Re: So I ordered a replacement K-5II from KEH

The K-5II I just got from KEH looks like new, works like new has slightly under 2900 shutter actuations, and came with  a grid screen installed.  Hell, it even smells new... I have no idea what caused it to be marked down to bargain rating, maybe it was the grid screen. I know the K-5 family

Re: So I ordered a replacement K-5II from KEH

and I just received a message from KEH that the newish K-5II has been placed into the gentle hands of FedEx, who will treat it like their own baby, all the way to my delivery address... On 12/10/2018 1:24 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Because,, with a coupon code they sent me today, the Bargain copy

Re: So I ordered a replacement K-5II from KEH

On 12/10/2018 5:09 PM, John wrote: On 12/10/2018 13:24:20, P. J. Alling wrote: I've bought a number of Bargain items, (as well as a couple of Ex items), from them and have always felt that I got more than I paid for. Hopefully this will prove to be the same. My experience with KEH is it

Re: So I ordered a replacement K-5II from KEH

On 12/10/2018 13:24:20, P. J. Alling wrote: I've bought a number of Bargain items, (as well as a couple of Ex items), from them and have always felt that I got more than I paid for. Hopefully this will prove to be the same. My experience with KEH is it doesn't take much of a cosmetic blem

Re: So I ordered a replacement K-5II from KEH

I've purchased several items from KEH over the years and have always felt that the items they sent me were in better shape than their ratings would have implied. Conversely I just sold them a very slightly used K-10 which was absolutely pristine with very low shutter usage along with the origina

Re: so if you are on ebay... do this search :-)

On 2018-06-4 08:19, ann sanfedele wrote: every now and then I want to see what my book is going for so I search Ann Sanfedele   in the search for items box look what turned up (in addition to the two things I have listed of mine myself) Ann, Sign Language is available on AbeBooks too, at an

Re: so if you are on ebay... do this search :-)

It isn't that - re Sign Language... It's that all the copies I have are prettybeat up.. On line in some venues the book is selling for lots more.. I obviously sold Bruce Parker that photo but don't knwo where or when -- I think not on line.. sigh. Yes I was referring to the book and the phot

Re: so if you are on ebay... do this search :-)

Ann, Well, I see two items you authored that are not being sold by you: "Sign Language" and "American Buffalo". I am not sure if you were referring to both or just one of them. In any case, - it sounds your work has gotten a recognition from Bruce Parker Studio as an "affordable fine art phot

Re: So long and thanks for all the fish: I'm off to GFM!

He's probably going to need it this year. Looks like Alberto is going to get to Grandfather Mountain about the same time he does. On 5/29/2018 09:49, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: Don't forget your towel! Have a great time and send us some wonderful images (as usual). Dan Matyola http://www.pentax

Re: So long and thanks for all the fish: I'm off to GFM!

Don't forget your towel! Have a great time and send us some wonderful images (as usual). Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Departing beantown shortly. I've got the Triumph loaded up and I just > have a short meet

Re: So long and thanks for all the fish: I'm off to GFM!

Fish and Scott Loveless in one day, i'm impressed. Have a great trip, maybe next year for me Dave On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Departing beantown shortly. I've got the Triumph loaded up and I just > have a short meeting with Irini Albanti at Dana-Farber (about the PDML

RE: So I went web shopping

I remember a Schneider-Variogon zoom lens being reviewed by the British Journal of Photography about 35 years ago, and the results were outstanding - even by today's standards. If you can afford the price, they must be among the best lens made anywhere. John in Brisbane -Original Message

Re: So I went web shopping

> What grabbed my attention is that everything on that page is on > BACKORDER status. They might have done better to say "Special Order" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly ab

Re: So I went web shopping

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:23:41PM -0400, John wrote: > On 6/13/2017 15:02, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > > Hadn't been to Midwest Photo's site for a while. > > Looks like they don't have much if anything (at least not on the site) for > > Pentax. > > But the first two items are attention grabbers. >

Re: So I went web shopping

On 6/13/2017 15:02, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Hadn't been to Midwest Photo's site for a while. Looks like they don't have much if anything (at least not on the site) for Pentax. But the first two items are attention grabbers. https://mpex.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=DSLR+Lenses+pentax What gr

Re: So I went web shopping

Well, Father's Day is this coming Sunday. Let the family know that you really need a couple lenses. Should be no problem...right? J Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 13, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > They're on backorder! > > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danielj

Re: So I went web shopping

They're on backorder! Dan Matyola http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: > Hadn't been to Midwest Photo's site for a while. > Looks like they don't have much if anything (at least not on the site) for > Pentax. > But the first

Re: So I bought a K-3

Sigh! Alan C -Original Message- From: Larry Colen Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 8:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: So I bought a K-3 Doug Brewer wrote: indeed I am. I've only fired a couple of test frames so far, but it seems already like a serious up

Re: So I bought a K-3

You're correct, no doubt. I've been setting it up to my shooting habits. Now I just have to find time and subjects fora good workout. Nobody wants to see photos of me. On 9/20/16 2:19 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Doug Brewer wrote: indeed I am. I've only fired a couple of test frames so far, but

Re: So I bought a K-3

Doug Brewer wrote: indeed I am. I've only fired a couple of test frames so far, but it seems already like a serious upgrade. I've not used a K-7, but even going to a K-x was a huge improvement in sensor performance from my K20, The K-3 should outperform the K-7 in pretty much every way. -

Re: So I bought a K-3

indeed I am. I've only fired a couple of test frames so far, but it seems already like a serious upgrade. On 9/20/16 6:54 AM, Rick Womer wrote: You're upgrading from a K-7, right? Prepare to be impressed. Rick On Monday, September 19, 2016, Doug Brewer wrote: Now to see if I can do anythi

Re: So I bought a K-3

Gets better the longer you use it, Doug!! J Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 20, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Doug Brewer wrote: > > indeed I am. I've only fired a couple of test frames so far, but it seems > already like a serious upgrade. > >> On 9/20/16 6:54 AM, Rick Womer wrote: >> You're upgrading from

Re: So I bought a K-3

You're upgrading from a K-7, right? Prepare to be impressed. Rick On Monday, September 19, 2016, Doug Brewer wrote: > Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji X100s, > because, you know. > > Carry on, then. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http:/

Re: So I bought a K-3

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: > Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji X100s, Kenny boy loves his, so carry on.:-) Dave > because, you know. > > Carry on, then. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listin

Re: So I bought a K-3

On September 19, 2016 5:12:35 PM PDT, "P.J. Alling" wrote: >I think I'm jealous, but then again I really want a K-3 with a K-5 UI. I like the k3 ui a lot better > >On 9/19/2016 7:55 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: >> Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji >> X100s, because, y

Re: So I bought a K-3

On 9/19/2016 8:04 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Doug Brewer wrote: Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji X100s, because, you know. Carry on, then. Most of the good that I do with my cameras is to salve other people's egos by lowering the bar of artistic merit. Larry,

Re: So I bought a K-3

I think I'm jealous, but then again I really want a K-3 with a K-5 UI. On 9/19/2016 7:55 PM, Doug Brewer wrote: Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji X100s, because, you know. Carry on, then. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achie

Re: So I bought a K-3

Doug Brewer wrote: Now to see if I can do anything good with it. Also bought a Fuji X100s, because, you know. Carry on, then. Most of the good that I do with my cameras is to salve other people's egos by lowering the bar of artistic merit. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Same here. I would occasionally pop in, read few posts, sometimes comments and even post a comment of my own. The fact that TOP is very personal actually attracts me. Nowadays sites of this kind are remote, faceless and mostly boring. This one is certainly not. Naturally, I am aware of diffe

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

I won't miss LL; the only time I visit it is if someone here links an article. Yonnie On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:21 PM, steve harley wrote: > On 2015-12-01 8:52 , P.J. Alling wrote: >> >> A web blog run by Mike Johnston, who was once, a member of this list. > > > i like TOP; i'd say it's my favori

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

On 2015-12-01 8:52 , P.J. Alling wrote: A web blog run by Mike Johnston, who was once, a member of this list. i like TOP; i'd say it's my favorite general photo blog, though i haven't sought out many; while sites like dpreview have massive technical rundowns, their comments/forums drone on an

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Larry, Are you implying that TOP is sci-fi too? ;-) Igor Tue Dec 1 13:48:06 EST 2015 Larry Colen wrote: Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Am 01.12.15 um 14:56 schrieb Darren Addy: Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOP. I'm tempted to answer that, in this case, ignorance is bliss. So, click at y

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Am 01.12.15 um 14:56 schrieb Darren Addy: Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOP. I'm tempted to answer that, in this case, ignorance is bliss. So, click at your own risk: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html Ctein, who

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

TOP - The Online Photographer. I wonder if I should send them a cat photo & try to cheer Mike up? On 12/1/2015 8:56 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOP. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: Am 30.11.15 um 23:44 schrieb P.J. Alling: Oh, if only

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

On 11/30/2015 9:15 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Bruce Walker wrote: Interesting! Also interesting that I'd never have known this until months from now, if ever. I simply can't recall the last time I consulted LuLa for anything. Yeah, it's kind of sad what Luminous landscape has become – a sort of

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

A web blog run by Mike Johnston, who was once, a member of this list. Maybe he's still a lurker, I don't know. He burned quite a few members who paid for his newsletter, maybe about the that newsletter itself, or about a self published book? They paid in advance? I don't remember, my memory

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Am 01.12.15 um 14:56 schrieb Darren Addy: Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOP. I'm tempted to answer that, in this case, ignorance is bliss. So, click at your own risk: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - Köln/Co

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Forgive my ignorance, but what is TOP. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Ralf R Radermacher wrote: > Am 30.11.15 um 23:44 schrieb P.J. Alling: > >> Oh, if only Kennyboy would end his internet career by doing the same >> thing. > > > ...and, once we're at it, TOP as well. > > Haven't visited LL and

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Am 30.11.15 um 23:44 schrieb P.J. Alling: Oh, if only Kennyboy would end his internet career by doing the same thing. ...and, once we're at it, TOP as well. Haven't visited LL and Ken's site in years. Recently had a look at TOP and all I saw were endless posts about all the problems he's hav

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

That's interesting, on the K-5II which is what I have to hand, once the Jpeg option is set to cross processing, the camera cannot be set back to RAW until Cross-processing is set back to off. I don't think there's anything you did. I do think the firmware has a glitch that under some circumst

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

When I first started out in photography, I was on there every day poring over the articles. I only found out because TOP had a post about it. On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Bruce Walker wrote: > >>Interesting! >> >>Also interesting that I'd never have known this until mon

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Bruce Walker wrote: >Interesting! > >Also interesting that I'd never have known this until months from now, >if ever. I simply can't recall the last time I consulted LuLa for >anything. Yeah, it's kind of sad what Luminous landscape has become – a sort of Robb Report (a luxury goods magazine whic

Re: So the Luminous Landscape is going behind a pay wall...

Interesting! Also interesting that I'd never have known this until months from now, if ever. I simply can't recall the last time I consulted LuLa for anything. I'm sure they offer value for their knowledge base, but everything is also freely available with some Googling. Yeah, too bad about the

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

I'm pretty sure the display you see on the back of the camera is produced from the (low-quality) JPEG included in every image file. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 07:39:49PM -0600, Darren Addy wrote: > Well I have assumed my RAW files were OK, but I haven't checked yet. > Now I'm wondering. Will have to

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:39:49 -0600, Darren Addy wrote: > Well I have assumed my RAW files were OK, but I haven't checked yet. > Now I'm wondering. Will have to check when I get home later this > weekend. I have no explanation for how a RAW file would show > processing like that. I thought a RAW fil

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Well I have assumed my RAW files were OK, but I haven't checked yet. Now I'm wondering. Will have to check when I get home later this weekend. I have no explanation for how a RAW file would show processing like that. I thought a RAW file was a RAW file. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Steve Sharp

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

The same thing happened to me this past summer with my K-3, and I shoot exclusively RAW, no JPEGs. But every image was coming out in all these otherworldly colours...which Aperture automatically fixed so I didn't pay much attention. Then I made some astrophotos and noticed that the sky was pink

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

I got caught mid event by the "Cross-Processing" demon too using my K3, had me baffled, must have bumped the buttons. I didn't have time to screw about so I reverted to single body shooting and it was a long event, I must have changed lenses 100 times :( On 25 November 2015 at 06:03, John wrote:

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Ok, so SWAG - it's bracketing white balance. On 11/23/2015 2:26 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Well, here is a screenshot of a section of the JPEGs that will give you an idea: http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/randomPost.png On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:12 PM, John wrote: On 11/22/2015 1:13 PM, Darr

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

oy! ann On 11/23/2015 2:26 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Well, here is a screenshot of a section of the JPEGs that will give you an idea: http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/randomPost.png On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:12 PM, John wrote: On 11/22/2015 1:13 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Yesterday I enjoyed a

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Can't wait for the answer to your puzzle - can we see the wacko jpgs? (assuming you didn't delete).. I've messed up color balance accidentally and lots of other things but nothing like you describe - I'm too low tech to make an truly educated guess, but is it possible it has something to do with

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Looking into this, it appears that I somehow got JPEG set on Cross-Processing and the first setting option is "RANDOM". How useful is that? It's like having a whole squadron of Holgas, each with their own unique light leaks and each loaded with different expired film. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:29

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Does it have a 1970s mode? > On 23 Nov 2015, at 19:27, Darren Addy wrote: > > Well, here is a screenshot of a section of the JPEGs that will give you an > idea: > > http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/randomPost.png > > > >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:12 PM, John wrote: >>> On 11/22/2015 1:

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

I sorted out a similar problem for a friend yesterday - he was complaining that his new Canon p&s had suddenly started doing this random stuff, so I just reset it for him. It has a 'Beauty' setting which I think he'd set accidentally. Only such a thing could produce such hideous results. B > O

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Well, here is a screenshot of a section of the JPEGs that will give you an idea: http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/randomPost.png On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:12 PM, John wrote: > On 11/22/2015 1:13 PM, Darren Addy wrote: >> >> Yesterday I enjoyed a little photo safari and then, hearing that a >

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

On 11/22/2015 1:13 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Yesterday I enjoyed a little photo safari and then, hearing that a group of Whooping Cranes did not take off as expected on Saturday I raced down to Thayer County to try to get to see them before sundown. Somewhere along the line I accidentally changed s

Re: So how did I do THIS? Every JPEG looks like different processing...

Hmm. I wonder what camera has a "one-touch, randomized, Art Effect" mode built in… ?? Could be a salable option! :-) G > On Nov 22, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Darren Addy wrote: > > Yesterday I enjoyed a little photo safari and then, hearing that a > group of Whooping Cranes did not take off as expec

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

And would need a light source for any of those??? -- Bruce On March 23, 2015 2:29:56 PM PDT, "P.J. Alling" wrote: >Not a positive? > >A disparaging remark? > >My bank balance. > >On 3/23/2015 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote: >> What's a negative?:) >> >> -- >> Bruce >> >> On March 23, 2015 12:12:25 P

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

Not a positive? A disparaging remark? My bank balance. On 3/23/2015 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote: What's a negative?:) -- Bruce On March 23, 2015 12:12:25 PM PDT, Darren Addy wrote: Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing negatives and slides. Better than that, even, y

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

On 3/23/2015 3:12 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing negatives and slides. Better than that, even, your smart phone or tablet is a negative or slide illuminator for scanners that lack that built-in capability. http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

no wonder my cuneiform always looks like crap. I've been trying to do it in the dark. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Darren Addy wrote: > >>Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing >>negatives and slides. > > Also makes a great light source when p

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

Darren Addy wrote: >Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing >negatives and slides. Also makes a great light source when pressing cuneiform into clay tablets indoors! -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List P

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Bruce wrote: > What's a negative?:) My blood type. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

What's a negative?:) -- Bruce On March 23, 2015 12:12:25 PM PDT, Darren Addy wrote: >Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light table for viewing >negatives and slides. Better than that, even, your smart phone or >tablet is a negative or slide illuminator for scanners that lack that >bui

Re: So obvious... how did we not think of this?

I've used my monitor as a slide viewer by bringing up a white page elements and propping up the screen at a low angle - or just holding up a sheet of negs or slides against it in its normal position ann On 3/23/2015 15:12, Darren Addy wrote: Your smart phone or tablet is a portable light tabl

Re: So Q close

reat >> phone pictures. >> >>> On 3/15/15 7:12 AM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: >>> >>> Message: 5 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:10:07 -0400 From: paul stenquist >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: So Q close Mess

Re: So Q close

I' d be honored. Point away. On 3/15/15 2:12 PM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: Message: 4 Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:34:04 -0700 From: Larry Colen To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: So Q close Message-ID:<5505c28c.6070...@red4est.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-885

Re: So Q close

2 AM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: >> >> Message: 5 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 20:10:07 -0400 From: paul stenquist >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: So Q close Message-ID: >> Content-Type: >> text/plain; charset=utf-8 You don?t have a phone?

Re: So Q close

> > From: Mark C To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: So Q close Message-ID: <5504b447.5080...@charter.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Excellent set, Don. Sweet light, great compositions. My Q has seen little use - your photos make me wan

Re: So Q close

A friend just asked me on my facebook page about the Q, mind if I point him to your set? Donald Guthrie wrote: Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of madness & loyalty I bought Pentax Q7, the toy that is a little more. Here is a small group of closeups on the i

Re: So Q close

Nice of you to say Bob, but I will not let my wife see your comment about needs. Thanks for the view. On 3/14/15 4:17 PM, pdml-requ...@pdml.net wrote: Message: 5 Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 11:59:32 -0500 From: Bob Sullivan To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: So Q close Message-ID

Re: So Q close

Congrats on the Q7 purchase Don! A nice set and I'll agree with Bruce on 439, although I think it is most pleasing if looked at as a horizontal composition. On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: > Very cool, Don. Some fine compositions and the colours and tones are > wonderful. Es

Re: So Q close

Very cool, Don. Some fine compositions and the colours and tones are wonderful. Especially like 439. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Donald Guthrie wrote: > Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of > madness & loyalty I bought Pentax Q7, the toy that is a little m

Re: So Q close

You don’t have a phone? > On Mar 14, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > Donald Guthrie wrote: >> Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of >> madness & loyalty I bought Pentax Q7, the toy that is a little more. >> >> Here is a small group of closeups o

Re: So Q close

Donald Guthrie wrote: Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of madness & loyalty I bought Pentax Q7, the toy that is a little more. Here is a small group of closeups on the ice. Standard PP and little cropping. All comments welcome. https://www.flickr.com/photo

Re: So Q close

Excellent set, Don. Sweet light, great compositions. My Q has seen little use - your photos make me want to address that! Mark On 3/14/2015 12:51 PM, Donald Guthrie wrote: Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of madness & loyalty I bought Pentax Q7, the toy tha

Re: So Q close

I've been considering a similar type of thing. I would be very interested in your thoughts and impressions of the Q and system. The pics you displayed look quite nice. -- Bruce On March 14, 2015 9:51:05 AM PDT, Donald Guthrie wrote: >Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at h

Re: So Q close

Looks a bit of a serious walk about. Don. Leaving open the available crop space, my choice is #435 in landscape with the leaves remaining as they lay, but with the larger leaf left of center. Jack - Original Message - From: "Donald Guthrie" To: "PDML" Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:5

Re: So Q close

Don, You don't need any more cameras! Those pictures are excellent. The first 4-5 of the leaves are wonderful. Depth and sharpness abound. Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Donald Guthrie wrote: > Recently I felt I needed a small camera to to have at hand. In a fit of > madness &

Re: So what's wrong with this picture...

The reviews are amusing. This guy was one of the 5-star reviewers, but I have to wonder if he's actually using it on a camera: "Works very well. My wife loves it!" On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 10:48 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: > I've been looking for a replacement lens hood for my FA 20-35mm, after a > num

Re: So what's wrong with this picture...

:90 degrees or 1/4 of a circle :-) Not all pack shooters are actually photographers! Jens Den 05-01-2015 kl. 04:48 skrev P.J. Alling: I've been looking for a replacement lens hood for my FA 20-35mm, after a number of years of service it cracked and part of it fell off, never to be seen again.

Re: So what's wrong with this picture...

On Jan 5, 2015, at 4:48 pm, P.J. Alling wrote: > I've been looking for a replacement lens hood for my FA 20-35mm, after a > number of years of service it cracked and part of it fell off, never to be > seen again. In my search I found this. > >

Re: So what's wrong with this picture...

Quoting "P.J. Alling" : I've been looking for a replacement lens hood for my FA 20-35mm, after a number of years of service it cracked and part of it fell off, never to be seen again. In my search I found this.

Re: So what's wrong with this picture...

$4.30 is a bit steep even with free shipping. J - Original Message - From: "P.J. Alling" To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 7:48:05 PM Subject: So what's wrong with this picture... I've been looking for a replacement lens hood for my FA 20-35mm, after a numbe

Re: So, what happens if...

hotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" Subject: Re: So, what happens if... Ken Waller wrote: Glad to hear, thanks for reporting. Its really a shame that that wasn't mentioned in the literature that I've read so far on the conver

Re: So, what happens if...

Ken Waller wrote: >Glad to hear, thanks for reporting. > >Its really a shame that that wasn't mentioned in the literature that I've >read so far on the convertor. You would think news like that would help >encourage additional sales of the TC. Perhaps they'd rather encourage the sales of new le

Re: So, what happens if...

Glad to hear, thanks for reporting. Its really a shame that that wasn't mentioned in the literature that I've read so far on the convertor. You would think news like that would help encourage additional sales of the TC. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Ori

Re: So, what happens if...

On 4/6/2014 5:16 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Margus Männik wrote: ... you try to use a new 1.4x TC with older camera body, like K20D? Just tried out and it works fine with both screw-drive and SDM lenses! :) Even my old trusted Z-1p was able to focus and seems (sorry, can not confirm 100%) to set t

Re: So, what happens if...

On 7.04.2014 0:16, Mark Roberts wrote: Margus Männik wrote: ... you try to use a new 1.4x TC with older camera body, like K20D? Just tried out and it works fine with both screw-drive and SDM lenses! :) Even my old trusted Z-1p was able to focus and seems (sorry, can not confirm 100%) to set the

Re: So, what happens if...

Hi Dario, I was a bit "afraid"of some stupid intentional technical limitation. SR seems to work fine. I haven't done proper comparison, but DA*300 gave me nice and sharp results without tripod, which I wouldn't expect without proper SR. Metadata is correct - wide open shot with DA*300/4 is des

Re: So, what happens if...

Hi Margus, Thanks for trying, but I wasn't expecting problems about either focusing or exposure. The big question is: what about SR? That's the area where a proper firmware could make some noticeable difference, taking into account the resulting focal length. And what about exif matadata with

Re: So, what happens if...

Margus Männik wrote: >... you try to use a new 1.4x TC with older camera body, like K20D? >Just tried out and it works fine with both screw-drive and SDM lenses! :) >Even my old trusted Z-1p was able to focus and seems (sorry, can not >confirm 100%) to set the correct exposure. I'm sorry but you

Re: So ... who Really wants shallow DOF?

On 1/6/2014 11:01 AM, CollinB wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/181293811398?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649 No buy-it-now price? The problem with eBay is the good shit always shows up when it's not in my budget. When I've finally saved up enough, no one is offering what I wa

Re: So who needed whom?

On 1/3/2014 12:49 PM, Bill wrote: On 03/01/2014 12:06 PM, Walt wrote: Thanks, Bruce. I guess if I can hold off for a year, or so, I might be able to foot the bill for the whole megillah -- body, computer. I'm still pretty damned happy with my K-5, but knowing the improved auto-focus is out ther

Re: So who needed whom?

On 03/01/2014 12:06 PM, Walt wrote: Thanks, Bruce. I guess if I can hold off for a year, or so, I might be able to foot the bill for the whole megillah -- body, computer. I'm still pretty damned happy with my K-5, but knowing the improved auto-focus is out there makes me give it the ol' side-eye

Re: So who needed whom?

Thanks, Bruce. I guess if I can hold off for a year, or so, I might be able to foot the bill for the whole megillah -- body, computer. I'm still pretty damned happy with my K-5, but knowing the improved auto-focus is out there makes me give it the ol' side-eye every now and then. -- Walt On

Re: So who needed whom?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Walt wrote: > > It'll be quite some time before I can make the K-3 plunge, given that I > really will need to invest in a more robust computer to handle the files. I didn't let that stop me. :-) FWIW to you, my 2007 iMac is handling the K-3 files just fine. (2.4

Re: So who needed whom?

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Attila Boros wrote: > > I just got the K3 in the last days of 2013 after a long wait. I didn't > use it enough to draw a conclusion, but no problems with AF so far. > Only minor complaint I have is that I'd like the status screen off by > default and bring it up wit

Re: So who needed whom?

On 1/3/2014 9:56 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jan 3, 2014, at 9:09 AM, CollinB wrote: It looks like Ricoh, with its miniscule photography market share, needed Pentax just as much as Pentax, having little money, needed Ricoh. It is a mutually beneficial relationship. I gave strong consideratio

Re: So who needed whom?

On Jan 3, 2014, at 9:09 AM, CollinB wrote: > It looks like Ricoh, with its miniscule photography market share, needed > Pentax just as much as Pentax, having little money, needed Ricoh. > It is a mutually beneficial relationship. > > I gave strong consideration to leaving Pentax until the K-3

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >