On Dec 14, 2004, at 7:12 AM, Doug Franklin wrote:
It is, after all, the Pointless Discussion Mailing List. :-)
I am _very_ mad at you for saying that! I have just sprayed my morning
coffee all over my computer's screen and keyboard because of you!
(and it was uproariously funny!!! But only becaus
Bee in flower, that is...
I grabbed this one with my brothers N***n outside the polling station while
he was participating in democracy.
I suppose that it might be outside the rules, seeing as it was produced
with equipment from the dark side, but I figured that violators wouldn't be
prosecuted
I'm glad I managed to get the SMC-K 2.5/135mm again after having sold one
years ago. It's brilliant. If you want annother great lens, get a SMC-K
2.8/105mm. It's even better!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Don Sanderson [mailt
This reminds me of the Cliffs of Moher, County Clare, Ireland:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side15.html
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 9. december 2004 03:10
Til: [EMAIL
Funny website. As I enter it there's a picture of a Pentax, that quickly
goes away. When entering the DSLR page - there's no Pentax!!!
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Kostas Kavoussanakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12. d
Chris. I can't say that I had similar, negative experiences. I just checkede
twice with my SMC-M 2.8/35mm and got equally exposed frames all the time. I
suggest you check your lens for the old "slow aperture syndrom". If it
doesn't close down properly during metering, but OK during exposure, you'll
I am stating a reality where I live. It is not cost effective to
shoot film for the quality sake. All they do is scan it and charge me
more than for digital prints. So I am not getting any better quality,
I am paying for film, developing and more for the prints. So even if
it can be shown that
So, if I want to change my phone number or have the phone disconnected, I
should call my aunt, whom I call often - and not the phone company?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Andrew Thornton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 12.
Thats right isn't this the Pointless Discussion Mailing List?
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: The film is dead
this whole discussion is very pointless.
That is the whole point of this mailing list.
William Robb
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't g
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:50:19 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> > this whole discussion is very pointless.
>
> That is the whole point of this mailing list.
It is, after all, the Pointless Discussion Mailing List. :-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:41:17 -0800, Juan Buhler wrote:
>My gf is ready to upgrade from her 5Mp Optio to a digital SLR. She
>wants more control, better lenses and the option to focus manually.
>She's not willing to shoot film, having had a digital camera for a
>while now.
>The only reason for her
William Robb mused:
>
> Digital can look very good indeed, but a well printed negative (my
> opinion only) still has an edge.
I doubt if anyone would disagree with that statement
(albeit possibly with reservations about visible grain).
But that's a long way from the insulting and dismissive
put
Juan Buhler wrote:
>
> >My gf is ready to upgrade from her 5Mp Optio to a digital SLR. She
> >wants more control, better lenses and the option to focus manually.
> >She's not willing to shoot film, having had a digital camera for a
> >while now.
> >
> >Of course, as any god-fearing PDML member and
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
> That's just comparing a printer system to an enlarger system.
As I said in another post, there is always going to be an element
of
apple and oranges.
As unscientific as it is, my final arbiter is "do I like i
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:21:41 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> > That's just comparing a printer system to an enlarger system.
>
> As I said in another post, there is always going to be an element of
> apple and oranges.
As unscientific as it is, my final arbiter is "do I like it?".
TTYL, DougF KG4
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
The fair comparison is to compare a high quality optical print to
digital.
That's just comparing a printer system to an enlarger system.
As I said in another post, there is always going to be an element of
appl
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:05:26 -0600, William Robb wrote:
> More to the point, they are comparing scanned film to digital.
> They are really comparing whatever scanner they are using to a
> digital camera.
>
> The fair comparison is to compare a high quality optical print to
> digital.
That's ju
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Girlfriend going Canon, help!
Isn't your undying love and affection enough?
Access to Juan's lenses should certainly be enough.
However, if the bottom line is the bottom line. Canon will buy new
customers every time.
They can af
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
A reality in my neck of the woods, is that it is not reasonably
possible to get optical prints. All the labs have gone digital and
are therefore scanning your film. Even my 67 stuff was not looking
that impress
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
The fair comparison is to compare a high quality optical print to
digital.
Do that, and yer 6 megapixie dslr starts to look like cheap junk.
Not really. But you can believe that if you want.
You have really come to like the li
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
What would be a fair or reasonable test?
Any test of this sort is going to have some apples vs. oranges
component to it.
What prompted my comment was seeing the very large colour prints that
my friend Kim Dig
- Original Message -
From: "Mishka"
Subject: Re: The film is dead
this whole discussion is very pointless.
That is the whole point of this mailing list.
William Robb
Isn't your undying love and affection enough?
Juan Buhler wrote:
My gf is ready to upgrade from her 5Mp Optio to a digital SLR. She
wants more control, better lenses and the option to focus manually.
She's not willing to shoot film, having had a digital camera for a
while now.
Of course, as any god
- Original Message -
From: "Frits Wüthrich"
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
Please unsubscribe me from the people giving unsubscribe info to
people who asked to be unsubscribed, they are spoiling all the fun
for the rest.
This discussion is pointless.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Niesmertelny"
Subject: Re: *ist D - Exposure issues - lenses other than A
I'm really disappointed that this issue could be the meter
sensitivity
running out. Am I the only person who has used a non-A lens on the
*ist D
and tried to take a long exposur
Some 6600 shots so far.
I've had a couple of lock ups requiring removal of the batteries to
make it go away. Seems to be related to a combination of the focus
point selector being between positions and trying to do some other
operation, but I don't recall which.
I have more hot pixels than I sho
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: The film is dead
Yeah, I'm getting the sense that the days for color film are
numbered, and,
frankly, that's OK with me. From what I've seen of good digital
color work
it's a more than acceptable alternative. I'd really like to
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt"
Subject: RE: The film is dead
Shel
Sadly this is true (the B&W stuff). I am, however, quite surprised
that
black and white have lasted this long. Colour photography was
invented app.
100 years ago. So, it has taken 100 years to out-compete black
Jens,
I think you meant 1/3 AHEAD and 2/3 BEHIND the focusing distance. It's easy
to verify this. Look at the DOF scale on a lens (you'll probably need an
old lens to check this) and you'll see that the far-side limit of DOF
encompasses more metres, feet or furlongs (as is your wont) between its
It's fare based on likely results, but not on optimal results. You can
achieve a better result with film
than with digital, but that's not usually possible. That's why I expect
to keep a film body or two for
B&W until you can no longer get film.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
A reality in my neck of the
HI!
>> Rob, what you say begs the next question - what are the terms? Or will the
>> image
>> quality/camera response deteriorate before batteries are useless?
>>From recollection the battery indicator "blinks" and warning of critical low
RS> battery state. If you continue shooting the camera wi
My gf is ready to upgrade from her 5Mp Optio to a digital SLR. She
wants more control, better lenses and the option to focus manually.
She's not willing to shoot film, having had a digital camera for a
while now.
Of course, as any god-fearing PDML member and Pentax user would do, I
recommended an
A reality in my neck of the woods, is that it is not reasonably
possible to get optical prints. All the labs have gone digital and
are therefore scanning your film. Even my 67 stuff was not looking
that impressive. So for a reasonable cost per print and not having to
travel long distances, compa
The second. By the way there is also a difference in overall length,
though for the life of me I can't
remember which is longer the earlier or later.
Don Sanderson wrote:
Do you know how to tell for sure JCO?
The only specs I can find say the 5/4 is
444 grams and the 6/6 is 470 grams.
All other s
What would be a fair or reasonable test?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> More to the point, they are comparing scanned film to digital.
> They are really comparing whatever scanner they are using to a
> digital camera.
>
> The fair comparison is to compare
Yep, that's a cat alright...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Just grabbed this one a moment ago ... if you have a cat, or know cat's,
you may enjoy this QuikSnap made with the little Sony.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/budtail.html
Shel
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war.
During
based on this information, i believe you had an error during transfer of the
image from the card, or that there is a bad spot on the card.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Widall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Str
And Cotty thinks I should work for a tabloid.
Bob Blakely wrote:
Please subscribe me to the list of folks whocan't figure out how to
unsubscribe so that I can berate them and reduce them to a quivering
mass of goo.
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 13/12/04, William Robb, dis
> The fair comparison is to compare a high quality optical print to
> digital.
> Do that, and yer 6 megapixie dslr starts to look like cheap junk.
>
Not really. But you can believe that if you want.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Zaninovic"
> Subject: Re: Fw: The film is d
Jon,
I drove in from Chicago for my 1st GFM last year - 2 days in.
My wife and I enjoyed the seminars (she is a non-photographer).
The scenery is special and the people are extraordinary, both Pentax & hosts.
We met the notorious members of the list, and the less vocal folks.
We met friends from ac
- Original Message -
From: "David Zaninovic"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
Most of the comparisons are cropping film to the size of APS and
then comparing with digital, that is not fair.
More to the point, they are comparing scanned film to digital.
They are really comparing whateve
Nice one Shel, talk show?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: PAW PESO - The World is Not Enough
>
>
> Forgive me that I'm posting a few pics today. I'm working with a borro
Well hell, the SMC 105/2.8 must be worth more than $175. Grab it before
they change their mind to make a fortune on e-bay.
Gateway wrote:
I've been offered the following. Leaving aside the fact that it's all 30
years old or thereabouts is this a good deal?
I'm entering my disco fever retro 70's
Both very nice shots!
This one is not capable of your 2.8 quality until
8 or 11.
I have a refund on its way.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Two lenses, one great, o
Hmmm, the only place I found (Darios) that gave the
length lists both as 86mm, which this one is.
At $15.50 I'm pretty happy either way but is one
supposed to be much better than the other?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December
While the 40/2.8 isn't the sharpest lens around I'd not base my
impression on an obviously
damaged specimen. This was taken with a 40mm I think it's very sharp at
f11, more than
merely acceptable.
http://pug.komkon.org/03may/dingie2.html
This one was taken with the 40mm at f2.8. (and I have no
Forgive me that I'm posting a few pics today. I'm working with a borrowed
scanner and digging out some prints from the "bottom of the box."
Here's something from quite a few years back ... a little different from
the usual postings. You might see this one from a couple of perspectives.
http:/
the 6 element version is longer,
85mm from the front edge of the barrel
to the flange, the 5 element version
is only 80mm measured same way.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 10:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Two
Do you know how to tell for sure JCO?
The only specs I can find say the 5/4 is
444 grams and the 6/6 is 470 grams.
All other specs are identical.
Mine weighs in at 473 grams buck naked.
Which is supposed to be the better of the 2?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[
I shot 107 photographs today with my *ist-DS and DA18-55mm. I've
examined every one for 'banding' but can only find 4 images which are
affected. Three of them have multiple stripes running through them,
the fourth (which I took from a slightly different position than the
pther three) has only three
Right sorry, my bad :p
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:25:13 -0500, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are no Kmount SMC takumars. All the Kmount
> takumars were budget single coated lenes. ALL
> SMC Takumar lenses are M42.
>
> the question that needs asking is whether
> the 135mm F2.
there are no Kmount SMC takumars. All the Kmount
takumars were budget single coated lenes. ALL
SMC Takumar lenses are M42.
the question that needs asking is whether
the 135mm F2.5 SMC Takumar he was using is
the 5 element or the 6 element version?
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Chan Yong W
Excepted from my journal--
2004 Grandfather Mountain Nature Photo Weekend
What a great time. Lots of folks from the Pentax Mailing List were there as well
as the regulars came from places as far away as Australia, Germany, Norway,
England, Canada, and of course from all over the US. I managed to
I went last year for the first time. It was *probably* the biggest
gathering of PDML folks that'll ever happen. It was GREAT. Really great.
Hey, is Tom going to bring that Pizza again? Him not being on the list has
put the Pizza in doubt. Pizza being in doubt, let alone GOOD pizza, is a
VER
>
Henry Moore??
annsan
(coffee for me :) - but I'm not sure I'm right
Are you referring to the M42 or K-mount version of the SMCT 135/2.5?
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:20:11 -0600, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Recieved and played with two lenses on the D today.
> (After thawing them out, b! Winter just got here!)
>
> SMCT 135/2.5
> Superb all the way,
Due to changing taste and technology. No reason for that standard to
not return.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, John Francis wrote:
Jens Bladt mused:
Intersting. It look like the old 40mm pancake lens. Funny focal length -
like 60mm on a 35mm camera.
Nothing much
"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
Regards,
Bob...
From: "Jeroen van Riel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I live in the Netherlands and I can't phone you. Please unsubscribe me
as I requested,
lots of people in the financial industry think that all of Kodak's film
production and processing worldwide will be in China in 5 years and make
noises that Kodak will be mostly out of the photographic film business in 10
years except for single use cameras.
Herb...
- Original Message -
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:39:41 -0500, Paul Stenquist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2951716&size=lg
Seems like nobody commented on this Paul, so here you go:
I like it. The contrast between red and green works, although I think
the green of the lime is a b
On 13 Dec 2004 at 19:40, Mishka wrote:
> since you are the guy who showed me how to do PC in PS, could you also explain
> what do you mean by "non-absolute' (relative?) pixels??? (no sarcasm -- i am
> genuinely curious)
What I mean is that you will never see adjacent pixels in any 1:1 scanned or
Cool! Thanks Doug.
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 6:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: What's the GFM photo weekend like?
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:45:35 -0600, Don Sanderson wrote:
>
> > I joined
Rob Studdert Wrote:
Answer:
I do not think so, and that wasnt my point. I do think that there is going
to be a need for film for many years to come. And the reason for that is
that only 5 percent of all people on this planet have a computer and access
to the Internet.
And what you probably di
It could be worse. Most of the spam I get talk about increasing my
breast size
Alex Sarbu (in case you don't know, I *am* a male. No, I don't intend
to change that )
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:41:12 +0100, Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Monday, December 13, 2004, 7:55:00 PM, Peter wrote:
KK> Does anyone have any experience of Sigma flashes? What is the colour
KK> (balance?) of light they emit? Pentax does very nice in that respect
KK> in my eyes.
dunno. why don't you gel the strobe? I have all of mine gelled. it's the
easiest solution. I know, sorry for not
answering your questio
Anyone here know where I might be able to purchase a
Pentax fa* 200 macro f4 lens, new or used?
All info appreciated.
Harald
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
There are a couple of other, far less expensive, options. Don't have the
info handy right now, but, IIRC, just doing a search on a particular film
size - oh, wait, maybe Freestyle has a few sizes. Some are still produced
by Kodak and Fuji if memory serves me (which it does only sporadically
these
I'm really disappointed that this issue could be the meter sensitivity
running out. Am I the only person who has used a non-A lens on the *ist D
and tried to take a long exposure picture? Anyone care to give it a try for
me?
Best regards,
Chris Niesmertelny
- Original Message -
From:
Thanks for the feedback, Rob. I used the cap on the viewfinder and still
have the same issue. I suspect you and W. Robb are on to something with
respect to the meter sensitivity.
Tis a pity and a PITA.
Thanks,
Chris Niesmertelny
>
> > I broke out some non-A lenses to play with on the *ist D
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Still recovering from my Tamron 17-35 purchase but I'm gonna have to get
> one of these eventually!
Does anyone have any experience of Sigma flashes? What is the colour
(balance?) of light they emit? Pentax does very nice in that respect
in my eyes.
Kos
In the days when the local pros were still making optical prints for their
portolios, labs like Meteor were doing a good job. But there's no high-end
market for optical prints any more. I must have looked at a hundred portfolios
over the last three months. Most were US shooters, some Europeans,
That was a problem in the area way before digital came along. In Ann Arbor I was
able to get very good prints made at ridiculous prices because there was a
photographer who was also a truly great color printer. He was also tired of
darkroom work, thus the high prices ($25/8x10 in 1982-85). I was
Opps that is the same guy who we have been berating for sending an unsubscribe
notice to the list. At least he tried to unsub, guess I owe him at least 1/2 of
an apology. Guess I will cc: this to Doug so he can unsub the guy:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof"
>> So, $15.50 for EX- with original metal hood, VMC skylight,
>> Vivitar 2x and all 4 original caps isn't too bad?
> Please stop this conversation, I need to work, rather than dream
> of going about with my K135/2.5 mounted on a camera :-)
Har! Yes, I've got to get out the K 135/2.5 and put it
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:45:35 -0600, Don Sanderson wrote:
> I joined the list just after the last PDML visit
> to GFM.
> I've lost track of the other URL's from you guys.
> Would someone mind sending me any lists they have
> of "reports", etc. on last year?
No reports, but you'll find a page of li
this whole discussion is very pointless.
mishka.
Hi,
Tuesday, December 14, 2004, 12:29:42 AM, frank wrote:
> I thought I'd have a "real" PAW ready for today, but it wasn't ready.
> So, to satisfy my pathological need to show my photos, I thought I'd
> PESO another photo taken at the Art Gallery of Ontario, taken on a
> recent visit with two of
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:21:36 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just grabbed this one a moment ago ... if you have a cat, or know cat's,
> you may enjoy this QuikSnap made with the little Sony.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/budtail.html
>
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a b
since you are the guy who showed me how to do PC in PS, could you also explain
what do you mean by "non-absolute' (relative?) pixels??? (no sarcasm --
i am genuinely curious)
thanks,
mishka
> It's not that bad, rarely are pixel values absolute so even linear compression
> or expansion of 50% (whi
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:09:00 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just thought i would do a global thanks to all who:
You're such a Canadian, Dave!
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:09:13 -, Ryan Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hot off the press!
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2949257
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2949263
> and I kid you not,
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2949266
>
> So on a bit of a b
> Recently I posted a photo of a mailbox taken with the K105/2.8.
> Even at the small size required for web viewing the bokeh was
> nowhere near as bad as that which you've shown us.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/mailboxes/catbox.html
Hi, Shel. I'd say that the bokeh in the photo of your "
My K 135/2.5 is among my most frequently used lenses on the *ist D. I often
use it for tabletop studio shots where I want to limit the depth of field. I
also used it for my wakeboarding series. Great lens. Here's one from the water:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2686475&size=lg
>
For my money, the NiMh are the way to go. I was getting about 1000 shots on
my *ist D, in Alaska, last September between charges - no flash usage, but I
did do some in camera edit at the end of the day's shoot. I'm using Ray O
Vac's 2000ma's that recharge in 15 minutes
I've got about $ 50 into 8 AA
I thought I'd have a "real" PAW ready for today, but it wasn't ready.
So, to satisfy my pathological need to show my photos, I thought I'd
PESO another photo taken at the Art Gallery of Ontario, taken on a
recent visit with two of my girls:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2956991&size
Hi,
Tuesday, December 14, 2004, 12:21:36 AM, Shel wrote:
> Just grabbed this one a moment ago ... if you have a cat, or know cat's,
> you may enjoy this QuikSnap made with the little Sony.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/budtail.html
looks like your priest's moustache has escaped...
--
C
Mark Roberts wrote on 14.12.04 15:50:
> According to an email I just received from Sigma, the EF500 DG SUPER
> P-TTL flash is now available. This is the new version of their
> top-of-the-line flash that is compatible with Pentax P-TTL. It's not yet
> listed on Sigma's web site but it *is* on the B
If anybody needs one of these, I just posted it on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3860580641
It is a very nice lens, and one of the best optically. However, I recently
acquired an 80-320mm, which is not quite as good optically, but I mostly use
this focal length range
Just grabbed this one a moment ago ... if you have a cat, or know cat's,
you may enjoy this QuikSnap made with the little Sony.
http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/budtail.html
Shel
Hi,
I have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of the K105/2.8 bokeh. I
say somewhat because it's clear that the lens can produce such a mess, but
the thing about the quality of bokeh depends on many factors such as
subject to lens distance, background to lens distance, details or lack of
d
That argument keeps coming up. It is silly, because people that poor are not
using film either. In actuallity you need electricity to set up a darkroom, you
only need drycell batteries to us a digital camera.
I am on the pro-film side of the street, but that is a straw-horse argument if
there e
>> the question that needs asking is whether the 135mm F2.5 SMC
>> Takumar he was using is the 5 element or the 6 element version?
> Do you know how to tell for sure JCO?
Looking at the DOF scale numbers next to the aperture ring, the 5/4
version says
"22168 81622"
while the 6/6 version says
"
> What sort of cards does the Canon take, and, if they aren't
> SD, how much
> would she spend on new cards in addition to the quoted price of body
> and "similar" lens?
SD and CF cost about the same amount. The Dreb takes CF, which means she and
Juan can share cards if they have to if he's usi
Hmm...a year after the fact, Nate still wishes he'd waited for the istD to
come out instead of pouncing on the DReb when it came out. You might want to
tell your GF something like that. He prefers the build and controls of the
istD. Have you let her play with your camera and the DReb to see which o
Thanks Fred, I have the 4 on mine = 6/6.
This verifies Shen's info on the number on
the auto/man switch.
So, $15.50 for EX- with original metal hood,
VMC skylight, Vivitar 2x and all 4 original
caps isn't too bad?
Don
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: T
Ditto
-Original Message-
From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Dec 14, 2004 12:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead
>> > That's just comparing a printer system to an
On this one the "seperation" I refer to can only
be seen if you hold the lens up to a strong light as
tiny "swirl" marks around the outer edge of the element.
The great majority of it looks clear and clean.
Just for grins I took a shot with my 28-70 AL, which is
seperated badly enough to be "fogged
> SMCT 135/2.5
> Superb all the way, not bad even at 2.5.
> By 5.6 one of the sharpest I've seen with very
> "natural" OOF areas.
> Large and heavy but very smooth and easy to work with.
This is my impression with the SMC "K" 135/2.5, exactly. It's a
~gorgeous~ lens design. Having, say, an A* 13
"Wel-come to the Pen-tax dis-cuss-mail-list."
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 5:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
>
>
> "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
>
> Regards
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:21:00 -0800, Shel Belinkoff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/527vh
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/11/DDGRVA99CM1.DTL&;
> type=art
>
> Appeared in this morning's SF Chronicle. Missing in the web version is a
> photo of the photog
1 - 100 of 269 matches
Mail list logo
