Hi!
Boz, perhaps there is a minor glimpse of hope here. Could it be that
for K and M lenses the new mount would work, but it wouldn't allow
open aperture metering? But wait, I am afraid I am wrong, because it
would mean that mechanical aperture coupling would have to be
different in order for
Not so fast!
I do not see, why K or M lenses should not work with future Pentax SLRs.
All I see is that FAJ lenses won't be usable on pre-A-series cameras.
However, that itself is a piece of sh*t. Well, I would not want to own
such low-end zooms anyway.
Arnold
Boz wrote:
So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount
compatibility. :-(((
Pentax has just rendered all K- and M-series lenses obsolete. Long live
the crippled K-af mount!!! :-(((
But the DSLR might feature support for K and M lenses, you say... Yes
it might,
Boz wrote:
pbd What a slip by Pentax USA! This manual probably should have been
pbd released after the new top-of-the-line piece-of-sh*t comes out, after we
pbd find out that it doesn't support the older lenses.
Well, there are two possibilities:
- either these are the lenses to be
I wrote:
They may have bearing on the general shape of things when it comes to Pentax K-mount
system.
It is supposed to be: They may NOT have any.
Pål
Hi Boz,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
What a slip by Pentax USA!
ACK.
So, let me be the first one to pronounce the death of the K-mount
compatibility. :-(((
I wouldn't go so far. Those FAJ lenses cannot be the expected wide-anlge
lenses for the DSLR. I suspect that the FAJ lenses
Doug,
The act of hop over to ebay and stumble across an incredible deal qualifies
as work. That puts you in a whole different class from those who whine I
want a ..., but never even bother to look! (Are they waiting for someone on
the PDML to hand them a bargain?!!!)
Always happy to
Hi Mike and all...
Not to worry. This is a hoax. Your warning is welcome nevertheless.
See:
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/mobile-phone-hoax.html
- wherein it's explained clearly.
There are two versions of this hoax, and the ACE one is one of them.
Your reputable source ought to
Hi Arnold,
Not so fast!
I do not see, why K or M lenses should not work with future Pentax SLRs.
No technical reason, I grant you that.
But if they made the marketing decision to leave out aperture rings away
on some lenses now, they will leave them out on some more soon, and then
they
Oh, let them stew, Heiko.
They're all so concerned it's the 'end of Pentax as we know it' before
Pentax has actually SAID anything at all about it's intended use!
I too hope it's a misjudgement, and those lenses _are_ to be used on a
new, inexpensive, yet-to-be-announced camera body.
Pentax DID
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Most of the time I try very hard to compose exactly
what I want
in the viewfinder, but a) I'm sometimes unable to do
so because
of not being able to change my location quickly
enough or not
having quite as long a lens as I needed at that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS: I HOPE I AM WRONG!!!
Typical 3rd party lens junk.
I've a used SF-1 that came with an autofocus Tokina.
Only after purchase did I realize that the lens had no aperture ring!
Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens.
Regards, Bob S.
More from the FA lenses manual:
- FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL
lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the
matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the
viewfinder for auto-focus camera
- The FAJ zooms take 58mm
Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...a good photo will overcome its format.
That's a keeper!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hi Rfsindg,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens.
LOL. That's it. Who knows - maybe this is the next, subtly prereleased
April-fool trick of Pentax, after the 110-DSLR.
Cheers, Heiko
Its OK if your name is not 'Ace ...' - you might wonder why nobody is
answering your calls today?!?!?!
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 February 2003 12:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Possible mobile phone virus
Hi Mike and
You are right, Frank. I apologize, John, for my sarcasm, the
result of typing before thinking - Sorry.
Gee, I sent this out at 9:44 AM EST on February 9, and it just
arrived back in my mailbox, almost two days later.
Maybe the PDML server choked on it - it's probably not used to me
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens?
The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around
bargains--very good optically and usually very inexpensive.
Which brings up another interesting exercise.
What would you say are
William, Brendan and Bruce Thanks for the comments I am new at this so I
appreciate the help I am not insulted or ripped in any way. I did my
developing by reading the instructions on the bottle, there seems to be
so many variables between what the negative looks like to how it is
scanned to what
on 11.02.03 13:12, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the extent these lenses exist at all and not a printing error, they are
obviously ultra cheap basement level lenses not meant for those who sit on
large lens inventories. Unfortunately, the competition has cheapened out and
removed
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in
the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place
where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a
better bigger picture.
Bruce
this month's
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The file comes out with the right amount of megapixels because of the
software interpolation making guesses about what's going on between the
sensors. This adds to the filesize but doesn't add any actual
information.
interpolation adds
Are you referring to:
PENTAX - ZOOM LENSES
35-70 F4 SMC A (58) / 2 TOUCH ???
Because on Boz's site it does not mention a macro capability. It
says that the min. focussing distance is .25 M, which I would
assume is not macro?
Maybe I have the wrong lens? If so, would you mind providing
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
http://www.smuniverse.com/pmac/
In this case, you'd just get a slow Mac with a bad interface.*
Convienetly enough, as I attempt to clean out my home, I've come across an
old mac SE, a pile of 9 monitors, and a Compaq iPaq baby PC, and a stack
of old
On 2/10/2003 Greg wrote;
It's SMC
PENTAX-M 1:2 50mm, according to the printing on the front. Is this one
of the good ones, or one of the cheap ones? It's SMC, but it's not a
Takumar 50/1.4.
SMC Takumars 50/1.4 were screw mount lenses. The SMCP-M 50/2.0 is a good
lens, you should not be having
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
I would say the SMCP-M 100/2.8 ranks. So does the SMCP-M 50/1.7.
The A50/2 was one of my favourites...Dirt cheap, new at like $40, small,
light, well built.
I regret selling it, but it wasn't doing me much good. Also, teh FA28-70/4
seems to routinely
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
Arnold wrote:
- FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL
lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the
matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the
viewfinder for auto-focus camera
Something that proves that these lenses
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,
on 11.02.03 15:38, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL
lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the
matte-field for non-auto focus camera or using focus indicator in the
viewfinder for auto-focus camera
Matt wrote:
And the whole idea of saying pixels seems somehow
odd, since the discussion is about film and not
digital images and slide or print film, by their very
nature, do not have pixels, though I understood what
you meant.
How is the discussion about film? The thread is called
Don't forget that digital camera marketers count each R, G and B sensor
separately in the megapixel rating. In which case it should probably be
called megadots. While I'm being pedantic, I assume you mean ppi instead
of dpi in your printing resolution ;)
The file comes out with the right
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a new one on me, but I just picked up an FA 28-70mm and wanted to
find out about any special features it might have. I downloaded the FA
Interchangeable lens Manual from Pentax USA and discovered it covered the
FAJ 28-80 f3.5-5.6AL and the FAJ
Mike Johnston wrote:
...Which brings up another interesting question. What are
the worst
photographic clichés of all time?
Mike,
Without any doubt, the worst photographic clichés of all
time
are the Rules of Composition. Especially the Rule of
Thirds.
Regards,
John
for some time now i have been looking for an ultrawide lens (18mm and
wider). i seem to somewhat narrowed my list of choices:
pentax 15mm/3.5
voigtlander 15mm or 12mm
pentax fisheye 17mm/4
pentax fisheye 16mm/2.8
does anyone here have experience with these? the review on luminous
landscape gives
my own personal opinion, Bruce (and it's just between the two of us), having
shot a few miles of MF and a few more miles of 35mm, is that a good photo will
overcome its format.
Well said, Doug.
I might add to that a trivial additional observation, which is that a good
photo will also
- Original Message -
From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: K and M lenses are now obsolete!!! (was: FAJ lenses)
- or these lenses are MZ-60 dedicated and intended to further drop
the price of the entry level slr kit.
I'm pretty sure this is the case. The lenses seem
discovered it covered the FAJ 28-80 f3.5-5.6AL and the FAJ
75-300 f4.5-5.8AL. These lenses, and I quote, 'do not have aperture ring
to control f-stop, camera body controls f-stop on A position.' These lenses
aren't mentioned on Boz's site and I've never seen or heard of them before,
anyone
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
How about cats playing in the flower bed?
Hmm...I know I have some cat photos around here somewhere...
AAUUUG!
Flower shots are something I have mixed feelings about: I don't much
like *looking* at flower photos, but I really
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
Hi Iren,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
No. These FAJ zoom lenses are not even in the current product list in
Japan. They are something for the future.
Maybe they were intended for the MZ-D/MR-52 and now they are obsolete
;-)
HAR!
Cheers, Heiko
I'll admit it, I crop, (I feel like I'm in an AA meeting). Often I
will compose a photo knowing I intend to crop from the beginning, some
subjects just scream out for a panoramic treatment, or square treatment,
as well as the reasons Bob listed
At 09:51 AM 2/11/2003 +, Bob wrote:
OK lets
Must be the VAT.
At 11:47 AM 2/11/2003 +0100, Scars wrote:
Hi!
Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro
http://s1.amazon.de/exec/varzea/ts/exchange-glance/Y04Y2262953Y2956152/qid%3
D1044959909/sr%3D1-1/028-5489151-1156544
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Juey Chong Ong wrote:
Wedding/studio shooters are already wedded to their 'Blads; why would
they want to give it up when they can get a square format,
48-megapixel digital back for their 'Blad and minimally disrupt their
shooting workflow? (ok, it
Rob,
Sounds like square format would actually work well for you. I used to
shoot too tight and when it came time to frame, I would not have
enough around the edges so the subject would be uncomfortably tight in
the frame. From my experience, at least with people shots, it is
better to be just a
on 11.02.03 17:04, Heiko Hamann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Iren,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
No. These FAJ zoom lenses are not even in the current product list in
Japan. They are something for the future.
Maybe they were intended for the MZ-D/MR-52 and now they are
They may not even be released, it won't be the first time
a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature
and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my
1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that
was never manufactured.
At 01:19 PM 2/11/2003 +0100,
I agree I need both, but on the longer telephoto score, as I said both a
600mm and/or a track pass for a Grand Prix are out of my league. I do
need to improve my skills, but just having a quick look at your shots on
Sunday photog, you have a perfect example of the kind of crop I do for
people
this month's Shutterbug has an interesting opinion on this. define better
first, is what they boil down to, and then you can decide if 35mm format
good enough or not. for some people, grain or lack thereof, which is what
tonality that medium and large format photographers treasure is derived
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
More from the FA lenses manual:
- FA28-90/f3.5-5.6 , FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL and FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL
lenses have no distance scale, adjust focus with the aid of the
matte-field for non-auto focus camera
My first thought:
Pentax must have gone completely mad.
Hi Peter,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro
Must be the VAT.
And a very conservative price policy by Amazon. You can find various
German online shops offering the Optio S at 469,- Euro. That seems to be
a realistic streeet price
-Original Message-
From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
What would you say are the best AND cheapest Pentax lenses for
someone looking to put together a basic kit for reasonable bucks?
I think that at least most of the lenses suggested so far are primes
(not surprisingly).
P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!!
Just wait and see what PMA really brings.
Arnold
Iren Henry Chu schrieb:
Dear all,
I feel sick by the news of two new KAJ mount lenses.
I think it signals the end of K-mount afterall. Obviously, the new
user manual is designed for future use, as the KAJ
Thanks for the advice. It is in near mint condition, but $150 might be too
high. I think I'll take it for a test walk around the block.
Bill Lawlor
Has anyone an opunion about the SMC M 100/2.8 lens?
The general consensus seems to be that it is one of the best all-around
bargains--very good
Mike,
Without any doubt, the worst photographic clichés of all
time
are the Rules of Composition. Especially the Rule of
Thirds.
Regards,
John
HAR!
John, are you by any chance new to the list? Say, within the last couple of
months? Or are you joking here?
In any event, a man
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Johnston wrote:
Hmm, those weren't supposed to be announced until later.
Whoops!
They're a couple of entry-level zooms for the most inexpensive bodies. So
far available in Japan only, not here.
Sure, sure...
Don't worry, this is not the wave of the future.
I
Arnold wrote:
AS - FAJ28-80/f3.5-5.6 AL: 8 elements in 8 groups, 0.4meters minimum focus
AS disctance; 63x67mm, 180grams
AS - FAJ75-300/f4.5-5.8 AL: 12 elements in 10 groups, 1.3 meters minimum
AS focus disctance; 69x116mm, 385grams
I haven't downloaded the manual, so I'm asking you to check
Al Shaikh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72
It must be that Valentine's Day is fast approaching.
Feel the love!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They may not even be released, it won't be the first time
a product has found it's way into a manufacturers literature
and never seen the light of day. For a non Pentax example my
1993 Saturn owners manual talks about the SL3 a vehicle that
was never
Herb,
I base better on my own taste - which is, as you say, tonality and
detail. I have never been one that is that interested in grain as a
positive factor in my images. Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff
over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice).
Certainly as Doug put it, the image
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd say having 140 shots on one card with no film costs, no developing
chores, and no need to wait to see the results is light years away from the
era of the press camera. You're welcome to go back if you prefer, but
shooting with a press camera
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And nobody has even mentioned the poor, neglected spies and private eyes
that need as much information in their photos as they can get. They need
to read license plates and recognize people's faces from a distance, you
know.
they used to use
I'm pretty sure this is the case. The lenses seem to be as simple, cheap and
toy-like as possible - a proper addition to the similarly toy-like MZ-60,
which is IMHO one big mistake by Pentax.
It's not a mistake, actually. There's been a trend over the past couple of
years of people who buy
Mike,
Very interesting point. When I first got my 67II, I always put it on
a tripod. When doing studio and location portraits, I found that the
tripod was too slow to work with to capture natural poses and
expressions. There was always that last minute fiddling with the
tripod before the shot
Hi Alin,
Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 11.02.2003, 17:23:30:
I haven't downloaded the manual, so I'm asking you to check if
there's anywhere SMC mentioned in the lens designations. Pentax is
very careful with this. If it's no SMC then we can safely assume
these are low end
The good Nikon G lenses also have other features that can't be
properly utilized by bodies that can't fully use G lenses, like AF motor
in lens and VR. You need a current body to make best use of the body
anyway, besides control of the aperture from the body. This hasn't
stopped the wailing of
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a matter of taste, so I don't argue that they ARE better, nor do I
disrespect (at all) any photographer who disagrees. But I also don't easily
accept it when people presume that larger is always better. That's an
opinion, not a fact
My theory is that they do all of than then simply discard the lenses.
That would account for the cost. ;)
At 09:36 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
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
This is, in fact, the deal with Nikon G lenses on older bodies. Welcome
to the family.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The AFJ lenses must have a mount that acts as if the aperture ring is
permanently in the A position. So the lenses should be usable in P and
Tv modes on the A- and P-series
Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with?
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/bw2002-4-2.jpg
TIA,
--Mike
The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
Goto --Lenses--SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The
quote is on page 36 (I think).
At 11:42 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
The good Nikon G lenses also have other features that can't be properly
I think it would take alot to convince these parts of that case, as many
will then point to the VR Nikon G lens.
What have Pentax lenses to do with Nikon?
Pål
Alin wrote:
If it's no SMC then we can safely assume
these are low end lenses only - no danger of generalization.
Isn't it enough that they lack focus scale to remove all doubt that they are strictly
bottom level?
Pål
Arnold wrote:
P - A - T- I - E - N - C - E!!
We don't have to wait very long
Pål
Good grief! How is possible to react in the way cited below to the fact that Pentax
release two bottom level lenses? We had the same sort of reaction when they released
the first plastic mount lenses. Suddenly all Pentax lenses would use plastic mounts!
Pentax is just releasing the same crap as
Almost on topic (not an M-series) but I have a perfect little
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar f:2.8/105 that I've been dying to try out,
but haven't yet.
Has anyone an opinion on this lens while I'm waiting for better weather?
keith whaley
Bill Lawlor wrote:
Thanks for the advice. It is in near
That's also true the initial price offering will drop rather quickly I'm sure.
At 05:15 PM 2/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Hi Peter,
on 11 Feb 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Amazon Germany (or the zshops) has it listed for 529 Euro
Must be the VAT.
And a very conservative price policy by Amazon.
Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72
I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color.
I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was
disturbed by the visual cacaphony of bouquets of flowers. He seldom painted
them, with one famous exception, a
No you wouldn't
At 10:13 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
How about cats playing in the flower bed?
Hmm...I know I have some cat photos around here somewhere...
AAUUUG!
Flower shots are something I have mixed feelings
You can order one, I'll take the down payment and it'll be shipped
just as soon as it's released, I promise.
At 11:28 AM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They may not even be released, it won't be the first time
a product has found it's way into a manufacturers
Also, my clients prefer my MF stuff
over my 35mm stuff (when they have a choice).
Bruce,
How true. Fine-art buyers, also, are less impressed with 35mm prints, at
least from contemporary photographers.
Generally, buyers of all stripes tend to be more impressed the further you
can get from
David Brooks. Good brokeh, eh?
He didn't mention what camera or any other particulars...
keith
Mike Johnston wrote:
Sorry, I missed something. Whose shot is this, and what was it taken with?
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/images/bw2002-4-2.jpg
TIA,
--Mike
Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles
office for thisvbg
Its mine,Mike. Shot last spring(2002)early June if memory
serves, in the backyard.
Gear: Pentax Super Program and SMC A 70-210 using
the macro on it.Film i think was Tmax but may have been
Delta 100.
Dave
Begin Original Message
Mike Johnston wrote:
Another flower for mike http://www.usefilm.com/showphoto.php?id=72
I find flowers disturbing. Especially in color.
Disturbing? Hmmm. In person, or just in photos?
keith
I think it was the French painter Edgar Degas who wrote that he was
disturbed by the visual
When you buy extension tubes, you get a set of three, so your figures
add up nicely...:-)
My set of Chinon tubes cost me $25 a few years ago. Include Ricoh and
all the 3rd party makes, and you add up with pretty decent odds for
finding something second hand, in good shape, and cheap.
Why do you
Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The information is here: http://www.pentax.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
Goto --Lenses--SMC FA Interchangeable Lenses (download the manual). The
quote is on page 36 (I think).
Still can't make it work. Got the direct URL, anyone?
--
Mark Roberts
Begin Original Message
From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:41:25 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mystery link
Oh Oh.Do i have to go to the principles
office for thisvbg
David,
No, no, I like it. (But you do have to go to the principal's office
Don,
Presumably it's OK to mention politics, guns and any other
of the many irrelevant off-topic subjects that make up a
very high proportion of the postings here. But when someone
whose film cameras are 100% Pentax expresses a genuine
on-topic opinion about photography you want to
I totally disagree!
Mike didn't have time to check it out, I did.
Who knows how many hundreds of folks concern themselves about hoaxes
like that, un-necessarily!
What shall we do? not respond in any way, and all those folks out
there keep worring about everytime they turn on their cell phone,
This doesn't mean that you have to use a digital camera, though. You could
just as easily shoot with traditional film and provide them with scans that
could still beat the quality you'd get from today's DSLR, even if they only
keep 4MB.
t
On 2/11/03 8:33 AM, Herb Chong wrote:
i just received
Hi!
KT Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept Alpha
KT Sweet II, Canon EOS Kiss III L and Pentax MZ-L. All these cameras are
KT competitively priced yet with various features and automations.
Thank you very much bg. Now my ZX-L (same as MZ-L or MZ-6) is an
entry
might as well trot these out again:
http://www.alphoto.com/floral1.jpg
http://www.alphoto.com/floral4.jpg
Doug
At 01:31 PM 2/11/03, Wendy wrote:
Here's mine
http://pug.komkon.org/02jul/tulip.html
---
Very nice, Doug(for colour) vbg
Natural light i assume.
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:28:57 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slow list. How 'bout some flower photos to liven
thingsup? ;-)
might as well trot these out
Ok, I'll bite. I have an ES-II how do I tell a 4 prong from 3 prong
battery door. (It would be nice to
have a spare since they look amazingly easy to lose).
At 01:55 PM 2/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I purchased this on eBay just a few weeks ago as an extra for my ESII and
somehow forgot that my
Hi John...
I'm new at darkroom work, too. There is a bewildering array of films, chems,
papers, techniques and equipment that each alter your final image. Sorting
it out can be a real chore.
Probably the most helpful advise I've received is to focus on one of each
and work from there. For
Hi,
Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 5:33:54 PM, you wrote:
a crazy Pentax exec somewhere up the
ladder who would single handedly and may I add single mindedly order
to promote this new concept upwards across the whole lens range of
Pentax ...
Again, I hope I am wrong and Pentax is properly
Take off the battery door you have on your ESII -- if it has four
prongs (two toward the front of the camera, two toward the rear) then
you have the four-prong type. The other variation is three prongs,
although I can't remember if the single-prong side points toward the
front or rear of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS: I HOPE I AM WRONG!!!
Typical 3rd party lens junk.
I've a used SF-1 that came with an autofocus Tokina.
Only after purchase did I realize that the lens had no aperture ring!
Maybe FAJ stands for FA Junk lens.
Some years
On 03.2.11 0:10 PM, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
KT Minolta has already been selling the cameras of the similar concept
Alpha
KT Sweet II, Canon EOS Kiss III L and Pentax MZ-L. All these cameras
are
KT competitively priced yet with various features and automations.
Thank
natural light, yup.
thanks,
Doug
At 02:47 PM 2/11/03, you wrote:
Very nice, Doug(for colour) vbg
Natural light i assume.
Dave
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
