Bill Owens said:
IIRC the *ist D and ZX-L use the same remote cable, which is different from
those for the MZ-S and which is different from the other ZX series. IOW, if
you have a ZX-5n, MZ-S and *ist series, you will need three different
cables. The dumbest move I've seen Pentax make.
I was just wondering... people love a sturdy, metal camera. Some
people even pay a lot of money for the Leica experience. But is there
such a thing as a sturdy, metal flash unit? Somehow it seems a little
wrong, especially for the Leica, if you can only put an aerodynamic
plastic flash unit on
Mark Cassino said:
It's sheer speculation on my part since I don't have DSLR, but I'd theorize
that the cropping effect in a DSLR that boosts the effective focal length
of the lens would not similarly boost the effects of vibration on sharpness.
If a point source of light were smeared out
Joe said:
I agree with this. I am annoyed, though, by those who write or say that you
are not a serious or conscientous photographer if you use zooms. (I don't
claim that this was said on PDML, but we were pointed recently to an
article that did say something like that.)
I once waited 6-1/2
I missed what might have been one of my best shots so far. I was at the
construction site working on the fox kits that live there, but I didn't
see anything. Finally gave up and walked out, using my tripod as a
monopod just in case. Just in case happened, one of the kits was ahead
of me, I took
Scott D said:
Never seen a fox in the wild myself, cool! I did see a pair of wolves
about 15 years ago in East Texas, but didn't have a camera on me (too
young then...).
I'm not even sure there are many foxes in Texas.
I think this goes back a few threads to when someone mentioned to me
Her Chong asked:
just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom?
Herb...
80-200mm zoom, 2x TC.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21
Subject: Technical Evaluation
I'm sure a lot
Eactivist said:
I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down
and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you. But if you try to talk to
them, they'll run. I figured talking would reassure them because
predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong.
Lon Williamson said:
Greg,
I've notice grain gets butt-ugly on any speed of color
neg film if that film is underexposed. I have also
noticed that using a 2x TC on a consumer zoom (in my
case, a Sigma APO 70-300) gives horrible sharpness no
matter what tripod tricks I use (take your pick:
Graywolf said:
Is there any reason, really, why image stablization needs to communicate
with the camera? I would think the whole thing could be built into the lens,
the camera doesn't need to know that some of the lens elements are moving to
compensate for vibration.
The only reason I can
Eactivist said:
I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos. I
take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a
...
I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom.
Results are not that good. Though as far as grain
This does actually look like it's useable for general photography, not
just microscopes.
For some time I've been thinking that digital cameras must have an
unrealized potential. For instance, the human eye has aberrations that
increase the depth of field, and jerks around a lot even when looking
T Rittenhouse said:
Simply because the incident meter meters the light level. A reflected light
reading tells you more about the subject than about the light level.
Presuming that you want dark object to be dark and light objects to be light
in your photograph, the incident meter is easier to
Roland Mabo said:
From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 19:19:41 -0500
So your friend doesn't know how to use the camera, and you blame the camera
for not working right.
Canon has an over-complicated user interface which badly affects the
creativity of the
Carlos Royo said:
Bob Zwarick escribió:
Hi,
I had decided to switch to Canon. However, having to wear glasses, I found
the Nikon models easier for me to view over the alternatives.
I still have my Pentax cameras but having increasing difficulty viewing
with my glasses and will not
Herb Chong said:
in brilliant sunlight with high speed film. that has its own compromises.
Herb.
- Original Message -
From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 14:21
Subject: Re: Usefulness of IS lenses
Some people
Roland Mabo said:
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:45:13 -0500
According to Pentax, it's to prevent bonehead consumers (they didn't
actually use the word bonehead but that's my poetic license!) from
accidentally moving the lens off the A setting and taking
collinb said:
How many of you think you have enough equipment?
You may upgrade or transition to another medium or format,
but the quantity and class of hardware suits you.
Who will face the hardest question of all?
:)
I don't even have the basic set of equipment yet. I still need a decent
Paul Stenquist wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't shoot them at the feeder. A properly placed branch above the
feeder with the right background and you are off to the races...
I've done that. It can be nice. But I prefer to find birds in their
natural habitat. The hunt is part
Doug Brewer said:
Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm?
At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote:
I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when
you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand.
All the usual reasons. Faster maneuvering, faster setup time when I go
from a
Bruce Rubenstein said:
See, I told you. All you serious Pentax users should seek camera asylum
in Norway. No one would make fun of you, or show disrespect for your
beloved brand of camera, which will be taken care of forever. You'll
even get your own pet reindeer with flashing red nose.
Does
I think I figured out why my Kalimar 500mm reflex seems to give washed-out
pictures.
Because it's crap.
I took pictures of the same scene, one with an old Sears 80-200mm with
cheap 2x TC, and one with the Kalimar. The zoom plus TC combination had
better contrast and colors.
So now I'm starting
Butch Black said:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens,
manual, doesn't seem to work.
Pictures I've taken with it seemed grayish, grainy, low contrast,
under-exposed. snip
I would do a couple tests. First, take a good look
Brendan said:
The age old grey snow metering error, the camera
tried to make the snow ( white ) 18 % grey. The low
contrast tho is the lens, the kalimar 500mm F8 is the
same as my vivitar 400mm, low not contrasty flat
shots,
Low contrast lens, huh? I think I'd just about reached that
I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens,
manual, doesn't seem to work.
Pictures I've taken with it seemed greyish, grainy, low contrast,
under-wxposed. I took pictures of animals in snow and the prints came out
kind of dark showing snow texture and animals too dark
Paul Franklin Stregevsky said:
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe it's only a half-stop from 1.2 to 1.4.
Here's how f/stops compare. I don't remember where I got these numbers. I
may have derived them, so feel free to question them.
f/1.2 is 0.45 stop faster than f/1.4
Chris Brogden said:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
So... is 1.2 half a stop faster than 1.4, or slightly less than half a
stop? I realize that this make no practical difference, but I'm curious
nonetheless.
Real half stop step would be f/1.14. The difference
When I was looking in the shop at work for aluminum foil I found a
Spotmatic F and some lenses; 50/1.4, 50/4 macro, 28/3.5 with metal hood,
extension tubes. The lenses also had weird feedthroughs that looked like
a screw mount version of open aperture metering. Whee! I asked around,
none of it
Chris Brogden said:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
The boss said I'm free to take it home and use it, it just has to
remain NIST property. And that's nice, except it sure puts a damper
on things like getting minor repairs done, collecting accessories, me
moving away
Speaking of Pentax name recognition, I just noticed _Tracking and the ARt
of Seeing_ by Paul Rezendes, the last picture is of the author in a field
outfit sitting behind a camera on a tripod, a Pentax. I don't know the
cameras well enough to know which one it is, but it's black, looks like it
has
Leon Altoff said:
I shoot about 80% slide (Kodachrome 64) and about 20% print (various
films). I'd like to shoot about 60% print without a lessening of the
slide film I shoot, but I don't have the time to shoot it off. I
currently have 11 planned photo projects and no time to shoot them!
100% color prints, consumer grade film from the drug store, MotoPhoto, or
Ritz. Sometimes Kodak, sometimes Fuji, haven't decided which I like
better, I think maybe my eye is not discerning enough to see a difference.
I just never seem to shoot a scene and think it would look better as BW.
But
zoomshot said:
So, how many of you merry people are going to get an *ist-D and if not why
not?
To start the ball rolling you can count me as a taker.
Ziggy
Nope. The camera, a computer to support it, and software like Photoshop
is just too expensive for me.
John Mustarde wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
Photography can be expensive.
Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses
you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass.
Let's see, an SMCP-M 50/2, a Sears 135/2.8, a Sears
. At that level you buy the lens, then get
whatever camera it takes.
Also consider that the resale on this lens will be
lousy when you want to get rid of it.
I'm not sure it would be, but resale value is about the worst reason to
make a buying decision.
--- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Mat Maessen said:
Since a flashbulb takes a little bit of time to actually fire up to full
brightness, the camera fires it off before the front shutter curtain is
fully open. If you find an instruction manual for the camera, you'll
probably also find that the flash sync speeds in the FP
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me, the Sigma 300-800mm
f/5.6. Now it costs $5000, so I'm not likely to buy it this decade. But
it looks like it only comes with Sigma, Canon, and Nikon mounts. No
Pentax. Well, if I buy it, I suppose it would be no big deal to add
another 5-10% to
for me. I can spend $200 on a lens if I really
think I could make good use of it. $5000 or $7000 is just unconditionally
out of the question. So no worries, I won't be getting the Sigma.
--- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've found what seems like the ideal lens for me,
the Sigma
Mike Johnston said:
I finally gave in to the legend of the screw mount, I bought a Spotmatic
II on eBay, BIN for $95. I don't know how close to a good deal that was,
Greg,
Congratulations! I'd say you got a great deal, since you got a camera that
would have to sell for six or eight
Cotty said:
One question that pops up from time to time is this: with the aspect
ratio of the 35mm frame, why is the 'standard' print aspect ratio the way
it is on a 'standard' 10X8 print?
As a matter of pure aesthetics I'd think print dimensions would follow
Golden Rectangles, known since
paaljensen said:
The F75 is old news and, besides, it is common to release the lesser
new items, those that otherwise drown among the great news, awhile
before the show. You cannot judge whats going to be show until the day
the show starts.
When is the dang show going to start?
Cotty said:
One other observation, strictly mine, mind you: are
PDML members just frugal, or not so wealthy? There is
a lot of talk about how much this or that costs.
You could easily outfit yourself with a top-notch 35mm
camera (PZ1pprofessionalrofesssional lenses (F/2.8
28-70/F/2.8
Alin Flaider said:
As for the look, I find the design ...interesting. It seems Pentax
maximized the use of the volume just as they did with the MZ-S. I
Technically, it seems very promising for future higher-end cameras. But
they sure seemed to put a lot of effort and bragging into
Wendy said:
And it ~is~ a stupid name. Still not as stupid as Kiss, Sweet and Rebel
though. No way would I ever buy a camera with those names!
I've never understood the insurgent nature of the Rebel. Will all the
users one day take arms and march on their capital cities?
Glenn said:
One of the three screws on the bottom plate of my Super Program
has fallen out. Where does one go to buy such tiny screws as
that? I don't think I've ever seen anything in that range at
Home Despot...
Call Pentax, there's a phone number somewhere on their web site. Phone
Christian Skofteland said:
and another animal rights thread to boot! :-0
Is it ethical to take picture of endangered animals? We're not supposed
to shoot them, and it violates their privacy.
Mike Johnston said:
But Boz, this can never happen. It ignores the reality of producing products
for a market. The company cannot make the decision as to which way it will
go. It has to be responsive, not prescriptive.
But they can and should have a broad business strategy. How do they plan
Keith Whaley said:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Mike Johnston said:
But Boz, this can never happen. It ignores the reality of producing products
for a market. The company cannot make the decision as to which way it will
go. It has to be responsive, not prescriptive.
But they can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Gregory wrote:
Because a broad business strategy usually isn't sensitive information.
Everyone already knows they make cameras! Because it's the sort of thing
that investors will want to know about.
They have done so more times than I care to remember
I
What's the deal with those tubes sticking out of the L converters? Are
the S converters the normal ones for 35mm?
I was looking at BH's site. How much difference is there really between
the Pentax 1.4x for $219.95, the Kenko 1.5x for $69, and the Tamron 1.4
for AF for $49.95?
I've read the TC
Mike Johnston said:
Just don't store it near your other lenses. Fungus is contagious.
If it's truly full of mold (fungus), then the coatings and the elements
have probably been damaged (etched). This can't be fixed. Well, it can be,
but not cost-effectively. If it has slight traces of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will
work without sacrificing compatibility.
IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM?
I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. I
found a Phoenix 650-1300mm f/8-16 zoom for $260, which seemed like a
wonderful new toy, but someone that had used the lens complained of poor
contrast and a bluish tint, and declared it a turkey.
With some modern computer
Mike Johnston said:
I've been looking around lately for telephoto lenses 500mm or longer. With
some modern computer design, glasses, and coatings, I was hoping to at least
find decent but small aperture fixed lenses pretty cheap. Will I find that
all the truly long telephotos either cost
Inspired by the best and cheapest lens thread, I was browsing lenses on
BH, and saw extension tubes listed. And it looks to me like the cheapest
Pentax AF extension tube is the Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with lens
removed, for $50. The tubes without lenses cost around $150.
What in the world is
Matt Greene said:
The talk aobut grain always bothers me. Grain is
purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid
(most BW images) without grain. Then again,
printing on textured paper defeats grain argument
every time.
Grain, like saturated colors is, for all intents
and purposes,
Rob Brigham said:
OK lets have a show of hands. Who here often finds they left just a
little too much space around their subject, either due to not framing as
well as possible or because you couldn't get close enough of enough
magnification. Who here sometimes takes a lanscape format
How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV
filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how
it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would
just be lost. But on the inner surface?
--
A nice adaptation of conditions
J. C. O'Connell said:
I saw a Pentax 500mm screw mount lens on eBay, I can buy it for $100, but
it's not a Takumar. On the other hand, it's not a mirror lens, and it
has an adjustable aperture. How is the non-Takumar 500mm?
All of the PENTAX brand 500mm screw lenses were Takumars.
It
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
No need to leave K mount lenses to get good quality at a reasonable price.
The K 28mm f3.5 has legendary sharpness for under $75. The M 50 f1.4 can be
had for a similar price or less if you are patient. (Marco 50mm f4 versions
are more rare and more expensive). The
I took a break from the list, but curiosity draws me back. What news from
the rumor mill?
Image Stabilization. I've spent some time with my brother's 500mm reflex
and 2x teleconverter and discover that 1000mm of telephoto can be very
difficult to hold steady. That image stablization thing
I'm thinking of getting a screw mount adapter to turn my K1000 into a
Spotmatic and try out some of the Takumar lenses. I've wanted to try
professional quality lenses. I can't afford them, but the Takumar optics
are legendary, and I see on eBay that the lenses are cheap.
I'm interested more in
Mike Johnston said:
The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all
accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still
not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer
even remotely supportable and its features and specs
Mike said:
Yeah, why is that? I'm really kind of mystified that _no_ inkjet printer
manufacturer has come out with a dedicated BW printer. You'd think they
could take a 3- or 4-ink printer, replace the inks, write some new software,
and voilá, there you'd have it. Considering all the printers
William Robb said:
Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives.
What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire
technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are
incompetent.
From what I've read of APS, that problem is
tom said:
I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel
math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their
slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from
equaling film.
The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty
I've been looking around a bit more at flashes. The real world has hit me
pretty hard so I'm not in a hurry to buy anything, but I want to have
some idea what I'm looking for when I get that straightened out.
Some flashes have TTL modes but no manual mode. What exactly does that
mean to have
Bill D. Casselberry said:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
... And I've had it up to here [insert proper gesture] with
estimating distances and calculating apertures because
I'm pushing it past the thyristor specs.
Years ago I made up a plain gridsheet in ExCel and entered
Sylwester Pietrzyk
on 13.01.03 20:16, Gregory L. Hansen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for a zoom lens that goes to 300mm or so. I can't afford a
good one, but I don't want to scrape the $100 bottom of the barrel. I
want the second from the bottom of the barrel. Some lenses
Brendan said:
I'd look at the Sigma and Tamron lenes, The sigma has
a good reputation here ( I have one and love it ). Now
about he flash, it's not leaving it on overnight, it's
letting the batteries last longer on location, leaving
the flash on so you don't miss a shot, so put that
Altaf Shaikh said:
You may want to consider the Vivitar 285s since you are shooting animals
you probably wont need ttl if you are far enough away you will just be
firing at max power. I think they are under 80 dollars each so you can
always replace them. They are pretty hard to destroy and
Paul Franklin Stregevsky said:
Gregory,
You didn't state that the zoom must be autofocus. If it needn't be, and if
you're lucky and patient, you might find the superb Tokina AT-X 100-300 f/4
in the same price range ($200). Among zooms that reach 300mm, the Tokina is
about as good as it gets
I think such a thing doesn't exist, but I may as well ask.
I've seen auto zoom flashes that go from around 28mm to 85mm, sometimes to
105mm. And there's a Fresnel lens, the Better Beamer, to extend flash
range, but should be used with 300mm lenses or longer or the corners will
get dark. But
I mentioned my new ZX-L before, which I'm generally very happy with. And
I mentioned the problem it sometimes has autofocusing on a face under
indoor lighting.
For those interested or needing a point, I've discovered it looks for
vertical lines. It has a problem with horizontal lines in
How do you post to the mailing list? Is there a message board or
newsgroup or something? When I want to reply to someone I hit reply in my
e-mail program and just delete all the text before and after the portion
I'm interested in, and type the person's name on top. But that's pretty
unwieldy,
It occurs to me that as the technology continues to improve and prices
continue to drop, Pentax will pretty much have to put out a digital SLR if
they want to stay in the SLR business at all. As I understand it, the
$8000 units are already becoming competitive, performance-wise, with film.
It's
If I'm shooting in low light conditions and I have a longer lens at f/4
and a shorter lens at f/2.8, is there ever an advantage to using the
shorter lens for the wider aperture, but a slower film speed, and then
cropping and zooming on a portion of the picture? I do I pretty much
always want to
I've talked to some other photographers about this that know way more
about the equipment and using it than I do, but don't seem to know their
equipment on this level.
I have a project going that involves firing multiple cheap, used, manual
flashes. It could be ten of them, if I get that many
I'm thinking of getting a ZX-L, and I have a few questions, since what I'm
reading in the downloaded manual doesn't seem to coincide with the list
of features on the Pentax web site.
One is the strobe-assisted focusing, firing the flash to help focus in low
light conditions. The on-line
79 matches
Mail list logo
