" <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
>
>> After another evening of photographing musician friends I have a deeper
>> appreciation of the Pentax autofocus to always focus perfectly on the
>> microphone. Even when I accidentally set the autofocus point on a portion
>> of th
4:52 PM, "Larry Colen" wrote:
After another evening of photographing musician friends I have a deeper
appreciation of the Pentax autofocus to always focus perfectly on the
microphone. Even when I accidentally set the autofocus point on a portion
of the musicians face well away from the
Yeah. That's my favorite feature by far. It never fails. If you want razor
sharp microphones shoot Pentax.
On Jun 6, 2016 4:52 PM, "Larry Colen" <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
> After another evening of photographing musician friends I have a deeper
> appreciation of the Pent
More sort of aren't, really. The dealer finally got a set in today, and
the outside of the box said Pentax (AF). Inside was a note saying Note:
use manual focus mode.
The tubes don't have the driveshaft needed for the camera to move the
lens, so autofocus just whirs until it concludes
You're right. Kind of useless for the most part. BUT, I'd like to have them for
my A 400, so I could use an extension tube and still get high speed synch.
Without lens info, the Sigma 500 can't do high speed synch.
Paul
More sort of aren't, really. The dealer finally got a set in today, and
There is supposed to be a new model coming out from Kenko that will have
the drive shaft for Pentax autofocus. Right now you can buy a Kenko 25
mm. tube that works with Pentax autofocus.
But in macro mode you don't really want to use autofocus anyway.
Joe
if you don't have any already, they are noticeably cheaper than the Pentax
ones, at least new ones.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:05 PM
Subject: Kenco Pentax Autofocus extension tubes
Doug Franklin a écrit:
Hi Alek,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:13:44 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the price of such adapter AF?
In Europa (web on Germany):
http://www.fotokoch.de
193 (193 $)
Michel
What is the price of such adapter AF?
Alek
Uytkownik Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa:
Hi Bill,
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:53 -0800, Bill Lawlor wrote:
I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus adapter
to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is
Shaun posted:
What are you then trying to focus on? If you are attempting to focus on
anything closer than 3 feet or thereabouts, the AF adapter will not work
properly. If, on the other hand you are focusing from three feet too
infinity and the AF doesn't work, it may well be stuffed. I
Hi Alek,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:13:44 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the price of such adapter AF?
I'm not sure how much the 1.7X AF T/C costs currently. I think I paid
about $100 or $150 for mine a couple of years ago.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus adapter
to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is there really
such an animal? Anybody used it?
Thanks, Bill Lawlor
One sold yesterday for $87 on ebay. I haven't used one.
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 12:03 am, Bill Lawlor wrote:
I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus
adapter to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is
there really such an animal? Anybody used it?
Yes Bill such a beastie exists. I have one that I regularly stick on my
z-1p and use mainly with a Tokina 300mm f2.8. It is a great way to get a
fast 510mm f4.5 AF lens. It is best used with lenses of f4.0 or faster,
but can be used up to f5.6.
The overall image sharpness is naturally
Hi Bill,
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:53 -0800, Bill Lawlor wrote:
I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus adapter
to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is there really
such an animal? Anybody used it?
Boy, this is definitely a question that needs to
On Tuesday 10 December 2002 12:03 am, Bill Lawlor wrote:
I saw something recently on the Pentax.com site about an autofocus
adapter to get AF with manual lenses. Now I can't find it again. Is
there really such an animal? Anybody used it?
I have one. It works sometimes. I'm not sure if mine
It depends on the lens in use as well. Make sure it is at least an f4.0
or preferably faster (i.e. f2.8 is great). Also make sure the lens is
set to infinity, and that the camera AF is set to single rather than
servo focus. It will work on servo, but will easily zoom off somewhere
else if the
After I posted:
I'm not sure if mine is just a defective
example, but sometimes it just won't autofocus the lens and I can't get it
to
behave until after I've turned the camera off and back on. After losing a
shot
or two to this problem, my enthusiasm for this item has dwindled quite a
What are you then trying to focus on? If you are attempting to focus on
anything closer than 3 feet or thereabouts, the AF adapter will not work
properly. If, on the other hand you are focusing from three feet too
infinity and the AF doesn't work, it may well be stuffed. I have been
trying
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Doug Franklin wrote:
Boy, this is definitely a question that needs to end up in the FAQ! I
think I've answered it three or four times in the last two weeks or so.
Well, I'v egot as batch of updates perhaps I'll do this week sometime.
--
http://www.infotainment.org -
No but i'll try some.Thanks Tom
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you used any of the Fuji NPx stuff? It seems to be about a 1/2
stop faster...skin tones and contrast are good, as you would expect
from a portrait film, though I suspect the color balance
Bruce asked:
Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the
long term use of?
I own a 1975 Nikon F + Photomic FTn with
Nikkor-H.C Auto 1:2 50mm lens. The lens is
super, and I have only experienced flare when
I added a UV filter. This lens has the Nikon
Hard Coat as well as the anti-reflective
I was missing loads of shots the same way you were. This resulted in my wanting to get
a body with better AF. The fact that Pentax didn't look like it was ever going to come
out with world class AF (which it still hasn't) was one of the major factors for
deciding to switch brands. I can't
Message
From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:11:38 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 stuff'? Do
you mean
the older versions or did
:32
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
Hi Wendy.
Finally someone else besides myself has a problem
with the Fuji 400.I would get a blue hue to all
the proofs.Oh and were i take it is a Fuji lab,
and he's a Fuji shooter,so i'll assume he knows
Look, I didn't start with the foul language, making jokes about the Pope or the
Royals. If I've incited the kiddies to bedlam, I promise not to address members of the
peanut gallery anymore.
BR
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this has gone too far now!
They look great to me Jerome.Some nice angles.
Dave
Begin Original Message
At 20:39 25-9-2002 -0400, Jerome wrote:
OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if you're
interested
in such things:
http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
As a side note, this was
- Original Message -
From: wendy beard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
No, I meant Fuji (superia) 400.
200 is fine, 800 is fine. I just don't know what they did to
the 400
Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term use of? Or is this just another
of Pal's I'll make up anything to defend Pentax.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nikon is no better than Pentax except being quiter.
Not true. I have found Nikon users to be far noisier than Pentax users!
;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nikon is no better than Pentax
except being quiter.
Bruce wrote:
I still own, and like, Pentax MF gear. I find the current day Pentax Co., and their
AF line up, to be a combination of idiosyncratic and lame.
Don't know about the lame part but it is definitely idiosyncratic. If anything, the
MZ-S isn't idiosyncratic enough to make an impact.
Bruce wrote:
Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term use of? Or is this just
another of Pal's I'll make up anything to defend Pentax.
I've been trying out the F100 and it's no better than the MZ-S. I find Nikon more and
more irrelevant these days as they are just second rate
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:10:27 -0400
Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Which Nikon body do you own, or have had the long term
use of? Or is this just another of Pal's I'll make up
anything to defend Pentax.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nikon is no
, 26 Sep 2002 00:11:38 -0400
DB To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DB Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
DB At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 stuff'? Do
DB you mean
the older versions or did you mistype Fugi and meant Kodak or
DB
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
Nikon is no better than Pentax except being quiter.
Except for small things like Lock-On Focus Tracking at 8fps.
chris
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
David,
I, too, have not had very good luck with Fuji. I will say that for
cheap consumer film, the 800 Superia is pretty good - much
better than
the Kodak zoom max (whatever they call it now) stuff.
Like you, I
- Original Message -
From: Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes
Subject: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if
you're interested
in such things:
http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
Flying dawgs. Thats fun stuff.
William
Great pics!! Never seen so much fun... and action...
How many rolls did you shot?
Btw,i had good experience with Fuji Press 800. Grain is not visible in
10x15 cm prints.
Gasha
Jerome Daryl Coombs-Reyes wrote:
Hello all -
...
http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
...
PM
Subject: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
Hello all -
I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about equipment that actually
already exists! And I'm going to stretch even further and talk about
TAKING PICTURES with these cameras (do I have the right discussion
group?! Should I
I looked at the pics -- great action, and on
top of that, they seem quite
focussed.
Thank God for manual focus!
What did you exactly mean by
it failed just about everytime?
Hmmm... good question. Well, for one, subjects were moving too fast for me
to focus on them on AF mode. The thing
How many rolls did you shot?
6 rolls of 24-exposure. However, not all of it was action (trophy shots,
crowd shots, etc. were included). As for the action shots (maybe about 4
rolls total) the downfall of most of the shots were the backgrounds. I
didn't have much to work with as each sideline
In a message dated 9/25/02 6:50:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about equipment that actually
already exists! And I'm going to stretch even further and talk about
TAKING PICTURES with these cameras (do I have the right discussion
group?! Should I
That should have read, you won't see me do that again.
You won't seem to do that again
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
At 20:39 25-9-2002 -0400, Jerome wrote:
OH! BTW, the photos from the weekend can be seen here if you're interested
in such things:
http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jerome/gallery5.htm
p.s.
My attempt from two weekends ago, uncropped and unaltered from the scan
Blacks did to CD
- Original Message -
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
Bruce,
, don't make flippant remarks, no one really appreciates them.
Well, not quite no one, but I hate to quibble.
William Robb
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List
- Original Message -
From: wendy beard
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
I've been experimenting a lot with different films for this
sort of thing
and the Fuji Superia 800 has been the best by far (and I
believe that
Black's own brand is the same film too)
You
don't speak for everyone
mishka
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
...
don't make flippant remarks, no one really appreciates them.
At 23:36 25-9-2002 -0400, you wrote:
Did I read you wrong when you said 'the vile Fugi 400 stuff'? Do you mean
the older versions or did you mistype Fugi and meant Kodak or something?
Regards,
Brad Dobo
No, I meant Fuji (superia) 400.
200 is fine, 800 is fine. I just don't know what they did
- Original Message -
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
don't speak for everyone
mishka
From: Brad Dobo
Subject: Re: Pentax AutoFocus / Consumer Fast Film
...
don't
49 matches
Mail list logo
