gray button to change between those). Anybody have any clue if there's a remedy for this? This is my first/favorite camera and it would be a real shame to me if it was stuck like this. Thanks everybody.
Unidentified subject!
Re: Ebay Scam (was Re: Opinions wanted, ebay item condition) John Whittingham Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:53:51 -0700 Watch out for the email that says there is a problem with the lens you sold and they want a refund then send you a different faulty lens back in return, always record the serial number of the lens. It's an old scam, people used to do it with respectable camera dealers. John I've had that happen. A couple of times. The last time it happened to my son. Fortunately he had a better picture to prove that the claimed lens scratches were not present as claimed by the buyer. The buyer backed off the scam. Sincerely, Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Unidentified subject!
Pål Jensen wrote: Mark wrote: There is lots of other information and speculation, and some of what I interpret as wishful thinking regarding the future of Contax products. Here's the full read. Daydreaming. The Contax 645 was a fiasco saleswise. The Contax name is worthless imagewise for those under the age of 60. Zeiss lenses were great 40+ years ago. The last 40 years all major manufacturers have made state of the art lenses as long as you were willing to pay for them. Nowadays Nikon is the most valued camera brand name. Canon is way more worth in market recognition than Contax. As the 645 market is rapidly shrinking and the digita back is a dead end, this is definitely a case of rest in piece. I agree with the brand value assessment. Regarding dead ends, are you saying that you think all MF digital backs are dead ends, or just Contax-fit ones? What about the Pentax 645D effort?
RE: Unidentified subject!
Digital backs are not a dead end IFAIC. I see more and more Hassies with an Imacon back at press conferences etc. Jens Pål or Marc wrote: Daydreaming. The Contax 645 was a fiasco saleswise. The Contax name is worthless imagewise for those under the age of 60. Zeiss lenses were great 40+ years ago. The last 40 years all major manufacturers have made state of the art lenses as long as you were willing to pay for them. Nowadays Nikon is the most valued camera brand name. Canon is way more worth in market recognition than Contax. As the 645 market is rapidly shrinking and the digita back is a dead end, this is definitely a case of rest in piece. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
Re: Unidentified subject!
there are people predicting that no-one will be in the medium format camera business, digital or film, in 5 years. i am inclined to think that Hasselblad will still be standing but no-one else. Bronica is gone, Contax is probably gone, Rollei is doing a good imitation of going. only Mamiya, Hasselblad and Pentax have some life in them. i won't count Kiev and Seagull. i'll bet Holga will be around. i think that the 645D is going to end it for Pentax. my Kodak contacts won't tell me the price of the sensor inside the 645D, but it is expensive. i think unless Pentax prices it well above $10K, perhaps as much as $14K, they are going to lose money on the project. Herb - Original Message - From: Mark Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:51 AM Subject: Unidentified subject! I agree with the brand value assessment. Regarding dead ends, are you saying that you think all MF digital backs are dead ends, or just Contax-fit ones? What about the Pentax 645D effort?
Unidentified subject!
From: chibitul smecher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I am not locked into any system, and I am considering a dSLR. I think -and here please correct me if I am wrong!!!- that *istD is the most compatible with older lenses. Canon (10d) doed not work with FD lenses, and Nikon (D70) does not meter with manual linses. What about *istD? I understand that there are some limitations, but you could use manual lenses, right? althouhg the *istD is not quite cheap, I hope to save on glass on eBay. please advice. Thanks! I imagine you can get a converter to fit Canon FD lenses on a 10D, but you'd certainly lose a lot of functionality in terms of metering and such. Any Canon AF lens will work, which means anything made within the last 10 or more years. With an adapter, you can also mount screw-mount and even Nikon lenses on an EOS mount, with loss of automatic aperture control and possibly metering. I don't know about the Nikon D70 but the D100 does not even turn on the meter if you don't have a lens with a CPU attached--It works fine, but does not meter. You CAN get CPUs hacked in by non-Nikon technicians, but it's expensive enough not to be worth it unless you already have some expensive Nikon lenses. Any Nikon AF lens will work with full features. Because the back-focus on Nikons is quite large, basically nothing not designed to go on a Nikon can be convinced to work on a Nikon without an optical converter, and this decreases optical quality. The *istD with firmware 1.1 (should be shipping with this now, otherwise it is easy to download and apply) works fairly well with older lenses, plus can also use screw-mount lenses with an adapter (with loss of auto aperture, etc). DJE
Re: Unidentified subject!
On 2 Mar 2004 at 13:40, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Offhand, I can't think of a single Leica lens that uses a 55mm filter. You might be thinking of the Noctilux which is the only Leica 50mm lens that I know of that takes large filters - 58mm and 60mm depending on the model. That's a very spendy lens because it's rather fast ... F 1.0. Both my APO Summicron-M 90 ASPH and Elmarit-M 21 ASPH take 55mm filters. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Unidentified subject!
Hmmm ... meant to *50mm* leica lens ... that's what the reference was to Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Mar 2004 at 13:40, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Offhand, I can't think of a single Leica lens that uses a 55mm filter. You might be thinking of the Noctilux which is the only Leica 50mm lens that I know of that takes large filters - 58mm and 60mm depending on the model. That's a very spendy lens because it's rather fast ... F 1.0. Both my APO Summicron-M 90 ASPH and Elmarit-M 21 ASPH take 55mm filters.
Re: Unidentified subject!
On 2 Mar 2004 at 14:32, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hmmm ... meant to *50mm* leica lens ... that's what the reference was to Ahh, OK, my 50/2 lenses had a 46mm threads and one used Series 7 filters and my 50/1 had a 60mm thread. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Unidentified subject!
Cotty said he was hoping his Canon D60 would last 10 to 15 years with repairs. I hope my D100 is viable as long, but I doubt it. Here's why. DSLRs are going to be manufacturer-repair only. Ye Olde Corner Camera Store can fix older mechanical cameras because they usually just need adjustment, or can use salvaged parts. They can sometimes fix electro-mechanical cameras, IF they can get parts. (This, BTW, is where I parted company with Pentax professionally--I was wearing out Super Program film advance gearing and Pentax wasn't making more. This was about 1994, 10 years after the Super-Program was introduced IIRC) But DSLRs have very complicated parts made in small quantities, and even the better camera repair shops aren't going to have the parts or the knowledge to fix them, so they will be factory or factory-authorized jobs only. What reason does Canon (or Nikon) have to support an older DSLR if the alternative is getting you to buy a new one? Nikon supposedly bulldozed an entire warehouse of F2 parts to get people to stop using their F2s and buy F3s. I've got an F2, and it's an orphan because parts are very hard to find. I've got two Nikkormat ELs and a handful of ME Supers and Super Programs which are in the same situation. All of these cameras are simple enough that if my repair shop doesn't need unique parts they can often get them working again--just adjustment, screws, etc. My LX is about to fall into this category, too. Another thing that drove me away from Pentax professionally is the hassle of getting the LX repaired. I'm building up enough Spotmatic SPIIs so that I'll have a collection of spare parts to keep the survivors going as long as I can get film for them. Spotmatics are simple enough that I might be able to get parts MADE for them, plus there were a couple million made so there are plenty out there to get parts from. DJE
Unidentified subject!
Subject: Re: Christmas present to myself... X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Panorama Internetu Mailer v2.02 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa³(a): I just received my new MZ-S! What a a great camera! PLUS: It is the silver version! And it takes all k-mount lenses ;-) I especially like the viewfinder which is very clear, i.e. manual focussing is a joy
Unidentified subject!
The news I just read was that the final groups using OS/2 are switching away. A good OS, it's now like Gaelic to languages. A few speak it, but it's not practical to do so. CRB (who still wears his OS/2 t-shirt to work on occasion) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:53:08 +0200 From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm... maybe it's time for IBM to revive the OS/2? ;) Alex Sarbu -- -- If bacon is the fruit of the hog then pork is a vegetable. --
Unidentified subject!
To RFsing: The point of view Miska continues to demonstrate is deplorable. If he can't adapt his beliefs and attitudes to this country, perhaps he should return to a government and political system he is more comfortable with. We won't miss him here... We -- like We, His Royal Highness? Anyway, thanks for letting me know that the freedom means the freedom to adapt my beliefs to yours. To Boris: -- It is also as much inappropriate to insult a father whose son just lost two feet in line of duty. My response was to posting the article which I find inappropriate for this list. I did not send it to the list. I was hinting to Bob that this is not the place to post it. I have sent my sypmathies to him about his son more than once. To Gary L. Murphy - Just consider the source. The Time Magazine People like that do not have the guts to fight for something they believe in I don't have tons of believes. OTOH, if you want a piece of me... To Bob Blakely Another PDML fucker. Thanks for taking my off-line responses to the list and starting another lively discussion. Again, I am sorry for your son's loss. I didn't imply anything about him personaly. But we've been over this times and again. To all: --- I have joined this list over a year ago hoping to discuss things at least remotely related to photography. I don't care if people here are americans, britts, russians, germans, finns, jews, or small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri, and if they slaughter cats, dolphins and bold eagles. As long as it happens off-list. Let's stop this now.
Re: Unidentified subject!
Mike Ignatiev wrote: To Gary L. Murphy - I don't have tons of believes. OTOH, if you want a piece of me... Bring it on, asshole! -- Later, Gary
Re: Unidentified subject!
Please stop it, or go away. Mike Ignatiev wrote: Let's stop this now.
Re: Unidentified subject!
Please don't change the subject lines on these arguments. Constantly updating killfiles gets to be a real chore. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: OT - Brit and proud (was: Unidentified subject!
My politics is between my brain and my fingers on this list. I suspect the feet fingers. ;-) Caveman, each hairy little one. lol. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Unidentified subject!
yup. for President of Iraq. where people would be able to fully appreciate the finer points of his wit. mishka Tony Blair for President :-) Cheers, Cotty
Re: Unidentified subject!
It's just occurred to me. When Cotty said Tony Blair for President he was trying to get someone to take him up on it, right? g keith Mike Ignatiev wrote: yup. for President of Iraq. where people would be able to fully appreciate the finer points of his wit. mishka Tony Blair for President :-) Cheers, Cotty
Re: OT - Brit and proud (was: Unidentified subject!
It's just occurred to me. When Cotty said Tony Blair for President he was trying to get someone to take him up on it, right? g Keith, you should know me better than that. My politics is between my brain and my fingers on this list. Just because I wrote 'Brit and proud' in the subject line doesn't necessarily mean that I am. However, the opposite could be true. No, I was just stirring ;-) Interesting seeing the reactions though. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT - Brit and proud (was: Unidentified subject!
Cotty wrote: It's just occurred to me. When Cotty said Tony Blair for President he was trying to get someone to take him up on it, right? g Keith, you should know me better than that. My politics is between my brain and my fingers on this list. Just because I wrote 'Brit and proud' in the subject line doesn't necessarily mean that I am. However, the opposite could be true. No, I was just stirring ;-) Interesting seeing the reactions though. It's when the stew is stirred that the interesting bits come to the top... g keith Cheers, Cotty
Re: OT - Brit and proud (was: Unidentified subject!
Cotty wrote: My politics is between my brain and my fingers on this list. I suspect the feet fingers. ;-) cheers, caveman
Unidentified subject!
I have only one thing to say, when I looked at the picture and noticed new Kodak camera (the 14 MP one), it made me feel immediately as if I was looking at some Borg technology. Man, it looks ugly... People making judgments on cameras, or any number of other things for that matter, based on pictures and spec sheets is really funny. Neither one of those things will give you any idea what it's like to use one. I got to play with the Kodak 14n at Photo Expo. I was impress with how solid it felt with a magnesium body (the main body casting is made by Kodak and not Nikon) and how smooth and vibration free the camera was when fired. It also felt good in the hand. BR If I can make the judgement just from the pictures (I unfortunately didn't have the option of playing with 14n yet), it seems to me very ergonomic, easy to handhold either in vertical or horizontal position, unlike cameras like LX (which, although looking gorgeous with the custom grip and winder and all, is boxy and pain to hold for hours nonstop, I know very well... my hands have ache spots from it). Simply, I side here with Bruce - the 14n seems to me to be very nicely smoothed and rounded so it will be good to handhold - no sharp edges. That's extremely important in pro work when you hold the camera for hours sometimes. I only hope they release the vertical grip for Ist D soon and that it will be ergonomic. Frantisek
Re: Unidentified subject!
I'd just like to add voice to the chorus that the Kodak camera sits well in the hand. However, it is touted to be light; which I think it is not. If your hands get weary from carrying an LX for a few hours, you'd need a bit of workout to keep up with this one. It's close to a kilo without batteries. I suggest you buy a Pentax 645nII to train with...:-) A good neck-strap might be a good idea too... Jostein - Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I can make the judgement just from the pictures (I unfortunately didn't have the option of playing with 14n yet), it seems to me very ergonomic, easy to handhold either in vertical or horizontal position, unlike cameras like LX (which, although looking gorgeous with the custom grip and winder and all, is boxy and pain to hold for hours nonstop, I know very well... my hands have ache spots from it). Simply, I side here with Bruce - the 14n seems to me to be very nicely smoothed and rounded so it will be good to handhold - no sharp edges. That's extremely important in pro work when you hold the camera for hours sometimes. I only hope they release the vertical grip for Ist D soon and that it will be ergonomic. Frantisek
Unidentified subject!
From: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] unlike cameras like LX (which, although looking gorgeous with the custom grip and winder and all, is boxy and pain to hold for hours nonstop, I know very well... my hands have ache spots from it). Jostein wrote: 'd just like to add voice to the chorus that the Kodak camera sits well in the hand. However, it is touted to be light; which I think it is not. If your hands get weary from carrying an LX for a few hours, you'd need a bit of workout to keep up with this one. It's close to a kilo without batteries. I suggest you buy a Pentax 645nII to train with...:-) A good neck-strap might be a good idea too... Jostein Hi, first, sorry about the missing subject. I have set a filter on my mailserver to delete all incoming pdml mails, so I can read them in the spare time on the mail-archive.com archive without filling my mailbox... second, it's not the weight of the LX that's the problem - my first Pentax was a K2DMD which is quite heavier, and the fast lenses are all around a kilo anyway... It's just the sharp,boxier edges cut into the palm or fingers. A friend who worked as a PJ much more than me disliked his nikon for the same reason. Frantisek
Unidentified subject!
Rob, can you please point me to where i could get one for that much money (that is, under 2k)? mishka Yep, his scanner only provides 3200 dpi at MF, it may have cost a bunch when he bought it but they are selling for well under 2k
Unidentified subject!
If I'm shooting in low light conditions and I have a longer lens at f/4 and a shorter lens at f/2.8, is there ever an advantage to using the shorter lens for the wider aperture, but a slower film speed, and then cropping and zooming on a portion of the picture? I do I pretty much always want to make the picture as big as I can and use a film appropriate to the lighting (which is probably 1600 speed)?
Re: Unidentified subject!
Gregory L. Hansen wrote: If I'm shooting in low light conditions and I have a longer lens at f/4 and a shorter lens at f/2.8, is there ever an advantage to using the shorter lens for the wider aperture, but a slower film speed, and then cropping and zooming on a portion of the picture? No. The area of the film is more significant than the speed of the film. The grain of an iso 200 film doesn't differ significantly from that of an iso 400 film (the difference between f 2.8 and f4), but losing part of your negative is a significant drawback. Paul
Re: Unidentified subject!
In a message dated 11/2/02 12:24:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: thanks now to find a 15mm just one on ebay recently Just a little note of caution. Before I got my 15mm I thought it was the greatest lens ever. It certainly looks cool. Once I got it, I realized that it was not one you wanted to carry too often and it was not an easy lens to use. I'm glad I have it and wouldn't trade it for anything but realize that once you have it you may not use it that much. Think of all the other ways you can spend the money and then make your decision... Vic
Re: Unidentified subject!
Before I got my 15mm I thought it was the greatest lens ever. It certainly looks cool. Once I got it, I realized that it was not one you wanted to carry too often and it was not an easy lens to use. I'm glad I have it and wouldn't trade it for anything but realize that once you have it you may not use it that much. Same here. The A 20/2.8 goes with me a lot, while the A 15/3.5 usually stays home (unless I know ahead of time that I might need it). (Same story, in fact, with the A 16/2.8 Fisheye - it's not nearly as large and bulky, but it's also a lens that's too specialized to use very frequently.) Fred
