Bob wrote:
I belong to 7 lists
associated with this. Nowhere on these lists has anyone ever disparaged
photography or Pentax let alone do it using falsehoods, lies, untruths,
Of course not. They don't discuss pentax or photography but Guns. Can you please have
decency and consideration to
Tom wrote:
Hum...? Same old polite friendly Pal, I see.
Why should one be friendly when you are being extremely rude by saying you have the
right to abuse mailing list at your whim and by insulting 99% of the list subscribers
by telling they fit into two categories; 1) people who are here
I will have only one question : does the MZ-S need to beep whenever it gets
the AF blocked ?
No. You can turn it off.
grr in France MZ-S are 300 Euros costier than in Germany ( 950 Euros ) ..
i shall sell one or two Nikon AI-s lenses to get the MZ-S...am i right ?
MZ-3 MZ-S ?
The
Have anyone tried the combination of the FA* 300/2.8 and the 1,7X AF converter? Just
curious.
Pål
From: Jean-Baptiste Fargier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now the only thing i shall miss will be the Zeiss Distagon 1,4/35mm
Replace it with the Pentax FA 31/1.8 Limited
Pål
Frank wrote:
I think we only went through this debate 2 or 3 times since you've left. As you
undoubtedly recall, it comes up on a regular basis, in it's various
incarnations. I love your definition, though, as it applies particularly to me
Actually, there is an industry standard of what
Mark wrote:
...via Mike Johnston's column, of course:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-12-09.shtml
A pity though that someone manages to chase him off this list...:-(
Pål
Brad wrote:
FA* Zoom 250mm-600mm f/5.6 ED [IF]
We had acouple of PDML's who owned this lens. I'm not sure they are with us anymore...
A* 1200mm f/8 ED [IF]
I would like to own this lens although I can come up with no logic justification for
buying this lens. I guess logic has nothing to
Mark wrote:
I've only tried the 1.7x AF teleconverter with my Sigma EX300/2.8 APO -
worked very well with that lens.
The FA* 300/2.8 with and without the AF converter seems like a nice outfit for hand
held telephoto shoothing. It is an alternative to buying a Canon 300/4 IS lens plus
body
Timothy wrote:
This is an interesting idea: Could the choice of background *and* distance
from main focus of interest in a photograph be more of an influence than
lens design in the perception of bad bokeh?
Yes, but it is debatable whether we are talking about bokeh then or simply just
Bojidar wrote:
First of all, releasing lenses with smaller coverage circles seems to
indicate that the APS-sized digitals are here to stay. Like Alin, I too
had hoped that they are only for-the-time-being solutions.
It might be that this move is just a way to get proper wide angles for the
Alin wrote:
results? - current APS sized 6 MPixel cameras are not convincing at
all in a digital versus film argument, at least not to me. Just
because today's scanners are poor in exploiting film capabilities
(see Nyquest sampling frequency theorem) doesn't mean digital
Steve wrote:
I've always been curious about this effect, which I first heard it called the
diffraction effect.
No. This is not the diffraction effect. It just an effect of the fact that it's harder
to make the same lens for a larger coverage. Not to mention the fact that it is more
William wrote:
This would seem to obviate some claims that small format lenses
are significantly better than 35mm lenses, and agrees with what
I have personally obseved about the Carl Zeiss lens for the
Hasselblad.
I was actually refering to a test of the Pentax FA645 75/2.8 done in a
Rob wrote:
I get the feeling that you are talking of experience from long ago, why not do
yourself a favour and compare data for some newly designed lenses?
I'm sure there are exeptions but most MF lenses doesn't perform that well. The reasons
are economics and the fact there is no point
You seem to insist on comparing a 35mm image with a cropped larger format image. Who
does this in real life? The whole point of larger format is to take advantage of that
larger area. In that way you get better tonality and finer grain.
- Original Message -
From: Dr E D F Williams
Bob wrote:
isn't the implication of this that comparing lenses is entirely
unscientific? After all, the scientific method requires measurements
to be independently verifiable and repeatable. I find it difficult to
believe that optics and lens manufacture is outside the realm of
science.
Rob wrote:
The SLR will accept all 35mm Pentax-AF lenses and will have an
environtmentally sealed body.
If this is true, then it's film sibling is certainly the long awaited flagship
Pål
Dan wrote:
Entirely believable until you get to the roughly $6,000.00 part.
Everyone knows that Pentax doesn't compete at that price level with
anyone. Had you said, $899.99 or even $549.99 I would find it
entirely credible, but $6,000.00 shows someone is pulling someone's
leg or finger
Dan wrote:
Don't all lenses share that? I guess I'm confused as to why you
specified the 77/1.8 in that way.
No. The point is what's the limiting factor; the glass quality or the laws of physics.
Pål
Mike wrote
So let me ask a hypothetical question here. Asked of everyone. IF you have
to choose between EITHER the older, metal bodied, manual focus Pentax family
(Spotmatics, M series, A series, up to LX) ***OR*** the
polycarbonate-bodied, AF Pentax family (P series, ZX series, up to
Artur wrote:
But I've said that it's the manual style, haven't I?:0 What I mean is that
when pressing the button slightly the camera starts the AF and metering.
Continue with the pressing and you'll release the shutter. There's no stop
in the middle of the way.
Not true. Both my MZ-S has a
Glen wrote:
For a very impressive review including image comparisons of the EOS D1s and
35mm and 645 (buy the way he uses the Pentax 645) see this page below.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml
He isn't. He is comparing his digital camera with another
Alexander wrote:
Interestingly, a majority here confesses how they
prefer manual focus and even all-manual bodies over
the new AF-bodies. In the real world however, exactly
the contrary has happened: Obviously because of a lack
of demand, most manual focus and all all-manual 35mm
SLRs
Mark wrote:
It's a pity the PDML didn't exist when the LX was introduced. It would have
been interesting to read the inevitable complaints.
I remember the compaints: it was too big and bulky, used batteries, and had useless
features like automatic mode. It was essentially a tool for family
Amercan beer is like making love in a canoe
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 05:05 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
I can assure you, that as each product is contemplated, careful
consideration is given to it's ability to make money. Consumer demand
comes from people who buy new things. So if we list all the stuff we
bought new,
Mike wrote:
But is the upshot of what you're saying that we'll only buy something new if
it's better, yet it had better still be cheap? If so, then Pentax has got a
serious problem on its hands
Judging from some of the posts here over the years it seems like Pentax attracted a
lot of
Rüdiger wrote:
At
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1700-frames.shtml
is a review about the EOS 1Ds from Michael Reichmann.
Here I quote his summary:
Because I've been asked the question several times recently, let me answer
it straightforwardly here. I am
Joseph wrote:
Having used two MZ-S's, one of the several features I dislike is that it
is hard to perform just an autofocus/meter by depressing the shutter
switch halfway. The camera fires too readily, compared with the two
PZ-1ps that I own.
Well. It is totally opposite on mine. It is
Bruce wrote:
Try using an AF SLR that doesn't have Pentax on the front of it and you'll
see that you don't have to prefocus to get in focus shots.
Neither do you have to with a Pentax AF slr. Have you tried the MZ-S?
På
Artur wrote:
So, it appears that it is not just me, who dislike the release button of the
MZ-S, or at least notice the lack of its halfway stop.
It is utter and complete nonsense. My MZ-S, which I have in front of me, has a
distinct half-way stop.
Thanks Mike and
Joseph... I fully agree
Artur wrote:
However, there are things that make me wonder... Tell me why you become so
indignant whenever anybody says anything unfavourable about the MZ-S. You
seem to be terribly offended in some way...
I get offended when disinformation is posted. The MZ-S does have a two step shutter
Alexander wrote:
I think in the 90s the product management was even
hostile against high quality 35mm gear as they also
ditched the successor to the PZ-1p without any
replacement. Instead they kept the PZ-1p in the
product line for a IMO give away price (but
nevertheless couldn't sell
Mark wrote:
Very weird. My MZ-S definitely does *not* have a half-way stop.
My PZ-1p does.
Are you really sure this isn't just about semantics. My MZ-S (both) have almost
completely resistance-free, quite long travel like on the LX. This makes the meter and
AF start. Then you feel resitance,
Collin wrote:
... verifies what's been discussed here previously.
I talked to the guy who used to head Cord Camera's
service department. He's looking @ getting a Pentax 645.
One of his reasons included reliability. He saw NONE
come in for service over a couple of years.
The Pentax
Here are two books that might be of interest for Pentax users:
Andy Rouse Life in the wild has the form of diary in the year of wildlife shooter.
Andy is a great photgrapher and is a witty, often hilarious, writer. He constantly
whine about the useless meter of his Canon EOS-1v but praises the
Bruce wrote:
If Pentax
manages to stay in business for another 5 years, they may get their AF to
work in the real world as well as a 1995 Canon Elan.
If you knew what you're talking about yould would have known that the MZ-S way
outperform the Elan. I've tried.
I also tried out the Canon
Artur wrote:
Either I misunderstand the word offense (which is possible as I'm not an
English), or to be offended is to be hurt by a strictly personal charge or
insult. As I used neither of the two, not to mention that I never meant to
attack you, I'm deeply astonished that you reacted in
- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?
On Sun, 22 Dec 2002, Pål Jensen wrote:
Steve wrote:
I'm still on the hunt for a Medium Format setup. I
William wrote:
As an example, this past fall, I hauled my 6x7 with meter prism,
45mm, 75mm, 105mm, 135mm, 165mm and 200mm up a 15km mountain
hike, along with a Moanfrotto 028 tripod and 025 head.
I'm 45 years old, 30 pounds overweight and definitely not in top
physical condition.
Well, I
William wrote:
Dismissing 6x6 is a fools game. It's hard to think that
Hasselblad and it's users has had it wrong for the past half
century, with no one catching on, other than one Norwegian.
I didn't dismiss 6X6. I said it was a waste of space. It is. Either you crop the film
or you crop
Bruce wrote:
The best thing about Nikon shooters is that so many of them are real
gentlemen.
I certainly know one exception
William wrote:
The difference in kit weights is 2722g.
2,7 kg is about all I want ot carry. Your math would have looked quite different if
you included one or two of the 500g Pentax 645 zoom lenses
Pål
Rick wrote:
Some may argue that film sales has declined over the past few years and this may
signalled the end of analog photography. This is hardly from the truth as if you look
at the recent photo industry's sales survey, film is starting to make a come back
again.
REPLY:
Here in Norway
Cameron:
It is too bad that at this point, it is only a dream and conjecture.
February, you say, Paal. I sure hope so; it has been a long wait.
Don't stick the full frame Pentax DSLR rumor on me. Pentax will show an APS sized
sensor DSLR in spring.
Pål
Alan wrote:
Just got my 3rd sample from BH this week, and everything seems fine...
finally. However, I have noticed the colour of the coating is quite
different from my other SMC lenses. It appears more like yellow with quite a
lot of reflection when looking from the front, while my other
The reason I won't go digital anytime soon is that I cannot manage thousands, if not
ten thousands, of multi megabyte data files. As I am a total wandering chaos the limit
of what I can trusted with is to archieve slides. Nor can I be trusted with taking
back-up of my files. I never do. Never
Cameron wrote:
Given that 35mm lenses are the best there are,
I don't think they are. All things equal, smaller format lenses will be better. I've
heard that the Minox lens is way better than any 35mm system lens. No idea if it is
true...
Pål
Albano wrote:
Pal:
You really have to have a square mind to say 6x6 is a
waste. Square pictures can be very beautifull, why in
da hell they must be rectangular? The rectangle is
just a cultural convention, hence naturalized, but
it's still a convention.
Open your mind.
In stead of
JCO wrote:
Are you saying there isnt a pro digital SQUARE sensor
in a back made for the Hassleblad?
I said digital camera, not back. Hasselblads digital camera is going to have a
rectangular image like everybody elses. Thats because there won't be a square digital
standard format; 6X6 or
Bob wrote:
The proportions of photographic paper are determined by the historical
proportions of ordinary paper.
This isn't about the format of paper but format of film (which hardly ever fit the
paper).
One possible reason why there may be more (non-square) rectangular
compositions than
Keith wrote:
I contend it's something that if you're really obscessed with, you can
find that pattern almost anywhere in a good composition...
Good composition, yes. Perhaps thats whats makes it good.
Pål
Frank wrote:
But isn't that the point? It isn't, I suppose, that it's found in nature, but
that the human mind will impose ~it's~ structures (for lack of a better term) on
what it finds in the world, and judge certain things to be more satisfying than
others..
If that's the way some
Raimo wrote:
So how to waste space with Pentax cameras?
Crop your images into squares...
Pål
Tom wrote:
Some of the strongest images I have seen have been squares, the photographer
has to do his work to create a dynamic image because the format itself is
rather static, but when he does the image can be spectacular.
True. Although some seem to have mixed up the rectangular format
Bob wrote:
The way you're dismissing the square seems rather simplistic to me.
I'm not dismissing square images, but square film. The camera makers seem to be doing
the same. In the future there won't be square cameras I suspect because it is such a
waste. Photographers will crop their images
Cotty wrote:
I went shopping today :-)
but didn't actually buy anything :-(
However, I did manage to see some Manfrotto tripods and was mightily
impressed.
I've been through both the Manfrotto and Gitzo tripods, but I'm much more impressed
with the Berlebach. www.berlebach.de
Pål
Bob wrote:
Since the square is such an important shape in
composition
It isn't. It is extremely unimportant and hardly 2.7% of images shot or published use
this format.
Pål
Bob wrote:
where did you get this ridiculous statistic? You obviously know
absolutely nothing about composition if you believe the square is
unimportant.
I'm talking about square images, not the role of the square in composition... Square
images are rare.
Pål
Brad wrote:
I believe he is referring to your tendency to come up with numbers with
little support.
The number was a joke. It illustrated the fact that only a miniscule fraction of all
the images shot and published are square. The square cameras has significantly less
than 1% marketshare,
Frantisek wrote:
from purely technical standpoint (I won't diverge into aesthetics
and all), square is the format that wastes _the least_ of a lens
field of view.
I believe I made that point a couple of days ago... It is probably where the idea of a
square format comes from.
Tom wrote:
Let's see, Pal is saying that 6x6 is a waste of film because it has to
cropped to 6x4.5 to fit his idea of a proper format? Now he is saying that
it is not a waste to crop 6x7 to 6x4.5, nor 6x4.5 to 4.5x3.5 in reply to
Bruce's comment.
No I'm not. I'm saying its a waste to use a
Bruce wrote:
In a studio, photographers aren't screwing around rotating cameras for
horizontal and vertical shots. Same thing for wedding photographers
using 2 1/4. Time costs more than film. Final cropping is determined by
the client, and not the photographer, no matter how he fills the
Mike wrote:
This doesn't really translate to the market. The original Mamiya 6x7 was the
RB, which stood for Rotating Back. The whole point of the feature was so
that studio photographers would not have to remount the camera on their
camera stands to change the picture orientation--and the
Bob wrote:
All mathematics is counting - things exist or they do not.
Well, according to quantum mechanics some things might exist and not exist at the same
time :-)
Otherwise you're basically right. It has been proven without any doubt that there are
relationships that can be expressed by
Brad wrote:
Thanks Pal! Too bad you are not in possession of the facts.
Ho ho. I don't want to bother the list with boring and irrelevant facts.
You ignore a
lack of evidence, and you don't know the first thing about the geophsyics
involved.
Huh? Bad luck with that one. I have PhD in
Mike wrote:
What I said is that mathematics is a human invention.
Of course it is. But does it matter as long as it describe real things? Graphic
relationships in an image can easily be described by mathematics.
Pål
Mike wrote:
There is not even one single definable compositional rule that either a)
always results in a successful photograph or b) cannot be directly violated
in a successful photograph. Not _one_. Furthermore, there is almost no case
in which one successful photograph cannot closely
Paul wrote:
Steve Rasmussen, who is a regular contributor on PhotoNet's Pentax 67
discussion group, thinks that Pentax may soon be offering a 35-60mm
rectilinear zoom for the 67. His conjecture is based on the fact that 67
lens offerings have seemed to follow the pattern of the 645 releases.
Andre wrote:
You probably mix this lens with the A28/2.8. The M or A 35/2.8
lenses are both superb.
Well, mine certainly isn't. It is prettey pedestrian; about what should be expected
from a zoom these days.
Pål
John wrote:
I doubt it. 6x6cm will remain the medium format of choice for the
foreseeable future
for those who shoot film for a living, and 6x4.5cm will remain the first
choice of 35mm
amateur users trading up. 6x7cm will remain the preserve of those of either
persuasion
who wish to
John wrote:
But one thing is clear. Only an amateur would obsess about wasting a
centimetre!
Whether one should worry about it not is another discussion. It is still a waste. The
day you waste similar % of space on an expensive commodity like a digital sensor, then
such excess will be
Bob wrote:
Rules of composition
are rules of thumb, that's all. Knowledge of them, whether you follow
them or not, will improve your chances of making a successful photograph,
other things being equal. The divine proportion is at least as useful
as 'fill the frame' in this respect.
This is
David wrote:
Many on the Blad list (HUG) feel that the 6x4.5 is a good idea but far
from what Hasselblad is aiming for with respect to film formats. It adds
autofocus to a smaller rectangular format and is aimed mainly at Wedding
photographers - those who use 6x4.5 the most. Not all
I wrote:
If thats all thats behind it, I'll say he is on thin ice.
Theres always the possibility that this is a way to give confidential information in
the form of speculation. On the other hand, I believe Pentax is more likely to kill
the 67 format or let it die a quiet death.
Pål
David wrote:
Do you have a predicted time frame for this death? Is it similar to the
death that film will have once it is overtaken by digital? (as so many have
also predicted)
No. I don't know when film dies. I believe it will be around for the foreseeable
future and that 6X6 will still
Paul wrote:
I doubt it. The 67II is a recent release. What's more, the camera is
quite popular with both pros and amateurs. As I noted in another post,
many location shooters use Pentax 6x7. And if our list is any barometer,
it's quite well liked by amateurs and part time pros as well.
Stan wrote:
It is extremely easy to
tilt the camera 90° -
I wonder why not all the sports and wildlife photographers, and photo journalist, who
really shoot action and are in a hurry, don't constantly whine for a camera they don't
have to tilt?
Pål
Bob wrote:
Mozart's music was perfect. Mathematicians have spend many lifetimes trying
to discover his secrets. Was there a Golden Section in his music?
Surely! Music is pure mathematics. Reseach has even shown that matematic skills
improves if listening to music; particularly complex music.
Huh? Wildlife, or even sportshooters without a tripod? Ever tried to handhold a 600/4
lens?
Because they're hand holding the camera, genius. Maybe you though Capa
set up a tripod on the beach, under fire during the D-Day landing. I
know that's what you would have done for the best
Bruce wrote:
Welcome to Pal Land! In Pal Land interchangeable back means you can
change the back of the camera; like putting a data back on an LX. This
doesn't mean, like it does in the rest of the universe, that you can
change film backs without ruining the film. The Pentax 645 does not
Rob wrote:
This point combined with technical issues is the basis for my prediction that
the 645 format will hit the dust far earlier than larger 120 film formats.
What technical issues are you thinking of?
I would have agreed with you but for one thing only: some major manufacturers have
gfen wrote:
Isn't thenew Canon FF (EOS1D? Whatever its called) simply two of the APS
sized sensors stuck together? Wouldn't one of the next logical steps be
for someone to put four of them together to get a 645 sized sensor? Of
course they'll do the same with more in the future for larger
Henry wrote:
Is digital back the only viable digital solution for 645? Pentax has always
been saying that 645 is designed as a superior FIELD camera.
I don't think a digital back as final 645 solution make much sense. Firstly, you can
cut 25% off the 645 size be removing the film insert.
John wrote:
Photographers come from many different backgrounds.
But there are really only two; the technician and the artist.
Not really, There are also everything in between. I don't think you can really
separate the artistry from the technique.
But the
artist sees the picture in the
David wrote:
Pal,
can you please set out with names of the professional photographers in the
UK that are currently using the Pentax 645? This will at least clear the
air and put this argument to rest if you can list them for us.
What kind idiocy is this? I cannot list the UK pro
John wrote:
John wrote:
I can honestly say that I have never seen any professional photographer in
the UK using a Pentax 645.
I can honestly said that this only proves your complete ignorance.
So in which part of the UK do you live and work as a professional
photographer, and
Bruce wrote:
No, I wasn't paying any attention to music is pure mathematics, and my
response had nothing to do with it.
I was the one who staed that music is pure mathematics. By this I don't mean that
music is only matematics, but that if you take the matematics out of music you are
left
David wrote:
I'm merely asking for a backup to your statement. If you claim that
someone is ignorant because they don't know anyone who is a professional
photographer in the UK using a Pentax 645,
No. Someone claimed that his lack of knowledge about something proved some point
(which
Bruce wrote:
Mike's originally stated that there were no rules. He didn't qualify his
statement in any way. Your view is that one type of rule is different
than another, based on semantics, Mike didn't make any distinction.
I'm not aware of the laws of physics so that gravity doesn't
Mike wrote:
I will concede that I've been outpointed in this debate by the estimable Mr
Walkden, but as for the rest of you, only ONE person who has defended the
rules has so far had the guts to step forward and actually NAME any of
them. I think this discussion will have to end here unless
John wrote:
In practice, the versatility of 6x6 offers far
greater value than the tiny cost of what you say
it wastes. I regard it as an *investment* with
an especially good pay-off, and I feel sure that
most 6x6 users would agree it's worth paying for.
Definitely *not* a waste!
And
Mike wrote:
Oh, but it does. It's the difference between derivative and original.
Nope. You can point your camera in any direction; shooting wildly and be creative and
experiment. However, those image that works will comply with some rule someone else
figured out long ago. Litterally billions
Feroze wrote:
Theres 2 batterys in the camera, one for the date back a CR20** and the
main battery, if you take the main one out the roll number is reset to zero
and
a few other custom settings, I would think that the exposure data would be
lost as well.
Huh? Firstly the date back memory
Bob wrote:
I've been enjoying Mike Johnston's antinomian approach to photography
and the discussion it's provoked.
Two questions:
Are some photographs better than others?
Can't be cause there are no rules
If so, why?
Well, if they are anyway it must be for some mystic and
Feroze wrot:
I never said the date back memory has anything to do with the data imprint,
secondly
see pg 41 of your manual
I haven't the manual in front of me, but I've changed batteries more often than I like
to think about and nothing happens with the dataimprinting or roll number
Paul wrote:
But the roll counter will be reset to zero, thats even stated in the manual.
Then theres an error in the manual. Otherwise, no MZ-S would be able to count to more
than 30!
Again, mine don't reset the counting when removing the batteries. And what an Earth
would point be with an
Mike wrote:
If you're good at it, other
people will know it. If you aren't good at it, then at least you've
satisfied yourself. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to know one
single rule in order to photograph well, and many great photographers NEVER
think or speak of such things.
You
Raimo wrote:
It´s not mystic and it is not unfathomable. It is not rules, either. It´s not
composition, it is the CONTENT.
For goodness sake it was sarcasm.
Think about Henri Cartier-Bresson (or Ansel Adams) - the impact of the photos
is because of content, not composition. Yes, Adams´
1 - 100 of 2154 matches
Mail list logo
