Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe it's only a half-stop from 1.2 to 1.4.
Here's how f/stops compare. I don't remember where I got these numbers. I
may have derived them, so feel free to question them.
f/1.2 is 0.45 stop faster than f/1.4
f/1.4 is 0.62 stop faster than f/1.8.
JCO wrote:
BTW, if you need an extra stop over a F1.4, then a F1.0 is the answer.
Canon just released a EF 50mm F1.0, $2500 list price.
I doubt that Canon's 50/1.0 is geared toward serious photographers who find
f/1.2 limiting. It sounds more like fuel for a pissing contest. Who buys the
You don't get a second chance on first impressions.
...unless you're Bill Murray on Groundhog Day.
Mike wrote:
I personally don't expect the *ist D to be less expensive than the 10D. As
long as it's not too much more, it will be all right. I doubt anyone would
bother about an extra hundred dollars when it comes to buying the camera
that's right for them.
for them--but they will look closely
Heck, that's nothing. Ray Kimber of Kimber Kable marketed a pair of speaker
wires that cost $15,000. I'm NOT making this up.
Anyone who thinks he can hear the difference between a $15,000 pair of
speaker wires and a pair costing $150 of that should be required to first
take a blind listening test
I raised the question twice, I believe, in the days before you joined. I do
a lot of shooting at ISO 800 to 1250. It would be a pity if the *ist D could
not be used to shoot indoor school plays.
There is no secret method for goosing the ISO speed. Whatever Pentax
delivers, we'll be stuck with.
In the perfume world, where image is everything, discounts are shunned.
Companies might offer a rebate, or a bonus, but that high selling price adds
valuable mystique.
I agree with Fred appears to be the original magnifier, used for the K
series and Spotmatics.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915712799category=15240
You also ask:
How does it attach to the camera? Does it take up the hot shoe?
No, it slips over the eyepiece, flipping down
I read some nice things about it at photo.net. Do a search. Excellent
tonality.
Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion.
-- Jed Babbit (Former US Under-secretary of Defense)
Reminds me of the 1970s T-shirt and bumper sticker:
A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.
Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't buy CF-cards in advance, even more that with camera's the prices on
memory stuff including CF keeps dropping. Wait as long as you can afford to
...
Good prices can be found at http://www.ecost.com . Click on Digital Media
Blowout or search for the
Got 12 inches here, but I don't use it as a rule.
Boom boom.
A couple weeks ago, one of the US television networks showed the funniest
moments in game show history. In one scene, The Newlywed Game's Bob Eubanks
asked, Where did you get married?
Upstate New York, answered the bride.
Did it snow?
JCO wrote:
f/2 +0.666 = f/2.519
f/2.8+ 0.666 = f/3.563
Thanks, JCO. Now I know that if I add a 1.7X TC to my SMC 200/2.5K, I'll get
a 340/3.6. That sure beats a 300/4.5, which at any rate is really only
280mm.
At 08:29 PM 3/5/2003 +0300, you wrote:
Sorry Paul, but this doesn't sound right. One cannot literally lose on
every such sale of software, unless the price was lower than that of a
bunch of empty floppies (wholesale). Of course, they could lose money
on the product, but not like this, and
Boris,
50mm is too long for crowded shots. Many street shooters prefer 35mm, or
even 28. My 35 (SMC 35/2) is very long, even without its metal hood. A
shorter 35, or a pancake (Pentax 45/2.8, Ricoh-Chinon 40/2.8, Ricoh 28/2.8,
or Cosina-Porst-Vivitar 40/2.5) with the hood off.
On the other hand,
Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea of (candid/stealth) street photography keeps crossing my mind more
and more often. Since I never did this, I am asking those of you who are
experienced in such a thing for advise. Namely, would ME Super and 50/1.7
lens be a good way to start. I
The basic problem is that a DSLR costing $1500 USD is not inexpensive.
As someone recently pointed out, a Spotmatic probably cost a higher
percentage of median take-home pay than a DSLR costs today. The problem is,
housing, driving, college, and healthcare cost much more, and we want many
more
Pål wrote:
By putting it into an irresistible, sexy body (look at the Optio S). Who
would you date; a sexy playboy model or an ugly rocket scientist? Im shallow
enough to make that decision a no brainer, and so are most people.
If only life were a James Bond film, where the rocket scientist (or
I couldn't say. But I do know that Minolta eyepiece accessories will fit
Ricoh SLRs.
I have a rare chance to earn some overtime pay in the weeks ahead. That will
leave no time, I'm afraid, for PDML. So farewell, until ... ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Diagnostician's version of Occam's razor: When you hear hoofbeats, don't
think 'Zebra.'
That's exactly why I fear that the ISO range will top out at 400: If it were
higher, Pentax would have said so.
Rüdiger wrote:
look at the 2.8/300. It has a filter size of 112mm like the a 35mm 2.8/300
and it is no smaller. The lenses should have the size of the Pentax 110
Pocket system, as this has
also a factor of 2. So the diameter should be only 56 mm.
The diameter would be 56mm if the Olympus lens
I wrote:
Its diaphragm has something like 12 blades, for incredibly even lighting.
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul, what does a round aperture have to do with even lighting (over the
frame?)?
Quite a bit, I thought. I believe that Contax has always stated this in its
T*-series
In the USA, many buyers shop for a digital camera in an electronics
superstore like Best Buy-not in a camera store. If a DLSR gets under glass
at those stores, it will greatly affect that brand's DLSR market share.
On an SLR zoom, we expect the focal range at 28mm, even 24 mm. Yet on nearly
every digicam, the zoom starts at an equivalent focal length of 35 to 38mm.
Why so unwide?
I think it's that, early on, the camera is specified to have a prescribed
zoom ratio-say, 4:1-and the marketing people tell the
Pål wrote:
The Limited lenses: more idiosyncratic than anything else!
Well, dont forget that 1990s Olympus retro point-and-shoot that was
shaped like an old flashbulb and had an equally bizarre name. What was it
again?
Could a zoom lens designed for an APS-sized sensor have less distortion or
vignetting than a zoom lens designed for full-frame 35mm? In other words, is
it easier to design a no compromise 5:1 or 10:1 zoom for the smaller
format? Would a hood, for example, be able to work well over a greater range
Steve Desjardins wrote:
It seems like Olympus did the obvious/safe thing and created an
interchangeable lens version of the E-10/20.
They must have made some other changes, because their E-10 literature claims
that interchangeable lenses cannot ensure the proper lens-to-CCD distance
within
Pål wrote:
In fact some Pentax users wait out the *ist D and when they see it they buy
a Canon.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that most shoppers will try to read about
the various DSLRs on the Web before buying. Most will find hands-on reviews
that evaluate the cameras strictly in terms of
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words they aren't taking advantage of the format, They're still
selling 35mm lenses on a sub 35mm format. It's nice to have a longer lens
but you can already do that with Nikon, Canon, and soon with Pentax. I
thought it was all about smaller,
Pål wrote:
Nikon, on the other hand, is by far the most valuable name associated with
photography there is according to marketing and branding specialists. Forget
Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss, they aren't even in the ballpark. Canon is
nowhere near Nikon in this regard but the brand name is now
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The older teles were very nice, and the newer ones that I've used are
on par or better.
Mark Roberts added:
And the Limiteds (wide, normal and tele) are in a class by themselves.
Most of us would agree with the PDMLer who wrote that the SMCs were superior
in build
Jostein wrote:
Buying even a relatively cheap DSLR is such an investment that it seems
pretty wasted to top it off with ultra-cheap consumer grade lenses.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm connecting two computers to our good
speakers. The setup requires several pairs of cables, and the more I
Back in the early 1990s, when Borland's Quattro owned the PC database
market, Lotus tried to steal market share by offering a deep introductory
discount for Lotus's new product to anyone who would send in Page 1 of the
Borland Quattro manual. Lotus would lose on every such sale, but they
figured
1. the LX (and its huge auxiliary viewfinders) will be there when my eyes
will need one in a few years
2. SMC
3. great prime lenses, both in manual focus and autofocus
4. the fact that the Ricoh XR-P can use Pentax lenses
5. the long-lived continuity of the K mount
I guess I was wrong. I was unable to find the correlation between number of
blades and evenness of illumination. Only these comments, which suggest
that the Sonnar lens with more blades may be worse:
From http://www.photo.net/contax/t3
The recomputed Sonnar lens of the T3 has virtually no light
Paul Eriksson wrote:
Does anyone have experience with the Tokina or the Tamron? Cotty don't you
have the Tokina (ATX version) for your D60?
The Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 is said to be outstanding. Unfortunately, Tokina has
never made it in Pentax mount. The earlier Tokina SL-17 (RMC) is not nearly
as
My son lives in Jerusalem. He tells me that many of the zoo animals were
filled with anxiety by the strange stuff.
In the Camedia E-10 press conference on 22 August 2000, the President of
Olympus, Mr Masatoshi Kishimoto gave the following remarks.
We will stop the research on high resolution CCD.
We have been continuously developing high quality digital camera with high
resolution CCD. But E-10's 4M pixels
Ryan Brooks wrote:
I've got a brand new Cosina F1.2 (yes, 1.2, not the Ebay 1.2) 50mm = lens
for sale in K-mount. Got some beautiful picks with this guy, very warm =
lens. Asking US$90. [Paul Franklin Stregevsky]
Ryan,
Surely you mean 55/1.2, not 50/1.2, yes? 58mm filter, right?
adphoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i love using depth of field and a very bright viewfinder so my choices are:
vivitar 28mm 1.9 series 1 ** vivitar 28mm 2.0 ** sigma 28mm 1.8 pentax 28mm
2.0 pentax 30mm 2.8 pentax 31mm 1.9 limted pentax 24mm 2.0 sigma
24mm 1.8 vivitar/kiron 24mm 2.0
IL Bill wrote:
Anyone have any information on the above lens? I have seen Boz's
site on it, but want to know more from someone who's actually used
it.
You want me to have actually used a lens before I pontificate on its merits
or lack thereof? There go three-fourths of my postings. :)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=3354item=2915311123;
rd=1
If you have trouble copying and pasting the link, it's item 2915311123,
titled
ROLLEI RANGEFINDER 35 RF NEW JUST RELEASED!!!
(Thanks, Daphne!)
Watch Stephen Gandy (http://www.cameraquest.com) drool over this one!
I have a question for the hundred percenters. Let's say you viewed the
following on a good color monitor:
- a dozen high-quality images that had been shot with black and white film,
and
- a dozen high-quality images that had been shot with color print film, then
saved in grayscale.
Then I
Taz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm new to the list and have been spending the evening looking at some of
your posts.
The introductions of the *ist and *ist-D seem to be bringing in an unusually
large number of new names to PDML. Welcome aboard, Taz.
You wrote:
I have Minolta and Pentax gear...
Ah--Minolta autofocus. Never mind.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I don't personalise it, in 1968 the Spotmatic cost about 8 times the
average weekly wage in England. Today, the *ist D at US$1300 will cost
about three times the Australian industrial average wage.
OK, now we're talkin'. That's impressive.
[EMAIL
From what I've seen, people may be buying SLRs, but they aren't using them
on a regular basis. I seldom see another SLR at public events. I don't see
them out on the street. When I shoot a school event, I'll see maybe three or
four other SLRs. One will be autofocus; the rest are vintage models
Fair enough, William; I'll recast the question:
Let's say you viewed a high-quality printout on high-qulaity paper of an
uncompressed, high-resolution digital scan of a dozen...
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, since there is no way to view an image on a computer monitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that in _many_ products, failing to offend has become more
important than managing to thrill.
I agree. A recent article in Time or Newsweek examined precisely this point
in explaining why owners of Volkswagen Passats LOVE their car on an
emotional level that
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have a monitor that does 4K x 3K. they exist.
Herb,
12 megapixel displays don't exist, except possibly in the rarefied world of
grayscale medical CRTs. Even then, I doubt it.
Maybe you're thinking of virtual desktops. On older operating systems,
companies
The Super Program is my mail flash camera, and now I know why I haven't
managed to use fill flash: I don't take it off of autoexposure. No wonder
people buy newer camera bodies; fill flash needn't be calculated: You can
just tell the camera, Make it so. Right? At least, the Ricoh XR-X3P (their
The ad is mistaken; it is the classic 28/1.9. There is no Vivitar 28/1.8.
The only 28/1.8 lens I'm aware of is the new Sigma autofocus.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2915155403category=46
87
is this a new version
Stan,
Your ambivalence toward selling the 85/1.8K tells you all you need to know.
Don't do it! You'll regret it.
I sold my 85/1.8 screwmount, and even though I don't like using screwmount
adapters, that lens was simply the best-built lens I've ever used; I still
mourn for it. At least the
Herb,
Your first link didn't work for me (too long, even though I copied and
pasted it?), but the second link did:
http://www-3.ibm.com/solutions/lifesciences/solutions/medical.html
OK, it's the T221 flat-panel, the same model I was talking about, now
available for about $7000. But it's 9.2
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bandwidth and optical resolution are two different things, just because a
monitor can sync to a HF signal doesn't mean that it can resolve it. In fact
sync-ing to a frequency that is higher than the phosphor triplets can
resolve
leads to moire patterns
Levente -Levi- Littvay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, but based on its appearance they are QUITE different. So you say
optically they are identical?
You have another option: Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 85/1.8 (multicoated, 58mm
filter, Manual/Auto switch), available in M42 screwmount (but not K
All C-41 color:
For low-speed outdoor, Kodak Royal Gold 100 or Kodak Portra NC 160. However,
I just bought a brick each of Fuji Reala 100 and Agfa's 160 pro color film;
the Agfa is said to blow away the competition in lpm resolution.
For medium-speed outdoor and indoor with flash, Kodak Portra NC
Check out these online translation sites that handle Italian:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
http://www.translate.ru/ Designed for Russian speakers, but usable by the
rest of us. I've used it when writing to a Russian dealer. The site appears
to have changed its home-page interface. Can one of
1. Canon Elph (APS).
2. Yashica Samurai (half-frame).
3. Rollei A110 (110).
4. Contax T* (35mm)
5. Olympus XA (35mm)
Pål Jensen wrote:
I expected something with built in lust factor. Something that made
peole say wow! with first sight. Something sexy that they had to check
out.
Lawrence Kwan
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:45:48 -0500
Bill wrote:
I just looked it up. APS negative is16.7 x 30.2mm, half frame of course is
18 x 24, making the half frame about 16% smaller than APS.
And Minox subminiature size is, I think, 8 x 11mm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not familiar with that Ricoh body; it may have sold under one name in
North America, and another name elsewhere. For example, the XR-M in the USA
is called the XR-X elsewhere.
To see where that body fits into the Ricoh lineup, and to read the manual,
see http://www.butkus.org/chinon/ .
By
Thomas wrote:
Still, I like the F more than the FA because of it's sturdy tripod mount.
I'm waiting for someone to buy one of each size of Canon's three auxillary
tripod mounts, find out which one (if any) fits the FA 300/4.5, and inform
the list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
0 and 1 as equivalent to off and on connect only after you have been around
computers. the ISO committee that decided this along with a lot of other
symbols were aiming for a lot lower. since none of you guys bother reading
the documentation for the symbols
My posts don't seem to be making it through.
Make sure your email program is in Plain Text or Simple Text mode.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Coyle wrote:
In 1968 ... A Spotmatic in England at that time cost 122 pounds and a bit -
six weeks of my pay, rounded. An *ist D is forecast to be priced about
US$1300-$1500: let's strike an average at $1400. I currently pay myself a
basic wage of US$635 per week, and take profit-sharing of
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:57:12 -0500
From: Caveman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Caveman wrote:
I definitely hope that the pop-up flash on the *ist could be permanently
turned off ;-) If not, then some duct tape will certainly solve the
problem ;-)
I can't help but share this cartoon, reprinted in the
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you talking about the post you quoted or about apparent focal length?
I'm not sure what you mean by interpolated...
Chris,
I was not referring to your superb explanation about a DSLR's cropping
effect, which I've saved for future reference. Rather, I'm
Ken,
When PDMLers of the future examine the archives, they will credit you for
revealing the first photos of the *ist D. Thanks from all of us.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I just fell in lust again.for the tenth time today.
In the 1970s, lyricist/composer Stephen Schwartz (Pippin, Working,
Pocahantas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame) wrote a song, Proud Lady. Sung by
a brash young man (She calls me a swine--she's mine!),
I wrote:
I bought my first hard drive in 1991. It was 105 megabytes and cost $725,
or $7 a megabyte. At Best Buy this week, you can now buy a 120 gigabyte hard
drive for $100. That's nearly 7,000 the capacity for less than 1/10 the
price (in real dollars).
Oops! I was mixing and matching the
Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, get an original K-series SMC 55/1.8. It's the closest you'll
come to the screwmount Tak feel in a K-mount lens (albeit with
a rubber-texture focus ring) and the same lens formula as the Super-Tak (but
with multicoating). I think they're usually
Steve ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Miranda lenses, BTW, are superb.
Miranda used to own Soligor. All of Soligor's great C/D lenses should be
available in Miranda mount: the 28/2, 35/2, 100/2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and
assorted zooms.
.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Pearson wrote:
I have tried a few times to unsubscribe, due to the
fact that I travel. ... However, for some reason, I can't
unsubscribe? Does anyone know who to contact about
this problem? It seems like I have seen other posts
about this same problem.
Steve (and Teresa),
Don't feel
David Barts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So, should I even consider a K2 or KX?
Absolutely! I owned a KX and found that even when I wasn't using MLU, my
prints seemed sharper because of the low vibration. The K2 adds
autoexposure. Only the KX allows MLU in real time or with the timer. I sold
the KX
a
moratorium on acquiring fast glass, betting that one day, the 200 and 300mm
glass I already own will be magnified by a DSLR at no cost in brightness. If
Pentax won't do it, there's always the other guys.[Paul Franklin Stregevsky]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did mike post an image too? Mine was the
one with the greyscale image title of
the post. Which image are you reffering to?
No, Mike didn't post an image; I simply answered in haste and forgot who has
posted the image. The image in mind was the original
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:49:18 +1000
From: jcoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dalelabs.com/ in Hollywood, Florida, very close to Miami.
John Coyle wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good quality lab that can make high quality 8x10's
(or larger) from a scanned
Peter Smekal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I private person is selling a SMC(K) 3,5/18mm lens in mint condition. He is
asking for a bid. Any idea what a 'reasonable' price might be?
Peter,
I've seen these go for anywhere from US $500 to $900. A few have gone on
German Ebay for less, probably because
I believe that any Ricoh-brand lens that features the P setting is in danger
of locking onto any Pentax AF body. In other words, any Rikenon P lens.
The older, XR Rikenon lenses are safe.
Chris raised the larger question:
Did Vivitar, or any other company, make lenses for Ricohs that cannot be
Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the US clear things electronically? I know in the past US sellers
didn't like Canadian bank MO because it could take forever to clear. That
meant sending Postal MO that would clear quicker. I've heard horror stories
about how long personal checks can take
Impressive tonality, Mike. I especially like the detail visible in the
corduroy fabric of the dress at the right.
You hit the exposure right on the money; nothing is burned out; a stop
under, and you wouldn't be able to see the face of the fellow at the left.
I can't wait to hear what lens this
Rüdiger wrote:
I'm not impressed.
I see your point, Rüdiger; you have found some true deficiencies in the old
and new Fujis. Nevertheless, for my money, Fuji is still the digicam of
choice for photographers like me, who like to be able to shoot without flash
at ISO 800 to 1600. No other
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, when I use small cameras, I find I don't use the scales anyway. For
me, they are just another way to confuse me when I should be concentrating
on picture taking.
I rely on distance markings--and the DOF scale--to get maximum depth of
field when shooting
Here's the first photo I've seen where you can clearly see the VMC lettering
(Vivitar Multi Coating), yet the glass looks yellowish, like a single-coated
lens:
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2911988064indexURL=2phot
oDisplayType=2#ebaylargephotohosting
I still find it strange;
Shaun Canning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not offer a 3% discount for people
who don't use Paypal. Include the 3% in your original price, then offer
the discount. This is a more attractive option for the consumer. They
think they are getting a better deal.
Shaun, you clever devil: I think
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ebay doesnt allow that. they ended a bunch of my auctions
one time for doing that.
I take back all the nice things I just wrote about Shaun's bright idea. :)
For some reason, Shaun's attempt to turn the rules upside-down reminds me of
a tactic I used to
Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A camera has to be perceived
as a flagship by owners of other brands to have any credibility as a
flagship.
Agreed. Look how many consumer-grade scanners have been marketed as
professional scanners. Or how the Tiger computer catalog will routinely
slap
Tom Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can take PayPal but you will need to add the 3% fee.
Tom,
PayPal does not allow its Premium or Business members sellers to require the
customer to pay the 3% fee.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin wrote:
And which bodies are you using?
Some of them seem pretty well-built, like the KR-5 KR-10. Some seem
pretty mediocre. Recommendations?
I'd skip over the commodity-level KR-5, KR-10, and their spinoffs.
For me, the 1984 XR-P is the standout choice. See my recent post on that
body.
Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vertical shots in mind? If so, how will the camera know you're going
vertical?
I don't know, but Nikon's F5 also knows when it's being held vertically.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
arathi-sridhar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/pentax_cameras_lenses.htm
Wow, I knew about the Rubinars, and of course the Zenitars, but I had no
idea that the Rubinar mirror lenses are available in K mount. Not that it
makes a big difference, I suppose: You can't
J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anybody have mucho experience the M42 Fuji EBC Fujinon lens lineup? I just
bought an EBC 50mm F1.4 for kicks but havent got a clue about the rest of
their lineup. They seem to be pretty scarce compared to the Takumars...
I know simply that Fuji made two
Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd even buy a plain vanilla MX
if they still made one. Anyone want to speculate what it would sell for if
Pentax built one now? (Less than an FM3a, I'm sure...
Maybe Pentax should outsource its manufacturing to Cosina. Unfortunately,
fine as the new
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In several
of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20 or a 24, there
is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature at the edges. That tells me
these photos
On 12 Feb 2003 at 7:47, I wrote:
I own Capturing the Moment, the Newseum's collection of all
Pulitzer-prize-winning photos from the 1940s to the late 1990s. In
several of the photos that had been shot in crowded scenes with a 20
or a 24, there is no tell-tale line convergence or curvature
Personally, I've been sitting out this discussion because I have no right to
tell Pentax what to make. I've bought exactly one item brand-new that bore
the Pentax name: a lens-cleaning cloth.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I seldom check a lens's rear element for cleanliness. One of my recurring
fears is that in the year 2030, I'll discover that on each of my lenses, the
rear element has a big smudge that has been degrading my results for
decades.
Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or, to put it another way,
Jerry in Houston, are you the same PDMLer who used to sign off as Jerry
Houston? When I was building my set of K-mount lenses from 1998 to 2000,
there were a handful of PDMLers whose comments influenced me the most. Jerry
Houston was one of them.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only reason Nikon has them is that MITI forced Canon to share.
Could that happen in the USA? I thought that only occurred in Ayn Rand's
epic novel, Atlas Shrugged, where Hank Rearden spends years perfecting a
copper-titanium alloy (Rearden steel) that
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo