Re: FAJ lenses what the heck???? (Was Most Unknown Pentax Lens)
Pål wrote: Rob wrote: I note also that the charts refer to MZ-S series cameras! SERIES!!! Almost definitely reading too much into this, but it is intriguing! A couple of years ago Pentax said at Japan camera show that they were considering a MZ-S based camera model placed below the MZ-S and one body above it. Personally, I doubt we will see anything based on the MZ-S in the future but new bodies baswed on the new SLR chassis. Pål Why? In my understanding the new chassis will be targeted at a lower price segment, for the mass market, while the MZ-S is a low volume item. It is purely speculative by I would rather expect the new chassis to replace the MZ-3/5/6/7/10 series? They will need a more rugged camera too (which will naturally be more expensive). So what would prevent them from releasing an upgraded or revised camera based on the MZ-S, or another digital-version, in the long run? Previous camera cameras of the K and M-series were also based on different chassis (e.g. KM/KX/K1000 vs. K2; ME vs. MX etc.) Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax matrix metering [Was: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in Germanmagazine]
The information that the Sf-10 two segment meter used distance information for exposure evaluation is from the sales brochure. It was also confirmed by a Pentax employee I talked with (I have no experience with the Sf-10). Alexander It had access to distance information. No one has been able to conclusively prove that it was used prior to the MZ-S. This is in the same category as the MTF program mode that even Pop (we love all gadgets) Photog couldn't detect that it did anything. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first Pentax camera that used distance information for exposure calculation was the SF-7/Sf-10. It had a two segment meter that used the distance information. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax FA lenses--some thoughts
For my part, for snap-shooting a 85mm and 35mmm/2 two lens outfit works great. Besides, I understand that you prefer the characteristics of the 50/1.4 (or 50/1.2) over that of the 43/1.9 ltd. So I am almost sure you will like the FA* 85/1.4 (more than the 77mm). Enjoy, Alexander Mike Johnston wrote: One possibility for the upcoming show is that there may be a new FILM body from Pentax. Pal keeps hoping for an AF LX, and it's also possible that there may be a new budget/serious camera one tier below the MZ-S (which I can't afford). So I've been trying to think about FA lens outfits recently. I don't currently own any FA lenses, but there are a number I'm attracted to. What I do is general snapshooting in black-and-white. I'm a great fan of 35mm normal lenses, but also of the 50/1.4 Pentax lens. Generally, what I need is an all-purpose lens, and also a portrait lens. But a 50mm is too long to be my widest lens. Here's what I've shot with over the past few years: --Just a 50mm. --a 35mm and an 85mm. --a 50mm, an 85mm for portraits, and a wider lens--since the wider lens is mostly for indoors, it needs to be pretty fast. Personally, since my long(er)-lens use is _exclusively_ for portraits, I'm leaning towards the 85mm f/1.4. The 77mm also has a great reputation and has a better form-factor. So one obvious kit would be the 85/1.4 and the 35/2. A kit comprising the 35/2 and the 77mm would also be very nice. But that leaves me without my stone favorite 50/1.4. If I were to add that, I'd want to use it as my most of the time normal lens. At that point, the 35/2 becomes rather superfluous, and I'd rather move a bit further away on the wide and tele ends...which would mean a three-lens kit with the 24/2 or 31mm, 50/1.4, and 77 or 85mm. Since 77mm is rather closer to 50mm than to 35mm, this thought pushes me more towards the 85mm again. The trouble with this is that, in the real world, I don't have very much cash. So to think of buying both the very expensive 31mm and the very expensive 85mm is rather daunting...especially when the inexpensive 50mm would be my most of the time lens. I'd like to begin investing in a kit of FA lenses, but I'm unsure of which way to go. I could do any of the following... --50/1.4 only (not really a very flexible option). --35/2 and 85/1.4. --35/2 and 77mm. --31mm, 50/1.4, and 85mm. --24/2, 50/1.4, and 85mm. --something else--? My little brother Scott has insisted for years that I am very good at giving advice to others, but not very good at choosing things for myself. His reasoning is that I remain objective and clear-headed when I give advice to others, but when I'm shopping for myself, I succumb to emotion and fetishizing and hair-splittng, and make dumb decisions. What would you recommend? Keep in mind I want an _optimum_ 2- or 3-lens FA kit for my uses, not something that will just get me by. --Mike P.S. This is not a troll. I'm serious. s __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
OT: ebay once again: would you do that?
I mean yould you do that: sending your credit card information to a foreign seller, who has a feedback rating of only 9 and who says this is the only paying method he is willing to accept? Probably not. And speaking about insurance (in an other ebay posting) does this protect me from a possible credit cart fraud from an ebay seller? Thanks, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: we don't need no stinkin' rules
Pål wrote: If you have guidelines for yourself, fine. If other people find it helpful to use guidelines, fine. If other people find it interesting to deconstruct composition ex post facto, fine. They can do whatever they want. I can do whatever I want. You can do whatever you want. You can't do whatever you want and created interesting or good images, something every photographer have bitterly experienced. You know why? Because THERE ARE NO RULES. If there are no rules, there are no good images as theres nothing separate between them. After all, everything is possible so everything must be equally good. Furthermore, if there are no rules every photographer is doomed to lifetime of frustration as it is impossible to produce good images on a consistent basis as all there is to it is pointing the camera in random direction and hope for luck. Pål No, it is not about rules it is about awareness, what you are talking about. Certainly, knowing how the brain-eye system works helps to increase the awareness. But these are not rules. E.g. the rule of the third is not as rule it is sort of an the effect of how the brain-eye system works. An image may be felt as good because of following that rule or because of disregarding it depending on what you want to show. A good photograph is one that we remember. That is quite simple. Take 10 photographs you remember and you will see that every image is perceived as good for different reasons. Or rules in your diction - you can probably derive hundreds of rules from these 10 images. Quite obviously, it does not work like this. Photography is about seeing, awareness, imagination and understanding (I mean understanding the story behind the picture) ... Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Pentax future: advanced and classy or cheap and shoddy? [was: RE: Hypothetical Question]
Pål wrote: -- Sure, but I don't think LX with AF should be interpreted litterally; more of an AF camera that occupies the LX place in the line-up. Yes, that is how I have meant it. Both Nikon and Canon sell well of their upper level bodies. When a company like Kyocera could manage to keep four (or was it more) upper end bodies in the market simultaneously, neither of them selling in volumes, it is nothing but a total disgrace that Pentax didn't manage a single one during the 90's. Pentax' entire product line seems to be centered around PS cameras. I was told by a pentax rep that in the early 90s (before they introduced the FA-series), Pentax had almost dicontinued the 35mm SLR system. At that time Pentax dramatically lost market share (35mm SLR), but on the other side, their PS zoom cameras became extremely succesful. They continued their 35mm system because they thought - that making a 35mm system will boost the sales of PS cameras (as it shows their expertise as a camera maker) and - they will get new customers from those who want to upgrade from a PS camara to a SLR system. I think this strategy was quite successful.They survived and regained lost market share. It also explains the product philosophy behind the MZ-cameras: They are all either entry level cameras or for students. Similar to the espio/iqz PS cameras, they make a large variation of MZ cameras that are all based on one single platform. So they can appeal a variation of different customers while keeping costs low. However, in this line up is no room for an expensive model. You need another camera platform (expensive), and such a model is much more difficult to sell with a different marketing stategy and a higher risk. True, the LX was still around but it was beyond its selling date. So Pentax deserve the reputation they now have; entry level cameras there are no point in buying because if you buy a Nikon or a Canon, or even a Minolta, you have something to upgrade to. 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 much of them). As a result everybody expects Pentax to be cheap. There was (is?) no long-term marketing strategy for high end 35mm gear. They did not even market the 35mm SLrs as a system, they rather marketed single products. Even up to now Pentax USA and Pentax Europe do not bother with black limited lenses. Still no ultra-wide Af lens. There are, however, signs that Pentax have gotten the message. I take the introduction of the MZ-S as an indication that you are right. But things are slowly moving. After the introduction of the MZ-S two years ago there has been silence again. The photokina no-show must have sent a desastrous message as they decided to semi-announce the upcomming APS D-SLR through internet groups (normally they remain tight-lipped about news releases). To be honest I think the product management has still a long way to go. They don't communicate to the customer in which direction they will go and what the selling points of their products are. E.g. you have to go to the Japanese web page to find out what the complete product line is. And when the MZ-S was introduced, they left it to the customer to find out if it is made of die-cast parts or just of metal-coated/plated plastic (due to an error in translation). Also, I believe that digital will force higher end cameras from Pentax. With some luck, we wil see film versions of the as well. If for nothing else, then as a means for Pentax to cover developing costs. Full-frame higher-end 35mm digital slr's will start competing with Pentax MF cameras. Also, MF need an upgrade path to digital uless they want their whole MF line to be a dead end. According to a rumor spread on the luminous landscape forum, Pentax is still committed to a full frame D-SLR (with FOVEON sensor). No idea if that is true, did you hear anything about that? (for my part, I will be glad if that APS sized D-SLR materializes in foreseeable future). Codeveloping 35mm and MF digital slr's makes sense as they can be made similar except for sensor size and physical size. Although for digital the sensor will be a strong selling point, Pentax need to update their features as well in order to be seen as competitive. They also will have to expect quite a few years with lossleaders in order to build up their eroded image. I hope you are right but it will be expensive and there is no guarantee that this will pay off in the future. I fear that this is exactly not what they are prepared to do. So far, I do not see a long therm product strategy. The MZ-S looks to me as a temporary solution rather than as the base to a series of new high end digital and film cameras. It took Canon
Re: Hypothetical Question
See interspersed comments below Pål wrote:-- I think at the end of it's life time the LX was 3x as expensive as it initially was. Too expensive. The desire for ultimate quality vanishes as prices increase. Yes, but also the fact that there are limits on how long you can sell the same product. At a certain point the market becomes saturated and the used price is so much lower than new price that few are willing to pay for a brand new one. When a product get old enough initial buyers can sell the thing for the same they gave for it 10-15 years earlier, something they are happy to do, maintaining a low used priced compared to new price. This happened also with the 67; the used market was so full of it that few bought new ones anymore as good second-hand samples were plentiful at significant savings. Pål Yes this is true. But Pentax did not decide to keep LX sales going over a longer time by releasing upgrades of the LX or a successor model to the LX. OTOH they did this with the 67 system by introducing the 67II. My point is that (sure I am only guessing here) that an AF LX with modern electronics would be too expensive to find enough customers. This would be, although such a camera would probably not be much more expensive than the old LX would cost today (basically the mechanics are the more expensive parts). Camera reviewers have even complained about the MZ-S being too expensive though it is actually moderately priced for what it is. This is basically because you can buy cheaper, but less well-made bodies that are laden with more features. Mike wrote: 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 one or a cheap ZX/MZ-something plastic body? I think the market has already given the answer. Alexander, I don't think the market has given the answer because the market has not been given the actual choice. Yes, Pentax would rather build ZX-5's and ZX-7's, and this probably means that it thinks it can do so more profitably than it could build a camera such as you describe. But that doesn't mean that the market wouldn't support an AF LX if one were available. After all, Nikon sells plenty of F100s. Yes, but I assume Pentax made their choice not releasing a LX successor based on marketing research. And it's market is not comparable to Nikon's. Nikon's present share on the 35mm SLR world market is about 35% (if I am not wrong) while that of Pentax is only 10%. So there are much more potiential customers who will likely upgrade to a F5-like camera (only few beginners will start with a F5). When the LX was introduced Pentax' market share was about 20%. Now speaking just for myself, I'd say that my tastes and requirements are so highly evolved that I probably wouldn't be interested in such a camera unless it had all the main features I'm personally looking for. This perfectly shows how much more difficult it is to sell high end gear. Regardles how such a hypothetical AF-LX will look like, they will convice only a fraction of Pentax useres to buy one. (BTW I would like to see a AF-LX) Enjoy, Alexander Those are: 1. A 98% or 100% viewfinder with good snap for easy manual focusing 2. Quiet operation 3. Short shutter lag (i.e., good responsiveness) 4. Ability to use manual focus as well as AF lenses 5. Aperture-priority AE 6. AE lock 7. Non-resetting ISO 8. Diopter adjustment or add-on diopters 9. Moderate size and light to medium weight (say, up to 26 oz. or so) for decent portability 10. General straightforwardness of controls and ease of operation, and not too many extra controls and features confusing everything. I'd *certainly* be using an LX if only it had #2, and I'd probably be using an MZ-S if it had #1. The problem for a camera designer would be that in order to satisfy the top ten features lists of a LARGE number of photographers, they have to have a great deal of capability and it has to be very see-through, i.e., it couldn't be very confusing or feature-laden and it couldn't dictate the way it had to be used, but it would have to be able to satisfy ALL of any particular advanced photographer's wants. This is a very large order, and it's got to be damnably tough for a camera designer to accommodate. For instance, one thing I didn't list is flash capability or high sync speed, because I don't use flash and I don't give a damn about it. But it's very easy to anticipate that many, if not most, photographers would demand excellent flash capability. I haven't specified mirror lock-up or low vibration because I don't do closeup work or astrophotography. But for someone who did either of those things, those features would be mandatory.
Re: K, M series lens matrix metering hack
Rob Studdert wrote : - On 17 Dec 2002 at 0:15, Scott Nelson wrote: Has anyone tried this before? I'm curious, but I think the second option would be much easier to implement and is reversible. Oh yeah, and does anyone have any beat up, broken A series lenses with f/2.5 or f/2.8 maximum apertures? PDMLer Mark Roberts has produced a template and will modify lenses, one of our French PDMLers has a web page dedicated to the discussion and Boz's KMP has quite detailed information regarding the mount code combinations and theory. I have also modified K and M lenses to replicate KA contacts in the past with success. Cheers, Hi, I am a bit confused about what is being discussed here. In my understanding (which may be wrong of course) the A-lenses' current circuit is only closed when the lens is set to the A-position, i.e. when the A-contact of the lens is protruded (as opposed to F and FA lenses). It is thus my understanding that multisegment metering only works with A-lenses when they are set to the A-position. So just adding the plastic insulators to a K/M lens, according to the code given on Boz' page would not make much sense (as the camera's A-contact is recessed and does not (and should not) connect with the metal lens mount of the K/M lens). Multisegment metering would only work in manual mode with an A-lens or with an K/M lens if the camera's lens mount is current carrying even if the A-contact is not connected. Is this the case? Alexander Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: auto bellows + LX
The MZ-S camera body gets into the way with the bellows. Insert an extension ring between bellows and camera body. Alexander Feroze Kistan wrote : --- Hi Andre, All the manual says is Note that Auto bellows A cannot be used with this camera because it cannot be fitted to it. Maybe the flash is too close to the mount I been to Boz's site, but I still can't figure out which one Pentax is talking about. How many bellows are there. I want the one where you attach a lens to the end, not the slide copier I keep on seeing __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
The problem with AF lenses (most of them anyway) is that they are AF lenses; loose, rattly, and focuses past infinity. Unfortunately, I've discovered that initially tight AF lenses develop looseness over time. It may well be that some newer AF designs are potentially beter optically, but getting the best out of them is more of a hassle. I have noticed this too but I do not think that the degree of looseness is a measure for the degree of durability. I think they are designed to become looser with use (to keep friction as low a possible). Once they have become loose it stays like this. However,there is a big difference between built quality among the various AF lenses. You have to pay much for built quality (I estimate that today a lens with a built quality comparable to that of the K-lenses is at least 4-5x more expensive than it was in the eighteens). Older, MF lenses are built to last forever and my experience is that they do and never ever get out of alignment or develop rattles. I aggree. But in those days, lenses were not categorized into consumer and pro lenses. Those who could afford the fast version bought a slower version of a lens. Both were made according to the same (high) standard. Today, the consumer is feeded with junk lenses while the right stuff has become excessively expensive considering the prices from the eighteens. Alexander Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: 30mm f2.8 was Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why?
I agree with all those positive comments about the 30mm/2.8 lens (particularly about it's great range of tonality). I just want to add that it also delivers remarkably high quality over-life size macro shots (in reverse mode on a bellows or extension rings). I have used this lens for 4x or 5x life size macro shots and I am quite pleased with the results. Enjoy, Alexander Bob wrote: Hi Thibault The 30mm is probably one of Pentax's most under-rated lenses and one of their best. I have one and have been singing great pleasures of joy since I bought it. I am sure that this lens was a all stops pulled design and I would be interested how the 31mm limited compares. I personally don't think the 30mm could be significantly bettered by the 31mm or competing lenses near that focal length. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Who has switched to Pentax and why? I had read many good things before buying my 30/2.8 and all I can tell is that I wasn't disapointed by the qualities of this lens. Although it is especially sharp, as the MTF tests can indicate, it has also a very strong visual sharpness and a great range of tonality. The rendering of out of focus scenes is also quite pleasing, especially close focus scenes. Mechanically the lens is awesome and still very light, lighter than K 28/3.5. The characteristic I like most about this lens is the very low distortion you get given the relative wide angle of the lens. Buildings and lines near the edges of the frames are rendered very linear, making this lens a very good lens for street photography. I have yet to see a lens of the same angle and size with so little distortions. The fact that the lens is quite rare explains its high price on the used market but it is also due to its qualities. Thibault Grouas. Well the 30mm is more of a substitute, and a much superior one at that, for one of the K or M 28mm lenses. That said I can only second the assessment that this is a great lens. It may be overlooked due to it's relative rarity. At 09:36 AM 12/10/2002 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 12/10/02 7:05:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As Bob Rapp said, a Pentax-M 35mm f/3.5 is a superior lens, and better than most other 35 mm lenses from anyone. That is HIS opinion. It is also my opinion. I have 35/3.5 lens and agree that it is a very good lens. But one lens that seems to get overlooked here on a regular basis is the 30/2.8. If you are a believer in lens tests, this is the one to get. Vic __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
Hi Alan, I disagree with almost everything you say about the 43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special lens. The question is rather if you like it's characteristics or not. But that is a totally different matter ... Guess I just can't stand the bright-edge bokeh of the 43. :) regards, Alan Chan I think this is a feature, not a fault :-) In fact the out of focus part are clearly separated from the sharp part for such a wide lens (some of your examples show this). IMO the intense colors of the out of focus images are a hallmark of the 43mm ltd lens and contribute to the the 3D-effect Pål is so enthusiastic about. However, it is quite a difference to the milky, softy and low contrast out of focus images of the 1.4 and 1.2 50mm lenses. Which one is better? It depends ... All the best, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Noctilux and 43mm Limited
Is it just me, or does the bokeh on this Noctilux pic remind you of the 43 Limited? http://www.alaska.net/~rowlett/images/noctilux/mimi4.htm R I am not sure. Unlike those those seen on this picture (maybe an effect of scanning?) out of focus highlights produced by the 43 mm ltd. lens seem to show quite well defined edges, are evenly illuminated and not look smeared out. At least this is my impression. Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
how does it compare to the 43mm which i have and really like I would consider the 43 is not particular great optically while the 77 is very good imho. regards, Alan Chan Hi Alan, I disagree with almost everything you say about the 43mm ltd. Actually, the 43mm ltld. is a really special lens. The question is rather if you like it's characteristics or not. But that is a totally different matter ... Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: thoughts on the 77mm limited lens
In my opinion, the FA*85/f1.4 gives a bigger blur for portrait shots, as it has a slighlty longer focal length (plus f1.4). 85mm is indeed slightly longer than 77mm, but the FA* 85/1.4 is ~less~ than an 85mm lens at closer focus distances, so that the difference between the autofocus 85/1.4 and the 77/1.8 might be smaller than the FL numbers suggest (unless the 77/1.8 also shows the same close-focus FL effect - what sort of focusing does the 77/1.8 use?). See the 2 EFFECT OF ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ON IMAGE SIZE links at: http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/85compar/ . Fred To the best of my knowledge (I don't own one) the 77 uses a fixed rear element (FREE) focusing system. Since this is also associated with a distance change between single lens elements, the focal lenth will also change during focusing (don't ask me how much). Enjoy, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
200mm macro: FA* vs A*
Hi, Does anybody have experience with both of these lenses? I understand that the A* version is highly rated by those list members who have used it, but I would prefer the AF lens. Is it as good? How good is the image quality when it is used with a converter (A1.4xS or A2xS or similar)? Thanks, Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: If You had to pick one lens . . .
Alan wrote: -- I have found the M50/1.4 has better bokeh than the FA43/1.9. Aperture are f2 f1.9 respectively. http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/43.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/50.jpg regards, Alan Chan - These sample pictures are very interesting. Good or bad lens bokeh has a lot of aspects (dependent on lens focal lenghs, shooting distance vs. background distance, highlights, separation of the foreground from the background etc.) making it difficult to quantify. I feel the 43mm lens has a better separation of the foreground from the background than the 50mm lens though the degree of unsharpness of the background is slightly lower (as it is a shorter focal lengths). Alexander http://www.arnoldstark.de/pentax.htm If or not this is important depends a lot on indivudual Therfore some __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: Lenshood for FA 50mm
- Original Message - From: Jose R. Rodriguez Subject: RE: Lenshood for FA 50mm I also use a 52mm Nikon Hood (HN-3) for my K 50mm f/1.2 which works great. Is that what that thing is? I would like to find a couple more, and if so, then I know what to look for. Thanks William Robb -- I use a Nikon HS-7 hood for my A 50mm/1.2. This is the one for the noct Nikkor. It is deeper than the HN-3. Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
Re: Poll: Primes that we wish Pentax had built
If in the past or now the Pentax boss owed you a favor, what prime lens would you have asked him to make/would you ask him to make Lens name: FA 400/4.5 ED IS Length: 25cm Diameter: 10cm Weight: maximum 2kg Filter Thread: 95mm Other: image stabilization Examples: The known Pentax prototypes, which will be on the list, too: Most definitely this one: Lens name: SMC Pentax Birds Eye 1:2.8 8.4mm Length: ~12 cm Diameter: ~10.5 cm Weight: ~ 600g Filter Thread: - Other: Circular Fish-Eye Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: MZ-S underwater
There are excellent unterwater housings for Pentax from uk-Germany: http://www.uk-germany.de/english/uwg_pentax.html http://www.uk-germany.de/english/main.html -- On 4 Oct 2002 at 5:15, Brad Dobo wrote: I highly HIGHLY doubt there is one for the MZ-S, or any other Pentax (oops, there is the Optio one) for that matter. However, the watertight clear bags with a clear glass hole for the lens should be available. Well almost none: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/underh20/housing/ http://www.helixphoto.com/UW/aquatica.html And there was/is? a Pentax underwater case for the P67. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Re: AF adapter
ERNR wrote: - Bought an AF 1.7x converter some months ago -- used, without an instruction manual. I notice that sometimes it just won't AF. (I generally use it with a fast 50, so it's not the speed). Is this a known weakness of this device? or is there something in the instructions that I should know about, to stop this from happening? (I checked and didn't find instructions for this on the Pentax website.) ERNR - Hi, the Af-adapter will only be able to focus the adapter-lens unit to infinity, if the lens is set to infinity. This is because the adapter focuses by moving it's own lens group and not that by moving that of the lens; so at 'infinity', both the adapter and the lens must be set to infinity. OTOH when, in the AF mode, the adapter is not able to focus close enough, preset the lens to a closer distance. Then the AF adapter will be able to auto-focus on nearer subjects, however it will not focus to infinity. The distance indicated at the scale of lens the does not correpond to the actual film to subject distance. When the Af-adapter is locked to infinity it works like any other teleconverter. In this case you can manually focus the lens and the distance indicated at the distance scale of the lens correponds to the actual film to subject distance. Hope this helps, Alexander Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bellows Question...
Bruce wrote: - Also, the bellows can handle mounting a lens reversed for further magnification. In that case, you do have to stop the lens down - the double cable release doesn't help much. -- I don't think that is quite correct. I have the A-bellows unit and I can confirm that the double cable release works when the lens is mounted reversed. The entire front part of the unit including the cable release connection can be reversely mounted. IMO this is a big advantage of the A-bellows. I ~think~ this is not possible with the K-bellows unit where a reverse adaptor is needed for mounting the lens reversed. I don't know the M-bellows but I ~think~ it works similar to the A-bellows unit. Alexander Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX motor drive - question
andre wrote: The biggest issue with the NiCd packs is not overcharging (a full charge is 16 hours) Other post says 6 to 10 hours. 16 would be a max ? . No, about 8 hours is right. There is a real chance to ruin the batteries when charging them for 16 hours with the M-charger. Alexander Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K18/3.5 review, translations (was: Re: f:22, K18/3.5 warmth, 20mm bee's nest...)
Paul wrote: . The Pentax 18 did very well. And by the way, Pal Jensen (spelling? sorry) and others have confirmed the 18/3.5K's warm color cast. Paul Franklin Stregevsky Because the lens has 4 built-in filters: 1A skylight, cloudy (81A?) warming filter, yellow and orange. There is no neutral position on the filter revolver. Thus, for color slides you have to use either the 1A skylight or the cloudy warming filter. I agree with Pål; it is also my impression that the colors of the lenses are very well balanced when using the skylight filter; so this is not a problem for me. Enjoy, Alexander Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
[no subject]
someone wrote: K and M has a *lot* better build in my view. A has better coating. If the design is the same (check the Boz's site -- I think they are), I can't see why K should be more expensive. --- Depending on the price range, the built quality of the A-lenses differ. Cheaper lenses (e.g. the A28/2) have plastic barrels while the more expensive ones have metal all-barrels. IMO there is not much difference in the built quality between the all-metal A-lenses and the M-lenses. Enjoy, Alexander Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: f:22, K18/3.5 warmth, 20mm bee's nest...
Jonathan Donald wrote: The 18/3.5 isn't really that poor Anyway, I recommend the 18/3.5. A drawback for some will be the very warm color rendition. Is it possible that this is a sample variation? Have other owners noticed this? One poster on Stans lens comment site said it was identical to his K20/4 in respect to color rendition with the skylight filter selected (or maybe the K20/4 is warm too?). At any rate, I dont think the warm cast would bother me much ... Many wide angle pentaxes seem to give a quite warmish color impression on slide film. I have the 18mm lens; and yes, it produces quite warmish colors, but I do not find it's colors much warmisher than those of the FA*24/2 or the A35/2 (guess you would not notice a difference in a slide show). The images produced by the 18-er are very contrasty. The weak point is: wide open, particularly at shorter distances there is a distinct lack of sharpness at the edges of the image. I would recommend the the 18-er. Enjoy, Alexander Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why you should always have a camerea.
Evan Hanson wrote :- I live in the flight path of a local Air Reserve Base, so I've become accustomed to seeing large planes skim over the tree tops. Last night however, I missed a great photo opportunity because I had left my camera in its bag. As I was walking my dog around dusk I heard the familiar roar of the C-130 Hercules. As I looked up I saw the plane with all of its lights running lumber closer until it reached a point which would have corresponded to about a 100 mm lens. The plane was framed perfectly by the trees with the full moon beside it all set against the deep blue of the sky. When will I ever learn? - I have just heard that some British plane spotters have been sentenced to Greek jail for illegally obtaining state secrets. They are aviation enthusiasts who took photographs from a Greek military air base. So be careful when taking pictures from military objects ... Alexander Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Viewfinder Information
I wrote: However, the apparent viewing distance of the f-stop window is such close (by far closer than the viewing distance of the screen) that the f-stop number is factually invisible during shooting. Lukasz replied: - Your post is really puzzling to me, for I see the f-stop very clearly. I'm curious if anybody else has this problem. Lukasz - Hi Lukasz, may be I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that the f-stop numbers can't be seen clearly in the MX viewfinder. I meant that the f-stop numbers can't be seen when the eyes are adjusted to the scenery on the screen. This is because the apparent distance of the f-stop window is much closer than the apparent distance of the screen (and both are relatively close compared to other cameras). I find this is very disturbing because this could mean to loose the awareness on what happens in front of the camera when trying to watch the f-stop numbers during shooting. Enjoy, AK Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more http://games.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX and slow-speed-flash-sync/it works like this
There seems to be a bit confusion about this issue (the manual is not very clear in this aspect). But the LX works like this: 1) The LX has an auto sync feature, i.e. sync speed is set automatically. 2) Clearly, the sync speed cannot be set automatically when the shutter is set at any mechanically controlled speed (i.e. 1/75-2000 and B). In this case you will get partially exposed pictures. 3) sync speed is set automatically when the shutter is set to any electronically timed speed i.e. auto and 4-1/60 sec. That means when you set the shutter at a slow sped, the shutter is set to the auto sync speed (i.e. 1/60sec). Thus, you don't get a slow sync setting in this way (***this is different from the super-pro and ZX-5***). 4) Slow sync. speed is set on the flash. There is an MS setting somewhere on the flash for this (this is a full manual setting, it is not a TTL setting!!). 5) For a slow sync speed setting with TTL flash you need either the the flash grip M (it has a separate switch for slow sync speed) or, as a work around, insulate the right dedicated contact (i think) on the camera's hot shoe or the dedicated contact situated next to the lens mount at the front of the camera body (flash cable connection). In this case the auto sync feature will be disabled (you also won't get the flash ready confirmation in the viewfinder) but the TTL flash will work (so Aaron is right) ... Enjoy, Alexander Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: K2 DMD production figures
Frantisek wrote: BTW, if anybody has the Motor Drive MD (made for K2DMD) and is willing to sell, please mail me offlist. I am even interested in just the motor alone without the big AA battery grip (I can improvise my own power source). Good light, Frantisek Vlcek The grip is not mandatory. The Ni-Cd packs M (MX) and LX will work without any problems with the motordrive MD of the K2DMD. Alexander Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: No Pentax digital SLR at PMA
... I really doubt that our existing Pentax lenses will ever be useful on a full frame Pentax digital camera. Why? What would prevent these lenses from being used on a full frame digital camera? Alexander Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: MZ-S Questions
Bruce wrote: 2) I have the Pentax Auto Bellows A and I can report that the MZ-S does not mate to it. The base of the camera (no BG-10) hits into the frame of the bellows and won't allow a solid mating. I don't know if there are any 3rd party bellows that would work. Insert a narrow extension ring between body and bellows. Alexander Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[3]: MZ-S Questions
It works, but the disadvantage is you can't move the rear part (where the camera is mounted) along the rail. Yet focusing works by moving the front part and the entire camera-bellows along the rail. Alexander Bruce wrote:-- Alexander, You are probably right. I just don't have any tubes hanging around. maybe I'll have to pick one up now. Bruce Monday, January 28, 2002, 11:23:39 AM, you wrote: AK Bruce wrote: AK 2) I have the Pentax Auto Bellows A and I can report AK that the MZ-S does not mate to it. The base of the AK camera (no BG-10) hits into the frame of the bellows AK and won't allow a solid mating. I don't know if AK there are any 3rd party bellows that would work. AK Insert a narrow extension ring between body and AK bellows. AK Alexander - Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
[no subject]
Jason wrote: --- Alexander, You are right. That is a good idea and would provide some (which is more than I have now!) albeit limited functionality. Given the length of the distance between the bottom of where the lens attaches and the base of the camera (even w/o the BG-10), this would allow moving the back portion of the bellows a distance that corresponds to the distance the extension ring extends beyond the rear portion of the rail of the bellows. I will try this with the Auto Bellow and post the results. Jason --- Jason, I didn't try a larger extension ring but this is a good idea as it will allow some adjustments of the rear portion particularly for longer focal lengths. However, it will limit the usage of shorter focal lengths with the bellows. The minimum extension of the Auto bellows is, I think, somewhat at around 40mm. There is always a trade-off. Enjoy, Alexander Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 300/4 A* Questions
Geoff wrote: ... I was planning on traveling with this lens, even though taking it goes against my travel light philosophy. --- You will barely find a lighter all-metal made 300mm lens. The major disadvantage of the A/M*300/4 is the minimum focusing distance of only 4m. I would recommend adding a K50mm extension tube or a 'helicoic' (adjustable) extension tube K. This will decrease the minimum focusing distance to 2.8m or so. Alexander Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 300/4 A* Questions
Fred wrote: From memory (maybe a year ago), Alexander, I think I decreased the close focus distance with this lens dramatically with even just a short (maybe 10mm-12mm) extension tube. Someplace around here I've got one of those short, medium, and long set of stacking tubes, and I think that even just the short tube worked quite well (although, of course, infinity focus was then long gone at the time - g). Fred --- Yes, but this depends on how close the close focus distance should be. I found the adjustable extension ring most convenient for shooting small animals like frogs etc (though it is still difficult to get them in full frame even with this ring). I mentioned the 50K ring because it has the diaphragm coupling lever while the adjustable extension ring has not. Without doubt, the auto extension tube set is more versatile than the K50 ring. Enjoy, Alexander Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 50mm 1.2
Daphne wrote:- i've been meaning to ask about that. half my K lenses dont have the 'mm'at the end : my SMC -K 24/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 dont have 'mm' written. my SMC-K 17/4, 18/3.5, 50/1.2 and 135/2.5 have an 'mm' engraved. does that mean thateach of those is first version, and there's second-version siblings around? Daphne --- Hi, I think K-series lenses without 'mm' at the end were manufactured between 1975 and 1977/78. Those with 'mm' engraved were manufactured from around 1978 onward, contemporaneously to the M-series lenses. Such later versions seem to exist only for K-lenses that do not have an ´M'-equivalent. From what I have seen these second versions have constantly higher serial numbers. Enjoy, Alexander Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 50mm 1.2
Arnold wrote: ... Whether the coatings of the different versions differ much I am not sure, but the coating of my SMC Pentax 1:1.2 50mm surely looks different from the coatings of the SMC Pentax 1:1.8/85 and of the SMC Pentax 1:3.5/135. Arnold -- I think also lenses of the same generations may have individual coatings. I have an old style SMC Pentax 1:2.8 30 (serial number starts with 53) that has blue-ish turquoise looking coatings. It is very different from the coatings of the (old style K-)SMC Pentax 1:1.4/50 (which I sold). BTW the A lenses (and FA lenses) have a different (and in my view superior) color rendition compared to K and M lenses, particularly the blue tones. This is probably due to changes in their coatings. I made some side by side shots with the (new style) K-SMC Pentax 1:3.5 18mm (serial number starts with 55) and the FA24mm/2 lens; the differences (in slides) are quite obvious, particularly regading blue tones (though the 18mm has a non-removable 1A filter, but both lenses tend to warmer color tones ... ). IMO the blue tones tend to be grey-ish on slides taken with K- (and M-)lenses (an exception is the 30mm lens). I decided for the A-version of the 1.2/50mm because of this. Enjoy, Alexander Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 50mm 1.2
Shel wrote: and Alexander Krohe wrote: From what I have seen these second versions have constantly higher serial numbers Actually I was not referring to the serial numbers of the K-series 50 mm lenses (which are different from the serial numbers other K-lenses). I was referring to the serial numbers of the other lenses except the 50mm lenses g. I may be wrong but, the old style K-series lenses without 'mm' seem to have mostly serial number starting with 51-53 (54?), while the serial number of the new style lenses appear to start with 55 or higher. This is not true for the K- 50 mm lenses which all have serial numbers starting with 1. Alexander Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Voigtlander lens
Rob Studdert wrote: Michael Henry wrote: http://www.cosina.com/125_Voigt.htm This lens looks rather cool. I hadn't realised before, though, that Voigtlander was made by Cosina. These two brands have completely different connotations for me: Cosina the manufacturer of cheap 3rd-party lenses, and Voigtlander the prestigious rangefinder manufacturer. I s'pose I should get over this way of thinking, since Cosina (I believe) manufacture a few Nikon models. The Voigtlander name is merely licenced by Cosina to plaster on their RF products - Actually the Voigtlander Apolanthar 125mm is not a RF lens. It is an MF lens available for almost all current 35mm SLR systems. Its specifications look rather interesting (can be focused down to 1:1)... Alexander Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: ratio of signal to noise on the pdml (was - I am outta here! Bye gang!)
Bob S. wrote:--- The ratio of noise (OT posts) to signal (on topic camera/photo/Pentax posts) is getting out of hand here. We have had bouts of trouble or flame wars in the past, and we will have them in the future, but control yourselves folks! AK: If you ask me, this list is in need of a moderator, who dares to delete a message (or two). Please don't misunderstand this, I don`t think OT messages or opinionated messages are bad; by contrast I think such messages are a gain for this list. What I don't like are those insisting mails in which people persistently repeat their points. Some people should learn that it is totally OK if someone disagrees with someone else. I have stopped following this list regularly because of this. Bob S. --- We are an international list with a variety of beliefs and opinions. Sometimes we are passionate about things and feel a need to share our opinions/beliefs. Please try to do this without calling the other man's baby UGLY! g I have come to think of the list members as my friends. When I say something stupid, I expect them to say: Well now Bob, that not exactly how we see it here... and not You are an ignorant SOB with soup stains on your sweaater and your mother wears combat boots!. And another thing... start using OT to mark those OT posts! Regards, Bob S. -- AK: I couldn't agree more! Enjoy live! Alexander Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax Camera Metering Patterns
Since I've had a need to know the metering patterns for the MX and theLX, and put them up on a web page, it might be nice to get the metering patterns for other models as well. So, send me a good copy of a pattern, or a pointer to a metering pattern, and I'll make a home for them. -- Shel Belinkoff Hi Shel, you probably know this page about the LX light meter; it shows the Lx metering pattern http://www.geocities.com/sorefeets/lx/lx_pat.htm http://www.geocities.com/sorefeets/lx/lx.htm I don't know, who maintains this page but it is nice. Alexander Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New pentax 645nII announced (disappointed)
Patrick wrote: I could live with a larger body. I think advantages of having an interchangeable back far outweighs the disadvantage of the extra bulk. Just think of the possibilities switching film types quickly, fast reloading without having to fiddle with film, digital backs (I know the cost is horrendous, but they will come down sooner or later). :-) Patrick -- There are film inserts that can be pre-loaded. Thus, film reloading is fairly quick (no mid-roll change possible, though). Alexander Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: FA* 28-70/2.8 (WAS-Re: FA* Lenses)
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicholas wrote: I know you've said bad things about this lens before, which surprises me since you are such an outspoken Pentax person. :) Does the plastic barrel really make that big a difference with this lens? Its really more complicated than that. The lens is a fusion of great built quality with some pretty obvious compromises done in order for the power zoom and AF to be able to do its job. On many samples the power zoom is unable to zoom past the 35mm setting without the help of gravity; that is pointing the lens downwards. This lens really should have had inner focusing design like the FA* 80-200/2.8. Hi Pål, are you sure that this lens (28-70/2.8) is still being made like this? I think it is about 10 years ago when it was introduced. From your description it seems that this lens has such a big design flaw that it is virtually unusable. Such kind of things could have been been fixed in later models? Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LX CPU? (was Re: LX with AF, realy it works !)
Look these links; http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/metering.htm http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/metering/exposure.htm http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/pentaxlx/flash/options.htm --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone said: I was told by a Pentax rep. that they skipped the AE lock because the the exposure value (used in automatic mode) is not stored by the camera CPU. I've looked through all my LX, and several others. I've read Crawley's book about the camera. I've read countless threads here on the PDML and looked through numerous sites that describe the workings of the camera. Nowhere have I been able to find, or find mention of, the CPU that you mention. Where is it? What functions does it support? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why should I use a meter? What if the darn thing broke on me when I was out making a photograph? Then what would I do? - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[4]: LX with AF, realy it works !
--- Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Krohe wrote: The LX measures light in two different ways: -- For the viewfinder indication, the LX measures the light that is reflected from a secondary mirror onto the metering cell (this value is stored in the camera CPU). I read that only 15% of the light passes to the metering cell when the mirror is down which is why the LX metering cannot be as accurate in manual mode as in auto. This is probably why Pentax decided not to fit AE lock and spot meter functions. Nenad True, its only about 15% of the light. This may be a bit dark for measuring a 1-2% spot area. I was told by a Pentax rep. that they skipped the AE lock because the the exposure value (used in automatic mode) is not stored by the camera CPU. BTW the light reflected from the film plane is also only about 15%, so it's the same amount of light that is measured in auto and manual mode. Yet, the light meter is *very* accurate in both modes, but may yield different values because it meters the brightness of different surfaces in auto and manual ... Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re[4]: LX with AF, realy it works !
--- Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ... Now, I can't find the back-up for my claim about AEL and IDM, so I may be talking complete balls, but there was a good reason for Pentax not putting AEL on the LX. They didn't just forget about it. --- Certainly not, as the LX metering system is really well-thought. An M.L. does not make much sense in the LX and I think it's for a good reason (hope I got it right): The LX measures light in two different ways: -- For the viewfinder indication, the LX measures the light that is reflected from a secondary mirror onto the metering cell (this value is stored in the camera CPU). -- During the exposure, the LX measures the light that is reflected from the film surface (or 1st shutter curtain). This value is not stored in the camera CPU (the LX measures the amount of light which is in fact accumulated during the the time of exposure). These two metering modes could result in quite different values, even when the camera is pointed at exactly the same scene. A memory lock would have to use the measurements of the light that is reflected from the secondary mirror. Thus toggling between 'M.L.' and automatic would lead to somewhat be unpredictable results: - the component of diffusive light might be higher for light reflected from the film compared to light reflected from the secondary mirror (this particularly makes a difference when light sources are within the frame); - reflectivity of film emulsions might differ from that of the secondary mirror and among each other. - measurement from the film plane considers changing light intensity during exposure; Shooting with fixed EV values should done in manual mode. In metered manual, exposure adjustments are made generally based on measurements from the secondary mirror. The shutter speed indicated in the viewfinder gives only an approximation to the automatically chosen speed. The manual clearly states this. Hope this is more or less correct. Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-A 35-210 3.5-4.5
--- Nenad Djurdjevic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was just looking at the lens info and pictures on Boz's webpage and I noticed that the A35-135 3.5-4.5 lens appears to have the same look as the A35-210 3.5-4.5. Does this mean that it is also a rebadged Tokina? (I note that the 35-135 was also available as a F-lens). If so, how many other A-lenses are actually not 'real' Pentax lenses? The 35-200 is the only possibly rebadged 3rd party A-lens that I am aware of (I don't know the 35-135 though). Of late I have been feeling quite nostalgic for what I thought were well made, metal and glass A-lenses and was browsing the second-hand market for 'oldies but goodies' (such as A70-210 f4, A28-135 f4, and the above mentioned lenses). Now however I'm starting to think my plastic F and FA lenses are maybe not so bad after all and that maybe I will forget the old MF lenses and buy a new FA80-320 instead. I would make the decision AF or MF lens according to your photographic preferences. For my part, I wouldn't buy an MF telephoto lens anymore. AF offers much more flexibility particularly for telephoto shooting of (fast) moving subjects. Enjoy, Alexander Nenad Djurdjevic Perth, Western Australia - __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Filter questions - thx
--- Peter Lacus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: I tried - and was quite impressed by - the Pentax SMC filters. Even the photogs and sales people at the local camera shop were impressed. I'm now in the process of getting one of every Pentax filter in every size they make. Yes, I agree. I have several SMC filters and their flare resistance is outstanding. (btw they look very different from Hoya filters) speaking of filters - what does SMC Pentax Cloudy filter with colors? It's some kind of warming filter? Could someone compare effects of Cloudy vs Skylight filters, please? TIA, It's an 81A warming (brownish) filter. It is a tiny bit denser than a 1A skylight. Enjoy, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: LXII?
Pål wrote: -- A couple of years ago Trevor Wiebe posted that the Pentax flagship was going to be the LXII. It doesn't seem far fetched anymore in light of the recent interview with the boss of the camera division. Anyway, Trevor posted a set of specifications and claimed he had a industry inside friend who supplied the information. Anyone who has his post from back then and care to repost it? Pål - Sorry I cannot find it at the moment, but my strong impression is that he mixed it up with the then to be released Contax N1 ... Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax-A 35-210 3.5-4.5
Nenad Djurdjevic wrote- Does anybody know anything about this lens? I think it would be a very interesting lens to use and own. Also where can I get one? I imagine that it's very rare. --- As far as I remember, the construction of this lens is identical to a contemporaneous 35-210/3.5-4.5 Tokina lens (it might even be a re-badged Tokina). It was sold only over a very short time. I've never tried one, so I can't comment about it's performance. But for the Tokina, I don't think it was a great performer ... Hope this helps, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Projector suggestions
you should also take a closer look at the Elmo Omnigraphic projector series. They are great machines and accept Kodak round magazines. http://www.elmousa.com/industry.asp?sec=Productsind=Education (you may copy and past the link; scroll down to Film and slide projectors) or try http://www.elmousa.com/product.asp?sec=productsprod=37 http://www.elmousa.com/product.asp?sec=productsprod=33 http://www.elmousa.com/product.asp?sec=productsprod=35 http://www.elmousa.com/product.asp?sec=productsprod=34 http://www.elmousa.com/product.asp?sec=productsprod=36 Generally, don't buy a projector that can't at least accept halogen lamps of 250W. Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Circular fish-eye lens for pentax-k -- Peleng or Sigma EX?
Hi, Thanks for your insight. May be, the reflections originate from the inner part of the lens housing ? (if the painture of inner side is not all matte). I agree, that these lenses are difficult to use; therefore,I decided in favour of the SMC-F fish-eye zoom (zooming may allow adjustments of the degree of line distorsion - this probably make the usage of the lens less difficult). However, I am still intrigued by the idea of a circular image with an angle of 180 degree view in all directions. Alexander René van Ginkel wrote: I have a Peleng, the lens is sharp but suffers a lot from internal reflections which are giving light rings on the outside of the picture circle. Its not flare but something different. The picture circle is a bit larger then the short side of a negative or slide (about 25 mm). The lens is cheap in it's kind, well build, painted instead of anodized and mine came with a Nikon adapter. When using it with a Nikon adapter you can't use it on a F-camera like the F, F2, F3 etc because there to little space for the cameramirror behind the lens (reason: backmounted filters which you have to use and are included) a Nikon FE didn't have the problem. I didnt't have problems using it on a MZ5n or a KX/MX but maybe the LX will be problematic. These kind of lenses are extremely difficult to use and a IMO a bit of a gimmick Don't know about the Sigma, its a lot more expensive. Regards, René van Ginkel - Original Message - From: Alexander Krohe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:20 PM Subject: Circular fish-eye lens for pentax-k -- Peleng or Sigma EX? Hi, In my knowledge there are two circular fish-eye lenses for Pentax-k available: the Sigma 8mm EX and the Peleng 8mm lens from an Ukrainian company. Does anyone have experiences with one of these lenses? How do they perform optically? Are they any good? Any comments are highly appreciated, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Circular fish-eye lens for pentax-k -- Peleng or Sigma EX?
Hi, In my knowledge there are two circular fish-eye lenses for Pentax-k available: the Sigma 8mm EX and the Peleng 8mm lens from an Ukrainian company. Does anyone have experiences with one of these lenses? How do they perform optically? Are they any good? Any comments are highly appreciated, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: How loud should a LX MD be?
Terence wrote:--- Hi. I use a motor drive on an LX now and then, and I was using it the other day for something in quite a small closed room. When I reached the end of the roll, and rewound the film, I was horrified at how loud the rewind was (The MD is none too quiet anyway), but it was considerably louder than my Z1p. I was wondering if this was normal? I haven't used the MD in a while, so its not fresh in my memory if this is something that was always there or not. Anyone out there have any thoughts on this? Thanks as always in advance. --´ This is normal. Rewind of the MD LX is very, very loud. Alexander T. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Random Generated Pentax Stuff
Ken wrote: I also understand that Pentax would be investing more resources in the digital arena and medical optics etc according to their mid to long range plan recently indicated on their web site. They have dropped the E-3000 project but just released today the smallest digital camera with 3.34mp CCD. See http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/news/2001/200123.html Cheers, Ken --- Hi Ken, do you mean they dropped the EI 3000 (SLR) camera? Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Camera motorcycle
Raimo wrote:--- Hi all, what´s the best way of carrying your camera when riding a motorbike? All the best! Raimo --- Hi, have a look at Tamrac Sport Convertible (model 704, 706). I have the 704, which works fine for me. These bags are light and have a shoulder and a hip strap. The two straps allow secure carrying when driving and distribute the weight over different body parts. Thus driving is comfortable (I would not recommend backpacks). There are also hip packs (702, 705 and 707). www.tamrac.com Drive carefully, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Vs: Camera motorcycle (and bicycles)
Does vibration ever cause problems for the camera body? No, most vibrations of the motorbike are absorbed by the camera bag (Tamrac, Loewe pro, etc) and by the body (when the camera bag is carried on the body). The biggest threat for the camera equipment is rain. Best, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 24-90 overpriced?
Arnold wrote:- Raimo Korhonen schrieb: Interesting! What´s the price in Germany? Foto Magazin says 1300DM, but I'd rather wait for real prices in real shops. The new FA28-105/f3.2-4.5 is sold by http://www.technikdirekt.de/ for 629DM Arnold -- internet-foto.de sells the FA 24-90 for DM 1.191,00. http://www.internet-foto.de/deu/pentax/pentax.php?PHPSESSID=c214f4b0ff4d497ecfbe01c9a02132d9 Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New Tamron zoom
Nick Snowdon wrote: I am looking for a zoom to replace my old 35-80 and I am casting my eyes over the new Tamron 24-135 SP. Has anyone seen any reviews of this lens? I am going to use it on my PZ1p. I suspect it will be quite a bit cheaper than the Pentax 24-90 and has a more range but I have no idea how the quality will stand up. Referring to EU-prices, www.internet-foto.de lists both lenses: There, the price of the Tamron 24-135 SP/3.5-5.6 is DM 1.141,00 and of the SMCP-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 is DM 1.191,00. This translates into something like EUR/USD 540 and 565 respectively. Have fun! Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 28/2-class lens specs: Seven Third-Party Lenses vs. Three Pentax 28/2s(was: Re: fast kiron on ebay)
Hi, I am not Rob but I think he's right. I my (also limited) understanding the elongation of objects near the edge of the image produced by rectilinear super wide angle lenses is not related to optical aberrations of these lenses. It is inherent in how the image is projected on the film by these lenses. To avoid this you need a "cylindrical projection" (with the viewer in the center of the cylinder) as is provided e.g. by the Seitz roundshot camera. Also fish-eye lenses do not show such kind of elongations of close subjects near the edge. Alexander Mike Johnston wrote: Rob, A longer barrel--such as that used on the SMC 28/2, which was designed with Zeiss--can bend the rays more "gently." Isn't extra barrel distortion one of the compromises usually introduced by a shorter lens (unless, perhaps, an aspherical element is used)? Isn't that why "no compromise" lenses are typically longer, and use more elements? Or do I need to brush up on my limited understanding of Cartesian optics? PS: Of course, every lens design is a compromise. By no-compromise, I mean to suggest "the best a lens maker has to offer." "Rob Studdert" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: Re: 28/2-class lens specs: Seven Third-Party Lenses vs. Three Pentax 28/2s (was: Re: fast kiron on ebay) On 10 Mar 2001, at 19:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my eye, 28mm is the widest practical focal length for "people-shooting," which is what I do. True, it makes people at the edges of the frame look fat. But this problem is minimized by selecting a well-corrected prime. Hi Paul, Please explain, to my mind there should be a similar degree of perspective distortion present (ie elongation of close objects at the edge of the frame) in any well corrected optic. The only way that I can imagine that there would be differences is if the lens that looks more normal has a semi-spherical plane of focus? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: yet another MZ-S first look
Hi, thanks to all who share their MZ-S impressions. How do you rate the noise of the motor drive? Is it particularly quite or is it more on the noisy side? Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PZ-1pN
Engelmann wrote: "Versatility and freedom of choice isn't their thing. They want that everybody thinks like they do." -- Actually ìt's *you* who lashes out against those who don't agree with you. But who cares...? A. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: First Look at MZ-S
Ralf wrote: Besides the fact that Bill didn't understand the exposure mode interface of the camera (somehow a bad thing in case this happens to dealers), I think this is how the non Pentax fans will see the camera. The dealer did not even understand the philosophy behind this camera. As I understand this user interface, it makes it easy to switch temporarily into automatic functions when needed or, vice versa, to escape rapidly from the automatic functions (without taking the camera from the eye). This eases fast operation without getting raped by the camera computer. This camera is basically meant for those who prefer to shooting with fixed aperture and shutter speed settings. Since the introduction of AF the 35mm market of is devoid of such cameras. It is badly needed. Ralf: Unfortunately I see little chances that Pentax can lower the price. That's a volume question. Technical updates on the other side are difficult or impossible due to the small body. So we have to live with the situation that Pentax has released a camera targeted direct at the Pentax fan, a camera that makes sense in the special situation of an advanced Pentax system user, while being not the big draft for the overall market. Ralf - -- Yes, I think this camera is meant as a low volume item. But I believe it is a fairly unique camera that could be a success also outside the dedicated pentax fetishists. It makes sense. Why should all cameras look the same? Have fun! Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Thoughts about the FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL (IF) and other things
Roland Mabo: "What happened to the Tamron collaboration? 28-200, 28-105, 100-300 - then nothing. (btw, isn't the FA28-80 f/3.5-5.6 the same as Tamron's 28-80 f/3.5-5.6?)." - No. A quick comparison of the specifications shows that the Pentax and Tamron 28-80s are quite different designs (the pentax has more lens elements, a closer focusing distance and is larger and heavier): 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 Pentax vs. Tamron Groups/Elements 8 - 8 7 - 7 Angle of View 75° - 30,5° 75° - 30° Minimum Aperture 22~38 22~38 Minimum Focus 0.50 m 0.7m Macro Mag. Ratio 1:5.3 1:8 Filter Diameter Eø58Eø58 Diameter x Length (in mm) ø 65 x 87 ø72 x 70.4mm Weight 278 g 237g BTW the 100-300mm Pentax is also different from the Tamron. They differ in number of lens elements, filter diameters, size and weight. 100-300 Pentax vs Tamron Groups/Elements 9 - 11 9-12 Angle of View 24.5 8.2° 24.5°-8° Minimum Aperture 32 32 Minimum Focus 1,5 m 1.5 m Macro Mag. Ratio 1:3,8 1:4 Filter Diameter E ø 58 E ø 55 Diameter x Length (in mm) ø 70 x 128.5ø71 x 115.5 Weight 390 g 354g So I think these lenses are no Tamrons and are their own design. But who knows, who makes somebody's lenses... Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices! http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Prices of LX viewfinders
Pål Jensen wrote: What are reasonable used prices on the FB-1 system finder, FC-1 Action finder, FD-1 and FE-1 finders for the Pentax LX? Steve Larson replied: I would say around $US125-175 for the FB-1 system finder and FC-1 Action finder, if you shop ebay, - Yes, from what I saw, the FB-1/FC-1 combo is around 130-175 USD. The FE-1 appears to be rare. I am aware of only one auction (on the German e-bay site), which closed at about DM130 or so (if I remember correctly). Thus, around 60-75$ seems a fair price to me. However, there is no "reasonable" price for a rare item ... Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Eyepoint
Weiland wrote: --- "I am wearing glasses, and I have ABSOLUTELY NO problem with the MX viewfinder. I can see the aperture very easily. And everything else. Either you folks have a different MX, or never had an MX or you have very different glasses. :-) Best wishes Wieland --- Hi Wieland, I don't know which posting you are referring to, but or my part: I didn't wrote about eyepoint I wrote about the "viewing distance" to the screen. That meant the distance, the eye has to adjust when looking at the screen. If this is too short, the eyes will get tiered soon when continually looking to the viewfinder. (In contrast is "the eyepoint, or eye relief, indicates how far your eye can be from the viewfinder to see the entire image" -- see posting from Erwin Vereecken) Speaking about the MX, this distance is definitely too short. The viewing distance of the aperture indication is way too short. People on this list tend to be very uncritical about cameras or lenses that they are in love with, - in particular when it comes to those vintage gear :) ... I like the MX too but it has definitely shortcomings (no wonder it's 25 years old design). One of them this the viewfinder. Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
MZ-S hold-switch
I still don't have an exact idea how the "hold"-switch on the back of the MZ-S works. It is not a hyper-mode button. Did anybody find out how it works? Thanks, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
EI2000 (was:RE: Discontinued FA 4/28-70 AL ?!? (RE: A 35-70 f3.5-4.5 - comments?)
Frantisek wrote: "It's quite new brochure, it has the not-so-old EL-2000 (the digital pseudo-slr. Pseudo because it's not mirror-pentaprism design, it just has a small LCD in the viewfinder. KS! Phew)" - This is not exactly true. The camera has a true TTL optical viewfinder that sees through the lens similar to that of a 35mm SLR. However, the viewfinder of the EI2000 does not work with a flip-up mirror but with a beam splitter. This beam splitter sends the light partly to the viewfinder and partly to the CCD. In operation, this is similar to the viewfinders of (reflex) super-8 movie cameras or of the RS/RT Canons. There is no real disadvantage behind a true reflex/flip-up mirror system except that the viewfinder image might be somewhat darker. There is a detailed review about the HP912 (Pentax EI2000) on Steve's digicams (HP PhotoSmart 912). http://www.steves-digicams.com/c912.html They wrote about the viewfinder: QUOTE:-- The C912 is really a pseudo-SLR in that it uses a beam-splitting system to bring the image up to the eye level viewfinder, there is no mirror. This is not necessarily a bad thing except for the fact that the light coming in the lens is split and only some of it makes it to the imager and some of it makes it to the viewfinder. UNQUOTE-- Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Internal focussing
--- Wieland Willker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I WANT TO BELIEVE! ... it's science! ;) I was thinking about obtaining the 100mm macro, but now I am hesitating. I actually don't buy a 100mm macro but a 60-70mm macro. Is this worth the money? Hmm..., hmmm Enablers, speak up please! Best wishes Wieland Only at magnifications of 1:1 the focal length is ~60-70 mm or so. When the lens is set at 1:2 or smaller magnifications, you have a focal length significantly longer than that (most probably you won't always work with the largest possible magnification). Actually, there is not that much difference in subject to film distance at e.g. 1:2 or 1:3 between the FA and M100mm macro. (Thus, with the FA 100mm set at 1:2, you are also much farer away from the subject than with a 50mm+extension rings or with the M50mm macro at 1:2.) BTW at 1:1, with the FA100 macro, the distance between the subject and the film plane is still 10 cm larger compared to FA50mm macro (31 vs. 20 cm), which makes subject illumination easier. Besides, decreasing the focal length at large magnitudes decreases the needed exposure factor (as the absolute opening remains constant; similar to the zooms with variable aperture). So this has advantages too. Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Internal focussing
--- tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Krohe wrote: --- Wieland Willker [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I was thinking about obtaining the 100mm macro, but now I am hesitating. I actually don't buy a 100mm macro but a 60-70mm macro. Only at magnifications of 1:1 the focal length is ~60-70 mm or so. The FA 100/3.5 is all extension, and therefore 100mm at all magnifications. Of course, it only goes to 1:2 and is all plastic, but optically it's a winner. tv Yes, sure, I referred to the FA 100mm/2.8 (I should have mentioned that). I agree the FA 100/3.5 is able to take brilliant macro shots (I have seen pictures). Enjoy, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: lens formulas for pentax lens.
Yoshihiko Takinami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - At 5 Feb 2001 08:56:50 -0800 (PST), Alexander Krohe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote; The 15mm/3.5, the 18mm/3.5 and the 28mm/2 (K-series) designs are (almost) identical to those of the corresponding Zeiss/Contax lenses. I think, however, most Pentax lenses are original designs. It seems well known that 15/3.5, 28/2, and 45-125/4 were the major results of co-working with Zeiss in early 70's. - Hi Yoshihiko, thanks for the information. From a book that I have, which shows all Contax/Zeiss lens designs, also the design of the 18/4 Distagon appears to be identical to the design of the SMC 18/3.5 (except that the Distagon has floating elements to improve image quality at close distances). This is nowhere documented, but I guess the SMC 18/3.5 might have an aspherical element (I have this lens and I can't see noticable coma wings around light sources at the image corners shot wide open, which I think is quite remakable for such a lens). Do you know something about that? best wishes, Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Cosina Limiteds?
--- Carlos Royo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pål Jensen wrote: I remember that Pentax advertized in National Geographic in the 70's for the 15/3.5. They claimed it sold 7 a year world-wide. I saw the same advertisement in Popular Photography in the beginnig of the 80's, 81 or 82, I think. They said they sold around 70 15/3.5 a year. Perhaps I still have the magazine, if I can find it I'll check it. Regards. The slogan was something like "how can we afford to build a lens that sells only 37x a year" or so I am relatively sure the number was 37 (because I couldn't believe that). __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax 100mm f2.8 MACRO Lens *F* vs *FA*
--- "barry c." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am currently trying to decide between the Pentax 100mm f2.8 Macro Autofocus SMC-F and SMCP-FA versions. Optically, are they similar? Yes, they share the same optical design. The FA has a clamb for adjusting damping of the focusing mechanism (needs adustment in quite a few samples). I can pick up the *F* version for about $10 less used compared with the *FA* version. Thanks in advance, Barry Have fun, Alexander __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Nikon follows in Pentax footsteps
At 10:16 AM 2/1/01 -0800, BW wrote: There may not be an exact definition of a Tessar lens. One optics text does call many of these "Tessar form" lenses, but the classic Tessar lens is a 4-element lens, with a max aperture of f/2.8 or f/3.5. An example of a lens that is not a classic Tessar type is the Pentax 40mm f/2.8 lens. The Pentax lens is a 5-element, 4-group design while the Nikkor and Zeiss Tessar (Contax mount) 45mm f/2.8 lenses are 4-element, 3-group designs. Once you get beyond f/2.8 or wider than 40mm (for 35mm cameras), lens designs tend to be very different from classic Tessar lenses. I ~think~ the M-50mm/4 Macro is such a classic Tessar lens. __ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: Read This
--- Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks, There have been a number of you who have written to me, asking that they be able to be on the list without getting all the email, . Well, I did it. . Thanks, Doug! You are the great one! Alexander The part about subscribing: Same as it ever was. Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subscribe pentax-discuss-nomail in the body of the mail. No subject line is necessary. You'll get a confirmation number and instructions to send it back. Do so. Please keep in mind that majordomo will not unsubscribe you from this list or the digest list if you switch to the nomail list. You have to do that yourself. Another service brought to you by List Guy. later, Doug -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
Re: just talked to Pentax ...(about the MZ-S)
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ralf wrote: As long as they don't do, the existing press releases and hands on reports in magazinew are valid, at least much more valid than any kind of speculations. What the magazine prints is whats in the press release. The press release says that all specifications might change. What CDI prints is speculations around a prototype. Note that the prototype is just that; a prototype - not the production camera. Yes, and the press releases don't say much, actually. Note that the photokina demo model of the new 24-90 mm lens had the designation 24-90/3.5-4.5 AlIF. However, the press releases dont't give any speed for this lens. This means the production model might differ in specifications. In the same way, all "specs" of the MZ-S that are derived from looking at the prototype model are speculations. Alexander Of course, the KB-266 prototype might be dead, it might even be that we see a MZ-3N sooner than any advanced Pentax, but where are the reliable infos? Actually, most of the time shedule you gave last year was wrong, and you are saying now that the Photokina specs published by Pentax are wrong too, so what's left then? Does the camera still exist at all? Whats the problem? Pentax have shown a prototype where all features may change without further notice. They have not promised any release date at all. The only new is that the camera will be released later than it could have been. But we don't know what could have been or what will be. Basically, the camera could have been release earlier if they had gone for the features present in the Photokina prototype, but don't know the features of the prototype or the production model so we are non the wiser. So theres no reason to be dissapointed. :-) Pål __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos
--- SETH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "Aaron Reynolds" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:18 AM Subject: Re: Pentax SMC Filters Get Kudos Sadly, Pentax is not making 52mm filters. They do. They do make filters with 49, 52, 58, 67, and 77mm thread mounts plus several diameters of bayonet mount filters for medium format. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
K 30mm f2.8 [was Negative Film Processing Question.]
--- Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, BYRON BUTLER wrote: snip I just picked up a "K" 30mm f2.8 yesterday, and I can't wait to try it out. Is there anyone else on the list who has this lens? I gather they're relatively rare, but there must be *someone* who's shot with it before, right? chris This was one of my first lenses when I bought into the Pentax system. I still have it today and I love it for its (IMO) particular "characteristic": This lens delivers distinctly cooler colors and has a much better blue rendition than other K and M lenses (on slide film). Pictures look extremely sharp and render very fine details (stop down the lens a bit), which results in outstanding black and white prints. The disadvantage of this lens is, I think, that color saturation is somewhat lower than that of the other, "warmer" K and M lenses. However, the 30mm delivers much finer color tones. IMO it is a great lens. Alexander __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, visit www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
