That wasn't your point, your point was that you had never heard of it or
were told about it or were taught it. Apparently art schools are teaching
a trade, they teach you how to paint and clean brushes how to weld, how to
stretch canvas, how to develop film and print, they don't show you what
As an amateur musician who has played both, Mozart is high school algebra,
Bach is college calculus. I'd still rather listen to and play Mozart.
You are a man of many talents, Bill.
--Mike
Oh, pish-posh and balderdash. Great photographers no more think about rules
of composition than great composers think about their childhood
finger-exercises or great golfers think about the angle of their shin-bone.
How many great poets do you think can diagram a sentence?
If anyone in my
Many years ago, someone told me that brown belts make better karate
instructors than black belts because the brown belts still remember and can
still describe what they do. For the black belts, on the other hand, the
techniques have become instinctive, and the beginners' details now seem hard
Okay, Gang, I need you to step up here--I need a favor--
My column in the March issue of the English _Black White Photography_
magazine is about 6x7, and the editor wants a nice picture taken with a
Pentax 6x7 to go with William Robb's picture of the camera.
Any proposals? I need an interesting
Sometimes it's a good idea to step back, get a new pair of glasses and view
a subject unencumbered by the myopia to which we have become so accustomed.
We might even find that we can actually enter into conversation with those
you could not understand before. With a wider view, we may even see
I repeat for the nth time: Nature does not obey, nor conform in any way to
Mathematical rules. We can only observe what happens and try to understand it
using whatever tools we have.
Don,
Methinks we are jousting with mystics here. It's clear what Bob's saying,
but his view is essentially
I'd really like to get a couple of those lenses in the
K-mount. The 75/2.5 and 90/3.5 APO are awfully
tempting!
I have a Like New in box 75/2.5 I'd love to sell
Contact me off-list if interested.
--Mike
12 is the answer.
Here's some numerology for you:
30, 31, 40, 43, 77
As Wheatfield sayeth, HAR!
--Mike
Music is pure mathematics.
Oh dear God, Pal.
--Mike
The mere fact that your instructors didn't see fit to give you a good
education, or didn't know the difference doesn't make them or you
right. You said you had never heard about the rule of thirds well it's in
just about every basic photography or art book I've ever read.
You mean along
Combine this with the huge investment the manufacturers have poured into this
formats lately, and it strongly indicates that they are the most likely
candidates for digital solutions.
And don't forget to mention that 645 is very popular in Japan. This has a
fair amount to do with why certain
For most of 2001, I belonged to Cameraquest.com's Classic Rangefinder
discussion list. I tried various fixed-lens RFs by Yashica, Olympus, and
Konica. I never tried the Canonet GIII, but it enjoyed one of the most
devoted (fanatical?) followings for its sharpness and ergonomics.
It's a nice
and got the last 101 Anniversary Bessa T from Robert White this morning
(with the collapsible 50/3.5 Heliar claimed by Popular Photography to be
the sharpest they've ever tested).
Be sure to give us a report once you've used it for a while, will you? I'd
be interested in hearing your
I have to agree with Pål. The rules do work, although they are meant to be
broken. Problem is, you have to know the rules to know when to break them
with any success. Too many times I see the rules broken poorly, and I would
bet they are by people who didn't know them in the first place.
I
Since the 6X7 format contains the 6X6 format it is no easier to crop the 6X6
than the 6X7. You don't have rotate the latter either. You get a 6X6
regardless on how you rotate the 6X7.
This doesn't really translate to the market. The original Mamiya 6x7 was the
RB, which stood for Rotating
Har!!
A culturally specific reference to anyone who watched Satuirday Night Live
back when it was funny (ie: the 70's). I'm sure that most list members
outside of North America, and under the age of (maybe) 35 or 40 won't
recognize that quote. But it's funny, anyway. I'm glad there are
Still a load of bunk no matter the thought or education behind it.
Yeah, that darn education and thought, it just confuses everything. Things
were so much easier to understand when the Earth was flat and the sun
orbited around it.
--Mike
This is quite specious! Technically, you're getting into the philosophy of
entity, which is far from a settled discipline. Just the statement things
exist is a philosophically disreputable statement.
Ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The discussion on
ghosts is about this
I can't believe I watched that. You are a bad influence, Mike.
You're just NOW finding that out, Greywolf?!?
g
--Mike
Just like Don to argue then tell everyone he's out of the discussion as
anyone's word besides his is absolute rubbish. Anyone else notice the
pattern?
Seems to me Dr. Don's beaten his head against this wall long enough. It's
Philosophy 103. Not deep stuff, but a little further along that
Because something can't be represented exactly, it
doesn't or can't exist? For this fellow, knowledge of pi to beyond what is
sufficient accuracy to send landers to Mars is insufficient to conclude it
exists and is natural! Talk about silly!
Bob,
The concept or principle exists. The number
Have you ever been in a studio? Most photographers already have their
gear it's 2 1/4 square and says Hasselblad on the front. Why would they
buy a 6x7 to replace it?
Right, because they're _all_ buying digital SLRs and digital backs. Today
catalogs, weddings, and portraiture; tomorrow the
What you are
saying is EXACTLY what I and others have been saying. When I and others say
or allude to the fact that mathematics existed before the dawn of time
Sorry, Bob, but I'm with Dr. Don on this one. What he's said about six times
is perfectly correct and I think you're the one not
to be a very good lens indeed.
Thanks Raimo. I always appreciate being kept up to date on recent lens
tests.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two
locations:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml
http://www.steves
This may not prove much. One print compared, paper not optimal,
etc, etc, etc. But I would have thought, based on what I've
read, that the 6-color HP would trounce the 3-color Lexmark on
any turf, any shot, any paper.
Lon,
Two thoughts:
Papers make a huge difference.
You probably
I have a Canon S800 and am very happy with it. It will print a 8X10
in
about 1 minute. I am happy with the colors it produces and
especially like
the 6 different ink cartridges, which reduces ink expense and
waste. A
friend of mine is constantly impressed with it's ability to produce
If you compare the 67II to the 645nII (both current models), aside
from the difference in negative, using a 67II is akin to using an LX
sans winder. You have TTL flash, spot, center weighted, matrix
metering, manual and AV modes. You wind the film yourself, set the DX
code yourself. It
What are the major differences between a 645 and 67?
1400 sq. mm.
--Mike
William Robb wrote:
Digital users seem to need a course in rocket science to get pictures.
Well, maybe they just need a COURSE, period. Who's educating the public
about how to use digital? The old paradigm is that the camera stores have
knowledgeable salespeople who can serve as the front line
innovations like the following...
Small 35mm cameras -- Leica
Interchangible lenses -- Leica, Asahiflex
The SLR with WYSIWYG -- Asahiflex, K series, SV's H3's, etc.
Thru the lens metering -- Spotmatic thru KX
Automation linking Aperture/Shutter Speed -- ME at a great $$$
Autofocus
??? what
Yeah, but fortunately it's the same problem all the other manufacturers
have: People want top dollar quality at a bottom dollar price.
I'm really not so sure about that, Mark. So far we equate quality with
sensor size and that's a shibboleth as far as I'm concerned. The Sony
F-717 is a great
the micro-brewery movement is great. It means pubs get some genuine
individual character, and you get to try lots of different types of
beers. Best of all, all the micro-breweries around here offer samples
of each brew, just as real ale pubs used to with their guest beers, so
you get to drink
Bought new:
Pentax K2
Pentax ME (black)
Pentax ME winder
Pentax LX (three)
Pentax LX finders (most of them)
Pentax LX winder
Pentax Z-1p
Pentax MZ-S
Pentax 280T flash
Pentax 400T Flash
Pentax 500FTZ(?) flash
Pentax 18/3.5
Pentax A 24/2.8
Pentax FA Limited 31/1.8
Pentax A 35/2.8
My question is this: Could Pentax actually use this list for advice
and stay in business? We may be too eclectic a group to be a good
source of market research. We still argue over the PZ-1p vs the MZ-S.
Many here don't even want autofocus.
This is pretty much what I was wondering about
I guess it's time to crawl into bed and see whether any of the shows
I taped while I was at rehearsal are interesting enough to take my
mind off this situation so I can sleep.
Glenn,
Now you know why so many professional photographers refuse to deal with the
public. g
--Mike
If there was a modern Af camera that was built
according to the same quality level as the LX and that
was accordingly priced (hint: where I live the
31mm/1.8 ltd. lens is almost 4x as expensive as was
the K-series 28mm/2), and if your only option was to
buy new, what would you choose: this
1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing
I really wanted #1 (or part of) for the MZ-S, but I was told that to get
100% it was expensive, like doubling the cost. I can see why Pentax didn't
bother with it given their market. Too bad. Not sure what you mean by
Testing the FA 50/1.4 I have found there's no difference in
sharpness between f/8 and f/5.6, while the f/4 comes very close.
An extraordinary lens that begs for 25 ASA and tripod...
An extraordinary lens indeed. Note that in Tim Sherburne's shot in this
month's PUG that the optical quality
If Pentax...would
have applied advances in autofocus, image
stabilization...how many of you would
be still shooting with Pentax (a majority brand)? Or
would you be shooting Canon FD and poking jealous fun
at Pentax snobs G?
Hah! Great point.
Canon is so good at being Canon, nobody else
I was watching this but forgot about it while (bullied into) making the
dinner tonight:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=1944242163
was that a bargain?
What are the chances the mildew would return? Would it have needed a
strip down and CLA?
Cheers,
Cotty
Thanks for the advice re the fungus - I assumed that to be the case. But
let's say that that lens *was* a 50 1.2 in that condition. At £19 ($30)
would it have been worth buying? What about at £40 ($60)? Where is the
cutoff, assuming a strip down and de-fungus action taken?
Thoughts?
Cotty,
Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you
specified the 77/1.8 in that way.
Dan,
Diffraction limited means that diffraction is the main
aberration--masking all others. Since diffraction _can't_ be done away
with, when diffraction is the dominant aberration it means that
Tried to reply twice to you off-list, but both emails are refused by your
email server because it doesn't like the return address ...
Ah, you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand.
Thanks anyway, Jan. I did get a nice shot of a Pentax from William R., so
I'm all set. Thanks to anyone who
Please accept my apologies for contributing to this drift. I
will try harder to stay on topic in the future. I really enjoy the PDML and
learn a great deal from all of you.
I enjoyed hearing from you, Glen, and I certainly think that you have earned
the right to photograph the homeless.
I think that is wrong.
Dan,
Street photographers can have a streak of ruthlessness. They can be very
exploitative, intrusive, and persistent. What they want is the shot.
Personally, I think I only ever shot a picture of a street person once. And
he was sound asleep.
--Mike
All you have to do is take a look at the published MTFs for 35 mm lenses and
compare them with those for Medium Format
Again, Don and Pal are correct here. Look at any measure of resolving power
you please--visual lp/mm, MTF, whatever--the smaller the image circle, the
shorter the focal
Does anybody have a nice color shot OF a Pentax 67 that I could use as an
illustration for my column?
If you can help, e-mail me off-list. Thanks.
--Mike
But you too are missing the point. It is that the film is the same, whether
it be 35mm or a piece the size of you bedroom wall. The emulsions may differ
a bit of course. So when the image is of a size that fits 35 mm there is no
point in using a bigger piece for Heavens sake!
Don,
Without
Naw, this just doesn't work. You just can't compare numbers from one tester
to numbers from another. There's too much potential for variation in the
testing methodologies, different standards, different skills on the part of
the tester.
You also can't compare MFT charts from different sources,
So where are we when we convert the optically enlarge, optically
print steps of the process to digitally enlarge, digitally print?
Intuitively, it would seem that the potential for greater
magnifications would be increased.
Possibly. The only reason I'm not willing to say is that I haven't
Now don't start telling me
that you can use higher magnification to fill the metre square, that's not
the point. You've already done all that, decided on magnification and the
rest.
Don,
What I was trying to say earlier is that pictorial photographers DON'T
decide on magnification. It's just
yea, and have you ever noticed how all large-format 'craft' photographers
seem to have beards, and look like Kenny Rogers? Even the women...
Bob,
Bite your tongue! Check my column Miscellaneous Notes for a picture of
Paula Chamlee. She's quite a beautiful woman.
Brother William wrote:
A 4x5 transperency is like looking through a window.
kind of a small window, eh? don't you really mean a
transparancy w/ that 8x10 Wisner?
That's what I think, Bill. 4x5 is too small for large format unless you're
enlarging. I think 5x7 is the smallest
When bouncing, the angle should always be such that you hit the
subject. If you're 5 feet away from your subject and have a 10 foot
ceiling, the bounce will be more than 90. If he's 30 feet away, it
will be greater.
Let me clarify this...generally, you adjust the flash so it aims at a
Huh? The Pentax MF lenses are significantly weaker performers than almost any
35mm prime lens. Eg the FA645 75/2.8, which is an equal performer as the 80mm
Carl Zeiss for the Hasselblad, is worse than any K-mount prime I've ever used.
Of course theres no law saying that larger format lenses
This really turned me on to the idea of large contact prints.
Even though the negatives were close to 120 years old, and on a
nitrate substrate that wasn't optically perfect (and quite
dangerous to work with), the prints had detail and tonality that
would be next to impossible to match even
He tests his metal more often, in other words.
You mean mettle?
Woo hoo, I just corrected an editor!!
Oh, yes, you're right. I was thinking of Ezra Pound's dictum from the _ABC
of Reading_, The amateur does not test his metal in the acid of accepted
fact or words to that effect (quoting
After my mother passed away recently my sister took a studio based wedding
portrait of my father and mother, taken in 1941, to have copies made for the
family. Kinkos refused to copy it because they claimed the copyright remains
with the photographer/studio, not the subjects of the picture.
In fact, I seem to recall that
I've read someplace around Luminous Landscape that Mike thinks of
anyone who earns money with their camera and lenses as professional,
and the rest he considers amateurs of various levels.
If I'm the Mike you're talking about (and you weren't talking about
the exercise of picking one prime lens and shooting
with it exclusively until you've forgotten what other
lenses feel like is a learning experience that you
will carry with you for the rest of your life
Yes, and I suspect it would be particularly memorable
if you decided to pick
A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-(
No, I'm here. Just listening.
I apologize if my abrupt departure seemed like grandstanding. I simply
realized it is *not* my right to tell other people what to discuss...whereas
it *is* my right to decide what I will listen
that will greatly help clarify the issues,
but it's going to be a lot of work to prepare and I don't know when I'm
going to be able to get around to it. Hope this helps somewhat in the
meantime.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two
locations:
http
I hear what you're saying about pros - once a pro, always a pro, and the
cameras that a
pro uses are pro cameras (but if he/she buys a disposable camera to take
Christmas
pictures, I still maintain that wouldn't be a pro camera, it would be a pro's
camera).
But, really, I don't care a
What is the quality (optics) of K35/3.5?Do you recommend it?
It is a real jewel. Optical quality is fantastic. It is small and light
and built very well. This is why I enjoy using it with the LX.
Does anyone know if this lens is the same optical design as the screwmount
version with the
As a hero of mine once said, 'I make the pictures for myself - is anyone
else likes them, too bad!'
Cotty,
The late Oliver Gagliani, who I was fortunate to have met, was quoted in
John Sexton's latest newsletter saying:
You will never make a photograph that everyone likes, so
make sure that
be the current FA 35/2, although I haven't tried
them all.
I prefer the 50/1.4 not only to other Pentax 50s (which are also very good),
but to most other manufacturer's 50mms.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two
locations:
http
register them...our governement took them away from us. We had to
register our guns 15 years ago. Now I see it as the first step in the
process of taking all our guns away.
Shaun,
No offense, but gun control and gun rights are an absolutely verboten topic
around here. This ain't the place.
Friends,
In keeping with my standard policy, I'm going to unsubscribe until the gun
talk dies down.
Will someone come get me when it's over please?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll be back at that time!
See you then,
--Mike
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pentax Spotmatics,
You are a noody, noody guy ;-)
Or is it naughty.
Notty, I think.
--Mike
why this obsession with feel?
Good question. Focus feel has never been visible in any photograph I've ever
taken.
Good question indeed, and certainly a valid personal philosophy. I suppose
for me it's because the pictures I take are 60% of my enjoyment of my
photography hobby, while the
FA*24mm, 43mm, 77mm, K135/2.5 - do I need more?
You always need more...
No you don't! I don't think I've ever owned more than three lenses at once
in my life, and usually it's two or even one.
Cartier-Bresson carried three lenses but only used one of them.
Garry Winogrand used one.
I know which one for Cartier-Bresson, but what about Winnogrand and Salgado?
Winogrand used a 28mm almost always, and Salgado, when I heard him
interviewed, said he used a 28, 35, and a 60.
--Mike
P.S. Anyone closely associated with using a Leica rangefinder almost by
definition only uses a
But Mike, how faithful have you been to any of them? Hmm? g
Well, very faithful, Dan, if all you're talking about is the focal length!
Of course I did a series of reviews of medium format equipment for _Camera
Darkroom_, and have tried or owned or used dozens if not actually hundreds
of lenses
The Spotmeter F has an excellent reputation. About the only
thing Minolta does well is they make good meters.
Personally, I'd prefer a Minolta meter for studio work with flash, but for
work with negative film in natural light I think a Pentax spotmeter is head
and shoulders better. Hold out.
Here's an example taken with my Century Graphic with the aid of my meter:
http://www.westerickson.net/mark/misc/PennerLake.jpg
Ahh, that's a beautiful shot. You have good tone.
(He has good tone was Louis Armstrong's highest praise for a fellow
musician.)
--Mike
, but yes, my experience is that he
pretty much goes out and gets whatever he wants. I can at least say that
he's probably the last person who would use anything because he has to, or
because he's stuck with it, or because he's forced to make do.
--Mike
Mike Johnston
See my weekly online
I'm also interested to hear why Mike thinks the Pentax meter is better than
the Minolta.
I'll withdraw the comment. I don't know the specific Minolta meter under
discussion. I just have lots of memories of being irritated while futzing
with over-featured Minolta studio meters, and lots of
Hi,
My name is Mike, and I switched to Pentax because JCO sent me an old user he
used to carry around his truck so I could try the old screwmount lenses. I
did a flurry of great work with that camera and really enjoyed it.
I think I'm about to buy a Konica Hexar RF, as I saw one in Chicago over
Hi, my name is Bob and you should know that the Konica RF is not compatible
with Leica lenses. The flange to focal plane distance is different.
Bob,
I think that's a lot of bunk. Sherry Krauter, the Leica repairperson, will
tell you that matches between lenses and bodies are catch-as-catch-can
I changed to Pentax because of the lenses. Most Nikon lenses don't have
good out of focus effects. Many Pentax lenses do. Choose carefully and
they are among the best this side of Leica and Contax, for very little
money!
John,
Welcome to the verbal side of the PDML. Good post, and I
(or, if there are more than one, least expensive) DSLR will
list for $1799 and sell on the street in the $1400-$1600 range at first.
Okay, you heard it here. Only time will tell if I'm right. That's my guess.
--Mike J.
Mike Johnston
See my weekly online column about photography at either of these two
Shaun Canning wrote:
Sorry about the shameless self promotion, but I have just been listed as
'Photographer of the week' on the Photonet 'hotlinks' pages.
Congratulations Shaun!
--Mike
Are there cute cat pictures?
Yes.
Stop it.
--Mike
I dunno, I would call $4,999.00 or thereabouts a nightmare rather than a
dream.
Actually, from what I heard, if you are a longtime Pentax user who owns at
least two bodies, they will pay YOU to use their new digital SLR as a
beta-tester. They give you $200, a complete new camera outfit, and
it's just that in these 35mm photog handbooks I have
they have [ND filters] as part of 'essential kits'.
Brad,
That's stretching the meaning of the word essential way past the breaking
point. I'd bet not one out of 1000 photographers even owns a ND filter.
--Mike
P.S. Also, the last time a
Check out the third paragraph above the subhead conclusion.
http://www.photoshot.com/articles/product_reviews/hexar_test.htm
--Mike
If you want to see a cat picture not cute see:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=756304
And a cute one (who can resist?):
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=762094
Now cut that out.
Regards and keep posting PLEASE
Albano my friend, you really must be more careful what
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 06:36:56 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
Actually, from what I heard, if you are a longtime Pentax user who owns at
least two bodies, they will pay YOU to use their new digital SLR as a
beta-tester.
So how the heck does one go about getting their name on the list?
TTYL
Deconstructionist poetry?
No, secret code. Sell you a decoder ring?
Cheap at half the price,
--Mike
What if i tell 'em i have 7 Pentax bodys AND
a D1.That might sway them to lend me one VBG
Oh, sorry, didn't I mention that ownership of ANYTHING that says N***n on
it automatically disqualifies you from the program?
(This includes old neckstraps, relabeled Hoya filters, promotional clocks
Try living in a country that is in almost perpetual drought, only to
hear city based weather 'talking heads' on the TV bemoaning a day of
rain
Excellent example. We had a drought in Illinois a few years ago and the
farmers were really hurting, and all the weather people were brightly
It's just whatever you've acclimated to. I'm thinking you guys would
drop like flies if you had a month or two of F 100+ weather and green
house humidity. g Heck, one March we had a daytime high 113 F. And it
wasn't dry heat, it was soaking wet two feet out the door heat. :-)
Yeah but Dan,
Recommendations considering bang for the buck would be appreciated.
Annsan,
I'm a big fan of the Canon printers. I mainly use Epson Archival Matte paper
which is excellent and very cheap.
--Mike
(i.e. I believe Canon make their own
CCD/CMOS sensors and I think Nikon gets theirs from Fuji?).
Sony.
Not to worry about sarcasm. Turkeys are ugly, ungainly, and unbelievably
stupid. However, when smoked for about 5 hours over hickory chips, they are
also unbelievably delicious.
They do perform their intended function most admirably, don't they? We
referred to our Thanksgiving main course
Interesting. The marks in my lens are radial, ie they go around the lens
in a circular pattern and cover basically the whole area of the element.
Pretty much Universally, lens elements should not have marks on them.
--Mike
P.S. I'm hoping this will prove an uncontroversial statement. g
Lemme get this straight:
From 36*24mm, you need to enlarge roughly 5 times to get a 5*7.
From 24*16mm - surely you need to enlarge by 7 times to get the same
5*7?
What has this to do with pixels?
The size of a digital sensor isn't strictly dimensional. The number of
pixels determines
I was
able to trace my family to Canada's first permanent settlement, Port Royal in
what's now Nova Scotia, and it seems we arrived here around 1630.
Mover-inners!
(Just kidding Frank!)
Being able to trace your roots to the Mayflower is wonderful.
More than traced, and as you probably
Thanks for wading through.
Thank YOU, Lon, That was fascinating.
--Another besotten Pentaxian in need of a 12-step program
601 - 700 of 1471 matches
Mail list logo
