beginner question...
I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me
forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake
after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better to
take the rest of the pictures with the correct iso setting or is
Hello all
I know Tamron/Sigma makes wonderful 28-200, 28-300mm zooms for Pentax.
They are nice and small and everything I can ask for. (If picture
quality matters that much I can always use my primes, there arer some
applications where one of these would do)
There is only one problem
I
Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the
'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets.
A well-known Canon dealer in the UK is advertising the D10 on pre-order
at 1499 GBP (with a 512MB CF card) - or 'your D60 and 500 GBP'. So if I
want to
Peter Alling schrieb:
Alan you're beginning to become like Bruce. The changes I know of to the
LX were all improvements
I don't have one of the earliest models but my 18+ year old body has been
about as reliable as my
5 year old model. Both are particularly solid and reliable.
Hm, I
That's why i'm going to stick with film for a few more years.
I dont need instant results. The new pentax digital is probably as good
as 35mm film, but not 67 or 4X5. I am in no hurry to buy into
DSLR at this point for sure. I'm going to wait for full frame
and 10 Mpixel for under $1000. Then
Hi,
Monday, March 10, 2003, 8:45:43 AM, you wrote:
beginner question...
I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me
forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake
after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better to
take
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Cotty wrote:
PS: Coulthard WON - go the Brits!
Aye, but Barry Sheene died last night too :-(
Chris
Hey Thomas,
You know you aren't allowed to point out the flaws of the mighty LX here,
don't you? :-)
regards,
Alan Chan
Hm, I dunno!
I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later.
Got repaired within several weeks(!), failed another six month later.
Then I got it back with
Alan Chan schrieb:
Hey Thomas,
You know you aren't allowed to point out the flaws of the mighty LX here,
don't you? :-)
Ooops...did I forget to mention, that I still love this camera?
*g*
Thomas
Hm, I dunno!
I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later.
Got
Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 10.03.2003, 10:43:11:
continue to use 100 for the rest of the roll. When you process it tell
the person who does the developing that it was exposed at ISO 100 and
they will compensate. They will probably charge a little extra.
Thanks!
is this
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: wrong iso choosen
beginner question...
I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me
forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake
after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better
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?
Pål
fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no
distortion.
it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with
no distortion.
from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just different.
when speaking of lenses, no distortion usually
on 10.03.03 13:16, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
Sylwester wrote:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping down.
It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was all about.
Pål
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
Hi,
Monday, March 10, 2003, 10:54:52 AM, you wrote:
Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 10.03.2003, 10:43:11:
continue to use 100 for the rest of the roll. When you process it tell
the person who does the developing that it was exposed at ISO 100 and
they will compensate. They will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] discussing trading up to the latest Canon D10 writes:
If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it,
in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed.
The new camera may have a metal shell with...
Cotty,
This is why you
on 10.03.03 13:43, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sylwester wrote:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping
down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was
all
Boz wrote:
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). :-(
Very likely scenario. Maybe we can hope for a high-end KAF3 lens series in the fall
that maintain the aperture
We already knows he makes up his own rules, and ignores those that are
stupid to him.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fisheye lenses are defined as follows:
A fisheye lens produces extreme barrel distortion and exagerated
forshortening in the center by the ICP encyclopedia of Photography, your
On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote:
fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no
distortion.
it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no
distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just
different.
Work, work, work.
According to this page (http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm)
AF-S will work on F4, N70, N90 and newer bodies.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance Nikon's AF-S lenses
work using ultrasonic motors even with such a venerable bodies like F4 (but
I am not sure of
Boz wrote:
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). :-(
It might be that Pentax will maintain compatibility on higher end KAF3 bodies. Anyway,
one cannot really expect a
Subject: RE: Mamiya fisheye
On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote:
fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no
distortion.
it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on
a plane with no
distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear
Exactly so...
keith whaley
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote:
fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no
distortion.
it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no
distortion. from this point of
Hi Pål,
on 10 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont?
Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the
stopping down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the
KAF3 was all about.
I don't believe that Pentax
Intellectual property is highly regarded in most corners of the
universe, except one insignificant little blue-green planet in the
unfashionable parts of the western spiral arm of the galaxy. The
people of which are so amazingly primitive that they still think
digital cameras is a pretty neat
Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but the free version is not TTL,
just slave.
Jostein
-- Original Message --
From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 19:00:26 -0500
You bet it does!. It winks, it blinks
I've recently been looking at some of the (to me) competitive digital
cameras. I want a small one, and will either use it in conjunction
with my much larger older one, or if it's good enough, it will be a
replacement for it.
However...
When looking at the CCD tech info, I find the following data,
Speculation, just for the fun of it:
If there is a KAF-3, it's not the J. Else they'd have named it such.
Rather, the J is a KAF-2 as Junk (cheap) version. Missing features for
profitability purposes.
KAF3 will be fully KAF-2 compatible and will add features within the lens.
Piezo-motor
Hi,
JCO wrote:
a fisheye with almost no distortion? Isn't that an oxymoron?
I get the impression that they mean distortion other than the
fisheye effect. Maybe someone more optically unchallenged,
based in Finland, would like to contribute?
In any case, the study is a waste of time and
Answer interspersed.
From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just find the dark area a little distracting,
especially with the big
halo around the flower at the top (which I like).
They compete for the
attention of my eye.
Ok. Tried it again, and I see your point. However, my experience
of
You know, Cotty, that might be _the_ most important reason for
Pentax to get a sturdy bug-free camera first time around. To
actually prove that they can make a camera that satisfy for a good
while. Then they won't have to upgrade themselves out of design
faults (sex-appeal aside,
- Original Message -
From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 08:33
Subject: Digital sensor elements
When looking at the CCD tech info, I find the following data, on the
three cameras Im considering:
type sizecolor depth
OptioS
On 10 Mar 2003 at 5:33, Keith Whaley wrote:
I suspect color depth and bit depth are somehow different, but I
don't know how.
Colour depth generally refers to the cumulative number of bits that represent
the individual colour components ie 24bit (red, green and blue) colour but the
same
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:33:52 -0800, Keith Whaley wrote:
typesize color depth
OptioS1/2.5 inline CCD 3.34 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors
Pentax 4501/1.8 4.13 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors
Pentax 5501/1.8
Where they go around yelling, Badges? We don't need no stkin' badges!
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Intellectual property is highly regarded in most corners of the
universe, except one insignificant little blue-green planet in the
unfashionable parts of the western spiral arm of the galaxy. The
Hi, Frank.
Yes, it's grainy, but I don't think it's as grainy as
TriX. It's a good film with classic look (a la trix,
not tmax style). I suppose it's not T grain
technology. I like it. Please note it's not first hand
experience. A friend of mine use it all the time and i
see his results
Regards
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Cotty wrote:
PS: Coulthard WON - go the Brits!
A fact that my wife announced to me as she climbed into bed at 5 o'clock (was
it?) on Sunday morning.
Aye, but Barry Sheene died last night too :-(
:( vivid memories of cross channel ferries bearing Mr S.
Peter
Boz wrote:
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). :-(
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes:
This is what
Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I
know ofgrr
Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with
the *ist D?
If so, I can start selling now and make the switch to
another brand for digital.
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CN16 is Fuji-s analog of C41 (Kodak) process. To pull or push color
neg.films You or your lab needs film processor with SPECIAL DRIVE MOTOR.
Cheers , Raivo
Taz,
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Michael Cross
Taz wrote:
Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I
know ofgrr
Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with
the *ist D?
If so, I can start
Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
*ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed
off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D.
At 04:09 PM 3/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Steve wrote:
Are you saying that K M lenses will not
Cotty wrote:
Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the
'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets.
It's only depreciation, if you have the desire to have the very latest
camera. If you are happy it does what you want, why change?
Deprecation
Holy mackerel! Here we go again!
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: Taz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:28 PM
Subject:
That's just it. I've had some troubles with every camera I've ever owned. I
give them hard use, sometimes to destruction. (If someone wants some mangled
Spotmatic parts I may be able to find the body I dropped off the cliff). The
only problem I've had with an LX came after a CLA. I know other
Wasn't that 4 out of 5 burrows of NYC, where civilization has come and gone? Bob S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Where they go around yelling, Badges? We don't need no
stkin' badges!
BR
Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have
fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50
for a throwing object.)
Taz,
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Michael Cross
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boz wrote:
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). :-(
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote:
Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera
industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold mines.
It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera makers.
Nick
Peter wrote:
PA Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
PA *ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed
PA off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D.
If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new
K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a
beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540)
On March 9, 2003 04:45 pm, William Robb wrote:
Good point, but if your two year old digital camera set you back the better
part of two grand, you are probably going to be looking to repair, no
matter what they have improved.
Odds are if you've spent $2k on a camera you really need
Arnold Stark wrote:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at
www.pentax.de?
What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ? Without having to click I am a
consenting adult ? I am deeply offended. I will sell all my Pentax
B H has posted a price of $299.95 for the *ist. It's not available
yet, but coming soon.
Michael
Someone posted that K and M Pentax equipment was obsolete. Great! Now we can
make some money. I sold my obsolete Alpa Reflex 9D, a couple of years ago,
for 17 times what I paid for it new.
D
___
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote:
Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera
industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold
mines.
It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera
makers.
Nick
True, but to
No, the bird's eye lens was never put into production.
At 08:27 PM 3/10/2003 +0300, you wrote:
I have no intent to argue the terminology and definitions of fish, eye
and distortion, with either you or encyclopedia.
I asked the forum a question. Mind you, about a lens, patented by Pentax.
I
Or take the features of the ZX-M and put it in the K1000 metal body, now
that would be a very attractive camera to me. The ZX-M has been compared as
the K1000 replacement.
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new
K1000, metal body and all What would they have to
i notice that the BH site has changed over the weekend so that where it used to just
say Photography as a major category, it now says Film Photography.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003
If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it,
in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed.
The new camera may have a metal shell with...
Cotty,
This is why you are a Pentax user at heart!
...less flashy, more emphasis on function.
Alin wrote:
If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales
projection then I expect them to be very, very scrupulous about
the support for K/M lenses.
Even the incompatibility of new KAF3 lenses with old cameras will
be almost inconsequential compared to the
Taz wrote:
I still say if Pentax doesn't make a body to
support these old lenses they are shooting themselves in the foot.
I think that from the manufacturers point of view it is actually the other way around.
Pentax need to give reason for consumers to stop using old lenses and start buying
Arnold wrote:
Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what
Pentax USA writes:
Again I have to repeat that the *ist and ist D was designed with limitation from K and
M lenses. As the *ist D is not finalized yet, things may change. Perhaps they have
changed
Michael wrote:
The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses.
Not to mention how bad it works with Pentax K and M lenses...
Pål
Malcolm wrote:
Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking
cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a
local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to
upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy
- Original Message -
From: Taz
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have
fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50
for a throwing object.)
If you want full backwards lens
It would be better to use the FM2n, since that was in production for a
long time with a price history. I would not be surprised if the price
ratio difference between the K1000 and FM/FM2n was pretty constant over
time. When the FM2n stopped being sold last year it sold for $400-$500.
The K1000
- Original Message -
From: Peter Alling
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the
*ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more
pissed
off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D.
Only partial. Less than you'd see on German Billboards.
At 01:21 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Arnold Stark wrote:
Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation!
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at
www.pentax.de?
What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ?
Probably not any cheaper.
At 01:18 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new
K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a
beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Steven Desjardins
Department of
Peter Alling wrote:
Maybe it's a quality control problem, how else
to you reconcile Pål's experience with William Robb's experiences.
Bill has already confessed that he attempted to mount some Nikon lens on
his LX. No wonder that at the sight of such bokeh his LX has since
refused to work.
DUH! You would wind up doing exactly what you don't want for Pentax!
(Not being able to use old lenses on new bodies.) The deal with Nikon is
that you can get a full sized/cost body like the F100 and use all the
new AF and AI MF lenses. Get a new compact AF body (N80) and only be
able to
snip
BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de?
All the nice product-pdf to download are gone ... :.-(
Thomas
Maybe you'll be closer with the *ist D :-) .
Frits Wüthrich wrote:
On Monday 10 March 2003 18:06, Michael Cross wrote:
B H has posted a price of $299.95 for the *ist. It's not available
yet, but coming soon.
Michael
Hum, my guees was $300, so I was $0.05 off.
$1 = £1.
See comments below (long):
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
But then you get worse compatibility with older lenses. Frankly, I
can't see any K and M lens owner going to buy an *ist, just like they
don't buy the MZ-60.
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I
Part of that possibility is further fostered by the existing DSLR's in both
camps stables. However the *ist D appearance on the horizon has changed
that idea to a point. However my buying any DSLR at this time is not going
to happen, I'm rather trying to position myself in the best possible
Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm?
At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote:
I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when
you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
They need to tempt users to new lenses, not introduce compatibility
issues.
They would tempt me with a nice AF portrait lens. Let's see:
FA 77 - greta lens, but too short focal length
FA 85 - too expensive, a little bit short, great for indoor only
FA 100/2.8 macro -
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap
and entry level.
cheers,
caveman
Matt Bevers wrote:
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists
that the *ist is entry level
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their
mount
Pl wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we
are talking
cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby
money. I have a
local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to
upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet
-Original Message-
From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$109 to fix my broken AF500FTZ sniff, oh well it must
be done
I pay $92 every time I have mine fixed. Doesn't seem to matter what's
wrong with it.
tv
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's
quite soft.
Huh?
I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp.
So where's that killer portrait lens ? I was looking hard
and my best
bet
I wrote:
Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same information I
have. I also originally believed that the *ist and *ist D was fully compatible but
was told that only lenses with electroning contacts will work fully on the *ist.
Actually, I've received contra
Matt wrote:
If you walk into the average US camera store, you see two pentax models
on the shelf: The ZX-60 and the ZX-L. The *ist will probably take the
ZX-L's shelf space, but I just don't see people looking for a $150
camera paying $300 just because somebody claims the *ist is entry
- Original Message -
From: Taz
Subject: Re: wrong iso choosen
My needs in this department are for example pushing 400 to 800 or 800 to
1600. Thus overexposure isn't my problem. However that I/O switch should
cover thatnow if I can just get my local lab to investigate that
- Original Message -
From: Caveman
Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap
and entry level.
You get to choose any two of cheap, entry
Bruce wrote:
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will
On 03.3.10 1:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want it from Pentax, avoid the very bottom end models, as they are
for people who glue their lens on so they won't lose it.
No kidding! :-)
Reports from Pentax Roadshow indicate that the lens release button on *ist
(film) is
It all makes sense ... there is no middle ground. I feel much better
now.
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Caveman wrote:
Matt,
Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap,
entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is
cheap and entry level.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:08:22 -0500, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete,
and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF
mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back
fitted to do so.
$109 Cad, new front and rear case, $13 in parts, $7
shipping, taxes, labour, thank Pentax tho the MZ-3 is
under warranty ( they said if the pop up went even
after they'd still fix it free ) and $109 is still
less than a new one.
--- tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
On 03.3.10 2:40 PM, Matt Bevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists
that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the
MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60
$149). There are, however, a
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
The MZ/ZX series is 8 years old. According to Pentax sources and
official info in Japan, Pentax regards the *ist as entry level. It was
not my invention. The *ist is the first in a new generation of Pentax
bodies.
Are all the new
tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's
quite soft.
Huh?
I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp.
I was reading Stan Halpin's site, Yoshihiko's comments and the photodo
MTF
No where did I say never. It has proven to be the most forward looking
mount. The lens mount doesn't have to be changed for a lens with smaller
area of coverage. Anyway, it's Canon and they can pretty much call
whatever tune they like.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce wrote:
In the most
William
Rather then rant, why not just tell me what film and process can be pushed
in a color print type film. I just want to know how to push film and get it
properly processed when I only have a 800 ISO film with me and am told after
I'm already there that using my flash is not allowed so that
1 - 100 of 180 matches
Mail list logo
