Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
Hi devnull, on 11 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: I wanted o get a MZ-3 as my first Pentax camera but did try the MZ-S for an hour...too bad :-)) I will have only one question : does the MZ-S need to beep whenever it gets the AF blocked ? No, you can disable the beep (it's the same wih the Mz-3/5) grr in France MZ-S are 300 Euros costier than in Germany ( 950 Euros ) .. But we've the EU;-) Just buy it in Geermany - should be no problem. There are lots of German online shops shipping Europe-wide i shall sell one or two Nikon AI-s lenses to get the MZ-S...am i right ? Yes;-) MZ-3 MZ-S ? The AF and the built of the MZ-S are better. I'm tending to buy an MZ-S myself, but I'm trying to wait for the PMA next year as Pentax will show some new models. But it's hard to wait if you can get the MZ-S now...;-) If it comes to your choice between MZ-3 and MZ-S I would go for a German MZ-S... Regards, Heiko
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
on 11.12.02 3:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wanted o get a MZ-3 as my first Pentax camera but did try the MZ-S for an hour...too bad Welcome :-) I had the same problem - my Z1P got sold very quickly after playing a little with MZ-S :-) I will have only one question : does the MZ-S need to beep whenever it gets the AF blocked ? You can switch it off vie PF #1 grr in France MZ-S are 300 Euros costier than in Germany ( 950 Euros ) .. Buy it in one of German's on line shops: www.fotokoch.de, www.ac-foto.de ... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
Treena wrote: Flavio, thanks for posting that police car -- I've got to show it to my husband. My pleasure. His police vehicle is a Jeep Cherokee that's seen better days (good for the bad weather here in the Boston Mts.). The only way this could be more cool is as a convertible. I'd buy it in a second! ... Are you really interested? Brace youself then: THERE IS A CONVERTIBLE VERSION! I doubt, as somebody elsa was saying before, it could possibly pass the security tests in the USA, though. The problem was felt also in Europe so the ad on the TV showed a gril being rescued from Godzilla by a Smart-driving boy in the safety of the car. The monster just stepped on it fracturing its foot... ;-))) Flavio
Re[2]: Preflash on AF360-FGZ Causing Subjects to Blink?
Michael wrote: MC Manually setting the aperture at f/5.6, the shutter speed doesn't go MC lower than 45 in either Program or TV. Would it be better to set the MC shutter speed at 30 in Manual mode to get a little more ambient light? Hi Michael, Capturing a bit of the ambient light will add to the mood of your pictures. I also prefer the FA 50/1.4 for these circumstances, and chose to shoot in manual mode, with lens open at 2.8 and at speeds of 1/15 - 1/30. The blur caused by the people movement is largely compensated by the flash freezing their position. You might also try select trailing curtain synchro on your 360FTZ flash. This will freeze the subject at the end of the blur trail, giving a very suggestive sense of dynamism. Servus, Alin
OT:Tiny car excitement (Was: Talking about tiny cars)
Hi, Yesterday, I was waiting at a roundabout and noticed a Smart approaching with two, errr, voluptuous persons of a certain age on board. The driver had to brake hard (on high grip surface) for the last few feet of approach to the roundabout, due to unexpected actions from another road user. The back wheels clearly lifted off the road. Rather exciting for me and I was only watching. Pity I didn't have a camera (or the necessary reflexes) to catch the moment. mike
Re: Sigma/Tamron vote no confidence in Pentax?
Hi, Alek wrote: How do you assess SP 500/8 Tamron? Sharp optics, easy to use hand-held (with resultant degradation of performance) small and light for the optical reach, cheap secondhand. IIRC, focuses oppositely to Pentax lenses. Very easy to dismantle and clean when filled with river water 8-) (I think I just lowered my chances of selling mine) Drawbacks? Not with the lens per se. but quite a few people have had problems with mounts. Make sure the one you get is secure and functions as required. mike
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
- Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] and NEw York guys - anywhere I can get these cartridges for less than $20.00 each? I don't live in NY but I know www.all-ink.com has good quality ink cartridges at bargain prices if you are not opposed to ordering on-line. Christian
Re: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Tom wrote: Hum...? Same old polite friendly Pal, I see. Why should one be friendly when you are being extremely rude by saying you have the right to abuse mailing list at your whim and by insulting 99% of the list subscribers by telling they fit into two categories; 1) people who are here for self gratification, and 2) people who are here because they don't have a life elsewhere. Has it ever, only for a moment, occured to you that the vast majority is here to discuss Pentax and photography? You know something, I believe you have a RIGHT to have a different opinion than me. In fact that has been my argument in this whole thread, people have a right to their opinion, and to express it. ...and nobody denies anybody their rights. It's about finding the proper outlet for their opinions. In that way they will get heard. If everyone followed your theory nodody would get heard anywhere and that will be ultimate censorship and disclose of any mailinglist. The opposition is that certain people should shut up. No it isn't. 99% of the list members don't imposed their political opinion on the rest of us. Its about showing common decency and not behaving like a totally self centered jerk. So as a simple experiment let me take other track and see how it feels to both sides. SHUT UP, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR CRAP! Hey, that felt pretty good. Bet it didn't make you feel good though did it? You will continue hearing crap about Pentax, photography and list matters as long as you are subscribed to a Pentax discussion forum. If you don't want to hears such crap you got o a mailing list where they discuss your sort of crap. There are list for everything out there. However, people subscribed to a photography group do not expect to get opinions about guns etc. You can take your political opinions and other interest to their proper mailing lists and get heard. Pål
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
I will have only one question : does the MZ-S need to beep whenever it gets the AF blocked ? No. You can turn it off. grr in France MZ-S are 300 Euros costier than in Germany ( 950 Euros ) .. i shall sell one or two Nikon AI-s lenses to get the MZ-S...am i right ? MZ-3 MZ-S ? The MZ-S is a way better camera than the MZ-3. Pål
Pentax 300/2.8 with the 1,7X F-AF converter?
Have anyone tried the combination of the FA* 300/2.8 and the 1,7X AF converter? Just curious. Pål
Re : Who switched for Pentax ? (New in the list)
Hello everyone! I've been in the list for 1 week. I've semi switched back to Pentax, using the ME my father bought in 1976 and the SMC-M50/1.7 K that was mounted onto. I recently acquired the SMC 135/2.5 K (6 elements, 6 groups version) and the SMC-M 50/1.4 for 80 euros (approx. 80USD) for both. I 'm still waiting for the film to be developped to see if these lenses are lemons or not. (and I'm on a mint, almost new SMC-M 24/2.8 at a low price, below 50 USD.) I must admit that using the ME with these lenses is a real pleasure, and I left more often my Canon EOS gear at home now. Regards, - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bords-de-mer.com
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
Thanks, Danke, Merci all of you i think i'll go for the MZ-S + its grip (it reminds me of my former beloved Contax RTS-III , but lighter) and a zoom : the rest will be 2nd-hand manual lenses... Now the only thing i shall miss will be the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm Jean-Baptiste
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
Thanks for the brief yet concise explanation, Bruce! I've just never made the connection, but is's ~so~ obvious - pros only use 35mm! You're right, I've never noticed a PJ with a view camera. And, the only pros are PJ's, right? vbg cheers, frank Bruce Dayton wrote: frank, Much simpler than you think. 5FPS = Pro. Nikon = Pro. Canon = Pro. Pentax = Amateur. Minolta = Amateur. Of course, this only works with 35mm because those are the only pro cameras. What's medium format anyway? VBG -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
It's an important question. How could one possibly take a photograph without knowing the answer? g -frank Peter Alling wrote: Only here could someone take a flip remark and complicate it so. (Someone is thinking way too much about this). I think the short answer is yes. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
RE: PROS
Best darn description I've heard in over 30 years!!! Mark Mangum Graywolf wrote: Pro camera -- one you can not afford. Am camera -- one you have.
Re: PROS
Hi, Tom, I think we only went through this debate 2 or 3 times since you've left. As you undoubtedly recall, it comes up on a regular basis, in it's various incarnations. I love your definition, though, as it applies particularly to me g Of course, this thread is (at least from my perspective), tongue in cheek - I think I'm just punch-drunk after the flame-war on G**s. cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: As I recall, we went though this what is a professional camera thing about a year ago, and hashed it out pretty thorouhly. Then I asked how we define an amatuer camera. No one was interested. So I will give the definative answer to both questions: Pro camera -- one you can not afford. Am camera -- one you have. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
Alek wrote: Thank you! so for the price K35/3.5 is great and if one can afford to buy FA version it pays. I shall try to find old for beginning. The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose, rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've discovered that initially tight AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may well be that some newer AF designs are potentially beter optically, but getting the best out of them is more of a hassle. Older, MF lenses are built to last forever and my experience is that they do and never ever get out of alignment or develop rattles. Pål
Re: Pentax 300/2.8 with the 1,7X F-AF converter?
Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have anyone tried the combination of the FA* 300/2.8 and the 1,7X AF converter? Just curious. I've only tried the 1.7x AF teleconverter with my Sigma EX300/2.8 APO - worked very well with that lens. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
From: Jean-Baptiste Fargier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now the only thing i shall miss will be the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm Replace it with the Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited Pål
Re: Re : Who switched for Pentax ? (New in the list)
Pascal Guillaumet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! I've been in the list for 1 week. I've semi switched back to Pentax, using the ME my father bought in 1976 and the SMC-M50/1.7 K that was mounted onto. I recently acquired the SMC 135/2.5 K (6 elements, 6 groups version) and the SMC-M 50/1.4 for 80 euros (approx. 80USD) for both. I 'm still waiting for the film to be developped to see if these lenses are lemons or not. Yikes! Neither one of those lenses is even *close* to being a lemon! You've got two excellent optics there. Welcome to the list. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PROS
Frank wrote: I think we only went through this debate 2 or 3 times since you've left. As you undoubtedly recall, it comes up on a regular basis, in it's various incarnations. I love your definition, though, as it applies particularly to me Actually, there is an industry standard of what constitutes a pro slr camera. Typically, it applies to slr's that can withstand more than 100 000 shutter cycles without failure. The MZ-S max shutter speed of 1/6000s is set with this, and power consumption, in mind. The same shutter unit can be strunged to max 1/8000s. Pål
Small lens survey
Hey folks, Just wondering does anyone own any of these lenses? FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] M Reflex 2000mm f/13.5 I'm really quite curious! Brad ** Brad W. Dobo, HBA (Eds.) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 1658
PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
...via Mike Johnston's column, of course: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-12-09.shtml -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:48:11 +0100 Jean-Baptiste Fargier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Danke, Merci all of you i think i'll go for the MZ-S + its grip (it reminds me of my former beloved Contax RTS-III , but lighter) and a zoom : the rest will be 2nd-hand manual lenses... Ohhyeah, the grip. That is one of the best non-optical things I've ever bought for any camera :) I have rather big hands, and the MZ-S almost was too small without it. Now the only thing i shall miss will be the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm There is good Pentax glass. I am sure the list will flood you with suggestions for alternatives :)
Epson cartridge life
Hi, Belated Happy Birthday, Anne. You asked about using the cartridges until they go dry. Epson specifically advises against this. A charity I work with used the carts in its Photo EX until they went dry as a matter of course. After about 2 years, the heads needed replacing. Maybe linked, maybe not. If using full page prints, it is quite annoying for the cart to run out just at the end of the sheet. My practice at the moment is to do one more job after the light comes on. At home, this is not possible - 895 with chipped cartridge 8-( mike
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:52:46 -0500, Ann Sanfedele wrote: Boy, the matte heavyweight paper gobbles up ink fast - Is there any evidence that glassy papers abosorb less ink? My experience has been that matte papers, in general, use more ink than glossy ones. DO you epsonites milk the cartridge right down to the very end? I seem to be getting ok stuff after it has told me it is almost out - I bleed it like mad ... I keep printing until one color obviously runs completely empty. and NEw York guys - anywhere I can get these cartridges for less than $20.00 each? Can't help with that. The color cartridge for the Epson 820 usually runs right around US$ 20 here. The black cartridge usually goes around US$ 25. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:54:10 +0100, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: they'd rather make a lover profit than no profit atall. ^ You sure have a closer relationship with your photo pusher than I have! :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
Mark wrote: ...via Mike Johnston's column, of course: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-12-09.shtml A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-( Pål
Re: Small lens survey
Brad wrote: FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] We had acouple of PDML's who owned this lens. I'm not sure they are with us anymore... A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] I would like to own this lens although I can come up with no logic justification for buying this lens. I guess logic has nothing to do with it. Pål
Re: Pentax 300/2.8 with the 1,7X F-AF converter?
Mark wrote: I've only tried the 1.7x AF teleconverter with my Sigma EX300/2.8 APO - worked very well with that lens. The FA* 300/2.8 with and without the AF converter seems like a nice outfit for hand held telephoto shoothing. It is an alternative to buying a Canon 300/4 IS lens plus body and converter. With the high Norwegian currency buying the FA* 300/2.8 used from KEH is becoming a tempting solution Pål
Re: PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark wrote: ...via Mike Johnston's column, of course: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-12-09.shtml A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-( He'll be back (we're just too damned lovable...for the most part). He really needs to get an email client with better filtering capabilities. Besides plonking certain people, I have a killfile that looks for any subject line containing the word guns (the argument that drove him - and many others, no doubt - away). -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
OT: Leonid photo
For those, like me, who were totally unsuccessful, there's a nivce photo of tis years Leonid storm on the Astronomy Picture of the Day site: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html The Geminids are coming up, but are not predicted to be strong. Dan
Re: Small lens survey
Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad wrote: FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] We had acouple of PDML's who owned this lens. I'm not sure they are with us anymore... A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] I would like to own this lens although I can come up with no logic justification for buying this lens. I guess logic has nothing to do with it. Of course, neither of these belongs in this kind of survey since neither of them is a small lens. rimshot -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax 300/2.8 with the 1,7X F-AF converter?
Hi Pl, On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 13:44:28 +0100, Pl Jensen wrote: Have anyone tried the combination of the FA* 300/2.8 and the 1,7X AF converter? Just curious. I have only used it with the A* 300mm, almost the same optically I think, but of course that is not an AF lens. The combination works very well though, I used it as an AF combo on the PZ-1 and as an MF lens on the LX (allthough I prefer the 1.4x-L for that). Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Small lens survey
har har, small survey, not small lenses silly! ;-) - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Small lens survey Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brad wrote: FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] We had acouple of PDML's who owned this lens. I'm not sure they are with us anymore... A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] I would like to own this lens although I can come up with no logic justification for buying this lens. I guess logic has nothing to do with it. Of course, neither of these belongs in this kind of survey since neither of them is a small lens. rimshot -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: looking for an odd lens
I would say generally that mirrors are never quite going to perform like regular lenses, however if you can provide a stable platform that will help considerably. You know, I've seen this opinion expressed many times. It's a very common opinion within photographic circles. I've even fallen under its spell, though I have no experience with mirror lenses. Doug. In my experience they seem to lack contrast. Also I think folks with less photographic experience than those here might be tempted to use the lens hand held - given the low weight that is a likely possibility. Then there's the cumulative effect of hand holding a lens of (relatively) limited aperture. I have used the Canon 500mm F8 (FD), Nikon 2000mm F11, Sigma 600mm F8, Tamron 350 and 500mm SP lenses. The nice thing about the Tamrons is (somebody else made this point) the great close focus. Kind regards Peter
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Maybe I was shooting at the place where bohek looked quite good. Maybe in different one it would show its bad face as you wrote. I do not argue with you just exchange opinions. What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. keith whaley Maybe in my conditions I bokeh was nice. It also should depends on background. Of course I do not portraits at infnity. I just wrote that I mostly shot at infinity and I took some pictures/portraits not at infinity of course. Alek
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:55:08 -0500 Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:54:10 +0100, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: they'd rather make a lover profit than no profit atall. ^ You sure have a closer relationship with your photo pusher than I have! :-) Hehewell cought, Doug. That's what us non-native english speakers get from speaking up. Then again, although not French, I do live in Paris France.the city of romance and decadence. Worse things are know to happen here, I'll have you know. But no, I am not in a that close relationship with my photo-pusher :)
Re: Too bad i tried the MZ-S
I dunno, if they knocked off a couple of hundred bucks . . . ;-) Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/11/02 08:55AM On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 10:54:10 +0100, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: they'd rather make a lover profit than no profit atall. ^ You sure have a closer relationship with your photo pusher than I have! :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
In a message dated 12/11/02 4:58:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Boy, the matte heavyweight paper gobbles up ink fast - Is there any evidence that glassy papers abosorb less ink? DO you epsonites milk the cartridge right down to the very end? I seem to be getting ok stuff after it has told me it is almost out - and NEw York guys - anywhere I can get these cartridges for less than $20.00 each? night night Yes I too try to milk it but you can't do that if you are printing to large paper. Too risky. When I'm down low I try to stick to 4X6 prints. Vic
Re: Talking about tiny cars...
True. The best we could do would be a Harley with the dog in sidecar . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/02 10:48AM No, American police officer would be caught dead in that, (but it is so damned cute). At 10:03 AM 12/10/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hi all, reading this thread I remembered the smallest police car I ever saw. I was in Capri, the famous island in front of Sorrento and Naples where VIPs and generally affluent people likes to show their Big Boats, nice and powerful friends or beautiful wives and husbands. Well, I'll leave it here. It's a very nice place, BTW, and I was there with my wife in a warm spring week. A sweet place, really. Anyway Capri is actually a small rocky place so road are very limited and quite narrow. The one in the picture was a real police car, probably the only one able to get into the most narrow streets and not get stuck. Of course a good part of Capri has no roads but only cobbled paths so you can only walk if you have to get there. But that's another story. We even rented a small scooter to have a better look around and even that way you still had to walk a lot. It's like a mountain valley in the middle of the sea. Have a look: http://space.tin.it/arte/flamin/tinplcar.jpg Ciao, Flavio
Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.
Hey Everybody, I thought up of a great new topic for discussion: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns. How many flash guns are enough and why? How big and powerful do you want your flash guns to be? ect. I'm not sure where I got the idea from, What do you think? Ryan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Small lens survey
In a message dated 12/11/02 8:28:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] M Reflex 2000mm f/13.5 I'm really quite curious! Brad No but a friend has the 135-600f/6.7 mint with carrying case etc that he wants to sell to me for $1200 Cdn. Anyone have this lens and would care to comment... Vic
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
If you family doctor was on vacation, and treated a skinned knee, would you say it was treated by a amateur? Once a doctor, always a doctor. The same analogy applies. If you're good enough to be ABLE to make money with your photography, and if other photographers consider you a professional, you're locked into the title. What you describe is a pro taking personal photographs on his time off. Facts are, they're just as likely to be a tad better than yours and mine, simply because of his untold hours of practice making GOOD photographs. The Kodak snap shoot he uses is what it is. If he only and forever used that camera to make his or her outstanding photographs, for him that would be his 'pro camera.' If a predominance of paid photographers used that kind, size and shape of Kodak box camera, yes, I suppose you'd have to call it a pro camera, woudn't you? Caveat: as with any other camera, it's only a designation. With me, perhaps with most of us, it would STILL be no better than any other camera in our hands. With the professional photographer, it's HOW he uses it, and the proof of the images he captures, that makes him a pro. Some photography magazine did an article or essay one time, enlisting several well-known photographers to do just that ~ take a simple box camera of some time, and make photographs with it. Do as well as they could, and let's see the results. I know you posted your questions in a tone of amusement, but in fact, whatever the pro uses becomes his pro camera, doesn't it. My 2¢ keith whaley frank theriault wrote: Ah, but what if the pro is taking family snapshots on his day off? Is he still a pro? And would the camera he uses be a pro camera? What if he uses the same camera to take those snapshots as he does whilst working? Would it only be a pro camera while on the job, but an amateur camera on Sunday at the zoo? OTOH, what if he takes family snapshots, but years later, sells one of those shots? Would the camera be an amateur camera, but ~suddenly~ turn into a pro camera? What if he ~was~ an amateur when he took the snapshot, but years later, turned into a pro, then sold the photo? What's the body then? That should be enough to chew on for now... vbg -frank (in a devilish mood tonight) Peter Alling wrote: That's easy, professional cameras are the ones professionals use, amateurs use amateur cameras. At 05:24 PM 12/10/2002 -0600, you wrote: I've got one! I'm still not too clear on the difference between professional and amateur cameras ... (running and ducking) -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
on 12/11/02 8:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/11/02 4:58:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Boy, the matte heavyweight paper gobbles up ink fast - Is there any evidence that glassy papers abosorb less ink? No, DO you epsonites milk the cartridge right down to the very end? I seem to be getting ok stuff after it has told me it is almost out - Yes and NEw York guys - anywhere I can get these cartridges for less than $20.00 each? When you get the answer please forward it to me or post it large type for all to see. night night Yes I too try to milk it but you can't do that if you are printing to large paper. Too risky. When I'm down low I try to stick to 4X6 prints. Vic Ed Tyler
Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.
In a message dated 12/11/02 9:45:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Everybody, I thought up of a great new topic for discussion: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns. How many flash guns are enough and why? How big and powerful do you want your flash guns to be? ect. I'm not sure where I got the idea from, What do you think? Ryan Good One. I have too many flash guns right now. Vivitar 3700, Pentax 280t, AF-080C Ring Light, AF330FTZ and the AF500FTZ.. But then I like to collect all things Pentax and that includes flash guns. On the weekend I was shooting group shots of my daughters' skating teams and played a little with the 500FTZ built-in slave. It seemed to work pretty well but when all the parents started to pop off shots it, of course, started to go off as well. Forgot there would be others shooting as well. Anyway shot with the LX with K35/3.5 and the 280T as main light source off camera on TTL. The AF500 was a few feet to the right. The flashes separated by about 4-5 ft. I probably should have cut the power output of the 500FTZ because some of the exposures seem a little harsh. When it did work, the shadows created by the 500 were nicely filled in by the 280T. Obviously the 500 became the main light source and the 280T controlled by the camera became the secondary light source. I did not get the manual with the 500FTZ so I need to do some more experimenting I usually don't worry too much about flash when I'm on TTL with the LX. The pictures always come out, but the lighting ratio could have been much better. Does anyone have a lot of experience using the 500 in slave mode. I know you can knock it back. Any recomendations. Vic
RE: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] In a message dated 12/11/02 9:45:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey Everybody, I thought up of a great new topic for discussion: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns. How many flash guns are enough and why? How big and powerful do you want your flash guns to be? ect. I'm not sure where I got the idea from, What do you think? Ryan Good One. I have too many flash guns right now. Vivitar 3700, Pentax 280t, AF-080C Ring Light, AF330FTZ and the AF500FTZ.. But then I like to collect all things Pentax and that includes flash guns. I've got 3 500's. One is usually in the shop, so I probably need 4. On a related note, you may remember I broke my FA 645 45-85 earlier this year. Well, about a month ago I broke it again. The damage was unrelated to the previous break. Sent it off to Pentax about 3 or 4 weeks ago. I hadn't heard anything, and was wondering what the deal was - I usually hear back from them within 2 or 3 weeks. Yesterday the lens arrived, fixed. The invoice said the damage was covered under the warranty from the previous break. I was impressed. tv
Re: Re : Who switched for Pentax ? (New in the list)
I recently acquired the SMC 135/2.5 K (6 elements, 6 groups version) and the SMC-M 50/1.4 for 80 euros (approx. 80USD) for both. I 'm still waiting for the film to be developped to see if these lenses are lemons or not. Well,I can't say whether those particular samples you have are lemons or not, but the K 135/2.5 and the M 50/1.4 are both very good lens designs. Fred
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Comments within. Mark Roberts wrote: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boy, the matte heavyweight paper gobbles up ink fast - Is there any evidence that glassy papers abosorb less ink? Yes, glossy paper uses less ink. DO you epsonites milk the cartridge right down to the very end? Right down to the end? I generally get several good 8 x 10s *after* the cartridge has declared itself to be out of ink. I seem to be getting ok stuff after it has told me it is almost out - I have the 1270 so I can re-set the empty cartridge back to full as long as I have a new, full cartridge handy. I find that Epson's software declares the cartridge empty long before it actually *is* empty. I suspect that is the machine clearing the printer's tubes and such, after the cartridge reservoir IS actually empty. When you start it up again, you'll have to fill up the tubes, just like you did when you first put the machine into service. and NEw York guys - anywhere I can get these cartridges for less than $20.00 each? I buy from http://www.inkjetart.com/index.html, http://inkjetgoodies.com and http://www.inksupply.com/ www.inksupply.com charges $27 for BW and $22 for color, for the Epson 820. They sell the Epson 1270 black cartridge for $25, and 5-color for $30! I guess you can get a little off, by shopping around, but not very much... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com keith whaley
Re: Official Hello from Newbie Doe/Marnie
Not only did my first shots disappoint me, but way too many of my current shots do. And that's not because I'm more critical, AFAIK. On the other hand, sometimes the PhotoGods are with me and I snag a good 'un. From my point of view, Pentax Photography (and there is no other, I AM a Mild Bigot) is a whole lot like fishing: You cain't catch 'em if you don't have your line in the water, and... just because your line is in the water doesn't mean you catch much. I like it, it being fishing or photography. But sometimes the Gods Smile Upon You and you have something to be momentarily proud of. It doesn't help the next time out, though. More people should do this kind of thing. Takes your tough edge off. I'm your age, also. Snapping pix makes me feel young, hungry, learning, tickled. Keep it up. -Lon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I meant to include that between classes, college and now, I probably shot about 10 rolls over the last 20-30 years. Probably less than that. I was fortunate enough to be around some decent photographers, so I would just get copies made of their negatives if I wanted pictures of friends and stuff. Yeah, a real photographic newbie.
Re: Small lens survey
Brad Dobo wrote: Hey folks, Just wondering does anyone own any of these lenses? FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF] A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF] M Reflex 2000mm f/13.5 I'm really quite curious! Danger! Danger Will Robinson! Danger, Danger! !8^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
RE: Question #2: Macro related
-Original Message- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I will speak up on the defensive for the Cosina-made Pentax/Phoenix/Vivitar/Soligar 100mm f3.5 Macro: It's cheap, it flares (in everything but mebbe the Pentax SMC version - I have the Phoenix), it is light weight, and it _definately_ gives bang for the buck. I have the Pentax version, and can vouch that it's a good value. Haven't noticed any flare with mine, but I don't think I've used it in many flarey situations. tv
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right combination of elements in the scene being photographed for bad bokeh to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or transparency, it's good bokeh if you don't, it's bad. Dan Scott
Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.
Let's see, I currently have 2ea. Norman 200B (200 WS), 1ea. Vivitar 283. 1ea. Vivitar 2600. and 1ea. Vivitar 252. I would like to add a couple of Strobotron 1200 packs with 4 heads, and a spare 283. Of course, if someone wants to give me a hundred thousand dollars or so I would replace all that with modern equipment in a heartbeat. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Ryan Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns. Hey Everybody, I thought up of a great new topic for discussion: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns. How many flash guns are enough and why? How big and powerful do you want your flash guns to be? ect. I'm not sure where I got the idea from, What do you think? Ryan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
We've just beGUN [WAS: Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.]
As with the new Subject line, which also has GUN in it, shows just how un-intelligent such a non-reasoned stand is... Most radical 'thinkers' react, sad to say ~ they don't do much thinking or reasoning. One would hope for better, from such otherwise nice folks... keith whaley Cotty wrote: Guys, this is an excellent thread, but be aware that some folk have set up killfiles for posts that contain the word 'gun' in the subject line. Perhaps a renaming of the thread would be a good idea if you want full readership HTH Cotty PS AF280T with knobs on! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/mods/modsmain.html :-)
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
Dan Scott wrote: On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:46 AM, Fred wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g. Fred Fred's right. Bokeh won't be a problem if you don't have any objects of the right sort in the right spot, foreground or background. The optical characteristics of the lens are in the lens, but you need the right combination of elements in the scene being photographed for bad bokeh to end up on the film. Plus, the third factor affecting valuation of bokeh is the viewer. If you like the bokeh in evidence on the print or transparency, it's good bokeh if you don't, it's bad. Quite clearly, that's abundantly true! grin Thanks for the clarification! keith Dan Scott
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Sure there's evidence. That's why there are settings in the printer setup to tell it what kind of paper you are using. Try printing on glossy paper using a matte or plain inkjet paper setting. That results in a print with too much ink. Len --- From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: EPson ink usage for color prints Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 04:52:46 -0500 Boy, the matte heavyweight paper gobbles up ink fast - Is there any evidence that glassy papers abosorb less ink? _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose, rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've discovered that initially tight AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may well be that some newer AF designs are potentially beter optically, but getting the best out of them is more of a hassle. I have noticed this too but I do not think that the degree of looseness is a measure for the degree of durability. I think they are designed to become looser with use (to keep friction as low a possible). Once they have become loose it stays like this. However,there is a big difference between built quality among the various AF lenses. You have to pay much for built quality (I estimate that today a lens with a built quality comparable to that of the K-lenses is at least 4-5x more expensive than it was in the eighteens). Older, MF lenses are built to last forever and my experience is that they do and never ever get out of alignment or develop rattles. I aggree. But in those days, lenses were not categorized into consumer and pro lenses. Those who could afford the fast version bought a slower version of a lens. Both were made according to the same (high) standard. Today, the consumer is feeded with junk lenses while the right stuff has become excessively expensive considering the prices from the eighteens. Alexander Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Best photography websites
http://www.photocritique.net/ http://www.photosig.com/ The two above are worth visiting. Dan Scott
Re: 30mm f2.8 was Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
I agree with all those positive comments about the 30mm/2.8 lens (particularly about it's great range of tonality). I just want to add that it also delivers remarkably high quality over-life size macro shots (in reverse mode on a bellows or extension rings). I have used this lens for 4x or 5x life size macro shots and I am quite pleased with the results. Enjoy, Alexander Bob wrote: Hi Thibault The 30mm is probably one of Pentax's most under-rated lenses and one of their best. I have one and have been singing great pleasures of joy since I bought it. I am sure that this lens was a all stops pulled design and I would be interested how the 31mm limited compares. I personally don't think the 30mm could be significantly bettered by the 31mm or competing lenses near that focal length. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? I had read many good things before buying my 30/2.8 and all I can tell is that I wasn't disapointed by the qualities of this lens. Although it is especially sharp, as the MTF tests can indicate, it has also a very strong visual sharpness and a great range of tonality. The rendering of out of focus scenes is also quite pleasing, especially close focus scenes. Mechanically the lens is awesome and still very light, lighter than K 28/3.5. The characteristic I like most about this lens is the very low distortion you get given the relative wide angle of the lens. Buildings and lines near the edges of the frames are rendered very linear, making this lens a very good lens for street photography. I have yet to see a lens of the same angle and size with so little distortions. The fact that the lens is quite rare explains its high price on the used market but it is also due to its qualities. Thibault Grouas. Well the 30mm is more of a substitute, and a much superior one at that, for one of the K or M 28mm lenses. That said I can only second the assessment that this is a great lens. It may be overlooked due to it's relative rarity. At 09:36 AM 12/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 12/10/02 7:05:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. I have 35/3.5 lens and agree that it is a very good lens. But one lens that seems to get overlooked here on a regular basis is the 30/2.8. If you are a believer in lens tests, this is the one to get. Vic __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: PROS
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 06:22 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote: Pro camera -- one you can not afford. Am camera -- one you have. How about Pro camera generates more income than it cost Am camera costs more every time you use it Dan Scott
Re: Epson cartridge life
I Have had some success rejuvenating Epson heads by using a head-flush cartridge. General opinion seems to be that it's not worth having heads replaced as Epson charges as much as a new printer. The head-flush worked well for me and my '97 Stylus Colour (err sorry, should that be color) 800 continues to give good service. I'm glad I didn't take out that expensive three year extended warranty when I bought it. Anton ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm2.8)
Timothy wrote: This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Yes, but it is debatable whether we are talking about bokeh then or simply just annoying backgrounds. Even the best of lenses regarding bokeh cannot perform wonders with annoying backgrounds. Pål
Re: Question #2: Macro related
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Lon Williamson wrote: Dan, you a resourceful Texan and all with no doubt, a big-ass Cowboy hat, should have no problem. Use your big paw, and if that ain't enough, the brim of your hat. LOL Dan Scott
Re: Best photography websites
www.naturephotographers.net and www.photocritique.net are both excellent sites! DG At 10:30 AM 12/11/02 -0800, you wrote: When you say photography websites are you thinking just in terms of sites that discuss technique, or sites that include member galleries, or sites that go into great detail on equipment? I think there are almost too many to catalog. Photo.net is one of my favorites, mostly because technical information is included in the galleries. There are a lot of on-line galleries that don't include that. Photo.net's discussion groups can get a little aloof, especially when equipment is involved. Pentax is generally not well regarded there with respect to manufacturers. I ran across http://www.fredmiranda.com/ which has galleries aligned to monthly assignments, similar to PUG except there isn't the limitation on equipment and there's a bit more structure to the assignment. Take it for what you will. I'm sure there are other sites out there with similar purpose. Another favorite is http://www.abandoned-places.com/, but I haven't visited in awhile. Definitely for those interested in industrial grunge photography. I'll have to check out naturepix when I get a chance... t On 12/10/02 8:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oops forgot to start it off. I like to go to http://www.naturepix.com/ just to check out the galleries once in a while Vic
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 09:39 PM, frank theriault wrote: Ah, but what if the pro is taking family snapshots on his day off? Is he still a pro? And would the camera he uses be a pro camera? What if he uses the same camera to take those snapshots as he does whilst working? Would it only be a pro camera while on the job, but an amateur camera on Sunday at the zoo? OTOH, what if he takes family snapshots, but years later, sells one of those shots? Would the camera be an amateur camera, but ~suddenly~ turn into a pro camera? What if he ~was~ an amateur when he took the snapshot, but years later, turned into a pro, then sold the photo? What's the body then? That should be enough to chew on for now... Hey y'all up there near Frank, Why'nt y'all see if you can hook him up with a nice girl or something, man. His stitching's getting all ravelly up there. Dan Scott
ZX5-N/MZ-S flash compensation
I have noticed that on my ZX5-N MZ-S Camera's, the exposure compensation dial becomes a flash compensation dial if either the on-camera flash is popped up or an external flash unit is attatched--that is, setting the exposure compensation dial no longer changes the camera's shutter speed or the aperture setting, it only changes the flash output--this is true in program mode, shutter priority, and aperature priority mode. Pentax does not include this information in their manuals and from what I understand this is not how most camera's exp. comp. dials work. Has anyone else noticed this? I am just looking for some confirmation that I am not crazy. I think this is a wonderful feature because it in effect allows me to control the fill flash ratio. David Willecke _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
RE: Question #2: Macro related
At 02:11 PM 12/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: I have the Pentax version, and can vouch that it's a good value. Haven't noticed any flare with mine, but I don't think I've used it in many flarey situations. Ditto with mine. (Vivitar version) Gary J Sibio [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.
Re: MIR-47K 2,5/20mm - problems
Hello Sylwester: I sent some messages to the list about the problem you mention. When you screw a filter to the back of the lens, the mirror in the MZ-S, MZ-5 or MX gets stuck when it is returning to its normal position after having fired the shutter. If you press the bayonet release button and turn the lens slightly, it returns to its prefire position. It doesn't get stuck in bigger bodies such as the Z-1 or SFX. Perhaps they have bigger mirror chambers. In fact, I am thinking about selling this lens, as I don't use it very often and a 18 or 15 mm. would suit my needs better. -- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zaragoza (Aragon) - Spain --
Re: PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-( No, I'm here. Just listening. I apologize if my abrupt departure seemed like grandstanding. I simply realized it is *not* my right to tell other people what to discuss...whereas it *is* my right to decide what I will listen to. g Look on the good side...because I also choose not to discuss politics, nobody has to listen to my highly inflammatory opinions on *that* subject. 8-( :-) --Mike Photography is simple. The only complicated thing is keeping it simple. (Ken Archer) * * * Find out about Mike Johnston's unique photography newsletter, The 37th Frame, at http://www.37thframe.com.
Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Have you checked the prices at Costco? They have 2-packs of certain ink cartridges for a little less. Pat White
Re: Opinions Wanted: Vivitar 2x Macro Focussing Teleconverter
It's cheap ($80 on ebay) and it rocks. There's even an A version so you won't lose program mode if that matters to you. I don't have any examples to show you at the moment, but others on the list may have some. Note that it will siphon away two stops of light, so that 135/3.5 is going to be slooow and tough to focus in dim light. The helicoid capability is really handy; beats the heck out of using extension tubes. Using 50/1.7 will make a great pair for macro work. t On 12/11/02 12:52 PM, Scott Nelson wrote: I seem to recall hearing good things about this TC, but a search of the PDML archives didn't turn up anything useful. Has anyone got one? How do you like it? If I did pick one up, I'd be using it with a 135/2.5 and a 50/1.7. -Scott
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs.100mm 2.8)
This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Tim, In my researches (don't ask), a number of things affect the bokeh: lens design, aperture shape, aperture setting, focusing distance, distance of the background objects from the plane of focus, and the contrast, illumination, and edge texture of the out-of-focus objects. IN GENERAL, the worst-case bokeh is found for most lenses a) at wider apertures, b) closer focusing distances, c) with distant out-of-focus objects d) when those objects are well illuminated and have high contrast. So you can deduce that most lenses to do relatively better when stopped down, focused farther away, with low-contrast and/or darker objects not so far in the background. Also, objects with indeterminate or ragged edges will often appear smoother as long as they're sufficiently o-o-f. You can actually see this effect in pictures where you may have one hard-edged object at the same distance as much softer subject matter, like a bright metal pipe against a muted brick wall or a light-colored streetlight pole against a mass of foliage. In those cases, where the brick or the foliage might be perfectly unobtrusive, the harder shape can show more obvious _ni-sen_ or double-line effect. I'm going to do a column on Luminous-Landscape about testing lenses for bokeh, including illustrations that will greatly help clarify the issues, but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the meantime. --Mike Mike Johnston See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two locations: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/smp_index.html Also, check out my new monthly column in the English _Black White Photography_ magazine!
Re: PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
Mike Johnston wrote: A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-( No, I'm here. Just listening. I apologize if my abrupt departure seemed like grandstanding. I simply realized it is *not* my right to tell other people what to discuss...whereas it *is* my right to decide what I will listen to. g You're totally right. Except, it is far easier to delete the Subject titles that offend you, and stay on line to review those titles that might intrigue you! Not so? No-one has to know what you read, in the privacy of your home, so by your silence, you will have made your point. Not so? g keith whaley Look on the good side...because I also choose not to discuss politics, nobody has to listen to my highly inflammatory opinions on *that* subject. 8-( :-) --Mike
Re: Pentax 300/2.8 with the 1,7X F-AF converter?
I use mine with a Tokina 300mm f2.8 and it is an excellant combo. The SMC-A* 300mm f2.8 could only be better! Cheers Shaun Pål Jensen wrote: Have anyone tried the combination of the FA* 300/2.8 and the 1,7X AF converter? Just curious. Pål . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My images can be seen at www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs.100mm 2.8)
Well espoused, Mike. I'll look forward to the write-up with enthusiasm! keith Mike Johnston wrote: This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? Tim, In my researches (don't ask), a number of things affect the bokeh: lens design, aperture shape, aperture setting, focusing distance, distance of the background objects from the plane of focus, and the contrast, illumination, and edge texture of the out-of-focus objects. IN GENERAL, the worst-case bokeh is found for most lenses a) at wider apertures, b) closer focusing distances, c) with distant out-of-focus objects d) when those objects are well illuminated and have high contrast. So you can deduce that most lenses to do relatively better when stopped down, focused farther away, with low-contrast and/or darker objects not so far in the background. Also, objects with indeterminate or ragged edges will often appear smoother as long as they're sufficiently o-o-f. You can actually see this effect in pictures where you may have one hard-edged object at the same distance as much softer subject matter, like a bright metal pipe against a muted brick wall or a light-colored streetlight pole against a mass of foliage. In those cases, where the brick or the foliage might be perfectly unobtrusive, the harder shape can show more obvious _ni-sen_ or double-line effect. I'm going to do a column on Luminous-Landscape about testing lenses for bokeh, including illustrations that will greatly help clarify the issues, but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the meantime. --Mike
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anybody do t shirt transfers? The recommended setting is the 360 dip ink jet paper setting which I actually used before checking that it was the right one... Anyone experiment with others? the material spreads the ink a lot when it hits. lots of bleeding. don't bother trying for high detail. that is why only 360 dpi setting. Herb
Re: Interesting read
Boris, You worry too much about progress. Digital Cams have a LOT of problems. Tried them, don't like them. Most are still toys. Give it 5 years, ok? Grin. Lon Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! In my personal humble opinion the question of fate of film is more of philosophical than of practical nature. You see, I don't think that any of us, even if there are people here that work for photo companies, such as Pentax itself, can reasonably well predict what will happen in the technological future say in two years. Tell me, could you imagine a full frame 14 MP digital camera being sold for $5,000 two years ago? I doubt you could. Or, could you imagine the Foveon sensor technology two years ago? I doubt you could. No disrespect intended here. Well, we all know that all electronics suffer from battery power problem. One of the reasons people buy (FG) battery packs is to be able to use cheaper and more available AA batteries. Just few weeks ago I went to TeleCom exhibition here in Israel and saw a company that has a technology that would allow using some kind of fuel cell as a battery. They predict that in few years you would be able to run your laptop for 10 hours straight and all you'd need do to recharge it would be to replace a small container with some fluid that would be sold for few pennies everywhere... Back to photography. IMHO, photography is so much fine art that it suffers much less from technological progress. You see, you can still make amazing photos with your old (film) camera and old 50 mm lens. In few months when newest Canon and Kodak offerings hit the shelves big you would be able to do the same with your bleeding edge (digital) camera and still your old 50 mm lens. Again, no disrespect to Pentax fans here, I am talking in general :). I think that until modern bleeding edge equipment looses a zero or two of its price, such things would remain mostly for professionals and rich amateurs. I see no reason why film should not keep going for decade or two, or may be even more. Take DVD and VHS for example. If you were a video professional, you might want to put your latest and greatest on DVD. For home use (such as recording some repeating program that happens to be broadcast in rather unusual hour) VHS is just fine. Now, eventually perhaps some device that can write DVDs in real time from your TV would be invented. Add to this some amazing DVD-RW and here you go. But again, it keeps coming, but never really comes. Sorry, I am getting wordy again. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm 2.8
The M 100 4 Macro is a fairly small puppy. This fact alone is worth keeping it, IMHO. Got it, love it. -Lon Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi akozak, on 09 Dec 02 you wrote in pentax.list: Interesting. According too many users K105 is much better.Maybe you had bad lens, difficult to say. Even on Stan Halpin's site most people prefer old K lens. Alek Yes, I had read that before buying the lenses and I was very surprised, also. It seems, that everybody has to make his own experiences... Regards, Heiko
Re: Displaying images on the web
This is a long way of saying Win: Good for #$%* databases. Mac: Good for pix. Lon, who uses a PC these days, but is getting steadinly feebler. Is there such a word as feebler? T Rittenhouse wrote: Ahh Windows 95 and up ships with Kodak Professional Color Management. In 98 and up it is integrated into the system. Of course you have to set it up to your card and monitor. If you are using a Mac they presume you are using their card and monitor, Windows can not do that. You probably will have to download profiles for both your card, and your monitor, from the vendors site. And, if your equipment is more than a couple of years old, nobody thought you were going to use this stuff back than anyway unless you bought the absolute highest-end components and you can not usually find ICC profiles. As I understand it if you want there highest level of color correction you have to recalibrate your system everytime you turn it on anyway, but for most use it only needs to be tweeked now and then. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:03 AM Subject: Re: Displaying images on the web Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Dave, Surely you change the monitor gamma setting in the OS and not the application?? Cotty not in Windows. that is why it is so complicated. the OS itself doesn't care and doesn't use anything. the video card device driver can be configured, but that is specific to the hardware vendor's device drivers and optional. many don't have any such setting. that is why Adobe invented the Adobe Gamma program. it runs at startup and stays resident to load a pre-stored monitor profile created that has the correct gamma. you have to create that profile with another Adobe-supplied part of Adobe Gamma. it is completely up to applications and device drivers to load and use color profiles in Windows. something like Adobe Gamma should have been part of the OS. that is why there are only a handful of image editing programs that can be used for serious photographic manipulation in Windows. they are the ones that know what color profile has been loaded for a monitor and actually use it when displaying images. Herb
How good is Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900?
Does any one have experience with this? Thanx, Tonghang.
Re: Displaying images on the web
You cain't. Some programs read the profile, some can not. OTOH, I feel like posting pix on the web is kind of like taking art in 2nd grade. What? Dammit, Lon, you've gone outside the lines. I'm gonna call your Momma. Thankfully, my momma had and has bigger fish to fry. -Lon William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: Displaying images on the web . something like Adobe Gamma should have been part of the OS. that is why there are only a handful of image editing programs that can be used for serious photographic manipulation in Windows. they are the ones that know what color profile has been loaded for a monitor and actually use it when displaying images. Herb, I am using PhotoShop 7.0. How can I ensure that the program is using the monitor profile I have created with Adobe Gamma? Thanks William Robb
Re: Official Hello from Newbie Doe/Marnie
Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not only did my first shots disappoint me, but way too many of my current shots do. And that's not because I'm more critical, AFAIK. I'll bet you are getting more critical, whether you know it or not. Happens to the best of us ;-) Shots that I would once have considered solid keepers now hit the circular file before I even get a loupe on them. On the other hand, sometimes the PhotoGods are with me and I snag a good 'un. That happens to everyone, too. (But you know the old saying, The more you practice, the luckier you get.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Displaying images on the web
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a long way of saying Win: Good for #$%* databases. Mac: Good for pix. it's not even that good for databases, at least ones that come from Microsoft. one of the best image database programs for photographers is deadly slow at certain things because it uses the Access Jet engine from Microsoft for storing its data. Herb
Re: Interesting read
Boris is cool. -Lon frank theriault wrote: Hi, Boris, You'll fit in nicely here! vbg cheers, frank Boris Liberman wrote: snip Sorry, I am getting wordy again. --- Boris Liberman -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: looking for an odd lens
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 17:53:28 -0600, Dan Scott wrote: I suspect bokeh is a not a common topic in Astronomy. Hmmm. I hadn't thought too much about all of the subjects being at infinite distance. So, how far away does a star have to _be_ to be rendered out of focus. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good paper is expensive. In fact, the best paper (for many subjects) produces wonderful results, is quite expensive, and sucks up the ink as well :-). It's Ilford Fine Art Paper. I'm told that Ilford no longer sells this paper but that it is available from Hahnemuhle as William Turner paper. I just bought some from inkjetgoodies.com and it certainly looks and feels exactly like the Ilford stuff. I'll report back after I've printed on it. It's a textured watercolor-type paper with a wonderful feel and look, and it prints beautifully on the Epson six color printers. It sells for over two dollars a sheet in letter size, but it's worth every penny. Other than that one paper, the Epson professional papers are superior to everything out there -- at least when used in an Epson printer. You'll also find that the color cast of papers can vary widely. I frequently have to go back to my original scan and rework it in PhotoShop before I can print it on a different paper. But that's all part of the fun of inkjet printing. Oh, a belated happy birthday as well. Paul -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: looking for an odd lens
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 09:33:08 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience [mirror lenses] seem to lack contrast. Hmmm. I don't really need, that. But I would like a long lens that's lighter. Refractive 400's and above get a bit heavy. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ann, I've been using an Epson Stylus Photo for about 4+ years and run the printer till it will no longer print before I change cartridges. It has never quit in the middle of printing due to lack of ink. I've been getting about 50 4X6 prints out of one color cartridge. the chipped cartridges don't allow this. once below a certain level, according to the chip, they refuse to print. Herb... Please explain 'chipped cartridges.' keith whaley
Re: Bad Bokeh vs. Baaaad Bokeh (WAS: Re: 100mm 2.8 Macro vs. 100mm2.8)
I have found that most of my lenses display good to excellent bokeh for out of focus objects behind the point of focus and poorer bokeh for OOF items in front of the POF. One notable exception is my shift lens. It has good bokeh for OOF objects in front of the POF, but (comparatively) poor for OOF items behind the POF. Actually, this may make sense. Regards, Bob Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! - Benjamin Franklin From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than lens design in the perception of bad bokeh? The reason I ask is that I have examples of both soft, smooth bokeh and harsh, edgy bokeh from the same lens, an A50/1.4, which I believe is generally regarded as a good lens for bokeh as well as many other attributes (color rendering, sharpness, contrast, distortion). I've noticed that spherical or cylindrical objects near the focal point of the photograph tend to lend themselves to harsh bokeh; they reflect a lot of light and have a great deal of contrast with their surroundings. Point light sources themselves don't seem to suffer from the same problem, though. Not sure why. I'll have to post some examples later and see what the list thinks. Tim On 12/11/02 8:46 AM, Fred wrote: Keith wrote: What is judged good or bad bokeh depends only on the lens, not the subject's surroundings. What surrounds the subject may be judged to be a good or bad choice of _background_, but whether the image exhibits acceptable _bokeh_ depends ONLY on the lens. In my opinion of what I understand. I would say that you are correct, Keith. Nonetheless, the choice of background (and sometimes foreground) when shooting, when making such a choice is possible, can make lenses with bad bokeh (even mirror lenses, for example, which are my own worst lenses for bokeh) look pretty good (for bokeh) - g.
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Good paper is expensive. In fact, the best paper (for many subjects) produces wonderful results, is quite expensive, and sucks up the ink as well :-). It's Ilford Fine Art Paper. It's a textured watercolor-type paper with a wonderful feel and look, and it prints beautifully on the Epson six color printers. It sells for over two dollars a sheet in letter size, but it's worth every penny. Other than that one paper, the Epson professional papers are superior to everything out there -- at least when used in an Epson printer. Paul i like the Lumijet Classic Velour and Museum Parchment fine art papers. all the Lumijet papers are designed for Epson printers and do very well with them. the papers also cost about $2US per sheet at 8.5x11 size. they are archival papers with a very warm result compared to Epson Professional papers. however, for some material, it really does look better than the Epson papers. Luminos also makes regular silver photographic printing papers too. Herb
Re: Displaying images on the web
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Herb, which program is that? I have written one using the Jet engine and it is lightning fast on it's data management: loads new records from files on disk storage in nanoseconds! The slowest part of most image database programs is when people try to store the images in the database itself: that's an absolute speed killer. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia Thumbs Plus. when it is doing a database commit of a new image. does something that seems to raise a semaphore and prevent certain types of disk access until it is done, which takes about a second on my P4 1.4GHz. the database file is small, only 35 megabytes. that's all that is needed to index about 7000 image files. so it is annoying. i'm not quite annoyed enough yet to write my own image database program. the 7000 image files themselves are on a dedicated 60GB drive that is nearly full. anyway, i know the reason is bad use of the Jet engine or bad table design inside the program. i haven't gone and looked at the table layout to see what might be wrong. Herb
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Please explain 'chipped cartridges.' keith whaley the newer Epson cartridges have chips in them that report ink levels. when they report the cartridge is out of ink, the printer refuses to print. as many have pointed out here, that doesn't mean that the cartridge is completely out. Herb...
Re: MIR-47K 2,5/20mm - problems
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 02:39 PM, Carlos Royo wrote: Hello Sylwester: I sent some messages to the list about the problem you mention. When you screw a filter to the back of the lens, the mirror in the MZ-S, MZ-5 or MX gets stuck when it is returning to its normal position after having fired the shutter. If you press the bayonet release button and turn the lens slightly, it returns to its prefire position. It doesn't get stuck in bigger bodies such as the Z-1 or SFX. Perhaps they have bigger mirror chambers. In fact, I am thinking about selling this lens, as I don't use it very often and a 18 or 15 mm. would suit my needs better. -- Carlos Royo I've read somewhere that MZ and MX users should file away a bit of the incredibly thick aluminum ring the filters are set into, which is supposed to fix the problem you mention. Haven't done it myself, but I will when and if I pick up this lens. Dan Scott
Re: PDML discussion finds its way onto Luminous Landscape
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 02:43 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-( No, I'm here. Just listening. I apologize if my abrupt departure seemed like grandstanding. I simply realized it is *not* my right to tell other people what to discuss...whereas it *is* my right to decide what I will listen to. g Look on the good side...because I also choose not to discuss politics, nobody has to listen to my highly inflammatory opinions on *that* subject. 8-( :-) --Mike Killfiles. Killfiles. Killfiles. Killfiles. Killfiles. Dan Scott
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Ann, I don't have a detailed list of what we've tried and what the results were over the years, but one year we tried printing the calendars on card stock and the ink consumption was RIDICULOUS. When we use the coated paper (in our case, as I mentioned before, we print the photos on photo quality inkjet paper, which I'll agree isn't cheap) we go through ink but at *nothing* like the rapid rate at which the cardstock drank it. So there's definitely a difference but I'm afraid I cannot give you firm data as to where the best balance between costly paper and costlier ink would fall.
Re: We've just beGUN [WAS: Re: Flash Guns, Flash Guns and more Flash Guns.]
On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 01:15 PM, Keith Whaley wrote: As with the new Subject line, which also has GUN in it, shows just how un-intelligent such a non-reasoned stand is... Most radical 'thinkers' react, sad to say ~ they don't do much thinking or reasoning. One would hope for better, from such otherwise nice folks... keith whaley Oh, I don't know about that. It isn't like this particular example has added much Pentax/Photography related goodness to the list, so I'm reasonably glad I can't see it. Dan Scott
Re: PROS-was:ABORTION-was: Way OT: GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS.
frank theriault wrote: You're right, Keith, I was being tongue in cheek. It was sort of my take on the Python Argument Sketch (and a bad one at that): Ah, if my time is up, why are you still arguing? I could be doing it on my own time! or words to that effect... I hear what you're saying about pros - once a pro, always a pro, and the cameras that a pro uses are pro cameras (but if he/she buys a disposable camera to take Christmas pictures, I still maintain that wouldn't be a pro camera, it would be a pro's camera). Exactly so! But, really, I don't care a whit. I (clearly an amateur) use the cameras that I use. Pros use the cameras that they use. Not being a pro, I don't really care what defines them, or their cameras - although it does make for a fun argument sometimes, over a couple of pints of Guinness. Now, I've done that more than once. A few times in an Irish bar here in Santa Monica, CA, USA, and several times in jolly ol', up and down the countryside in England, Wales and Scotland. Where better to sample pulled Guiness? bg keith whaley
Re: EPson ink usage for color prints
Pat White wrote: Have you checked the prices at Costco? They have 2-packs of certain ink cartridges for a little less. Pat White Pat - I bet, however those who live in the middle of Manhattan (before you guys think Im rich, I'm under rent control) consider Costco some odd store in the boonies... not easily accessable, alas - And you are reminding me I haven't gotton to the Am Photo shot of yours yet - what page again? :) Best, ann
