Cable Switches
Bill Owens said: IIRC the *ist D and ZX-L use the same remote cable, which is different from those for the MZ-S and which is different from the other ZX series. IOW, if you have a ZX-5n, MZ-S and *ist series, you will need three different cables. The dumbest move I've seen Pentax make. Speaking of which, what *is* the connector used for the cable switch in the ZX-L? I've toyed with the idea of making one with a very long cable, or maybe on a motion detector or something, but I don't know what connector it uses. Certainly not anything that Radio Shack carries, but if the Newark catalog has it, I don't know what to ask for.
Metal Flash?
I was just wondering... people love a sturdy, metal camera. Some people even pay a lot of money for the Leica experience. But is there such a thing as a sturdy, metal flash unit? Somehow it seems a little wrong, especially for the Leica, if you can only put an aerodynamic plastic flash unit on top of your sturdy metal camera.
Re: stalking animals
Mark Cassino said: It's sheer speculation on my part since I don't have DSLR, but I'd theorize that the cropping effect in a DSLR that boosts the effective focal length of the lens would not similarly boost the effects of vibration on sharpness. If a point source of light were smeared out over 0.1% of a full-frame picture, it would be smeared out over 0.15% of the cropped-out digital sensor. Unless you compose it so that whatever was in the full frame is also entirely in the digital frame, but then that smear of light would cover a physically smaller distance on the sensor.
Re: Zooms vs. primes
Joe said: I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an article that did say something like that.) I once waited 6-1/2 hours for the right light to photograph a scene. Then I photographed it with the FA 20-35 f4 and got a fine image. Am I less than a serious photographer? I'm going to guess that this sort of advice appeared with early zooms, when the quality really was pretty bad. But they've been improving for half a century or so, and are a lot better now than they used to be. But there seems to be a lot of very old photographers that hang on to old advice for a long time.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
I missed what might have been one of my best shots so far. I was at the construction site working on the fox kits that live there, but I didn't see anything. Finally gave up and walked out, using my tripod as a monopod just in case. Just in case happened, one of the kits was ahead of me, I took a photo or two and he started moving away. I don't know if he was running from me or if he just wanted to be somewhere else. At one point he went right past the front end loader that was sitting there, and I was so busy trying to fine-tune the focus, which was probably fine, that I didn't think until the moment had passed to hit the shutter release. A fox skulking past a front end loader. That would have been a great juxtaposition shot: the big, hard, and man-made contrasting with the small, fuzzy, and natural. Even Marnie's photography teacher might have approved of that one. I'll be watching for a second chance at that one, but it's not going to happen. I can only hope I'll be alert to the next opportunity. When a second recognizable thing is in the viewfinder I should just hit the shutter release as by reflex. Maybe it won't be a great shot, but it's more likely to be than one that doesn't have a second recognizable thing in it. I've discovered the camera can act as an impromptu blind; animals don't recognize humans as easily when there's a camera in front of your face. I noticed that with the neighbor's cat, who hesitated to come to me until I'd lowered my camera. I got very close to a woodchuck because I was able to keep a big tree between us, and I leaned over and took some shots while the woodchunk just sat there and stared at me, until I'd lowered my camera, then the woodchuck ran. At the construction site before the event I'd described above, I was standing out in the open on razed ground, using my tripod as a monopod, and a doe didn't know what to make of me. She actually started walking right toward me! Until I hit the shutter release, then she ran. I should have waited to see how close she'd get. I guess that's one instance where shoot first, ask questions later doesn't really apply. Since the doe was also on open ground, I was essentially in control of the situation and could have afforded to wait. But the damned flies kept biting my ankles. Today, coming home, I saw some deer go into the little woods on top of the hill in our neighborhood. There's never kids in the playground when you need them, but I got my roomie to help. I set up on one side of the woods, he went into the other side and just walked through. Deer came running and leaping out in side view. Then some kids walked by on the sidewalk on the other side, and they ran back into the woods and gave me another chance. I've always wanted to try that. I'll see how the pictures turned out tomorrow. I was going to send this to Marnie by e-mail because I know she likes animals, but then I thought maybe someone on the PDML would be interested. And even if I'm just being totally stupid, at least it's bandwidth not used on abortion, homeless people, or the death of Pentax.
Re: Photographing Wildlife
Scott D said: Never seen a fox in the wild myself, cool! I did see a pair of wolves about 15 years ago in East Texas, but didn't have a camera on me (too young then...). I'm not even sure there are many foxes in Texas. I think this goes back a few threads to when someone mentioned to me that photographers were sometimes experts in the fields they photographed. In particular, lightning. The same goes with wildlife, it helps a great deal to know the biology of the animal(s) you seek to photograph. I'm no biologist myself (computer programmer, actually) but I have I'm a physicist, myself. But I like the woods. wandered the woods and swamps of Texas a bit. I've noticed a big difference between the manner in which my wife and I go through the woods (my wifes from Toronto). She is a good 50 lbs. lighter than I and shorter but has a much stronger presence when going down the trails. I tend to take lighter, quiter steps and take my time going down the trail despite our size difference. When I am alone I sometimes approach deer within distances of less than 30 feet. Foxes and deer work together. One time I was trying to creep up on some deer, and I spooked a fox that I didn't know was there, which ran past the deer, and the deer high-tailed it. And just yesterday some deer ran away from me and spooked a fox that until then was content to sit and watch me. What you do in the woods depends on what you want to get out of it, I suppose. To read Tom Brown, you'd think anyone that jogs through the woods is committing a crime because they're not sitting quietly and letting nature come to them. My brother and his wife go pretty fast, I like to take my time and see what there is to see. Like paw prints on an erosion barrier at a construction site, or a yellow Nerf ball some distance from a school, with little chunks ripped out of it and smelling of fox pee. I like to try to figure out the story there, but the Nerf ball seems pretty obvious. Wish I could have watched it.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Her Chong asked: just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom? Herb... 80-200mm zoom, 2x TC. - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21 Subject: Technical Evaluation I'm sure a lot of it is just me. But I do use an old zoom with a cheap, teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Eactivist said: I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong. Interesting. Very few foxes around here. There may be more than you realize. I'd lived more than 20 years in my home town in Minnesota and seen foxes there twice, but I'd assumed they were just passing through. One winter when I went back on vacation, and I was a little more interested in that, there was an inch of snow on the ground, which let me go everywhere and see every track, pounce, and butt print. And the foxes were everywhere, along railroad tracks, on the community college grounds, the YMCA grounds, a cemetary, behind a strip mall, behind a library, basically every place that I thought to look. They must have literally been coming into my back yard every night, and I didn't have a clue. But that's the way they are. Where I am now, I count myself lucky if I see them once in ten trips to the woods, but I find their signs everywhere-- tracks, scat on the sidewalks, scent marks on light poles, etc. Sometimes, yes, I can jump around and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory as their territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not sure about that. I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, Aren't you cute, but it never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-) Good luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. Deer are weird. But if they don't just run when they see me, they don't seem to mind me talking to them.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Lon Williamson said: Greg, I've notice grain gets butt-ugly on any speed of color neg film if that film is underexposed. I have also noticed that using a 2x TC on a consumer zoom (in my case, a Sigma APO 70-300) gives horrible sharpness no matter what tripod tricks I use (take your pick: any combination of MLU/Timer/CableRelease/HandOnLens/Face AgainstCamera). Since I don't have a lot of experience, until now I've been working on the assumption that I'm a bigger limitation than my equipment is. In a sense it's reassuring to think that I don't need to spend more money than I have. But even when I thought I'd done everything right, I don't seem to get the sharpness I want. I own two 500mm mirror lenses, both of which give better results than the Sigma @ 300mm with TC. The trick with mirror lenses is: don't use them with slide film. The contrast and saturation loss can be depressing. Use neg film and darkroom contrast control or Photoshop to put the snap back in. You might want to try an old mirror lens. The Spiratone ones labled Plura-Coat can be had for under $100 (same cost as a cheap new 2x TC) and deliver acceptable 8x10s, as far as I am concerned. I have a Kalimar 500mm reflex, and all that telephoto was exciting at first, especially with a TC. But all the photos I take with it seem to be grayish and low contrast. Longer shutter speed helps, with all the side effects of a long shutter speed on 500mm or 1000mm of telephoto. I wanted to try pushing film to see if that improves contrast, but none of the shops near me can do that. It's summer now, and our extended rain seems to have passed along. I should take it out again in the sunshine and try some birds.
Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax
Graywolf said: Is there any reason, really, why image stablization needs to communicate with the camera? I would think the whole thing could be built into the lens, the camera doesn't need to know that some of the lens elements are moving to compensate for vibration. The only reason I can think of is bulk, but I don't know how bulky it would have to be. But if someone came up with an image stabilizing teleconverter for less than $200, I'd be liable to buy it. I think I'd like that more than a specific lens.
Re: Technical Evaluation
Eactivist said: I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a ... I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom. Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get 8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4 to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the aperture stopped down (up?). I have a cheap reflex lens, but the cheap zoom plus cheap TC seem to give brighter, more contrasty pictures. Which says something about the quality of that cheap reflex! Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure, just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals don't really cooperate. ;-) I like to play with the animals, and photography is one way to do it. For me, it's more the case that photography is something to do in the woods, rather than animals being something to do with a camera. But I have noticed that they usually don't take directions very well. And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots. I've feared the same thing. But I know in some ways I'm self-limited rather than equipment limited. I took a photo of a young fox that was looking over its shoulder at me, and it's incredibly cute. Composition-wise it's the best fox photo I've taken, except that the weeds in the foreground are in good focus and the fox is blurred. I might never get that pose again in my life. Oh, well. Even out of focus, it's still darn cute. HTH, but probably not. Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of revisit, where they can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know all that. I'm starting to work on the young foxes. They don't seem especially alarmed if I keep some distance, but it's completely up to them where they want to be at a particular time. When we met, they actually ran up and sat down to watch me, but they didn't stay long. For a too-short while we had this little game where they'd meet me at one end of a brush pile, run away, and meet me again at the other end. I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong.
Wavefront Imaging
This does actually look like it's useable for general photography, not just microscopes. For some time I've been thinking that digital cameras must have an unrealized potential. For instance, the human eye has aberrations that increase the depth of field, and jerks around a lot even when looking at one thing. And we see processed images. I thought if aberrations, contrast, and other characteristics of a lens were known and communicated to the camera, then barrel distortion could be straightened out in software, and so on. Then maybe lenses with new capabilities could be made, like 20x zooms that produce nice pictures, or at least much cheaper lenses could be made. Or a different kind of image stablization; take a 1/4 second video clip of a moving object, identify all the edges (like legs) and distort the images in software so the legs all fall onto the midpoint. It might give screwy looking results sometimes, but it also might give well exposed images that would never be more than a blur when taken by traditional methods. Or if not that, it seemed digital must have possibilities that are being completely overlooked because people still think of them as basically film cameras with a CCD instead of film. Wavefront imaging is a new one for me, but it looks like the same concept. It seems you can get a greatly increased depth of field without stopping down the aperture, but by matching lens to the entire system and processing the image.
Re: Hand Meters
T Rittenhouse said: Simply because the incident meter meters the light level. A reflected light reading tells you more about the subject than about the light level. Presuming that you want dark object to be dark and light objects to be light in your photograph, the incident meter is easier to use accurately. Here's an idea: a diffusing lens cap that can be placed over your lens so the camera itself can be used as an incident light meter, and you won't have to buy and carry around an extra peice of equipment.
Pentax is the Macintosh Cameras
Roland Mabo said: From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:19:41 -0500 So your friend doesn't know how to use the camera, and you blame the camera for not working right. Canon has an over-complicated user interface which badly affects the creativity of the photographer. I can't help drawing the comparison to Pentax and Apple's Macintosh computer. Mac has the low market share, Pentax has the low market share. Mac users sometimes fret about availability of software, Pentax users sometimes fret about availability of lenses, third-party flash units with all the whistles and bells (e.g. high speed synch on something besides the 360). Windows proponents brag about higher clock speeds of x86 chips, Canon proponents brag about IS and USM. An arguing point among Mac users is the user interface, an arguing point among Pentax proponents is the user interface. Windows users come to Mac groups trying to convince the remaining 3% of the computing population to switch to Windows, Bruce Rubenstein comes to the PDML and tries to convince Pentax users to switch to Canon.
Re: Eyeglasses
Carlos Royo said: Bob Zwarick escribió: Hi, I had decided to switch to Canon. However, having to wear glasses, I found the Nikon models easier for me to view over the alternatives. I still have my Pentax cameras but having increasing difficulty viewing with my glasses and will not take my glasses off for viewing. Hi Bob: I usually wear contact lenses, but from time to time I have to wear glasses. The viewfinder info of the MZ-S can be seen from corner to corner even with glasses. I can't say the same about the MX, though. Its 0,97x viewfinder is great, but not when I am wearing glasses. I don't have a problem seeing the viewfinder so much (although I *could* see it better if I didn't wear glasses...). The problem I always notice is my face is far enough away from the viewfinder that light leaks in and often makes focusing difficult just because of general flare. I've often used a modified grip so I could shield incoming light with my fingers. It's really pretty annoying. By the way, as this thread started with Boz's message saying he will leave the list, I join the chorus to ask him to stay. I'm sure that all the info he can give us about his experience using Canon cameras and lenses will be welcomed. I know he will not be sending F.U.D. messages to the list like some others who have switched to other brands have done. Doesn't matter what equipment he's using, he's pretty much been grandfathered in by now. Once in, he can stay in.
Re: Usefulness of IS lenses
Herb Chong said: in brilliant sunlight with high speed film. that has its own compromises. Herb. - Original Message - From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 14:21 Subject: Re: Usefulness of IS lenses Some people on the newsgroups have reported and linked to tack sharp pictures of birds in flight, the camera handheld while panning. I don't think you can always count on a tripod to get that kind of shot. Near sunset. Well, all I can say is I just got the lens and immediately I got incredible photos of birds flying, mode 2 of course. I don't think I ever got a sharp one panning inflight shots with my old 300 without IS. But my first roll with 100-400 IS I got many good ones. J. D. When I've asked, people have generally reported 2-3 stops improvement when handheld, but also some longer times than that, like 1/4 second at 50mm and 1/8 second at 70mm. I asked because I wondered if IS was more of a gimmick. But damn, it seems to be real, and people are getting sharp shots with it that they couldn't have gotten otherwise.
Re: *ist and the lens mount
Roland Mabo said: From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:45:13 -0500 According to Pentax, it's to prevent bonehead consumers (they didn't actually use the word bonehead but that's my poetic license!) from accidentally moving the lens off the A setting and taking all their photos at f/22, with half-second exposure times. Indeed very poetic. :-) It is logical, but somehow... Hm. Well, Just wait and see then. Apparently this is a real problem that costs Pentax dealers and service departments a lot of time (ie, money) because of cameras brought in for warranty repair when there's nothing wrong with them. Perhaps the user manuals could be made clearer :-) You think they'd read the user manuals? Perhaps the camera should give a verbal warning when the ring is moved from the A position, and give instructions on changing it back.
Re: The really difficult question
collinb said: How many of you think you have enough equipment? You may upgrade or transition to another medium or format, but the quantity and class of hardware suits you. Who will face the hardest question of all? :) I don't even have the basic set of equipment yet. I still need a decent flash, decent telephoto, sturdy tripod, a camera bag that can hold more than a camera with single kit lens, etc.
Re: Long lenses handheld?
Paul Stenquist wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't shoot them at the feeder. A properly placed branch above the feeder with the right background and you are off to the races... I've done that. It can be nice. But I prefer to find birds in their natural habitat. The hunt is part of the fun. I like fuzzy animals, too, and I've spent many hours in the woods looking for them. Then it occured to me I could go to the zoo and get lots of fuzzy animals just sitting there for me. And I had absolutely no desire to go. It's better to watch yet another sunset, hoping again to ambush a fox that didn't show. I don't head into the woods so I'll have something to do with my camera, I bring my camera so I'll have something to do in the woods. Besides, feeders limit your targets. I was going after a great blue heron Sunday morning, then a kingfisher made an appearance. I think those are two that you wouldn't find at a feeder.
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Doug Brewer said: Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm? At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote: I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand. All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go from a shorter lens to 1000mm, one less thing to carry, especially when I'm mainly going from point A to point B and bring a camera along for opportunity shots. On the IS issue, why would I carry a tripod if I don't need one?
Re: Sinking Flagships
Bruce Rubenstein said: See, I told you. All you serious Pentax users should seek camera asylum in Norway. No one would make fun of you, or show disrespect for your beloved brand of camera, which will be taken care of forever. You'll even get your own pet reindeer with flashing red nose. Does the reindeer's nose work with the camera's wireless flash function?
Why my lens doesn't work.
I think I figured out why my Kalimar 500mm reflex seems to give washed-out pictures. Because it's crap. I took pictures of the same scene, one with an old Sears 80-200mm with cheap 2x TC, and one with the Kalimar. The zoom plus TC combination had better contrast and colors. So now I'm starting to think of a new lens in that range, even though it will take some time before I can work it into my finances. I plan to spend around $600. So what are my options? At that price point, the Sigma 170-500mm f/5.6-6.3 looks like about all there is. There's a Sigma reflex, but I don't think I want to go with another manual focus reflex, I want AF and adjustable aperture. And I'll probably use it with a TC, I do want to be able to get somewhere in the 1000mm range. I know there's the Pentax 600mm's for around $2000 and up... ain't gonna happen. Are there any treasures that I've missed?
Re: Why doesn't my lens work?
Butch Black said: Gregory L. Hansen wrote: I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens, manual, doesn't seem to work. Pictures I've taken with it seemed grayish, grainy, low contrast, under-exposed. snip I would do a couple tests. First, take a good look at the negatives. Are they very dark or very thin compared to a negative that prints well? Thin means you are underexposing, dark overexposing. Both could give you that flat, grainy look you were describing. Negatives always look thin to me. The prints, without extra brightness, came out pretty dark from the machine at CVS. I tried a Motophoto, I think they removed some of the red, and they came out much nicer, but still low contrast. The guy that handled it wasn't working last night, I'll try to find him tonight and see if he can tell me how much brightening he had to do, if he has any opinions on it. Also, I realized that the sensor arm tells the camera how much the lens will stop down when the picture is taken, but the lens is always f/8, so it wants to tell the camera that this is as much light as it's going to get. So setting the arm to f/1 doesn't necessarily mean anything. Second. Were you shooting in program or an auto exposure mode. I don't think reflex lenses work properly in auto exposure. Aperture priority. Third. If the negs were underexposed, were you compensating for shooting snow. You should open up 1-2 stops for snow or sand. +1 exposure compensation and bracketing, I'd thought +- 1 EV but the camera was set to +- 0.5 EV. Fourth. Inexpensive reflex lenses have a reputation of being slower then marked. I would test the lens on a wall indoors with and without the TC. You should get a reading 2 stops slower with the TC on. I would also test against another lens (not reflex) preferably telephoto at f8 you should get the same readings which is a good way of telling if your lens is slower then f8. I was just testing it last night, setting camera parameters on my K1000 and in manual mode on my ZX-L with other lenses set to f/8, and then with the reflex. For instance, 400 ASA, f/8, 1/8 second. And it did actually seem to meter right, although my SMCP-M 50/2 seemed to want half a stop more light than my other lenses. I wasn't using the TC at the time, I only used that to see where the sensor arm moves to. Finally. As mentioned by others, inexpensive reflex lenses are notorious for being flat with poor color and adding an inexpensive TC would only make matters worse. I'm starting to think this is it. It's supposed to be warm tomorrow, maybe I'll look for some birdies and try Sunny 16, comparison with other lenses (but none of them have that much telephoto), and a wide range of exposure values, and see if I can get a definitive opinion. I was thinking of trying to push e.g. 400 film to 800 or 1600 to see if I can increase the contrast a little. But if the lens is just naturally washed out, I might have to just put up with it for a long time until I can save up for a decent one. And I'm not sure what that would be, but I'll be aiming for $500 or $600, and the Sigma 170-500mm seems to be about all there is. There's the Sigma 600mm reflex for $379, but I don't think I want another manual fixed aperture. People have said how expensive the Limited lenses are, but I've been pricing telephotos that seem to run $2000 to $11,000, and then I saw the Limiteds for $500 to $800 and thought pshaw, for the best money can buy that's pretty darn cheap.
Re: Why doesn't my lens work?
Brendan said: The age old grey snow metering error, the camera tried to make the snow ( white ) 18 % grey. The low contrast tho is the lens, the kalimar 500mm F8 is the same as my vivitar 400mm, low not contrasty flat shots, Low contrast lens, huh? I think I'd just about reached that conclusion independently. That means I'll just have a low contrast lens for a long time, until I can buy something decent with that kind of telephoto.
Why doesn't my lens work?
I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens, manual, doesn't seem to work. Pictures I've taken with it seemed greyish, grainy, low contrast, under-wxposed. I took pictures of animals in snow and the prints came out kind of dark showing snow texture and animals too dark to see many details. I had the shop do a few reprints and the normal setting on the machine turned out a truly dark print, they'd been done with considerable brightening as-is. I put the lens on a TC and put a pencil mark where it brought the feedthrough, and compared it with other lenses I have. And it seemed to be telling the camera that it's about an f/1 lens! But then when I put that and other lenses on my ZX-L and K1000 and set parameters for proper exposure (in my room with incadescent lighting) they all matched. E.g. 400 ASA, f/8, 1/8 second. That says the camera is metering correctly through the lens, but the pictures and the TC say different. So what's going on?
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #71
Paul Franklin Stregevsky said: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe it's only a half-stop from 1.2 to 1.4. Here's how f/stops compare. I don't remember where I got these numbers. I may have derived them, so feel free to question them. f/1.2 is 0.45 stop faster than f/1.4 f/1.4 is 0.62 stop faster than f/1.8. f/1.4 is 1.0 stop faster than f/2.0 f/2.0 is 0.67 stop faster than f/2.5. f/2.5 is 0.33 stop faster than f/2.8. f/2.8 is 0.7 stop faster than f/3.5. f/3.5 is 0.3 stop faster than f/4. f/4 is 0.25 stop faster than f/4.5. f/4.5 is 0.67 stop faster than f/5.6. f/stop is the ratio of focus length to aperture diameter, and it all follows from there. The light hitting the film is inversely proportional to the square of f/stop (the aperture area), so to double the exposure you'd go, for instance, from f/1 to f/1.4, since (1.4/1)^2=2. And (2/1.4)^2=2, (2.8/2)^2=2, etc. That's why they chose those funny numbers to mark on the barrel. And if you can Taylor-expand the square root you can show that half way between two stops is close enough to half a stop. So going half a stop up from f/2 is technically f/2.45, but halfway between the numbers is f/2.40, which changes your exposure by 4%, which is not enough difference to matter when your exposure compensation goes by 33% or 50%. Going up by halves, f/1.0 f/1.2 f/1.4 f/1.7 f/2.0 f/2.4 f/2.8 f/3.4 f/4.0 f/4.8 f/5.6 etc. I may not be a great photographer, but I know physics.
Re: Stop Calculation
Chris Brogden said: On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Gregory L. Hansen wrote: So... is 1.2 half a stop faster than 1.4, or slightly less than half a stop? I realize that this make no practical difference, but I'm curious nonetheless. Real half stop step would be f/1.14. The difference in exposure increase versus f/1.2 is 7%. Sorry, did my exposures wrong. Light in is proportional to aperture area, which is proportional to 1/f^2. So (1/1.14^2 - 1/1.2^2)/(1/1.4^2) = 15% difference between 1.4 to 1.2 and 1.4 to 1.14. Ok. Am I correct in assuming that the lens, even though it's labeled as 1.2, actually opens to 1.14, or whatever the correct value is? If this is the case, then the difference between the 1.4 click-stop and the 1.2 click-stop is half a stop, right? On what the 1.2 on the lens really means, I have no idea.
Spotmatic at Work
When I was looking in the shop at work for aluminum foil I found a Spotmatic F and some lenses; 50/1.4, 50/4 macro, 28/3.5 with metal hood, extension tubes. The lenses also had weird feedthroughs that looked like a screw mount version of open aperture metering. Whee! I asked around, none of it had been used in a decade and nobody had any intention of using it. It had been long forgotten. But this is NIST, part of the US gummint. That means, due to efforts to keep people from abusing The System, the only possible way I could get my hands on it is if it were surplused, then if one day perhaps years from now those items are sold at auction, and I happen to be around to win the bid. The boss said I'm free to take it home and use it, it just has to remain NIST property. And that's nice, except it sure puts a damper on things like getting minor repairs done, collecting accessories, me moving away in six months, etc. Oh, well.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #59
Chris Brogden said: On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Gregory L. Hansen wrote: The boss said I'm free to take it home and use it, it just has to remain NIST property. And that's nice, except it sure puts a damper on things like getting minor repairs done, collecting accessories, me moving away in six months, etc. H... well, I'm sure tons of government stuff is accidentally misplaced each year. I'm not advocating theft, but *cough* *cough* I'm a big fan of cameras winding up with someone who'd appreciate them. ;) The equipment is periodically inventoried by forces outside of our group. But it doesn't have a NIST number, it has an NBS number (the National Institute of Standards and Technology used to be the National Bureau of Standards), and a tech I talked to said she thinks they threw out the NBS records and don't track that equipment any more. I'll have to try to find out more. Ah, bureacracy!
Re: Pentax Name Recognition
Speaking of Pentax name recognition, I just noticed _Tracking and the ARt of Seeing_ by Paul Rezendes, the last picture is of the author in a field outfit sitting behind a camera on a tripod, a Pentax. I don't know the cameras well enough to know which one it is, but it's black, looks like it has two sync ports, and it has a battery pack or something with a cable plugged into it. Just the left half and part of the lens is showing, but I thought it was kind of neat.
Re: What film do you use?
Leon Altoff said: I shoot about 80% slide (Kodachrome 64) and about 20% print (various films). I'd like to shoot about 60% print without a lessening of the slide film I shoot, but I don't have the time to shoot it off. I currently have 11 planned photo projects and no time to shoot them! Just curious, what photo projects have you given yourself?
Re: What film do you use?
100% color prints, consumer grade film from the drug store, MotoPhoto, or Ritz. Sometimes Kodak, sometimes Fuji, haven't decided which I like better, I think maybe my eye is not discerning enough to see a difference. I just never seem to shoot a scene and think it would look better as BW. But now that I think of it, if I have a color negative, could I get a BW print out of it?
Re: Hands up and be counted
zoomshot said: So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why not? To start the ball rolling you can count me as a taker. Ziggy Nope. The camera, a computer to support it, and software like Photoshop is just too expensive for me.
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
John Mustarde wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote: Photography can be expensive. Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass. Let's see, an SMCP-M 50/2, a Sears 135/2.8, a Sears 80-200/4, a Kalimar 500mm reflex, a 2x TC without a brand name, an FA 28-90mm kit lens... Think I could get $200 for the lot? There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap bargain. I think we must all have our own ideas of expensive and dirt-cheap.
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Peter Jansen said: My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens, get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like John said, there's always used glass for sale that's cheaper than this Sigma. The Pentax lens comes for $2000 more, 200mm shy. And with a 1.4x TC short one f/stop and I miss the magic f/5.6 that autofocus needs, while the Sigma is image stabilized. What makes me better off with the Pentax lens? The Pentax lens is actually $2500 more, but add $200-500 for a camera compatible with the Sigma lens. At that level you buy the lens, then get whatever camera it takes. Also consider that the resale on this lens will be lousy when you want to get rid of it. I'm not sure it would be, but resale value is about the worst reason to make a buying decision. --- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Jansen said: I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens. What's wrong with the Sigma?
Re: My First Spotmatic
Mat Maessen said: Since a flashbulb takes a little bit of time to actually fire up to full brightness, the camera fires it off before the front shutter curtain is fully open. If you find an instruction manual for the camera, you'll probably also find that the flash sync speeds in the FP position are slower than for the X position, since a flashbulb burns for longer than an electronic flash fires. Ah, that might explain the problem I had with flash bulbs in a Tilt-A-Mite that I was using on my K1000. It was nothing important, I was just trying to find a guide number for those bulbs and outdoor use. But... I think it was about the right half of the pictures were underexposed. I'm sure I used 1/30 second, and the electronic flash pictures I took to calibrate an electronic flash turned out fine. I took notes, they're at home. I haven't used the flash bulbs since, I was waiting for warm weather before I went outside and tried again to figure them out and calibrate them.
Sigma 300-800mm
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me, the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. But it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and Nikon mounts. No Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no big deal to add another 5-10% to get a camera to dangle from the back. Pentax has a 250-600mm for around $7000, and although I'm not going to be getting that one this decade, either, it's still a little short for my tastes when it comes to birdies. Photography can be expensive.
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Peter Jansen said: I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens. What's wrong with the Sigma? I have to believe that at $5000 the Sigma has decent optics, and decent includes capability in addition to fussier details of optical quality like how good the bokeh is. But it's all academic for me. I can spend $200 on a lens if I really think I could make good use of it. $5000 or $7000 is just unconditionally out of the question. So no worries, I won't be getting the Sigma. --- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me, the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. But it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and Nikon mounts. No Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no big deal to add another 5-10% to get a camera to dangle from the back. Pentax has a 250-600mm for around $7000, and although I'm not going to be getting that one this decade, either, it's still a little short for my tastes when it comes to birdies. Photography can be expensive.
Re: My First Spotmatic
Mike Johnston said: I finally gave in to the legend of the screw mount, I bought a Spotmatic II on eBay, BIN for $95. I don't know how close to a good deal that was, Greg, Congratulations! I'd say you got a great deal, since you got a camera that would have to sell for six or eight hundred dollars IF you could buy one as good today. s Consider having it CLA'd. It will cost more than the camera did but it's worth it. Funny thing is that except for the whole screw mount versus K mount thing, the Spotmatic II seems like a better camera than the K1000 Well, except that the Spotmatic's meter is relatively useless. They're often nonlinear and they have a highly annoying habit--they stop working in low light but they keep registering readings--which means you never have a clear sign from the camera that the light is too low for accurate metering. I might be using the Sunny 16 rule and bracketing, then. I haven't taken it out for a spin yet, I just got it yesterday and the weather hasn't been great. My K1000 does seem to have a smoother action. Maybe a CLA will fix that, but the real world is staring me down and I think I've spent enough money for now. I've heard that the meter from a K1000 can be put into a Spotmatic, but I have no idea if that's true. If it is, I'm sorry I never heard of it when I still had a bunch of Spotmatics (now I only have my ES II). What lens did you get with it? The 55/1.8. Too bad I didn't know Tonghang was trying to sell a SP and two lenses, I somehow missed that. Ah, well.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #16
Cotty said: One question that pops up from time to time is this: with the aspect ratio of the 35mm frame, why is the 'standard' print aspect ratio the way it is on a 'standard' 10X8 print? As a matter of pure aesthetics I'd think print dimensions would follow Golden Rectangles, known since ancient Greece to be pleasing to the eye. The golden ratio is (1+sqrt(5))/2 ~= 1.6, and 36mm/24mm and 6in/4in=1.5, which is pretty close. 12in/8in=1.5, but 10in/8in=1.25, farther from the hypothetical ideal. Just a thought.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #16
paaljensen said: The F75 is old news and, besides, it is common to release the lesser new items, those that otherwise drown among the great news, awhile before the show. You cannot judge whats going to be show until the day the show starts. When is the dang show going to start?
Re: New 67-frugality
Cotty said: One other observation, strictly mine, mind you: are PDML members just frugal, or not so wealthy? There is a lot of talk about how much this or that costs. You could easily outfit yourself with a top-notch 35mm camera (PZ1pprofessionalrofesssional lenses (F/2.8 28-70/F/2.8 70-200) and a professional flash for what one (1) serious digital SLR body (sans lens) costs other fans of other makes. *And no talk about the PZ1ps' #3auto focusd autofocus. With F/2.8 or faster lenses, the PZ1p makes shot for shot what the others do. Won boardFT500FTZ onboard, the PZ1p makes short work of weddings and other candid shots. What makes us so frugal? !! Are you kidding me? Have these guys are dripping in Leicas and weighed down by 645s 67s and goodness-only-knows-what. I'd say the Pentax user is a discerning individual Some of us are just poor. I'd have to take out a loan to outfit myself with the kit above.
Re[2]: *ist complete specifications
Alin Flaider said: As for the look, I find the design ...interesting. It seems Pentax maximized the use of the volume just as they did with the MZ-S. I Technically, it seems very promising for future higher-end cameras. But they sure seemed to put a lot of effort and bragging into making it small, which is something I can't really understand. As long as you have a typical zoom lens hanging on the front, it hardly matters how big the body is.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #20
Wendy said: And it ~is~ a stupid name. Still not as stupid as Kiss, Sweet and Rebel though. No way would I ever buy a camera with those names! I've never understood the insurgent nature of the Rebel. Will all the users one day take arms and march on their capital cities?
Re: Where do I buy tiny screws?
Glenn said: One of the three screws on the bottom plate of my Super Program has fallen out. Where does one go to buy such tiny screws as that? I don't think I've ever seen anything in that range at Home Despot... Call Pentax, there's a phone number somewhere on their web site. Phone navigate to the parts and repair department. The screw will cost about fifty cents plus shipping. In the meantime, am I better off having the two remaining screws at each end, or one in the middle and one at an end? At each end, but it probably doesn't matter much.
Re: Okefenokee Swamp (GA)
Christian Skofteland said: and another animal rights thread to boot! :-0 Is it ethical to take picture of endangered animals? We're not supposed to shoot them, and it violates their privacy.
Re: Cheap SLRs
Mike Johnston said: But Boz, this can never happen. It ignores the reality of producing products for a market. The company cannot make the decision as to which way it will go. It has to be responsive, not prescriptive. But they can and should have a broad business strategy. How do they plan to position themselves as SLR manufacturers? Do they plan to hit the low end? Will they make another attempt at professional users? Do they plan to waffle indefinitely without a clear strategy? If we know that much we could at least make some good guesses as to IS, USM, and so on. If they want to appeal to pros, they need the new technology. If they don't care for the pro market, then that new technology becomes iffy.
Re: Cheap SLRs
Keith Whaley said: Gregory L. Hansen wrote: Mike Johnston said: But Boz, this can never happen. It ignores the reality of producing products for a market. The company cannot make the decision as to which way it will go. It has to be responsive, not prescriptive. But they can and should have a broad business strategy. How do they plan to position themselves as SLR manufacturers? Do they plan to hit the low end? Will they make another attempt at professional users? Do they plan to waffle indefinitely without a clear strategy? If they did, why ever would they tell you? Or, if you want, us? Knowledge of a competitor's plans for evolution of their products and the guarding of your OWN plans is more secret and more zealously guarded than most top secret Government work. Industrial espionage is widely practiced, very sophisticated and in-house protection of design secrets is severe. I have worked in both industries, and I guarantee you that commercial security can be more strict...at least in the areas of product design. Because a broad business strategy usually isn't sensitive information. Everyone already knows they make cameras! Because it's the sort of thing that investors will want to know about. Because it could reassure current Pentax users that are threatening to jump to Nikon when FAJ lenses are introduced. Because it could encourage manufacturers of third-party equipment, and a large pool of third-party equipment does make a brand more attractive to new customers despite some possible lost sales of lenses and accessories. Because if they have professionals in mind they could start building awareness of their brand. All it might take is for some rag like Business Week to interview a corporate officer. Specific products and launch dates can be sensitive. But which direction you want to take the business is the sort of thing that's usually pretty public, or at least the sort of thing that doesn't matter much to competitors. What would Canon do if they learned Pentax was going to release IS lenses, produce some of their own? Try harder to make their lenses better? Come on...
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #56
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Gregory wrote: Because a broad business strategy usually isn't sensitive information. Everyone already knows they make cameras! Because it's the sort of thing that investors will want to know about. They have done so more times than I care to remember I missed it. How do they plan to position themselves in the SLR market? Because it could reassure current Pentax users that are threatening to jump to Nikon when FAJ lenses are introduced. This is TOTALLY bizarre! People will switch to Nikon because Pentax makes a couple of entry level lenses that lack aperture rings just like entry level Nikon lenses. This makes a lot of sense!! Bizarre, but it passed through the discussion list. I figured it as an in-joke. But knowing that IS is coming would reassure some people. When I bought my ZX-L I actually seriously considered Canon for IS alone. Then I figured if I spend $2000 on an IS lens I may as well tack on another 10% to get a camera to put on it. If I'd known then how cheap IS lenses can get, well, I don't want to think about it. But it's something people want! It took a lot of pros away from Nikon, it's probably drawing people away from Pentax, too. If they announce the coming of IS and you'll see Pentax stock price jump. And that's something the upper management can relate to.
1/4x Teleconverters
What's the deal with those tubes sticking out of the L converters? Are the S converters the normal ones for 35mm? I was looking at BH's site. How much difference is there really between the Pentax 1.4x for $219.95, the Kenko 1.5x for $69, and the Tamron 1.4 for AF for $49.95? I've read the TC should be matched to the lens. I suppose in the near term I'd be using them on the 28-90mm and the 80-320mm, seems silly to pay more for the TC than I did for the lens. The Kenko and Tamron have autofocus, but if I lose a stop on an f/5.6 lens that may not matter. -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: Advice needed on SMC 120mm/F2.8 lens
Mike Johnston said: Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is contagious. If it's truly full of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be, but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of fungus, you can pay to have it cleaned and hope for the best. (Cleaning is no guarantee that fungus won't return.) Fungus needs something to eat. Are lens coatings nutritious?
Re: End of K-mount?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will work without sacrificing compatibility. IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
Best cheap telephoto?
I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. I found a Phoenix 650-1300mm f/8-16 zoom for $260, which seemed like a wonderful new toy, but someone that had used the lens complained of poor contrast and a bluish tint, and declared it a turkey. With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are turkeys?
Re: Best cheap telephoto?
Mike Johnston said: I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that all the truly long telephotos either cost $5000, are mirror lenses, or are turkeys? This is one of the huge advantages of digital IMHO. For instance, a 300mm f/2.8 on a Canon D60 is the equivalent of a 480mm f/2.8 on 35mm. You get the teleconverter factor without the f-stop penalty. A 400mm lens becomes a 640mm. Even a lowly, inexpensive 200mm becomes a 320mm. Not too shabby. Actually, I've been doing that with cropping! A little fox starts to look grainy on 1600 film when enlarged to 8x10 equivalent, but it still looks nicer. I've even been wondering at what point I'd come out ahead if I use a shorter lens with wider aperture and slower film. For instance, 500mm f/8 800ASA versus 200mm f/4 200ASA, or 135mm f/2.8 100ASA?
Cheapest Pentax Extension Tubes
Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on BH, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150. What in the world is up with that? Does it really cost that much more to *not* grind, polish, coat, and install glass? -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Matt Greene said: The talk aobut grain always bothers me. Grain is purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid (most BW images) without grain. Then again, printing on textured paper defeats grain argument every time. Grain, like saturated colors is, for all intents and purposes, an affectation of purists and slide film shooters. Print film users tend not to make such a fuss about grain. Besides, a little grain never hurt an ugly Bride. My take on grain: when I enlarged a squirrel there were distinct green and red spots in its fur. A digital image might not have had better resolution, but green and red spots do stand out amidst gray fur. I think the color depth of pixels accounts for many people's pleasant experiences with digital, even if they don't have the pixel count of film. Grain seems like the sort of thing that should be available in software by now. Like load your digital image, and then choose a film brand and speed and enlargement you want to emulate.
Hands up who crops?
Rob Brigham said: OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format portrait and realises that they should have held the camera in portrait mode and filled the frame? Raised hand. When I go after fuzzy animals, they always seem to turn out much smaller in the print than they seemed in the viewfinder, even if they seemed pretty small in the viewfinder. I've often used a crop and zoom as a faux telephoto. In film, not digital, but I'd imagine the same concept applies. All else being equal, I'd rather use the slower film, and that's one reason why. And nobody has even mentioned the poor, neglected spies and private eyes that need as much information in their photos as they can get. They need to read license plates and recognize people's faces from a distance, you know.
Coating on Filters?
How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would just be lost. But on the inner surface? -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #8
J. C. O'Connell said: I saw a Pentax 500mm screw mount lens on eBay, I can buy it for $100, but it's not a Takumar. On the other hand, it's not a mirror lens, and it has an adjustable aperture. How is the non-Takumar 500mm? All of the PENTAX brand 500mm screw lenses were Takumars. It probably was a third party lens. The good 500mm Pentax screw lens is the 500mm F4.5 But weren't there different lines of Takumars, some with multi-coated optics and some without? Is there any way to tell? Because I'm not just trying to get a 500mm lens, I have a 500mm reflex. I'm trying to find something in the neighborhood of profesional quality optics at prices I can actually pay, and that's what the SMC screw mount Takumars are, if I can believe the legends. (Can I believe the legends?) But I wouldn't limit myself to Takumar if there are comparable alternatives (Carl Zeiss?).
Re: Screw Mount!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: No need to leave K mount lenses to get good quality at a reasonable price. The K 28mm f3.5 has legendary sharpness for under $75. The M 50 f1.4 can be had for a similar price or less if you are patient. (Marco 50mm f4 versions are more rare and more expensive). The good screwmounts are often the same lenses (SMCT 28/3.5 SMCT50/1.4), but going for about 1/2 the price. I'd be patient and watch for a bargain or two in K-mount... it's just easier! Regards, Bob S. That's good to know, and I'll keep it in mind. But for me, 1/2 the price matters! But I did just buy a Zenit-ET on eBay, with M42 screw mount, for $20. From what I've seen, it can be thought of as a Russian Spotmatic. That plus shipping isn't so much more than a converter plus shipping. So now it's not really an issue, unless something goes horribly wrong with the transaction (like I just didn't understand what I was buying). On the subject, are there other high quality but cheap screw mount lenses, maybe not as well known as the Pentax SMC Takumar? Carl Zeiss or something? Anyone have experience with non-Pentax screw mounts? (I suppose this is getting dangerously close to being no longer on topic...)
Rumor Mill
I took a break from the list, but curiosity draws me back. What news from the rumor mill? Image Stabilization. I've spent some time with my brother's 500mm reflex and 2x teleconverter and discover that 1000mm of telephoto can be very difficult to hold steady. That image stablization thing Canon had is starting to seem like a good idea. I understand from other rumors that their patent has pretty much run out and other companies like Nikon are working on image stabilized lenses. Can we expect the same from Pentax, or from a company like Vivitar that will make compatible lenses? Digital SLR. It's February, didn't I read here that they were going to make an announcement this month? -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Screw Mount!
I'm thinking of getting a screw mount adapter to turn my K1000 into a Spotmatic and try out some of the Takumar lenses. I've wanted to try professional quality lenses. I can't afford them, but the Takumar optics are legendary, and I see on eBay that the lenses are cheap. I'm interested more in telephoto than in wide angle. I like to take pictures of birds and fuzzy animals, with all that implies. So I'm looking for any advice, experience, confirmation of the legends, recommendations on specific peices of equipment. I don't really know the equipment well enough to ask specific questions, just that I want good stuff for cheap, normal lenses are easy to find but there seem to be several types, and I want good telephoto for cheap. What should I expect to pay? What about teleconverters; are there Takumar and non-Takumar teleconverters, will a TC ruin the advantge of a Takumar lens, is the 3x TC as horrible as that huge modifier leads me to believe? Can you help? -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: DSLR lifespan
Mike Johnston said: The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. This might just display my profound ignorance, but what's so hard about it? If you have an SLR, half the camera is already designed, base the digital on a currently existing 35mm. That leaves you with the other half, the back, which includes the sensor and view screen. And I know it has things like a little computer and menu-driven things, but that sort of thing is pretty routine. Is it all just the sensor?
Re: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
Mike said: Yeah, why is that? I'm really kind of mystified that _no_ inkjet printer manufacturer has come out with a dedicated BW printer. You'd think they could take a 3- or 4-ink printer, replace the inks, write some new software, and voilá, there you'd have it. Considering all the printers on the market, you'd think it would be easy enough to do. It's not like nobody wants it. It's obviously a niche market, but it's not like it would cost a zillion dollars to go after it. Find an appropriate conversion of shades to colors in Photoshop and you won't even need new software, just the graded set of inks. It used to be the case that some ink cartridges could be refilled by hand. If you could get those, maybe you can mix your own shades by appropriate proportions of black ink and solvent. Something to do if you have a lot of time on your hands...
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb said: Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives. What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are incompetent. From what I've read of APS, that problem is solved by encoding information on the film casettes that refer to developing instructions, so that the whole process can be automated and done right. In many ways, APS seems like a wonderful system. Seems like they could do much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge or something. If APS had a larger negative and was an SLR thing, I might want to use it. But I think it's mainly a PS thing.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
tom said: I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from equaling film. The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good. Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
Some Flash Questions
I've been looking around a bit more at flashes. The real world has hit me pretty hard so I'm not in a hurry to buy anything, but I want to have some idea what I'm looking for when I get that straightened out. Some flashes have TTL modes but no manual mode. What exactly does that mean to have no manual mode? It won't work on a K1000? There's no way to turn off TTL metering when used with my ZX-L, even if I have the camera in manual mode? I fear that sometimes light reflected from foreground objects will throw off the exposure, and manual mode would be best then.
Re: GN's flash and lens
Bill D. Casselberry said: Gregory L. Hansen wrote: ... And I've had it up to here [insert proper gesture] with estimating distances and calculating apertures because I'm pushing it past the thyristor specs. Years ago I made up a plain gridsheet in ExCel and entered the figures from the onboard slide-calculator gizmo from whatever flash I had then. It's all straight inverse square stuff, so you can just enter extrapolations from the patterns. Ran it from 25asa out to 3200asa - I vaguely remember about 300ft for 3200asa @ f1.4 (or something far like that) for a 4-AAcell unit, ~ GN80 I printed it out and maybe it'll surface. Probably still somewhere on the drives also, I suppose. Estimating distance is annoying. And using up rolls of film to find actual guide numbers to use for my shooting situations is annoying. The nominal guide number is for a small room with brightly colored walls; much of the light is reflected from the walls and ceiling. Outside you should cut the nominal guide number by about a half. I suppose that depends on the divergence of the beam, but just divide by two in a pinch. I haven't tried snow, I'd guess 3/4 and bracket. But once I have an effective guide number, the calculation is probably faster to do in my head than to pull out a chart and look it up. It's g=fr, guide number goes as the square root of energy, so it's just linear in aperture and range. And for nominal g0 at 100 ASA it will be g=g0*sqrt(film speed/100 ASA) because required light is linear in film speed. So with 1600 speed multiply by 4, much easier than trying to extrapolate it from those calculator slides that have positions for 400 and 1000 (who ever heard of 1000 ASA, anyway?). I spent an evening once working this out, and figuring out how to calculate the combined effects of multiple flashes at different ranges, and flash with significant ambient light. So I know how to do, for instance, a main flash and fill flash even with two manual flashes with the same guide number, by adjusting the ranges. And that's fine when I have time to meticulously plan a photo, but really sucks for spontaneity.
Re: Need advice: lens and flash.
Sylwester Pietrzyk on 13.01.03 20:16, Gregory L. Hansen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for a zoom lens that goes to 300mm or so. I can't afford a good one, but I don't want to scrape the $100 bottom of the barrel. I want the second from the bottom of the barrel. Some lenses, which seem about what I'm looking for, from BH's web site are Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 $189 Sigma 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 $209 Pheonix 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 $200 Pentax 80-320mm f/4.5-5.6 $200 Pentax is not that bad as far as you use it in 80-200 range. Ont the long end it is quite soft, especially wide open. You can think about SMC-FA 100-300/4.7-5.8 (new silver) - it seems to be better at 300, and as far as I remember it got good review in German Color Foto magazin and in fact it was better than FA 80-320 (sharper and more contrasty at long end). Plus you get portability - it weights only 390 g and is quite compact. I saw it new on eBay for about 120$ That's kind of interesting. The 100-300 goes for $159.95 on BH. I didn't notice it because I was looking for something above $200, which I assumed would be the step above the bottom in quality. Oddly enough, there seems to be a long zoom shortage between the $200 and $2000 range. I could live with 100-300mm. I'd probably be using it more at the long range, but for a sharper and contrastier picture I can take the 0.7% reduction in focal length. If it gives a better picture even with a lower price tag, perhaps that's related to the warning I'd been given that the longer ranges have more distortion and other problems; this is a x3 zoom compared to a x4. Thanks for the info.
Re: Need advice: flash and lens
Brendan said: I'd look at the Sigma and Tamron lenes, The sigma has a good reputation here ( I have one and love it ). Now about he flash, it's not leaving it on overnight, it's letting the batteries last longer on location, leaving the flash on so you don't miss a shot, so put that soldering iron away. Let me give you an example of what I seem to be doing a lot. I'm planning an ambush this Saturday at a certain trail in a nearby park where a fox seems to pretty reliably come by within an hour or two after sunset. I'd love to catch him stretched out in mid-air as they tend to do when they're running, it's such a pretty posture! I don't know when (or if) he'll come by, I won't have the few seconds it takes to cycle the switch and charge the flash, and I'll only get one shot because he's not going to hang around and pose for me. One shot, and hit or miss, it's time to pack it in for the night. I don't want to miss that shot. If I had a stronger flash I could do this with slower film or at greater distance. If I had the equipment I'd set up studio-style lighting with crossed flashes. But then, more than ever, I can't be getting up every three minutes to turn the flashes back on. There'd be no hope at all of getting the shot if I were making all that racket. In more casual use, auto-off or not, if I think there'll be a slow spell for picture taking I turn the flash off anyway.
Re: Need advice: flash and lens.
Altaf Shaikh said: You may want to consider the Vivitar 285s since you are shooting animals you probably wont need ttl if you are far enough away you will just be firing at max power. I think they are under 80 dollars each so you can always replace them. They are pretty hard to destroy and have none of the fancy stuff. Not sure what your guide number requirements are so it's a bit harder to pick a flash for you. The vivitar will run try before it shuts off so no problem there :) You can also chain it to a portable battery pack like the turbo z if you plan on firing a lot. Well, not *just* animals. I want a flash for general use. I have some used manual flashes now, including one with a three position manual zoom head made by, of all companies, K-Mart. And I've had it up to here [insert proper gesture] with estimating distances and calculating apertures because I'm pushing it past the thyristor specs. TTL metering is possibly the greatest thing that's happened to flash photography since the switching power supply, and I want a peice of that action. I just wish they didn't all have to turn off on me.
Re: Need advice: flash and lens.
Paul Franklin Stregevsky said: Gregory, You didn't state that the zoom must be autofocus. If it needn't be, and if you're lucky and patient, you might find the superb Tokina AT-X 100-300 f/4 in the same price range ($200). Among zooms that reach 300mm, the Tokina is about as good as it gets and a good stop brighter. Well, I'd rather collect auto gear now that I have a new auto camera. As for flash that won't turn off, you might be better served by using a flash that can accept an outboard battery like a Quantum. For maximum guide number for the dollar, you will, of course, want to look at third party offerings from Vivitar and others. Outboard batteries are new territory for me, I have no feel for the availability or use of that sort of equipment. It sounds expensive. Flashes with outboard batteries don't turn off? I do check eBay now and then, but don't know what to think of most of what's offered except that it's in the $100 range that I wanted to step (slightly) above. I'm fairly familiar with ProMaster (and its twin, Ritz Quantaray); the two or three top offerings, the FTD-5600, -5700, and -5950 (GN 130 at 35mm) do shut off, but not several lower models that offer a guide number of 100 at 28mm: FTD-5400, -5500, and 5500DX. By the way, that's 28mm built-in; no I'm looking for auto zoom right now. I have a new auto camera, so I want auto stuff for it. 100 ft at 28mm should be some happy guide number at 85mm or 105 mm. diffuser needed, according to an email to me from Promaster (http://www.promaster.com). These models require the Pentax AF module. Other Pentax AF module? I don't know what that is, but I'll bet it's another $50. Every little cap, swivel, and extension cord related to photography seems to run for about $50. models are dedicated to Pentax AF bodies, but I don't know whether they offer always on; check the site. Ritz is at http://www.ritzcamera.com . I'll poke around and see what I can find. Thanks.
Zoom Flash 300mm
I think such a thing doesn't exist, but I may as well ask. I've seen auto zoom flashes that go from around 28mm to 85mm, sometimes to 105mm. And there's a Fresnel lens, the Better Beamer, to extend flash range, but should be used with 300mm lenses or longer or the corners will get dark. But that leaves undeveloped the very popular zoom range of xx-300mm lenses. For instance, the numerous 80-200mm zooms, 100-300mm, or the 28-300mm. I know I could set any old zoom flash to the longest length and just use it, but it would still get longer range if it zoomed farther. And I know Fresnel lenses can be fitted to some flash units, but the flash and the camera don't know there's a Fresnel lens attached, so that kills the auto part of an auto zoom. So I wonder if there's any such thing as a 28-300mm auto zoom flash. If Pentax is reading this, it would be a really nice thing to have.
Focusing Problems
I mentioned my new ZX-L before, which I'm generally very happy with. And I mentioned the problem it sometimes has autofocusing on a face under indoor lighting. For those interested or needing a point, I've discovered it looks for vertical lines. It has a problem with horizontal lines in general. Using the wide autofocus rather than spot autofocus gives it more image to seek vertical lines on. A tried focusing on the top of my black lamp against a brightly illuminated wall and it worked well if I turned the camera sideways to focus, and then I could use the focus lock to recompose. I suppose I could also try to focus on the edge of someone's face and then recenter the nose, but I haven't had a chance to try that. It still might not help much for spontaneous or action shots under less than ideal lighting. But I understand my equipment a little better now, and that can only help. I also wonder if a lens with a wider aperture would help, but I'm through spending money for a while. -- A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance our knowledge. -- J. Black, 1803.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #12
How do you post to the mailing list? Is there a message board or newsgroup or something? When I want to reply to someone I hit reply in my e-mail program and just delete all the text before and after the portion I'm interested in, and type the person's name on top. But that's pretty unwieldy, and some of you seem to reply to anything as easily as a summer breeze.
On Pentax's Digital SLR
It occurs to me that as the technology continues to improve and prices continue to drop, Pentax will pretty much have to put out a digital SLR if they want to stay in the SLR business at all. As I understand it, the $8000 units are already becoming competitive, performance-wise, with film. It's probably not so many years before they're $600 units while the $100 mass market model is better than they are now, and the new $8000 units out-perform film in a variety of ways, and then we'll see film becoming obsolete. And then, when I follow my usual pattern of buying into a technology after it's been mature for years, I'll find the usual result of the industry standardizing for simplicity and compatibility on something other than what I just bought.
Unidentified subject!
If I'm shooting in low light conditions and I have a longer lens at f/4 and a shorter lens at f/2.8, is there ever an advantage to using the shorter lens for the wider aperture, but a slower film speed, and then cropping and zooming on a portion of the picture? I do I pretty much always want to make the picture as big as I can and use a film appropriate to the lighting (which is probably 1600 speed)?
Synchro Terminal with Solder Lug
I've talked to some other photographers about this that know way more about the equipment and using it than I do, but don't seem to know their equipment on this level. I have a project going that involves firing multiple cheap, used, manual flashes. It could be ten of them, if I get that many flash units. So I'm building a box with semiconducting switches that will trigger on the camera's PC socket. But I need synchro terminals to attach the flashes to. I got some from Pentax, the sort on the K1000 since that's the camera I have, it was the only brand I could think to name when they asked me. But the signal terminal is a screw with the socket at the other end. A very small screw in a small plastic plug. The connection in the camera is made with a spring-loaded pin pressed against the screw head, but that's not going to work out easily for me. So what synchro terminal has solder lugs? It doesn't need to be Pentax. And to preemptively answer the question that's inevitably asked when I bring this up, I don't want to use optical slaves because they cost $15 each, and because they would have to fire on reflected light, which means I'm not going to get any extra range that way.
Questions on ZX-L
I'm thinking of getting a ZX-L, and I have a few questions, since what I'm reading in the downloaded manual doesn't seem to coincide with the list of features on the Pentax web site. One is the strobe-assisted focusing, firing the flash to help focus in low light conditions. The on-line comparison charts says it doesn't do that, although the ZX-7 does. The manual makes some brief mention of it. Or I thought I saw it, but I can't seem to find it now. So does it have that or not? The other is trailing shutter curtain synch. The on-line comparison chart says it doesn't do that, the manual says it does with certain flashes, the AF360FGZ and etc. It says that if the external flash is set to trailing curtain sync the built-in flash will also be set to trailing curtain sync. But the manual doesn't explain how to set the camera to trailing curtain sync. So does the camera do this or not? Or does it do that when the right flash is set that way, and it wasn't mentioned in the manual because the manual tells you how to use the camera, not the external flash? And a user-settable parameter determines whether spot metering or matrix metering is used with the AE memory lock, which means it's not so convenient to switch between them. The matrix metering is supposed to be good, but if I were looking somewhere else to get the exposure it almost seems like I should use spot metering, since matrix metering would get a reading based on a whole scene that's not the scene I wanted to shoot. Is there any strong arguments for keeping that set to matrix or spot? Thanks.
