I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand
my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the the rest of the
internet
population, it was posted only to a photo group which
should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER
atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than
average spec of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott Loveless
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I assume Mark Roberts
, and anyone reading this forum IS.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Scott Loveless
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my
post remarking that this wasnt posted for the the rest of the
internet population, it was posted only to a photo group which
should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER
atandard
it's called CONVICTION and strong non-waving opinions
which have be formed and ingrained via proven years of
experince, not inflexibility.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Savage
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:41 AM
To:
, you
shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101.
Dave
On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my
post remarking that this wasnt posted for the the rest of the
internet population
size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around.
It annoyed me, so I stopped looking.
IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you
shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101.
Dave
On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
P.S. I am not having any problems to solve,
only the people who want me to dumb way down
my posted photos for them are... I suggest
those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing
software or something to make them more usable
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS ON THIS. THE HIGHER YOUR SCREEN RESOLUTION,
THE BETTER THE IMAGES LOOK ON THE SCREEN AND THE
EASIER IT IS TO EDIT THE IMAGES. SAYING AVID/SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS
(THE TYPE THAT WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO PHOTO WEB LIST LIKE THIS LIST)
DONT NEED OR CANT/WONT BENEFIT FROM A HIGHER
Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME
DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD
IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ).
YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO
SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS
WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY
TODAY 4
ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF.
If you actually read what is being said
in the posts I am replying to
you would understand. I dont
start these things but people
simply refuse to not get personal
when they dont have to and they
do it FIRST. I just reply in kind.
Like calling me elitest schmuck
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Web
Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19 CRT monitor
for $135 new old stock on ebay
if I don't land a job soon.
Paul On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I think the one you are talking about went for $73K
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Paul Stenquist
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:30 PM
I didnt bugger it up, these people want
me to optimize it for low spec PC
systems which I wont do for quality reasons.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
] On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Web Gallery
:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
What hubris ...
Putting the pics on the web ruins them.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell
I guess I
for?
I'm back to Pentax topics and will not respond to that thread anymore.
Greetings Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:58 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE:
WebGallery:Barrett
OK, Mr. Photo Critic, I already stated these
were simple documentary photos and if
you had a freaking clue as to how these
events work, you would know that its
a miracle I even GOT any photos. There
were tons of people strolling the grounds,
which means I had to do grab shots whenever
the crowd
Mail List
Subject: Re: Web
Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Paul
On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:44 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
if you are interested in the prices of '55's,
search the www.barrett-jackson.com website
as it lists the final prices
goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and
anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM
Subject: RE: Web
Gallery:Barrett
want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger
pics, that can be arranged.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 4/2/2007 8:07:14 AM
Subject: RE:
WebGallery:Barrett
I dont send them to be easy for very low spec
computers/displays and ruin them in the process.
THAT is a waste of time. you guys should be more
concerned with image qualiy but apparently you
are more concerned other things I dont give
a rats ass about...This was a quick and dirty
photoshop web
Loveless
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB
photo, there is a huge difference in what you can
see/image
connections.
Dave
On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which
is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller
like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you
dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6
.
And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print
resolution. 72 is more than enough it also results in smaller files
which is a bonus for those on slower connections.
Dave
On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which
:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which
is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller
like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you
dont care or think
:
WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Suit yourself.
All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for
displaying
images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of the internet
using
population should be working.
Cheers,
Dave
At 09:30 AM 3/04/2007, J. C
that looks like a '56 chevy, not a ford, and in turquoise,
not power blue. ( At least it brought back the memories for you!).
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 12:25 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Hi, sorry about the larger photos for you, but I didnt want to spend a
lot of time with multiple photo sizes and I have always believed
in sending largest size that still works on my current computer
for quality reasons. I know that using smaller is more compatible
but the lowest common
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:42 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions
2007WestPalmBeach...
Hi, sorry about the larger photos for you, but I didnt want to spend a
lot of time
I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont
do lowest common denominator web photos, if your
screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen,
then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing
them to 800 pixels wide ruins them IHMO.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19 CRT
monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This
stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive,
your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you
upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital
photography as its NOT
-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
John,
Do you know what the selling price was for the 56 Chevy BelAir
Convertible?
Paul
On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:24 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont
do lowest common denominator web photos, if your
screen cant show them fully as I want them
on the 21 but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more
comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large
working space in Photoshop.
Greetings
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Monday
The nice part of it all is you can get KA type
adaptall-2 adapters to maintain autoexposure
on the current crop of pentax DSLRS.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jim King
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:30 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
I went to the 2007 West Palm Beach Barrett-Jackson
Collector Car Auction Event yesterday 3/30/2007.
Incredible cars all over the place. Of course I
took a bunch of photos. If your into vintage cars,
especially American Muscle Cars, Here's a web gallery
I made you might want to peek at ( first time
REAL second chance offer ebay links take you to
a new listing of the same item with a new buy
it now price the same as your previous losing bid amount.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007
I like long lenses for candid unaware people street shots.
The further away you are the easier it is to go
unnoticed. 40mm would be way too short for me, even on APS
format...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
yes a longer lens itself is more noticable than a
shorter lens itself, but it's nowhere near as noticeable
as a much closer photographer using a shorter lens!
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28,
Its all relative, F2.8 is very slow
for a normal range optic, but its a speed
demon for an ultra wide or ultra telephoto.
I think the entire point of the 40mm F2.8
lenses are absolute minimum physical size
with a reasonble speed. If it was an F2.0
it would defeat it's sole purpose for
what about the spotmatics that DID have a hot shoe,
the spII spIIA and spF ? I dont recall any hot
shoe cutoff switches on those either...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:57 PM
To:
Future K10D price is very dependent on the DSLR market.
If nobody else has a similar camera at a lower
price, its less likely to drop, conversely if
some new ones come out that are similar at
lower prices its more likely to drop.
I once saw a business TV show many years ago and the CEO
was asked
FWIW, when I designed a voltage regulator a couple
of weeks ago so I could run my istDS off of a 9.6VDC
NIMH battery pack, I found the flash is the main power hog,
and the LCD is the second most power hog. Not news
I guess, but if you want the longest possible life
on a single battery charge,
Huh, a slower AF zoom lens was EASIER to
focus manually than a faster prime MF lens?
I have never found that to be the case EVER
in similar comparisons, WHY?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, March 27,
Flash is the biggest power hogthe LCD is second place
in that category..
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D
On Mar
to be even close to the full power
flash energy consumption.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Flash
there are many many different types of
battery chargers on the market today
of widely varying sophistication and automation
so I would say that its not quite as simple
as that. Many actually stop charging
completely when the charge light goes
out, so even if you leave it on
longer you are not
CA is always worse at greater angles away from
the optical axis on any lens.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jack Davis
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:08 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: DA14 vs DA 12-24
Good to have your
like any other lens, its probably normal to be very
slightly softer wide open, which is what I see based
on those two photos. I doubt those very few scratch
marks are making the difference...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jens Bladt
those scratches dont look like they would affect anything.
you might want to consider filling in any large ones
with black, but like I said, I bet they are small enough
to not cause any visible difference.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
77
Skype: jensbladt248
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J.
C. O'Connell
Sendt: 23. marts 2007 18:00
Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Emne: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
those scratches dont look like they would affect anything.
you might want
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J.
C. O'Connell
Sendt: 23. marts 2007 22:16
Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Emne: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
Minor scratches will not do what you are suggesting.
I my experience, when scratches become significant
the cause an OVERALL loss of contrast/sharpness .eg. flare
I know at least some Sears lenses were made by Mamiya/Sekor
but those ones I know of were M42. Can't say for PK.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cory Papenfuss
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:59 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Cory Papenfuss
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Metering Takumar lenses
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
If you are out of the meter's range, you can
looking an a bright
backlit
LCD.
-Cory
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
In those type cases the histogram would be ignored of course, What I
am talking about is good exposures AS SEEN USING IMAGE REVIEW after
you take the test photos. Not the histrograms exclusively. In any
case
I agree pre-A series lenses are much harder to work
with than those A-series and leter, especially if you are in a hurry,
with the current Pentax DSLR lineup.
The green button fix is a kludge at best compared
to what the Pre-A lenses are capable of doing.
This is why I belive Pentax needs to
If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX
except for size. The K1000 is like a stripped KX, you would
not want that unless you couldnt afford or find a clean KX
as the KX has everything the K1000 has and much more goodies like
shutter speeds and apertures in finder, mirrorlock,
and
never look back.
I thought about a KX for quite some time. But I never /ever/ use those
extra features (except maybe the aperture/shutter readouts in VF).
On 3/20/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX except
for size
. But I never /ever/ use those
extra features (except maybe the aperture/shutter readouts in VF).
On 3/20/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX except
for size. The K1000 is like a stripped KX, you would not want that
unless you
If you are out of the meter's range, you can still
use the camera, just shoot manually at apertures
you want to use and adjust the shutter speed until
you get a good histogram/review image on the LCD.
At really low light levels its going to be the only way
to ensure accurate exposures.
jco
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Metering Takumar lenses
Thanks, everyone. Sometimes I just need to think aloud!
This limitation also might be a good excuse to use my handheld
lightmeter.
Mike
On 3/19/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are out of the meter's range, you
I think due to the nature and size of the RAW data files,
no matter what software you use to view thumbnails is
going to take a considerable amount of time to read and
convert them. This is why RAW+JPEG may be a good practice
when shooting, use the jpegs just for fast browsing.
jco
-Original
-320
lens. The only other AF zoom I have in the 50-70 range is a FA 28-70/4
but, how much I liked this lens for film, is for me now a bit
disappointing on digital.
Henk
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell
Sent: 15 March, 2007
On 3/15/07, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any
photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to
the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC
FORMAT IS
NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression
The thing he said that people are contending against is :
Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the
subject to the size of the format.
Nothing else he posted was incorrect but this part was.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:01 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l.
ON APS gives much better working distances
than it did on on 35mm FF format for same
subject framing. This is because you dont
have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill
.
Christian wrote:
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount
lenses,
however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the
*ist D.
Using regular (non high mag
Welcome to the world of Pentax's pinnacle of lens series production.
Now you know why I want a true M42 DSLR. To use those classics!
BTW, this is a superb performance lens in the macro range, but nothing
special at infinity, dont judge it by that
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
the beginning of the decline in build quality started
with the very late SMC takmars (not to be confused
with the earlier, Super-Multi-Coated takumars. IMHO,
the Super-Multi-Coated takumars were the pinnacle
of Pentax's lens production in terms of build quality.
By the time they switched to K
a
match in performance (apart from the variable aperture).
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
why not? those lenses were never expensive
and a APS version would be less costly to
make than a FF version of same quality or
better quality for same cost of the FF version.
jco
-Original Message
Since the 70-210 sells USED for nearly the NEW cost of a DA 50-200, the
DA's used cost is likewise much lower than the 70-210 A.
-Adam
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
if the 70-210/4.0 A lens, which is no longer avail new,
sells for nearly the price, (LESS) than the new 50-200,
the 50-200 is NOT a far
NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any
photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size
to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMAT IS
NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation !
! !
jco
-Original Message-
From:
2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just
like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want
only
, 2007 8:14 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format,
(33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good
to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just
like normal photography
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I would rather have only a 50mm
for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by
general purpose MACRO.
And I would rather have only a 100mm
with extensions.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:37 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
they dont allow better control of the background
when
nearly all zooms will have some geometry problems
that true prime macros dont, and with a zoom
its even HARDER to remove the geometry distortion
in digital post processing than a prime non-macro
lens discussed earlier. I would never recommend
zooms for macro unless you dont want the best
quality.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general,
its very limited to only smaller objects at
higher. I am talking about doing everything you
can do with a macro lens thats better than
using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all.
jco
I CAN do more than just smaller
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
But the topis was a ONE
LENS macro setup, and for only one
lens those long lenses are too long
for general purpose macro IMHO.
And that's your opinion which does not match MY opinion for MY one lens
macro kit.
What make 300mm and 500mm true macro
lenses are you
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more normal AOV ) from
a different, closer point of view than the really
long macro's extremely narrow AOV
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Whittingham
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses.
Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses
Jeez, you would think they could at least do
F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have
done in the past on FF 35mm format many times.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bruce Dayton
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM
To:
actually have wished
for a 35mm macro instead recently which I don't have.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I
there have been many many FF 70/80-200/210 mm F4.0
constant aperture PK lenses over the years, Pentax and 3rd party.
Won't one of these work for you or do you need
the A mode or AF specifically? Even so, there
have been a many of those too I would think.
jco
-Original Message-
From:
there are at least two, possibly three
Tamron SP 90mm macros for pentax. I have the F2.5
version with 55mm filter threads in adaptall2 and yes, it's really
really good. Works fine with both ES M42 mount or PKA mount.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: The DA 50~200
yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL
2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jeez, you would think they could at least do
F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have
done
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: RE: Macro Lenses
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote
Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not
going to perform as well as non-telephoto
dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason
why 50mm may
If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend
a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are
too
long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast
manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the
SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are
a
In my experience, none of the fast 50mm normal lenses
are geometrically as linear when compared to 50mm dedicated macro
lenses. this can be important at times and no matter
what f-stop you shoot at it wont go away. Nowadays
though you CAN correct a lot of that distortion stuff in post
processing
I dont think pentax made any m42 lenses
other than f1.4 IIRC. There were many
other focal lengths and the 55mm was
made in F1.8 but a Pentax 50mm F1.7 M42 lens?
Never heard of that
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joseph Tainter
I think thats a bad recommendation, fast 50mm normal
lenses do not perform anywhere even
close (no pun) as Macro lenses in the
high magnificaion ranges under say
1:10. They are optimized for infinity and speed,
not closeup, and as such, dont do a very good
job closeup with tubes. Many regular
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
Quoting J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend
a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others
are too
long for general purpose macro IMHO
Oh yeah, to get full luminance information
from any X megapixel sensor, all the individual
pixels have to be wideband monochrome, (no bayer
filtering). I think kodak actually made one
like this at one time, I would love one, if it
was cheap and much higher resolution than
a same Mp color bayer one
I dont agree you get full luminance information
from every bayer pixel be cause they are all limited
wavelength (red, green, or blue, only ) depending
on the image wavelength distribution you will not
get full luminance resolution, these wavelengths
have to be summed to get the true luminance,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
J. C. O'Connell
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:04 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: funky composition
If I had to title this one, it would
be funky composition. I cant seem
to make anything out of it no matter
how I try crop/frame
Of
Doug Franklin
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:39 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: funky composition
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I know what you mean, there is a lot going on,
but the pool itself is cool as are the umbrellas,
the sunbathers, the lone guy in the shade, the bar, etc, its
.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:11 AM
Subject: RE: Sigma DP1
Even if all else is being held equal due to other factors, a faster
lens is still better than a slower lens
The prettiest camera pentax ever made by far
was the first spotmatic in black (without
the ugly hot shoe every camera since about
'75 now has). The damn thing ought to be
in a museum of fine art for it's sculpture.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I do not think that Pentax or anyone else would
have any problem selling a top line camera with
a Foveon sensor that has better image quality than a Bayer
to potential buyers because the Mp spec is lower.
That type of customer already knows that difference
in these specification in the first
It would have to be at least the equiv of a 24Mp
bayer for you to be interested? Even a 3Mp true color foveon
is approx same as 12mp bayer, which is better
than pentax's best at this point...
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John
why have you trucate edited my comments to make
them out context? I was just commenting that
in terms of resolution, a 3Mp true color sensor
is more resolution than 10Mp bayer type sensor which
is really only 2.5Mp true color upconverted/interpolated
back up to a fake full color 10Mp., that's all.
401 - 500 of 4017 matches
Mail list logo
