On 9/11/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Won't leave much for Norm to do then, will it.
He's got way too much time on his hands.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jim King
Sent: 10 November 2006 03:54
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: OT - One for the Darwin Awards...
Cotty wrote on Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:03:21 -0800:
Exactly. I'll bet there was no warning on the rocket saying Do not
light while stuck up your arse. If that's not gross negligence I
don't know what is.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Joseph Tainter
Sent: 10
Now we all know K10D can use Minolta NP-400 battery. I am about to make a
purchase from BH and can purchase up to ten NP-400 the most. I will keep 2
for myself, the rest will be distributed to Vancouver fellows who want brand
name batteries cheap. Based on my calculation, each NP-400 will cost you
From: Tim Øsleby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/10 Fri AM 02:09:56 GMT
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: PESO - Another Day
Thank you for your short and precise English lessons, folks.
Tim
Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian)
You should now be able to
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/10 Fri AM 08:03:53 GMT
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - One for the Darwin Awards...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jim King
Sent: 10 November 2006
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/11/10 Fri AM 04:07:13 GMT
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: OT - One for the Darwin Awards...
Sound to me like he has a legitimate suit against the fireworks company,
and against the local government for not tending more fully to his welfare.
I
Josteinn, thanks for your comments.
Abandoned Chairs by Jaume Lahuerta
(...)
The chairs do look a bit lonesome, but the message doesn't come across
as very strong to me.
So, they don't look abandoned enough?
However, the fabric on the left chair is part of a Carnival disguise that had
been
Would 600€ be OK for ist-D (under warranty till may) + battery grip +
18-55 +1GB CF + 4GB Microdrive considering in was bought in Europe and
so had pay stupid taxes and so on... ?
I understand it may seem high for US buyers...
Any advice ?
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
Jaume,
i think what I meant to say is that it looks, to me, more like a
renovation project than something abandoned. The laquer/finish of the
two large chairs still looks rich and smooth, while the seats and the
legs have marks of heavy use. Together it gives me the impression of
recent activity.
I've put my late-model LX in like-new condition, a beautiful black MX,
an SMA-A 3.5/15 mm lems and a few other items on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemih=011sspagename=STRK%3AME
SE%3AITviewitem=item=320047393796rd=1rd=1
The other items can be found by calling up my other
Crap?
I think it's a blast. :-)
Jostein
On 11/10/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The list has obviously hit bottom. Enough of this crap!
Paul
On Nov 9, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Perry Pellechia wrote:
So, why are we making him the butt of our jokes?
On 11/9/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11/9/06, ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forerunner by Ann Sanfedele
Running ahead into abanonment... lol...
This pic certainly hit home with me.
Thanks, J --- but I hope not for any personal reasons :)
hehe. Only in the humor department!
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
What is the maximum size of a Compact Flash card for the *istD?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Receievd an email from one of the fellows i have taken the darkroom
class with today.
He usually takes both fall and winter classes, i have been doing
mostly the winter.
Seems like the class this fall is down to 4 members and will not be
offered this winter unless the office gets enough
David J Brooks wrote:
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 9/11/06, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
Don's been a real inspiration, the way he's handled this most
difficult of situations with grace, courage and determination. I wish
him all the best, and look forward to seeing
Trimming the fat to make way for future purchases. Make an offer OFF-LIST.
Still have the Battery pack FG for all MZ/ZX series cameras. NIB $25
SMC-F 35-135 macro F3.5-4.5. KEH BGN+ cognition but good overall. Rear cap
included. $50
Zenit Jupiter 9 85/2 screw mount lens (M42). EX
Thanks for taking the time to do this Jostein. (and thanks for the comment)
dk
On 11/9/06, Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fort St Andries by Henk Terhell
A classic ruin shot. What makes this one stand out, IMO, is the
repetition of the fallen chunks on the right and beyond the arch.
Thanks, Doug!
Jack
--- Doug Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neither, really, but it's a Pentax rebate handled for them by a
fulfillment
company. I mailed my form in on 23 Sept and received the $100 check 6
Nov
(for 77mm purchase from BH).
Mi Doug
On 11/09/06 17:31, Paul Stenquist
Obviously, compared to a straight discount. When a rebate is a feature
of an item's pricing, I'm pleased at the prospect of eventually
recovering a portion of the cost. The rebate process, however, can be a
benign frustration.
Godders, I'd advise against your buying any discounted item simply
On 11/10/06, cbwaters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zenit Jupiter 9 85/2 screw mount lens (M42). EX condition (good glass, very
minor dust, some normal wear on body). plastic case included. $60
This is a highly underrated lens, especially if it's the later
multicoated version (does it say MC on
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Flare has not been a problem with my Super Taks, however, as you know, I'm
obsessive about lens hoods.
I paid more for the lens hood for my 135/3.5 than I did for the lens itself. :-)
Now to track down the not-really-elusive 35/3.5...
-Mat
- Original Message -
From: Mat Maessen
Subject: Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS
Now to track down the not-really-elusive 35/3.5...
I think I have one of those
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
That is easy to fix, just don't bother with it. Oh, you mean you want
the $200 without the hassle involved... when was the last time someone
simply handed you 200 bucks?
Jack Davis wrote:
I generally understand the workings of such programs, just wanted to
learn of any direct knowledge
I have both the SMCT and the K version of the 35/3.5
absolutely killer little lens if you dont mind the slow
speed. Good for daylight shooting only really.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006
Gaffers tape is your friend.
David J Brooks wrote:
My only film problem so to speak, is with the 6x7 lately.
I sometimes hit those clips on the inderside of the camera from the
lock to unlock position, either by my clothing or brush etc.
Sometime i ~think~ i'm winding film, when it
On 11/10/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/11/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
Won't leave much for Norm to do then, will it.
He's got way too much time on his hands.
Yes, well, we tried to stop Norm. Really.
As he was dialing, we all yelled, No, Norm, don't do it!
Exactly. I'll bet there was no warning on the rocket saying Do not
light while stuck up your arse. If that's not gross negligence I
don't know what is.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-
Something like: Insertion of lit fireworks into any orifice may lead to
severe bodily injury.
The local government
LOL...You're right. My use of the word hate was too strong and
taken too literally.
Jack
--- graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is easy to fix, just don't bother with it. Oh, you mean you want
the $200 without the hassle involved... when was the last time
someone
simply handed you
I've used these slow lenses both during the day and in the evening. I
don't find the slow speed too much of a detriment. On the DSLR's I've
stopped down the 105/2.8 to as much as F11 and was able to focus well. I
think that's because these's no split prism screen to darken and because
the
BTW, I just checked the BH site and see that the $200 rebate for the
12~24mm has been changed to $100. As mentioned earlier, their add in
Dec. Sutterbug indicates $100.
If it gets any lower, I may buy it. |-))
Jack
Perhaps you mean capacity? I recall that 4GB was mentioned at some point
... but don't base any decisions on my comment. I mostly posted it to
stimulate interest in the question as I'm curious as well.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kevin Waterson
What is the maximum size of a
Compact
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Dont be confused, we are talking about a 35mm lens, not a 105mm lens.
Its much easier to focus a 105mm lens than a 35mm lens at the same
f-stop/speed due to the 105mm lens having way way less DOF (
higher image magnification actually) . Slow wide
angle lenses are notoriously hard to focus on any
Hello Pentaxians,
I'm waiting, since two months ago, for one Pentax FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro,
not the DFA.
I'm yet lover of film photography and I've a lot of film Pentax bodies
(and lenses, of course).
Some friend has for sale a like new one, with pouch and original box?
Thanks in advance.
Ezio
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:52:58PM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
What is the maximum size of a Compact Flash card for the *istD?
Kind regards
Kevin
As far as I know it can use any CF card (up to the 32GB that the
CF spec allows), although the largest CF card I've seen is 16GB.
But I really
The D-FA 50mm macro works just fine on film cameras by the way, all D-FA
lenses include aperture rings and are full-frame.
-Adam
Eziocapo wrote:
Hello Pentaxians,
I'm waiting, since two months ago, for one Pentax FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro,
not the DFA.
I'm yet lover of film photography and
This is the kind of shot where macro is so difficult. The DOF is not
quite deep enough for showing the mantis well, but the background is
wonderful. For me, the large dark part of the flower really steals
my attention away from the subject.
It is a wonderful subject and sounds like you had
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
What a pile of crap!
One would expect that buying a freaking $8k camera from a company that
touts itself as the finest purveyors of photographic and optical
equipment on the
Excellent slice of life type shot. It is pleasant and nice to look
at.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Thursday, November 9, 2006, 12:38:01 AM, you wrote:
BA Hello PDML,
BA I was walking in the town, looking to shoot something completely
BA different when this scene caught my eye:
BA
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
What a pile of crap!
One would expect that buying a freaking $8k camera from a company that
touts itself as the finest purveyors of photographic
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
What a pile of crap!
One would expect that buying a freaking $8k camera from a company that
touts itself as the finest purveyors of photographic and
On 11/10/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd not expect flawless, as nothing is, but I'd also not expect major
showstopping issues like the magenta-cast problem and the IR issue.
I was using hyperbole to make my point.
;-)
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
Thanks Pedro,
You could have told me! :-))
Manuel
-Mensagem original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Pedro
Oliveira
Enviada: quinta-feira, 9 de Novembro de 2006 23:29
Para: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Assunto: New K10D brochure
Hello.
Don't if this is old
Don't you be confused. While I used a 105 recently, I've also used wide
lenses as well. Until you spend some time using the current DSLRs, you've
no idea about how bright or useful the finder may be with slower and wider
lenses.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL
YOU missed MY point, and that is that a 35mm lens is
NEVER going to be as easy as a 105mm lens to focus
at the same f-stop/speed on ANY given camera and YOU gave the 105mm lens
as your reference/example when the post was about the
35/3.5 lenses in particular. Dont tell me that if you
use a new
Just to be doubly sure about my experiences, I attached a 35/3.5 to the
DSLR and easily focused @ f8.0 in a dark hallway where the contrast was not
very great. YMMV.
Of course, it may be that I've used these lenses on older bodies for a much
longer time than you have, and may just be better at
I didn't say it's as easy as using the 105, but in truth, it didn't seem
much different, either.
I notice you're starting to use the same rhetoric as in earlier threads.
Once again, totally uncalled for. My comments are not BS - they reflect my
experiences. BTW, I wasn't trying to prove any
Cant you read?, I said COMPARED to 105mm/telephoto lenses.
I can focus just about any lens I own on any
camera I own in any light, but its much harder and much
slower to get it right as the lenses get wider and/or slower.
Using a 105mm lens as an example when the topic
was specifically about a
But what I am telling you is your EXPERIENCE
was with a different, totally wrong, lens. You
gave the 35mm lens experience AFTER your inital
post and mentioned nothing of it in your original
post which is specifically what I refuting strongly.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
What difference does it make when I used the 35mm lens. I gave you the
benefit of the doubt, and checked both lenses to be sure of my earlier
experiences with the 35mm. What could be more fair. How could using a
35mm lens when talking about a 35mm lens be wrong.
Please check your synapses
Yes, for me, on the istDS, the ease of focus is similar at equal f-stops.
I am not trying to say this, I am saying it. Try it yourself and see what
your experience is.
Many modern finders and screens are brighter than many older finders and
screens. While i don't know the physics of it, I
Dear JCO,
Like I said twice before, I didn't notice much difference in focusing the
35mm @ F8 compared to the 105. As said before, YMMV.
Why argue about personal experiences and opinion. It seems that anyone who
has an opinion or an experience different than your is a liar or full of
BS.
THIS ISNT AN OPINION OR AN EXPERIENCE MATTER.
This is the laws of physics and basic optical
properties of lenses. THATS MY POINT.
If you think a 35mm lens is just as easy
to focus as a 105mm lens at the same speed
then you are just plain wrong, not just of a different
opinion than mine. Whats next
Are you trying to say a 35mm f3.5 lens is
as easy to focus as a 105mm f3.5 lens? If
you are I strongly disagree and it has nothing
to do with the finder ( at least general purpose
finders like the ones found in most SLR/DSLRS ).
Newer cameras dont have magic finders that
change the laws of
Oh, f*** you. Now you're saying I just made this all up. You're quite a
piece of work.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: 11/10/2006 12:34:12 PM
Subject: RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS
It makes a difference
But Shel, can't you see you're wrong? It makes no difference if you're
*actually* wrong or not, you just ARE wrong.
Reading this goofy argument is like arguing with my wife...
CW
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Newer cameras dont have magic finders that
change the laws of physics...
What these in particular do have is a 1.5x magnification, which should
change your perception about what you are argumenting on/trying to
focus. Sure, an 105 may be easier to
Don't forget the banding issue LOL
I can understand Frank's comments, although he may have been very strong in
his wording to make his point. But I agree - Leica should have been able
to produce better results the first time around, but they may have been
under pressure to release the camera
We're done here. have a nice day, better yet, a good life. My experience
is valid, your comments are not since you've not used the lenses in
question on an istDS. Anything you say is based on different experiences
and a lack of experience with current finders.
Shel
[Original Message]
Are you kidding? I dont need
to buy a new finder to know that
general purpose finders ( the ones
found in most SLRS, not specialty finders
specifically designed for wide angle or
telephoto lenses), dont change the basic
optical properties of lenses and the
wider the lens, the deeper the depth of
But you don't own an istDS or any other modern autofocus camera, do you?
You don't own a camera with the same viewfinder and focusing screen, do you?
BTW, I never said the 35mm was the same, just that it was similar, and that
it was easy to focus. Can't YOU read?
Shel
[Original Message]
It makes a difference because if you didnt
say you used a 35mm lens in your original
post you could be saying you did now just
to save face when you didnt at the time
of the original post. There is no doubt,
the slower or wider a lens gets, the harder
it is to manually focus on any SLR camera with
YOU DIDNT SAY you used a 35mm lens, you
said you used a 105mm lens as you example
and also implied that it was probably the
newer finders making the difference which
is wrong, when the lens you gave as your
recent experience isnt the same focal
length. Not even close.
jco
-Original
Yes, I recognized that I am wrong. I am so very wrong ... and I am a liar,
a BS artist, and the lowest form of pond scum. I don't recall arguing with
your wife ;-))
Shel
[Original Message]
From: cbwaters
But Shel, can't you see you're wrong? It makes no
difference if you're
Well your wrong, because its a simple matter
of depth of field, the more there is the harder
it is to find the exact point of focus. I suggest
you buy two of your magic cameras and put two
lenses on them at the same time with same
speed ( and quality )and compare which is easier to focus, the
On Nov 10, 2006, at 14:50, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Well your wrong, because its a simple matter
of depth of field, the more there is the harder
it is to find the exact point of focus.
I put it to you that you are arguing facts and figures against a
person who merely stated what his
Sorry, but DUMB DUMB DUMB. The 105mm also becomes longer on
a DSLR finder so that argument doesnt hold water.
The DOF is what is making the difference and NO
finder can ever change that characteristic, and
its a LENS property, not a finder property.
And of course its assumed all else being equal,
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget the banding issue LOL
I can understand Frank's comments, although he may have been very strong in
his wording to make his point. But I agree - Leica should have been able
to produce better results the first time around, but
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
YOU missed MY point, and that is that a 35mm lens is
NEVER going to be as easy as a 105mm lens to focus
at the same f-stop/speed on ANY given camera and YOU gave the 105mm lens
as your reference/example when the post was about the
35/3.5 lenses in particular. Dont tell
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget the banding issue LOL
I can understand Frank's comments, although he may have been very strong in
his wording to make his point. But I agree - Leica should have been able
to produce better results the
Well dont post stupid examples and then
later change your story and you wont get
accused of making things up as you go along.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Shel Belinkoff
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss
Check out
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
Taken in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Comment appreciated
Thanks in advance
Kenneth Waller
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OK, I challenge the entire list on the matter.
Does anyone here actually find or believe that
wider lenses are just as easy to focus as
3X longer lenses at the same fstop? I have
never found this to be the case with many
many lenses and many many cameras of all
types and sizes over the years.
The shrooms dark background gives them great definition. Mottled
right image portion adds to the scene.
I'd like some sharpening if printed.
Jack
--- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Check out
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
Taken in the Upper Peninsula
Sorry, can't say I like this one.
First, I find it out of balance. In an odd way it is symmetric, but my brain
does tell me it is out of balance.
I've also got problems to relate to the motif, I can't figure out what way
is up.
But the warm colours are cool, that's something ;-)
Tim
Mostly
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
An expectation of miracles is oft disappointed.
They'll sort it out and take care of their customers.
What more could you want?
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:40:51PM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Newer cameras dont have magic finders that
change the laws of physics...
What these in particular do have is a 1.5x magnification, . . .
They don't, you know. Any given
On 11/11/06, J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I challenge the entire list on the matter.
Does anyone here actually find or believe that
wider lenses are just as easy to focus as
3X longer lenses at the same fstop? I have
never found this to be the case with many
many lenses and
BM http://www.members.aol.com/figgaro/mantis.jpg
I missed the original on this.
I like it ... but the mantis isn't quite sharp enough to pop from the
background. It might stand a little sharpening.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Nov 10, 2006, at 1:57 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 08:40:51PM +, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
What these in particular do have is a 1.5x magnification, . . .
They don't, you know. Any given lens fitted on my *ist-D
produces exactly the same image magnification (and
On 11/11/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06111001leicam8statement.asp
An expectation of miracles is oft disappointed.
They'll sort it out and take care of their customers.
What more could
No wonder they're on the edge of bankruptcy...
Epson or Leica?
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't forget the banding issue LOL
I can understand Frank's comments, although he may have been very strong in
his wording to make his point. But
Ken,
I love the light in this photo. Very nice.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/kwaller/offwallphoto/id2.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
No there isn't. You are DUMB and what you experience is WRONG. You are
also a LIAR! And don't change the subject. We were not talking about 50mm
lenses. Stick only to the 35mm example.
(You know I mean that only in the nicest way)
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Digital Image Studio
Jostein,
Thanks for the kind comment and taking the time to
critique this month's gallery.
Greetings from the currently 'very wet' Washington
state
Harald
Jostein wrote:
River's End by Harald Rust
Harald, you certainly live up to your PUG reputation
with this image.
I think it's a great pic,
Keith,
Thanks much. I agree this month's PUG is enchanting.
Harald
Keith McG wrote:
A truly excellent PUG (imo).
My personal favourites...
H Rust: River's End - Because I'm a sucker for
sunsets; but very nicely shot.
- Original Message -
From: John Francis
Subject: Re: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS
They don't, you know. Any given lens fitted on my *ist-D
produces exactly the same image magnification (and brightness)
in the viewfinder as does a similar lens fitted to an MX, but
the image area
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS- A challange to the list?
OK, I challenge the entire list on the matter.
Photographers who are experienced at rapid shooting with plain matte
screens tend to key on particular things to determine
I like this. It's an unbalanced composition, which adds interest in
this case as it points out that these mushrooms are growing out of
a vertical surface. Well seen. Perhaps a wee bit oversaturated, but
I'm looking at it on my laptop, so just ignore me:-).
Paul
--- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
the camera makers
themselves even tell you to focus at longest
setting and then zoom to length you want
because its easier to focus accurately at
longer lengths
This is not a good way to work. Most lenses aren't precise enough to
hold
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Using a Super Tak w/ istDS
Newer cameras dont have magic finders that
change the laws of physics...
They often have more efficient finders that take better advantage of the
laws of physics.
William Robb
--
PDML
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
the camera makers
themselves even tell you to focus at longest
setting and then zoom to length you want
because its easier to focus accurately at
longer lengths
This is not a good way to work. Most lenses aren't
Ah - ok so he could see it when he got out...
Thanks cw, I got your mail
cbwaters wrote:
I had the same sudden pang of fear there Ann. You can mail him at his home
address. I'll mail it to you off-list.
CW
- Original Message -
From: ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
On 10/11/06, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed:
Something like: Insertion of lit fireworks into any orifice may lead to
severe bodily injury.
The local government needs to post similar signs at each street corner
and in all public buildings. There should also be a televised ad
On 10/11/06, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
As he was dialing, we all yelled, No, Norm, don't do it! It's so
very early in the morning in England, you'll disturb our good friend
Cotty from his sleep. Please, for the Love of God, don't do it, man!
But he wouldn't listen.
Then he
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Cotty
Sent: 11 November 2006 00:16
To: pentax list
Subject: Re: OT - One for the Darwin Awards...
On 10/11/06, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed:
Something like: Insertion of lit
Goddamit, Shel! you owe me a new laptop. This one is full of Cabernet. :-)
--
Christian
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
No there isn't. You are DUMB and what you experience is WRONG. You are
also a LIAR! And don't change the subject. We were not talking about 50mm
lenses. Stick only to the 35mm
Leica, of course. They've been teetering on the edge for quite some
time. An M8 failure could be the grand finale.
Paul
On Nov 10, 2006, at 6:11 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
No wonder they're on the edge of bankruptcy...
Epson or Leica?
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/10/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL
I've been thinking of upgrading the 2450 to a 4990 or V700 since I
have this 645 here to play with. I'm just not sure yet how much I'll
do with it so I'm a little reluctant to spend the money as yet. I'd
love a Nikon 8000 but it's pricier than I want to go for.
The Epson 4990 is a great
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
