Re: Airports Again
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:34:54 +1000 "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I travelled by Eurostar in 1999 there were scanner points to > pass through at Gare du Nord. Departing from Waterloo might be a > different story. Yeah, but my assumption/hope is just that they are slightly more willing to hand-check carry-ons when asked nicely. I'll try it out (probably within a few months), and let you all know how it turns out. Btw., I have taken the Eurostar in both direction in the past (although with no films of any important speed) and there are x-rays when departing in both the Paris and Waterloo ends. --thomas > > regards, > Anthony Farr > > - Original Message - > From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > (snip) > > > > Well, in London, I actually asked to see a security supervisor, > > who just handed me a pamphlet (essentially saying "our machines > > are safe, and if you say otherwise, you're a dork!"). I've sent > > that pamphlet plus one of the ruined films to the british airport > > authorities and am awaiting response. I am expecting a reply > > along the lines of"yeah, you are indeed a dork". I'll take the > > Eurostar service next time, I think... > > > (snip) > > > > --thomas > > > > > > -- Thomas Heide Clausen Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt) M.Sc in Computer Engineering E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW:http://byzantium.inria.fr:8080/~voop
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
The exposure comp. detents may be 'only' at full stops, but they're not very strongly detented, or sprung towards the detents. It's very easy to set them at any intermediate point to get fractional stops of compensation. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Exposure compensation detents are full stops. > (snip)
Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
I agree with the comment on that page. You get much more noice, no resolution improvement unless you use some expencive lenses, but maybe some improvement in Moire and Bayer artifacts. However, it will look good in the adverticements and brochures... DagT > Fra: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03061101sonyicx456.asp > > cheers, > caveman > >
Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
I agree with the comment on that page. You get much more noise, no resolution improvement unless you use some expencive lenses, but maybe some improvement in Moire and Bayer artifacts. However, it will look good in the adverticements and brochures... DagT > Fra: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03061101sonyicx456.asp > > cheers, > caveman > >
Re: Airports Again
The French security personnel were very friendly, chatty and helpfull. This was at the height of the Soho nail-bombings in '99 and on board security was high. There were also frequent announcements that unattended luggage would be exploded, so a sterner mood might have been expected. We found French people an absolute pleasure to deal with, and we knew only two and a half words of French. I think they only want you to try speaking their tongue, even if you fail dismally. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Airports Again (earlier message snipped) > > Yeah, but my assumption/hope is just that they are slightly more > willing to hand-check carry-ons when asked nicely. I'll try it out > (probably within a few months), and let you all know how it turns > out. > > Btw., I have taken the Eurostar in both direction in the past > (although with no films of any important speed) and there are x-rays > when departing in both the Paris and Waterloo ends. > > --thomas > > > > > regards, > > Anthony Farr > >
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
I've had both of my SuperPrograms tested by the local crusty old repair guy. Synch on both is very close to 1/90th. I posted to PDML about this once upon a time and got a fair amount of confirmation from other folks around here. -Lon Alan Chan wrote: Pentax lied about synch speed. It's 1/90th. But how did you tested it out? regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
RE: Hot breaking *ist D news !
That's really deep Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Vic, 3658 Mob: 0414-967 644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.heritageservices.com.au -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 12:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hot breaking *ist D news ! Check here: http://www.ist.org/ cheers, caveman --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 1/06/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 1/06/2003
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
I've posted about this separately, but it bears re-asking. Do you refer to the speed of the X-position of the mode dial, or the speed when the shutter-speed selector is on 1/125sec? I would frequently use that setting if I wanted to mix TTL ambient and OTF-flash metering (the X-position is unmetered, OTF flash is always on depending on the flash unit connected). I never got half-framing. The X-position isn't a battery-less position, unlike the ME Super AFAIK, so the reason for this is beyond my ken, but if I had to guess then I'd say that 1/125sec doesn't have enough 'dwell' (to steal a motoring term) to permit slower electronic flashes. For instance my Metz 60CT-1 has full power duration of 1/400sec, and the big Hensel 3200 and 600 joule packs I formerly used burned for about 1/100sec at high powers (requiring 1/60sec or longer). regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 12 June 2003 8:04 PM Subject: Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)? > I've had both of my SuperPrograms tested by the local > crusty old repair guy. Synch on both is very close to > 1/90th. I posted to PDML about this once upon a time > and got a fair amount of confirmation from other folks > around here. > > -Lon > > Alan Chan wrote: > >> Pentax lied about synch speed. It's 1/90th. > > > > > > But how did you tested it out? > > > > regards, > > Alan Chan > > > > _ > > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > > >
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
I don't think this is the case, Anthony. The shutter speed curve has a wiggle right at 125th that happens on flash synch or on manual. To me, this is no big deal. However, someone questing for a perfect "within a third stop" exposure would probably have to factor it in. Anthony Farr wrote: I read this often, and yet those times that I have shot with flash at a selected 1/125sec, rather than at the X-position of the mode selector, I've never got any 'half-framing'. Perhaps the X-position is under-speed even though the camera still truly synchs at 1/125sec. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (snip) synch is at 1/90 (although specified as 1/125) (snip)
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
Agreed. Anthony Farr wrote: The exposure comp. detents may be 'only' at full stops, but they're not very strongly detented, or sprung towards the detents. It's very easy to set them at any intermediate point to get fractional stops of compensation. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Exposure compensation detents are full stops. (snip)
RE: Exposure
Look, I shoot BW Neg film about 90% of the time and often shoot WITHOUT meter when its a clear sunny day outdoors. My exposures are truly excellent under those conditions and they could be characterized as "consistently accurate exposures" but I do not claim them to be within 1/3 stop of absolute perfection. That is a key difference. I dont agree with your statement below that the cameras/lenses dont have to be very ACCURATE as well as consistent accross all settings to achieve 1/3 stop exposure accuracy under ALL conditions like he claims. JCO > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:42 AM > To: Pentax Discuss > Subject: Re: Exposure > > > > - Original Message - > From: J. C. O'Connell > Subject: RE: Exposure > > > > Seemed to me that he was implying that > > he has the ability to expose every frame > > he shoots within 1/3 stop of a TECHNICALLY > > perfect exposure with a TLL meter reading. > > He has no clue that his camera/lenses are not > > that accurate or consistent across all the > > settings. > > They don't have to be accurate, all they have to be is consistent. > Presuming his films are, in fact, exposed to within a third stop of what > he wants, it falls to reason that his equipment is consistent. > We aren't talking about a mechanically timed shutter that can be all > over the place, but a quartz timed shutter that should be repeatable to > within a few percentage points, they really are that accurate, and well > adjusted lenses (remember, Pål has a special relationship with Pentax > Norway, since he is one of their three customers). > Also, nature shooting, which seems to be mostly what he shoots, isn't > really all that demanding of a metering system. > Fuji film is remarkably speed and colour stable, and consistent from > batch to batch, much more so than Kodak, and the Fuji CR-56 process is > very stable. > > I find it a bit baffling is that people find it hard to believe that > modern camera equipment can give consistently accurate exposures. > > William Robb > >
Re: P30 vs. Super program (Super A)?
Should be "Hensel 3200 and 6000 joule packs" - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (snip) > For instance my > Metz 60CT-1 has full power duration of 1/400sec, and the big Hensel 3200 and > 600 joule packs I formerly used burned for about 1/100sec at high powers > (requiring 1/60sec or longer). > > regards, > Anthony Farr >
Re: Purchasing Film for Holiday in the UK
<< Oh, they have a sense of humor all right. I has to do with you bending over stark naked and them running fingers into your body cavities. >> Tom, yes these are the amateur proctologist plod to whom I was referring. Kind regards Peter
Re: Airports Again
- Original Message - From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unfortunately a) I fly a lot and b) no matter what the rulebook says > even for US airport security, a hand-inspection is not always easy to > get. It depends a lot on the mood of the person at the checkpoint -- > and I have yet to have the courage to "make a scene" there. It just > would seem like quite a dumb move to do so :( Sometimes I get a > hand-check, other times not -- leading to the general strategy of > finding a trusted lab wherever I fly out (hard, btw.) and get > everything processed before if at all possible. >> > --thomas > Just an example: I flew out of Baltimore (BWI) in February just after this airport was declared THE WORST airport in the United States by the FAA and every consumer group known to mankind (a slight exaggeration. The lines were the longest and the waits the worst for the security checkpoints. They went so far as to hire celebrity-look-alike comedians to entertain the crowds) Anyway, when I got to the checkpoint and set my camera bag on the x-ray belt I pulled out the ziplock which was on the top and had a ton of film and asked for hand inspection. The response: "No problem!" The supervisor guy took the bag and, as I watched, swabbed each film canister one at a time checking for explosives. I told him I really appreciated it and he kept saying: "We are here to serve you and make traveling a pleasant experience. It's our job." etc. etc. All the time with a smile and friendly demeanor. Oh, and all my film was 50 and 100 ISO. He never questioned the need for hand inspection. After that experience, I have no trouble asking for them to check my film by hand. check: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=56 look at the last line under "Specialty film". Christian
*ist and BG-20
Hi! An *ist brochure can be downloaded from Pentax Canada: http://www.pentaxcanada.com/products/pdf/ist_eng.pdf At the last page, it shows an *ist with the new BG-20 battery pack/hand grip. Looks very stylish indeed. To those who complains about cheap build quality etc. - the *ist is entry level. Not pro-level nor mid-market. It's not more plastic, not more cheaply built, than Nikon F/N 75, Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 or Canon EOS 300 V. And to those who judge Pentax future cameras and lenses by the entry level *ist and FAJ - it's not fair to Pentax. Different market segments needs different products. I see no reason to fear that the upcoming high-end versions of the *ist lacks support for aperture ring. Best wishes Roland _ Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/
Re: "Digital lenses" (WAS: Re: FA-J lenses (WAS: Re: *ist))
At 03:44 PM 6/10/2003 +0200, Pål Jensen wrote: This could also be a factor behind why Pentax would limit 20+ year old lenses on the *ist D. Perhaps they aren't realy suited for a DSLR? Another matter is that there are probably other criterias in optical performance that is more important in a lens used for a CCD than for lens used with film. I wonder how the 'plastic' effect attributed to the limited lenses will render on a DSLR. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
i just received an announcement of the release of the Nikon Coolpix 5400 in the US. that is more or less the direct replacement to the Coolpix 5000. the newer camera has 5.4 megapixels versus 5 megapixels. the most interesting thing is that the sensor on the new camera is about 75% of the size of the older camera. this is enough to reduce the maximum ISO rating from 800 (which was marginal anyway) to 400. Nikon is doing it in a released commercial product. who else? Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 05:03 Subject: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ? > I agree with the comment on that page. You get much more noise, no resolution > improvement unless you use some expencive lenses, but maybe some improvement in > Moire and Bayer artifacts. > > However, it will look good in the adverticements and brochures... > > DagT
Re: *ist and BG-20
Yeah, there's not much disagreement over here about *ist being entry level, as it is about digital ist falling into this area. Not judging Pentax future by the *ist D specifications is too much to ask from most of us, common mortals with normally sized pockets. At this price tag we expect more common sense in the package. However, even if Pentax plans do *not* include full mount compatibility and aperture ring operation on higher bodies, they should state so after all this whining here and particularly in Japan. They owe that much to their traditional customers. Not doing that so far only points to their deceptive intentions. Bah, I'm too disgusted to speak of this anymore. I think I'll stick with the off-topic threads for this summer. :o< Servus, Alin Roland wrote: RM> To those who complains about cheap build quality etc. - the *ist is entry RM> level. Not pro-level nor mid-market. It's not more plastic, not more cheaply RM> built, than Nikon F/N 75, Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 or Canon EOS 300 V. RM> And to those who judge Pentax future cameras and lenses by the entry level RM> *ist and FAJ - it's not fair to Pentax. Different market segments needs RM> different products. I see no reason to fear that the upcoming high-end RM> versions of the *ist lacks support for aperture ring.
Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
Smaller sensor = less silicon = lower cost. The average buyer will believe they are getting more, 400,000 pixels more in fact. But they'll also be getting more noise and less sensitivity. Will the Coolpix 5400 sell for less than the Coolpix 5000? Perhaps it will, stranger things have happened. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i just received an announcement of the release of the Nikon Coolpix 5400 in the US. that is more or less the direct replacement to the Coolpix 5000. the newer camera has 5.4 megapixels versus 5 megapixels. the most interesting thing is that the sensor on the new camera is about 75% of the size of the older camera. this is enough to reduce the maximum ISO rating from 800 (which was marginal anyway) to 400. Nikon is doing it in a released commercial product. who else? > > Herb...
Re: Seamless Paper or Muslin?
Hi Dave, I use muslin, its cheaper for one. I have this lady who makes custom muslin & canvas backgrounds to any colour/design you wish. She'll also make it in any size, a buddy just had one made thats 15m X 8m. It covers a class of 40 pupils standing and seated in 3 rows. I don't have to care too much for it as you just squash it back into the bag. Paper gets dirty real fast unless you buy that coated one, but I shoot mostly kids and they tend to be able to destroy anything in no time at all. Sides I like the crinkels in the background. Velvet is pretty cheap if you buy it from a fabric store instead. And it gives a very nice effect Feroze - Original Message - From: "David Chang-Sang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:39 PM Subject: OT: Seamless Paper or Muslin? > Hi everyone, > > I'm curious, for those who use backgrounds, which do they prefer and why; > seamless paper or muslin? > > I've been considering purchasing a background for myself for portrait and > full body work but now I have a suspicion that seamless paper may be more > convenient and, in the long run, more versatile. > > Any and all comments and input welcome and appreciated. > > Cheers, > Dave > > >
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
> I just hope they don't find out where I live. Why, Bill, will that hurt your credibility ??? Fred
RE: Optio S flash
Bill Owens wrote: >Apparently the Optio S uses a flash system similar to the MZ-S. In normal >flash mode there are 2 quick flashed and in red eye reduction there are >three. Has Pentax been able to get a flash sensor inside something this >small? I don't know how the MZ-S flash works, but I can confirm the number of flashes from the Optio S. Is it using the first flash to meter the scene, and the second (with duration modified appropriately) to make the exposure? I wonder if a seperate flash sensor is required. Can it not just use the CCD? This weekend I used my Optio S to take some flash pictures in dim light, and I have to say that I was very disappointed with the results. Nearly everything was badly underexposed, to the point where I don't expect it to be salvagable. I had checked the flash range specs in the manual, and I knew I was working right at the limit (perhaps a little bit beyond it :-). I think my mistake was to leave the camera set on 'Auto' ISO: While the flash ranges are specified at 200, it seems that the camera saw fit to choose 100 ISO for these pictures. I would have hoped to have spotted the problem straight away on the LCD, but it seems that this can give a rather optimistic interpretation of underexposed images. The histograms do show what was going on, but I wasn't looking at them. I will, next time. I think I know what I need to do to avoid these problems next time. (It may involve an LX and fast film). Any other tips, or GIMP/Photoshop recovery techniques, will be gratefully received. Unfortunately the event, a christening, is unlikely to be repeated. Steve.
Re: Various and sundry
>Screw the Yanks. C'mon to Canada for a visit. I wanna see you, Caveman >and Wheatfield sitting at the same table!! > >cheers, >frank Har! That would be a picture, wouldn't it ? Only if you wear some bunny ears, and bring some bunny girls ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Various and sundry
>Now that would be a sight I'd like to see on Grandfather Mountain, a bloke >and 2 canucks ! Seeing as this is a decent off topic thread and hopefully only those sad sacks like me and you dip in to have a look, I'll tell you about the security guard in our Gloucester office, colloquially known as Some Bloke. Why? Because the journalists will tell you that when they trudge back from the town centre after downing some coffee and sandwiches, they pile back in and Some Bloke pokes his head through from reception and says (deep west country accent: oooh-aaarh oooh-aaarh etc) 'You 'aaad a telephone call while you wuz out'. To which the question is posed: 'Oh really, who was it?' And the inevitable answer: 'Dunno, some bloke'. Door shuts. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Optio S flash
After reading the instruction manual AGAIN, I find that the Optio S delivers 3 flashes per exposure, both for normal and for redeye reduction, the difference being there is a greater delay when using redeye reduction. I'm guessing that this flash sequence is similar to that of the MZ-S, where the pre-flashes are telling the camera the proper settings to use for the exposure. Can anyone shed any light on this? Bill - Original Message - From: "Steve Morphet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:39 AM Subject: RE: Optio S flash > Bill Owens wrote: > > I don't know how the MZ-S flash works, but I can confirm the number of > flashes from the Optio S. Is it using the first flash to meter the scene, > and the second (with duration modified appropriately) to make the exposure? > I wonder if a seperate flash sensor is required. Can it not just use the > CCD? > > This weekend I used my Optio S to take some flash pictures in dim light, > and I have to say that I was very disappointed with the results. Nearly > everything was badly underexposed, to the point where I don't expect it > to be salvagable. I had checked the flash range specs in the manual, > and I knew I was working right at the limit (perhaps a little bit beyond > it :-). I think my mistake was to leave the camera set on 'Auto' ISO: > While the flash ranges are specified at 200, it seems that the camera > saw fit to choose 100 ISO for these pictures. > > I would have hoped to have spotted the problem straight away on the LCD, > but it seems that this can give a rather optimistic interpretation of > underexposed images. The histograms do show what was going on, but I > wasn't looking at them. I will, next time. > > I think I know what I need to do to avoid these problems next time. (It > may involve an LX and fast film). Any other tips, or GIMP/Photoshop > recovery techniques, will be gratefully received. Unfortunately the > event, a christening, is unlikely to be repeated. > > Steve. >
Re: *ist and BG-20
Actually, I just popped into my local camera pusher's shop and demanded to borrow and *ist with an FA-J lens. I played around with it for a while before returning it, and my observations were generally positive. For an entry-level camera, it seems quite good: packed with features (which I found fairly intuitive to use without reading the manual) and reasonably robust. Sure, it is not MZ-S (and definitely no F5) robustness-wise, but it seems better build than the F-entry-level counterparts. It took getting used to to set apeture and shutter speed with the (thumb-?)wheel, and I think that the big LCD on the back is superflorus and just adds to the things that can possibly break (a smaller display positioned in a less scratch-prone place would be better). But, as I said, overall a more than decent camera. Give me a digital version of that, priced as an entry-level, and I'll be happy. I am not ready to shell out for a "flagship" digital anyways (my use doesn't by far justify it, and I do not plan on exchanging my MZ-S), but I would like to use my Pentax lenses on a digital body. Of course, my oldest pentax lens is the 24-90 and the 3 limited, so I don't worry too much for backwards compatibility. The camera pusher told me, that in his shop, the *ist's were flying off the shelves, so it seems that the *ist could be a winner. I surely was impressed, and may even get one just because... --thomas On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:06:48 +0300 Alin Flaider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, there's not much disagreement over here about *ist being > entry level, as it is about digital ist falling into this area. > Not judging Pentax future by the *ist D specifications is too > much to ask from most of us, common mortals with normally sized > pockets. At this price tag we expect more common sense in the > package. However, even if Pentax plans do *not* include full > mount compatibility and aperture ring operation on higher bodies, > they should state so after all this whining here and particularly > in Japan. They owe that much to their traditional customers. Not > doing that so far only points to their deceptive intentions. > > Bah, I'm too disgusted to speak of this anymore. I think I'll > stick with the off-topic threads for this summer. :o< > > Servus, Alin > > Roland wrote: > > RM> To those who complains about cheap build quality etc. - the > RM> *ist is entry level. Not pro-level nor mid-market. It's not > RM> more plastic, not more cheaply built, than Nikon F/N 75, > RM> Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 or Canon EOS 300 V. > > RM> And to those who judge Pentax future cameras and lenses by the > RM> entry level *ist and FAJ - it's not fair to Pentax. Different > RM> market segments needs different products. I see no reason to > RM> fear that the upcoming high-end versions of the *ist lacks > RM> support for aperture ring. > >
Re: Optio S flash
Hi Bill, Most likely there's no dedicated flash sensor. Instead it relies on the ambient light sensor that measures during the pre-flash. Very similarly to MZ-S operation in P-TTL mode. Servus, Alin Bill wrote: BO> Apparently the Optio S uses a flash system similar to the MZ-S. In normal BO> flash mode there are 2 quick flashed and in red eye reduction there are BO> three. Has Pentax been able to get a flash sensor inside something this BO> small?
Re: *ist and BG-20 8-)
Hi, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > I think that the big LCD on the back is superflorus I'm not buying one, then. My hayfever and the thought of having to stand it in water when you are not using it.. mike
Re: PDML atlanta
Unfortunately according to the keeper of the schedule and the checkbook the Hansons are predisposed this weekend. I'm all free next week, though. Evan
Compatibility
Hello There has been a lot of discussion lately on the future of Pentax. And everything is nothing but pure speculation. When the MZ-50 was released, I don't remember that we had a discussion about an aperture-less future. And when the MZ-30 was released, I don't remember that we had a thread going on about Pentax releasing new high-end models without support for older lenses. But we have one now. I don't really see why. Pentax has, in the past, had limited compatibility with the budget bodies. This has not been a big issue. With the release of the Z/PZ-70, Pentax moved away from Power zoom. The Z/PZ-70 did not have full support (as the Z/PZ-1-p-) for power zoom, and it was also the first entry model from Pentax with a plastic lens mount. When the MZ-line was introduced, the MZ-5 could power the PZ lenses but nothing more. Power zoom was not a great idea. Power zoom is not used by the majority of those who has power zoom capable lenses and bodies. Why should Pentax continue to support an idea that the customers never wanted in the first place? In contrast to Canon, who changed cameras and lenses overnight - Pentax seems to believe in a slow process. Instead of changing everything at the same time, as Canon did, Pentax changes a little bit here and a little bit there and has been doing so for many years. Since the process is slow, Pentax gives time for the users to update their equipment. To change a little bit here and a little bit there. Pentax may speed up this movement from a mechanical lens mount to an electrical in the future and the budget FAJ lenses may be a sign to this change. At least in entry level equipment. Many says "Pentax are following Nikon" and seems to have forgotten that Nikon still supports mechanical aperture rings in their higher end bodies. I see no reason to why Pentax should remove full compatibility in the semi-pro and pro models when Nikon has showned no signs of doing it. Instead of complaining, we should applaud Pentax to move more upmarket. Previously, Pentax entry level models had a strange mix of good and bad. (like 3-point AF without spot AF in the MZ-10 and MZ/-7, centreweighted not selectable by the user, lack of exposure memory lock). The *ist is the first entry level from Pentax, for a long time, that's near perfect. Full automatic control with manual overrides of almost everything. And it beats the competition hands down when it comes to technical specifications. Has this ever happened in the Pentax history (with an entry level body)? We now awaits two more filmbased *ists. The replacement model for the MZ-3/5n and and the MZ-S replacement. I'm sure they will be something special and well worth the wait. Instead of relaying on optics and compatibility with old cameras, Pentax seems determined to become "leader of the pack" when it comes to technology, value for money and technical specifications. Instead of buying Pentax because "my 20 year old lens can still be used", Pentax wants us to buy Pentax because "Pentax has the newest and most modern technology, Pentax has the best performance". Pentax needs to attract new customers and by concentrating on technology (like the new 11 point AF with 9 cross sensitive points) Pentax can attract them. New users does not care about compatibility, they want the best technology, the best performance at the lowest price possible. And this is what the *ist delivers. I feel confident that the more up-market *ist models will retain K-mount compatibility, to make upgrading easier. I do believe that they will feature support for IS and USM lenses, but those IS and USM lenses may not be usable on older bodies (same thing with Nikon and Minolta). Canon has full compatibility within the EOS system, but this is because it's a full electronic system with no support for mechanical transmission. Pentax moves to a full electrical mount, but it's a slow process because they allow time for the users to upgrade. Pentax has not removed compatibiliy with all manual focus lenses, just the K and M lenses. And I believe that if the A serie had become a hit when it was introduced, then this discussion would never happen. But since the A serie flopped, and many K and M users didn't upgraded to A lenses and A bodies when the A serie was introduced 20 years ago, we have this discussion. Best wishes Roland _ Coola downloads från adidas! http://www.msn.se/mobil/adidas
Re: Various and sundry
>Sounds good, beware, we may really do it ;-) I'll bring the maple syrup, >to feed Cotty with some ;-) > >William Robb wrote: >> >> The three of you are invited to my house for supper one weekend next >> summer. I am pretty easy about which weekend, you guys choose and get >> back to me. >> We will eat red meat cooked rare and drink fermented fruit juices. >> WW I'm cutting back on infarction-inducing fatty foods and increasing my intake of lipids inhibitors. Hence, I'll just have the red wine thanks. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Various and sundry
I'll make it a point to brew some stout for you and Mark, and lagers and/or ales for the rest of us. Bill - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Various and sundry > >We will eat red meat cooked rare and drink fermented fruit juices. > >WW > > Fish n chips and a stout for me mate. > > BB > > (British Bloke) > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk >
Re: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
It makes sense that 75% size reduction (if it's linear) leads to a 50% effective light sensitivity reduction. If we interpolate further what will the sesnitivity of a sensor with 2 micron sensors be? 50 ISO? The effective sensitivity depends on the pixel area, since the quantum efficiency of the sensor is constant as well as the noise introduced by the temperature of the sensor chip. To me, it seams like the sensor only makes sense if their planning to cool it down, as some astronomers do. But even then it requires large apertures and very good lenses DagT > Fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > i just received an announcement of the release of the Nikon Coolpix 5400 in the US. > that is more or less the direct replacement to the Coolpix 5000. the newer camera > has 5.4 megapixels versus 5 megapixels. the most interesting thing is that the > sensor on the new camera is about 75% of the size of the older camera. this is > enough to reduce the maximum ISO rating from 800 (which was marginal anyway) to 400. > Nikon is doing it in a released commercial product. who else? > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 05:03 > Subject: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ? > > > > I agree with the comment on that page. You get much more noise, no resolution > > improvement unless you use some expencive lenses, but maybe some improvement in > > Moire and Bayer artifacts. > > > > However, it will look good in the adverticements and brochures... > > > > DagT > > >
Re: PDML atlanta
> Unfortunately according to the keeper > of the schedule and the checkbook the > Hansons are predisposed this weekend. That's fine since Cory is busy this weekend also. He's checking on next weekend (Saturday, June 21) and will probably get back to me soon. With respect to weather, I think (as of yesterday) Atlanta weather is going to start it's tropical rain forest impersonation once again (for reference, see: entire month of may). Hopefully we'll get lucky with some dry but overcast skies that weekend. PS... I think we'll have some big glass [300mm and 400mm] on hand for enablement if anyone is interested. Hopefully, between the 4 of us, there will also be some wide stuff (<24mm) for me to tinker with... or some pre-F/FA lenses so I can see what all the build quality hoopla is about . Doug, maybe you can take Don up on that 200mm Pentax Macro offer from last month (if he's around). I'd love to put a roll thru it.
Re: Exposure
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time) Weve been down this road before, unless your aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance subject the meter will over or under expose the subject. the only way you could be accurate is if you manually compensated the meter reading based on the KNOWN reflectance of the subject and that is nearly always UNKNOWN. REPLY: Arrgh! This is not about autoexposure but metering which something entirely different. It is about being able to set metering within 1/3 of a stop. Known reflectance has nothing to do with it. What matter for a photographer is tonality on FILM. Ansel Adams didn't worry about known reflectance but the tonality of the various part of the scene on film. It is exactly the same principle with slidefim just the difference that developing for all practical purposes is a constant and not something that can be used to adjust the contrast range. Have you seen an Ansel Adams print. Do you really think that whats medium toned on the print was medium toned in real life? Maybe maybe not (most likely not) but who cares and does it matter? If I meter a medium toned piece of rock it is totally unimportant if the rock is medium toned or not in reality. If I want it medium toned I expose it as such, which is 0, it doesn't matter if the rock is really white or black - it will be medium toned on the film. If I want it + 1/3 I do that. If I want it as silhouttte I expose it at -2. I don't care if the green grass over there is really 0, -1/3, +1/3, -0.5 or whatever. What I do want is to render it on film at +1/3 (with Velvia) because thats nice in my opinion, and I get that with precision every damed time. I also want to asses the contrast range of the scene fast and with precision. I can do that as well. This will tell me how all parts of the scene falls in the tonality range if I expose for this or that. Say theres a patch of snow in the picture I don't want to burn out. I need to expose it at +1,7. How then will the tonality of the snow-free foreground turn out? Is the image possible at all? I can figure this out in seconds because I have that tool to nail it. If I expose snow at +1,7 it always get +1,7 on film; never +2 which ruins the shot. I can promptly figure out the contrast range between the forground and the sky. Do I need a graduated Nd filter? How many stops? These are the reasons why I want ot be able to nail exposure within 1/3 of a stop fast and efficiently. - Pro slide film are within 1/6s tolerance. That is a worst case scenario; they are practically speaking dead on. Amateur slide film are within 1/3s but in reality amateur film is exactly the same film as the pro version but is released earlier to the store so that the manufacturer cannot guarantee its history. Whatever differences this may make it is usually in subtle colour balance, not exposure. - Pro Labs are within 1/6 stops - Modern Pentax lenses have apertures calibrated within 1/10s accuracy. Canon claim 1/12s for the L lenses. - All slr camera made after approximately 1985 have 100% shutter accuracy. This have made the once common camera shutter tests redundant. Even on older, less precise cameras the errors are usually only significant in the real short speeds. - All Pentax cameras I've bought since the 90's have 100% correct calibrated meters right out of the box. In the old days, pre 1990, a how to photography books would tell you to calibrate you meter. They don't anymore as new camera bodies are usually dead on. This usually no real problem as this is usually a constant and any erors can be calibrated away. All the errors above don't really add up to anything significant unless faulty equipment is at play or an accident happens. They are too small to be of any concern and they are more likely to cancel each other out than to add to each other. I've shot several side by side test images where I compare various Pentax 645 lenses. I shoot at various apertures and varios zoom setting with various lenses. There are no exposure differences regardless on Velvia. On this film 1/3s is screaming obvious. Whats annoying with this futile discussion is that some in reality are claiming that those of us who do nail the exposure we want within 1/3s are lying bastards. It is somehow not surpising that these allegation comes from people who use very old equipment. That probably explains it all. I cannot nail exposure this accurat with my older cameras. Life is really too short for these futile discussions. Pål
Re: Pentax K1000 FS (Annsan)
The camera is located in St. Paul, MN. I would prefer to sell everything at once, but am willing to compromise. Scott --- Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or Best Offer. > > keith > > Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > > Scott Krahn wrote: > > > > > Pentax K1000 with 300mm zoom lens, wide angle > lens, > > > flash, timer, 2 rolls of film, 2X extender and > > > everything else seen in the picture. Email me > if you > > > need more details about any of the parts. This > > > completely manual camera is in good condition > and > > > hasn't gotten much use. > > > http://www.me.mtu.edu/~sjkrahn/dan/pentax.jpg > > > > > > $215 obo > > > > What does um OBO mean? > > I'm interested for sure > > I dont care about the extender . Where are you > located? > > > > Best, > > annsan > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
Re: Various and sundry
WHAT! Owens brewed stout, lagers, and ales (Oh my) Better than lions, tigers, and bears? (oh my) I wanna be there! I need, I need. Folks tell me I'm a good whiner. grin. Bill Owens wrote: I'll make it a point to brew some stout for you and Mark, and lagers and/or ales for the rest of us. Bill - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: Re: Various and sundry We will eat red meat cooked rare and drink fermented fruit juices. WW Fish n chips and a stout for me mate. BB (British Bloke) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT wanted to buy - a piece of polarizing gel
NIck , thanks! Yeah and I may be able to find a smaller piece there. A much better price than K&M. Ta, ann Nick Zentena wrote: > On June 10, 2003 10:29 pm, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > I MUST be able to get a piece of 12" x 12" for > > less than the $79 K and M wanted to charge me - > > and they would have to have ordered it. > > > > I'd be happy with 8" x 8" - even if it has a few > > little scratches... > > having discovered that putting a polarizing filter > > on my scanner and then > > placing a piece of cloisonne jewelry on it for my > > ebay display did wonders > > for reducing glare and making the ladybug look > > like it really looks, I would like to > > use it more extenslively. I don't need the > > frame... I dont care if it has raggedy > > edges... > > > > any ideas??? > > > > annsan > > Is this good enough? > > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh4.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___45130___ROPS___REG___CatID=0___SID=F5F2FF4FA70 > > Nick
Re: OT wanted to buy - a piece of polarizing gel
Herb Chong wrote: > drat, i just threw out a roll about 8x20 inches.not long ago. > > Herb aarrrggh! Where is telepathy when one needs it? :) ann > > - Original Message - > From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 22:29 > Subject: OT wanted to buy - a piece of polarizing gel > > > I MUST be able to get a piece of 12" x 12" for > > less than the $79 K and M wanted to charge me - > > and they would have to have ordered it. > >
Re: *ist and BG-20
- Original Message - From: Roland Mabo Subject: *ist and BG-20 > And to those who judge Pentax future cameras and lenses by the entry level > *ist and FAJ - it's not fair to Pentax. Different market segments needs > different products. I see no reason to fear that the upcoming high-end > versions of the *ist lacks support for aperture ring. I see no reason to believe that Pentax will release a high end body. Until the product is on the shelf, with a compatability feature set intact, I will continue to be skeptical. There are real products, and there is vapourware. Only one can be discussed as if it exists. William Robb
Re: Compatibility
- Original Message - From: Roland Mabo Subject: Compatibility > Hello > > There has been a lot of discussion lately on the future of Pentax. And > everything is nothing but pure speculation. When the MZ-50 was released, I > don't remember that we had a discussion about an aperture-less future. And > when the MZ-30 was released, I don't remember that we had a thread going on > about Pentax releasing new high-end models without support for older lenses. > But we have one now. I don't really see why. Pentax has, in the past, had > limited compatibility with the budget bodies. This has not been a big issue. The presumption is that the MZ chassis' days are numbered now that the new chassis is on the market. When the MZ-50 and MZ-30 were released, there were cameras in the line that had full compatability, and the consensus on this list was that it wasn't a big deal with the bottom feeder cameras. With the release if the Asterist, lens compatability has been removed, and there is no camera in the chassis line that has compatability. Hence the concern. I was retailing cameras when the EOS line was released. Don't believe for a moment that Canon didn't realize that they were making a huge gamble. They were extremely concerned about their customer base. They also realized that they could no longer use a lens mount that had been around since the early 1960s in a modern camera. It just wasn't possible, and so the FD mount (which was already a modification from the breech-lock had to go. That they made a clean break shows a lot of guts, that they continued to prosper in the marketplace, and actually picked up significant market share shows that the new products were very desirable. They also came out with some killer products right off the starting line. Pentax has not made a killer product in about 4 decades now. They have consistently been an also ran company for a very long time. The only thing they have had going for them has been that very long history of system compatability which from all appearances has ended. This makes them far less desirable to advanced photographers, especially considering the build of the Asterist, which does not instill confidence. The camera feels cheap. If they come out with an upper level Asterist with a better feel and full compatability, I would be very happy. I just don't bet on vapour ware to save the day. William Robb
Re: Exposure
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: Exposure > > He sez "Perfect exposure is the exposure I want. " > > True, this is, on the surface, a somewhat vague sounding definition, but > > I think that is a really good definition of the perfect exposure. > > I think it is just a desperate attempt to avoid explaining how he gets > the 1/3 stop accuracy he also mentioned. Otherwise he would tell us what > exactly is that "I want" (assuming that he knows it). He made a quite > bold statement and now is trying to escape from supporting it with facts. So, in 10 words or less, how would you define "perfect exposure"? William Robb
Re: Exposure
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell > > I dont agree with your statement below that the cameras/lenses > dont have to be very ACCURATE as well as consistent accross > all settings to achieve 1/3 stop exposure accuracy > under ALL conditions like he claims. As long as they are consistent, what else matters? In my black and white work, by the time I have arrived at a working ISO for a film, I am generally a stop and a half slower than what Ilford says the film speed is. Whether this makes my equipment inaccurate by a stop and a half, or whether it means I like more shadow detail than what Ilford thinks I should like doesn't matter. All that matters is that the equipment behaves in a consistent and repeatable manner. William Robb
Re: Optio S flash
Alin Flaider a écrit: Hi Bill, Most likely there's no dedicated flash sensor. Instead it relies on the ambient light sensor that measures during the pre-flash. Very similarly to MZ-S operation in P-TTL mode. The Optio S has a flash sensor,under the flash windows ! See owner manual p 9 ! Michel
RE: Exposure
Now we see what your real definition of "perfect" exposure is, just make everything you point the camera at medium gray regardless of what it is in a real life scene. Absurd. Look at what you said below. Even assuming "100%" accuracy in METERS AND SHUTTERS which is definitely not true, but just the tolerance errors YOU listed (unproven and which I still disagree with): pro slide film : 1/6 stop pentax apertures : 1/10 stop processing : 1/6 stop Just WHAT YOU LISTED will not allow you to always stay within 1/3 stop of "perfect", let alone add in the errors of the shutter and the meter. You are obviously not a math wizard. These errors may sometimes cancel, but they may also ADD UP, that's what random tolerances do. As for velvia, being "screaming obvious" different to a 1/3 stop exposure difference, I don't use it but if it was that sensitive, it would have an exposure latitude of something like +/- 1/6 stops which would be so narrow to make it unworthy of my consideration. I doubt FUJI would even market a film that prone to disaster. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Exposure > > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Exposure (WAS: Re: OK Survey time) > > > Weve been down this road before, unless your > aiming your camera at a full screen 18% reflectance > subject the meter will over or under expose > the subject. the only way you could be accurate > is if you manually compensated the meter reading > based on the KNOWN reflectance of the subject and > that is nearly always UNKNOWN. > > > REPLY: > > Arrgh! This is not about autoexposure but metering which > something entirely different. It is about being able to set > metering within 1/3 of a stop. Known reflectance has nothing to > do with it. What matter for a photographer is tonality on FILM. > Ansel Adams didn't worry about known reflectance but the tonality > of the various part of the scene on film. It is exactly the same > principle with slidefim just the difference that developing for > all practical purposes is a constant and not something that can > be used to adjust the contrast range. Have you seen an Ansel > Adams print. Do you really think that whats medium toned on the > print was medium toned in real life? Maybe maybe not (most likely > not) but who cares and does it matter? > If I meter a medium toned piece of rock it is totally unimportant > if the rock is medium toned or not in reality. If I want it > medium toned I expose it as such, which is 0, it doesn't matter > if the rock is really white or black - it will be medium toned on > the film. If I want it + 1/3 I do that. If I want it as > silhouttte I expose it at -2. I don't care if the green grass > over there is really 0, -1/3, +1/3, -0.5 or whatever. What I do > want is to render it on film at +1/3 (with Velvia) because thats > nice in my opinion, and I get that with precision every damed time. > I also want to asses the contrast range of the scene fast and > with precision. I can do that as well. This will tell me how all > parts of the scene falls in the tonality range if I expose for > this or that. Say theres a patch of snow in the picture I don't > want to burn out. I need to expose it at +1,7. How then will the > tonality of the snow-free foreground turn out? Is the image > possible at all? I can figure this out in seconds because I have > that tool to nail it. If I expose snow at +1,7 it always get +1,7 > on film; never +2 which ruins the shot. I can promptly figure out > the contrast range between the forground and the sky. Do I need a > graduated Nd filter? How many stops? > These are the reasons why I want ot be able to nail exposure > within 1/3 of a stop fast and efficiently. > > - Pro slide film are within 1/6s tolerance. That is a worst case > scenario; they are practically speaking dead on. > Amateur slide film are within 1/3s but in reality amateur film is > exactly the same film as the pro version but is released earlier > to the store so that the manufacturer cannot guarantee its > history. Whatever differences this may make it is usually in > subtle colour balance, not exposure. > - Pro Labs are within 1/6 stops > - Modern Pentax lenses have apertures calibrated within 1/10s > accuracy. Canon claim 1/12s for the L lenses. > - All slr camera made after approximately 1985 have 100% shutter > accuracy. This have made the once common camera shutter tests > redundant. Even on older, less precise cameras the errors are > usually only significant in the real short speeds. > - All Pentax cameras I've bought since the 90's have 100% correct > calibrated meters right out of the box. In the old days, pre > 1990, a how to photography books would tell you to calibrate you > meter. They don't anymore as new camera bodies are usually dead > on. This usually no real problem as this is usually a constant > and any erors can be cali
RE: Exposure
For example: Say his lens is consistently f8 at f8 setting. same lens is consistently f16 at f11 setting (over exaggeration). The meter assumes both are perfect and assigns 1/125 for the F8 setting, 1/60 for the F11 setting. THIS IS THE MAIN FLAW OF OPEN APERTURE METERING. It doesn't take the real f-stop into account. RESULT the two exposures are not within 1/3 stop at all settings, even though they are consistent errors. JCO > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Exposure > > > > - Original Message - > From: J. C. O'Connell > > > > > > I dont agree with your statement below that the cameras/lenses > > dont have to be very ACCURATE as well as consistent accross > > all settings to achieve 1/3 stop exposure accuracy > > under ALL conditions like he claims. > > As long as they are consistent, what else matters? > In my black and white work, by the time I have arrived at a working ISO > for a film, I am generally a stop and a half slower than what Ilford > says the film speed is. > Whether this makes my equipment inaccurate by a stop and a half, or > whether it means I like more shadow detail than what Ilford thinks I > should like doesn't matter. > All that matters is that the equipment behaves in a consistent and > repeatable manner. > > William Robb > >
Re: OT Paris pics
Paul Thanks for the link. I tried to pick my favourite, but concluded that they were all my favourite. Kind regards Peter
Re: Airports Again
Glenn wrote: > IIRC the _checked_baggage_ X-ray machines can vary the intensity. > (Not that this contradicts anything folks have said about the > carry-on X-rays, even if I'm right.) I didn't think the carry-on > scanners could be turned up. Hi Glenn, At the UK's busiest international airports, the scanners that are used to "X-ray" checked baggage and carry-on baggage are in fact *identical*. Not only can they both be 'turned up', but that is how they are routinely used if the find a lead bag or anything else that will not scan. Tests have shown that no film (of any ISO speed) is safe. They all get fogged, and that happens even if the machine is not set to its maximum level. This is a new situation, one that has only happened since fall (autumn) of 2002, so most people's previous experience can no longer be relied upon. I understand that the reason for the new machines (and the new policy of not offering hand searches) is the recent development of new explosives and plastic detonators that could not be picked up by the previous scanners. Regards, John
Re: *ist and BG-20 8-)
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:10:29 +0100 mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thomas Heide Clausen wrote: > > I think that the big LCD on the back is superflorus > > I'm not buying one, then. My hayfever and the thought of having to > stand it in water when you are not using it.. > Hehehe...ohh...ehhh... Hey! Until you speak fluently Danish, then cut me a tad of slack on my (sad?) english-skills :) Ohh, an *istD will be perfectly acceptable as an "excuse" for exposing my bad engrish (http://www.engrish.com) to the pdml. Mail me for a shipping address :) --thomas (who, btw., knows that Mikes post was humorous)
Re: Compatibility
- Original Message - From: Roland Mabo > Ok, I understand your point. But why make assumptions, such as limited > compatibility in future upgrade *ist bodies, about products not relesed nor > showned yet? We have seen lenses for release with no aperture ring, and camera bodies that won't work with a lens with an operating aperture ring. The trend away from compatability is in place now, and has a better chance of continuing than not. Besides, I will be much happier to be proven wrong than if I thought compatability will continue and was proven wrong. William Robb
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
- Original Message - From: Fred Subject: Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?) > > I just hope they don't find out where I live. > > Why, Bill, will that hurt your credibility ??? No, but i don't want my home renovation project to get any bigger than it needs to William Robb
Re: Various and sundry
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Various and sundry > I'm cutting back on infarction-inducing fatty foods and increasing my > intake of lipids inhibitors. Hence, I'll just have the red wine thanks. Well if I must cool for a parmy bloke, how about blackened catfish? I make a great Tandoori chicken. My jerked pork or chicken is to die for (or of if you don't like burning hot spicy). Be aware, there aren't a lot of photo opportunities in the flatlands of Saskatchewan, but there is a whole lot of nothing for you Islanders... William Robb
Re: Exposure
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Exposure > For example: > > Say his lens is consistently f8 at f8 setting. > same lens is consistently f16 at f11 setting (over exaggeration). > > The meter assumes both are perfect and assigns 1/125 for > the F8 setting, 1/60 for the F11 setting. THIS IS > THE MAIN FLAW OF OPEN APERTURE METERING. It doesn't > take the real f-stop into account. > > RESULT the two exposures are not within 1/3 stop at all > settings, even though they are consistent errors. You are making a flawed assumption, and basing your premise on it. The way modern equipment works is that if it is out, it will be out by the same amount across the board, or it is defective. Calibration to within 1/10 of a stop for equipment is easily doable with modern production. My 1980s era Nikon F3 had a total system error of less than 1/10 of a stop at any aperture and shutter speed with an AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, and AI Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 and an AI Nikkor 200mm f/4. This was measured on a calibrated exposure tester and was repeatable over many exposure cycles. This is what modern equipment is about, and is why narrow latitude films such as Velvia can be made to work. William Robb
Re: *ist and BG-20
- Original Message - From: Roland Mabo Subject: Re: *ist and BG-20 > Pentax has promised three filmbased *ist models. One is released. Two more > is to come. > I find it hard to believe that all of them is going to be entry level. I won't believe any of them have full lens mount compatability until they are on the shelf. Note, this is not the same thing as entry level. William Robb
Re: I handled an *ist too
This brings up a question. Since no one on the list ever buys a new camera (as has been stated authoritively, by you-know-who), where are you guys finding all those used MZ-S camera bodies? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:06 PM Subject: Re: I handled an *ist too > Hello to All, > > I handled the *ist with the FA-J 28-80 yesterday at > Henry's here in Newmarket Ontario and I totally agree > with your assessment. It's a great little entry camera > and I bet it will be a good seller. Personally I have > no interest in buying it myself especially because of > the K mount compatability issue and the fact that I > currently already have a Super Program, PZ-1p and an > MZ-S. (never two without three but four is a crowd) > However I am looking forward to purchasing the *ist D > to complete my small format line up. Then I will > probably be tempted to go medium format. (that's a > scary thought) > > Sincerely, > Ryan > > > -- > > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:58:57 +0200 > From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *ist and BG-20 > Message-Id: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Actually, I just popped into my local camera pusher's > shop and > demanded to borrow and *ist with an FA-J lens. I > played around with > it for a while before returning it, and my > observations were > generally positive. For an entry-level camera, it > seems quite good: > packed with features (which I found fairly intuitive > to use without > reading the manual) and reasonably robust. Sure, it is > not MZ-S (and > definitely no F5) robustness-wise, but it seems better > build than the > F-entry-level counterparts. It took getting used to to > set apeture > and shutter speed with the (thumb-?)wheel, and I think > that the big > LCD on the back is superflorus and just adds to the > things that can > possibly break (a smaller display positioned in a less > scratch-prone > place would be better). But, as I said, overall a more > than decent > camera. > > Give me a digital version of that, priced as an > entry-level, and I'll > be happy. I am not ready to shell out for a "flagship" > digital > anyways (my use doesn't by far justify it, and I do > not plan on > exchanging my MZ-S), but I would like to use my Pentax > lenses on a > digital body. Of course, my oldest pentax lens is the > 24-90 and the 3 > limited, so I don't worry too much for backwards > compatibility. > > The camera pusher told me, that in his shop, the > *ist's were flying > off the shelves, so it seems that the *ist could be a > winner. I > surely was impressed, and may even get one just > because... > > --thomas > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). > http://calendar.yahoo.com >
Re: I handled an *ist too
Ebay --- T Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This brings up a question. Since no one on the list > ever buys a new camera > (as has been stated authoritively, by you-know-who), > where are you guys > finding all those used MZ-S camera bodies? > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: I handled an *ist too > > > > Hello to All, > > > > I handled the *ist with the FA-J 28-80 yesterday > at > > Henry's here in Newmarket Ontario and I totally > agree > > with your assessment. It's a great little entry > camera > > and I bet it will be a good seller. Personally I > have > > no interest in buying it myself especially because > of > > the K mount compatability issue and the fact that > I > > currently already have a Super Program, PZ-1p and > an > > MZ-S. (never two without three but four is a > crowd) > > However I am looking forward to purchasing the > *ist D > > to complete my small format line up. Then I will > > probably be tempted to go medium format. (that's a > > scary thought) > > > > Sincerely, > > Ryan > > > > > > -- > > > > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:58:57 +0200 > > From: Thomas Heide Clausen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: *ist and BG-20 > > Message-Id: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Actually, I just popped into my local camera > pusher's > > shop and > > demanded to borrow and *ist with an FA-J lens. I > > played around with > > it for a while before returning it, and my > > observations were > > generally positive. For an entry-level camera, it > > seems quite good: > > packed with features (which I found fairly > intuitive > > to use without > > reading the manual) and reasonably robust. Sure, > it is > > not MZ-S (and > > definitely no F5) robustness-wise, but it seems > better > > build than the > > F-entry-level counterparts. It took getting used > to to > > set apeture > > and shutter speed with the (thumb-?)wheel, and I > think > > that the big > > LCD on the back is superflorus and just adds to > the > > things that can > > possibly break (a smaller display positioned in a > less > > scratch-prone > > place would be better). But, as I said, overall a > more > > than decent > > camera. > > > > Give me a digital version of that, priced as an > > entry-level, and I'll > > be happy. I am not ready to shell out for a > "flagship" > > digital > > anyways (my use doesn't by far justify it, and I > do > > not plan on > > exchanging my MZ-S), but I would like to use my > Pentax > > lenses on a > > digital body. Of course, my oldest pentax lens is > the > > 24-90 and the 3 > > limited, so I don't worry too much for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > The camera pusher told me, that in his shop, the > > *ist's were flying > > off the shelves, so it seems that the *ist could > be a > > winner. I > > surely was impressed, and may even get one just > > because... > > > > --thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync > to Outlook(TM). > > http://calendar.yahoo.com > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
For trade or free: Various Pentax manuals (some non-English)
I have a small collection of Pentax manuals I don't need, and a few that aren't in English, so I can't read them anyway ... Pentax MG -- original instruction manual, English Pentax ME Super -- original instruction manual, English Pentax Super Program -- Photocopied/bound/trimmed instruction manual, English Pentax AF280T -- photocopied and folded, not cut or trimmed, English Asahi Pentax ESII -- original instruction manual, Japanese Pentax SFX -- original instruction manual and basic quick start guide, Spanish All are in very good to excellent condition, except the AF280T, which is a mediocre but readable photocopy, and the ESII, which has some wear on the cover. I'll mail any of them for the price of postage, but I'd like to trade for any similar or related Pentax promotional material/instruction manuals as well. Joe
Re: Exposure
William Robb wrote: So, in 10 words or less, how would you define "perfect exposure"? Depends on the purpose you're taking the photos. I already mentioned the arteestec one: "the exposure that gives the most pleasing interpretation and visual rendition of a scene". (which is very interesting especially since for certains scenes you might find 2 different exposures producing equally pleasing results; and Paal obviously didn't want this one, since camera meters are not calibrated in arteestec units) We can have a technical one: "the exposure that renders a certain surface in the scene with a pre-established target density on the film" (this seems to be what Paal is talking now about, and mentioning 1/3 stop accuracy, and I submit that if he never checked his results with a microdensitometer he is not qualified to make such statements). We can have the definition that you gave "the exposure that retains maximum details in both highlights and shadows", and I noted that you probably are using negative, and doing the interpretation at printing stage. Which IMHO is a fine method BTW. And we can have a definition depending on the exact purpose that one may have for his shots. Like "best shadows detail rendition when using scanner model X", or "bright yet saturated image when slide is projected with projector brand Y" or "most accurate color rendition in the printing chain of the Times magazine" etc. Since we could have so many definitions, there's no point in debating exposure unless we establish against which exact definition we should judge it. cheers, caveman
Re: Minty fun ;-)
Wow, Caveman. Gee thanks, I was hoping to get that camera cheap. Now everyone on the list knows about it. Seems to me that he gave an accurate description of the lens, "it is perfect except for..." Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Caveman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Minty fun ;-) > Read the description for the lens, then look at the photo:
Re: Airports Again
It's nice to hear they improved, a few years ago, before Sept. 11th I traveled through BWT quite a few times, my connection often required I leave one security aria and enter another. One memorable time my wrist watch was accidently stripped off my wrist by contacting a security machine, I was threatened with arrest after I retrieved it. The guards seemed to be uniformly surly and very willing to take out their bad attitudes on all and sundry. At 07:15 AM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Unfortunately a) I fly a lot and b) no matter what the rulebook says > even for US airport security, a hand-inspection is not always easy to > get. It depends a lot on the mood of the person at the checkpoint -- > and I have yet to have the courage to "make a scene" there. It just > would seem like quite a dumb move to do so :( Sometimes I get a > hand-check, other times not -- leading to the general strategy of > finding a trusted lab wherever I fly out (hard, btw.) and get > everything processed before if at all possible. >> > --thomas > Just an example: I flew out of Baltimore (BWI) in February just after this airport was declared THE WORST airport in the United States by the FAA and every consumer group known to mankind (a slight exaggeration. The lines were the longest and the waits the worst for the security checkpoints. They went so far as to hire celebrity-look-alike comedians to entertain the crowds) Anyway, when I got to the checkpoint and set my camera bag on the x-ray belt I pulled out the ziplock which was on the top and had a ton of film and asked for hand inspection. The response: "No problem!" The supervisor guy took the bag and, as I watched, swabbed each film canister one at a time checking for explosives. I told him I really appreciated it and he kept saying: "We are here to serve you and make traveling a pleasant experience. It's our job." etc. etc. All the time with a smile and friendly demeanor. Oh, and all my film was 50 and 100 ISO. He never questioned the need for hand inspection. After that experience, I have no trouble asking for them to check my film by hand. check: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=56 look at the last line under "Specialty film". Christian To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
No, I think he's worried about the famous Pentax ningas being dispatched. At 08:26 AM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote: > I just hope they don't find out where I live. Why, Bill, will that hurt your credibility ??? Fred To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Compatibility
Roland Mabo wrote: Just compare it with the new Nikon F/N 75. C'mon. Don't set the reference that low. cheers, caveman
RE: Exposure
I simply stated I would not use a film with 1/6 stop latitude. If you dont like it tough. I didnt state he was wrong in using the film, I stated he was wrong about a whole number of things based on FACT. JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Exposure > > > "I don't use it. I don't know shit about it, but I'll tell > someone who does, that they're wrong." JCO aka the Mule. (Sorry mules.) > > BR > > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't use it but... > > __ > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. > Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free > trial today! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 > > Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! > http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 >
Re: Minty fun ;-)
T Rittenhouse wrote: Wow, Caveman. Gee thanks, I was hoping to get that camera cheap. Now everyone on the list knows about it. Seems to me that he gave an accurate description of the lens, "it is perfect except for..." Yeah, it has no faults he can see. If he can't see what the focus ring looks like, then probably he's blind. Buy with confidence, the description is surely accurate. cheers, caveman
Re: *ist and BG-20
Roland Mabo wrote: Pentax has promised three filmbased *ist models. One is released. Two more is to come. Really soon. cheers, caveman
RE: Exposure
I'd beleive that when it for myself and with testing equipment accurate to 1/100 of a stop becuase that is what is would require to be able to measure that accurately. And your still not taking into account his TTL metering technique which into itself is not going to give correct results with EVERY SITUATION, ALL THE TIME, like he claims. JCO > -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Exposure > > > > - Original Message - > From: J. C. O'Connell > > Subject: RE: Exposure > > > > For example: > > > > Say his lens is consistently f8 at f8 setting. > > same lens is consistently f16 at f11 setting (over exaggeration). > > > > The meter assumes both are perfect and assigns 1/125 for > > the F8 setting, 1/60 for the F11 setting. THIS IS > > THE MAIN FLAW OF OPEN APERTURE METERING. It doesn't > > take the real f-stop into account. > > > > RESULT the two exposures are not within 1/3 stop at all > > settings, even though they are consistent errors. > > You are making a flawed assumption, and basing your premise on it. The > way modern equipment works is that if it is out, it will be out by the > same amount across the board, or it is defective. > Calibration to within 1/10 of a stop for equipment is easily doable with > modern production. > My 1980s era Nikon F3 had a total system error of less than 1/10 of a > stop at any aperture and shutter speed with an AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, and > AI Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 and an AI Nikkor 200mm f/4. This was measured on a > calibrated exposure tester and was repeatable over many exposure cycles. > This is what modern equipment is about, and is why narrow latitude films > such as Velvia can be made to work. > > William Robb >
RE: Exposure
You said you would not use a particular film, because it had 1/6 stop of latitude. How do you know what the latitude of the film is? You don't use it. You made a definitve statment about a definitve product that you don't know anything about. BR "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I simply stated I would not use a film with 1/6 stop latitude. > __ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455
Re: Exposure
Pål Jensen wrote: It is about being able to set metering within 1/3 of a stop. You don't set a meter, you read it. Or, uh, are you talking about calibrating your meters yourself ? cheers, caveman
Re: Compatibility
Roland Mabo wrote: > >Many says "Pentax are following Nikon" and seems to have forgotten that Nikon still supports mechanical aperture rings in their higher end bodies. I see no reason to why Pentax should remove full compatibility in the semi-pro and pro models when Nikon has showned no signs of doing it. Hi Roland, I am one of those who said "Pentax are following Nikon" and I still believe that. When claiming that Nikon's two top 'pro' Nikon film bodies (F100 and F5) offer matrix metering with manual focus lenses, you are obviously unaware that neither AI nor AIS lenses cannot provide matrix metering on either camera body. However, matrix metering was possible with the F5's predecessor, the F4, and with the F100's predecessors, the F801/F801s which were sold in the USA as the N8008/N8008s. Therefore Nikon have removed yet another important element of compatibility. Yes, AI and AIS lenses will fit the F100 and F5, and will meter with them, but you lose not only matrix metering but also the matrix balanced fill flash feature. These features worked just fine with AI and AIS lenses on the F4 and F801(s)/N8008(s). I do appreciate that this would not be obvious to someone who didn't use Nikon gear, but it does help demonstrate that Nikon "compatibility" is not even as good as would appear. Best regards, John
RE: Exposure
"As for velvia, being "screaming obvious" different to a 1/3 stop exposure difference, I don't use it but if it was that sensitive, it would have an exposure latitude of something like +/- 1/6 stops which would be so narrow to make it unworthy of my consideration. I doubt FUJI would even market a film that prone to disaster." I said IF JCO > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Exposure > > > You said you would not use a particular film, because it had 1/6 > stop of latitude. How do you know what the latitude of the film > is? You don't use it. You made a definitve statment about a > definitve product that you don't know anything about. > > BR > > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I simply stated I would not use a film with 1/6 stop latitude. > > > > __ > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. > Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free > trial today! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 > > Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! > http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 >
Re: Exposure
Bruce, would you please cut the c**p. No one needs to buy the whole line of Nikon cameras and use them for 6 months in order to decide if they have a shutter release. Or maybe... is that how *you*'re doing it ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You made a definitve statment about a definitve product that you don't know anything about. BR "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I simply stated I would not use a film with 1/6 stop latitude.
Re: I handled an *ist too
Yea, they usually cost more there than if you buy from B&H. But they're used! At 12:56 PM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote: Ebay --- T Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This brings up a question. Since no one on the list > ever buys a new camera > (as has been stated authoritively, by you-know-who), > where are you guys > finding all those used MZ-S camera bodies? > > Ciao, > Graywolf > http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: I handled an *ist too > > > > Hello to All, > > > > I handled the *ist with the FA-J 28-80 yesterday > at > > Henry's here in Newmarket Ontario and I totally > agree > > with your assessment. It's a great little entry > camera > > and I bet it will be a good seller. Personally I > have > > no interest in buying it myself especially because > of > > the K mount compatability issue and the fact that > I > > currently already have a Super Program, PZ-1p and > an > > MZ-S. (never two without three but four is a > crowd) > > However I am looking forward to purchasing the > *ist D > > to complete my small format line up. Then I will > > probably be tempted to go medium format. (that's a > > scary thought) > > > > Sincerely, > > Ryan > > > > > > -- > > > > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:58:57 +0200 > > From: Thomas Heide Clausen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: *ist and BG-20 > > Message-Id: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > > Actually, I just popped into my local camera > pusher's > > shop and > > demanded to borrow and *ist with an FA-J lens. I > > played around with > > it for a while before returning it, and my > > observations were > > generally positive. For an entry-level camera, it > > seems quite good: > > packed with features (which I found fairly > intuitive > > to use without > > reading the manual) and reasonably robust. Sure, > it is > > not MZ-S (and > > definitely no F5) robustness-wise, but it seems > better > > build than the > > F-entry-level counterparts. It took getting used > to to > > set apeture > > and shutter speed with the (thumb-?)wheel, and I > think > > that the big > > LCD on the back is superflorus and just adds to > the > > things that can > > possibly break (a smaller display positioned in a > less > > scratch-prone > > place would be better). But, as I said, overall a > more > > than decent > > camera. > > > > Give me a digital version of that, priced as an > > entry-level, and I'll > > be happy. I am not ready to shell out for a > "flagship" > > digital > > anyways (my use doesn't by far justify it, and I > do > > not plan on > > exchanging my MZ-S), but I would like to use my > Pentax > > lenses on a > > digital body. Of course, my oldest pentax lens is > the > > 24-90 and the 3 > > limited, so I don't worry too much for backwards > > compatibility. > > > > The camera pusher told me, that in his shop, the > > *ist's were flying > > off the shelves, so it seems that the *ist could > be a > > winner. I > > surely was impressed, and may even get one just > > because... > > > > --thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync > to Outlook(TM). > > http://calendar.yahoo.com > > > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
RE: Exposure
Yes, this stupid type of argument comes up again and again. I dont need to go to Alaska to know it snows there. Besides I said IF in my statement JCO > -Original Message- > From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:30 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Exposure > > > Bruce, would you please cut the c**p. No one needs to buy the whole line > of Nikon cameras and use them for 6 months in order to decide if they > have a shutter release. Or maybe... is that how *you*'re doing it ? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >You made a definitve statment about a definitve product that you > don't know anything about. > > > > BR > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>I simply stated I would not use a film with 1/6 stop latitude. >
Re: Exposure
>So, in 10 words or less, how would you define "perfect exposure"? The smudge left over after binning all the duds mate! BB ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Various and sundry
>My jerked pork or chicken is to die for Blimey - can't remember the last time I had my pork jerked. BB ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Compatibility
From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Compatibility Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:08:10 -0400 Roland Mabo wrote: Just compare it with the new Nikon F/N 75. C'mon. Don't set the reference that low. The Nikon F/N 75 is in the same market segment as the *ist. Isn't it strange that all Nikon's models below the F/N 80 are so bad (under featured cameras with strange restrictions), and still manage to sell in bucket loads? Best wishes Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Various and sundry
Now, now, boys this is a family list or so they tell me. At 06:54 PM 6/12/03 +0100, you wrote: >My jerked pork or chicken is to die for Blimey - can't remember the last time I had my pork jerked. BB ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
same retail price. the 5400 is missing a couple of features and has a couple more compared to the 5000, so it is a wash. i am one of the ones that will, if at all possible, get a DSLR in the next year. i would like it to be a Pentax one, but if i have to, i will pick one of the others. primary criteria for me above and beyond enough megapixels is low sensor noise. many of my exposures are longer than 2 seconds. Herb - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 08:24 Subject: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ? > Smaller sensor = less silicon = lower cost. > > The average buyer will believe they are getting more, 400,000 pixels more in > fact. But they'll also be getting more noise and less sensitivity. Will > the Coolpix 5400 sell for less than the Coolpix 5000? Perhaps it will, > stranger things have happened. > > regards, > Anthony Farr
Re: Compatibility
From: "whickersworld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Compatibility Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 18:19:58 +0100 When claiming that Nikon's two top 'pro' Nikon film bodies (F100 and F5) offer matrix metering with manual focus lenses, you are obviously unaware that neither AI nor AIS lenses cannot provide matrix metering on either camera body. However, matrix metering was possible with the F5's predecessor, the F4, and with the F100's predecessors, the F801/F801s which were sold in the USA as the N8008/N8008s. Therefore Nikon have removed yet another important element of compatibility. But I haven't claiimed that matrix metering works with manual lenses and the F100 and F5. Where should I have done that? But they can use the aperture ring on the lenses and aperture ring seems to concern Pentax users more than matrix or centreweighted metering. I have, for example, never seen any complaints about the fact that K and M lenses doesn't work with the multisegment metering. With A-lenses, the *ist can use the multisegment metering. Best wishes Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/
Re: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ?
yes, that is the linear reduction deduced from the change in true lens focal length will maintaining 35mm effective focal length. the 5000 and 5400 both have 35mm equivalent widest FOV of a 28mm, but the 5000 uses a 7.1 mm lens while the 5400 uses a 5.8 mm. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 09:20 Subject: Re: Re: 6MP - already obsolete ? > It makes sense that 75% size reduction (if it's linear) leads to a 50% effective > light sensitivity reduction. If we interpolate further what will the sesnitivity of > a sensor with 2 micron sensors be? 50 ISO?
Re: Compatibility
It's the name, the name, just say Nikon, Nikon, Nikon, your growing sleepily when you awake you will go to your local camera retailer and buy whatever Nikon he has in stock, tomorrow all your problems will be solved, your exposures will be perfect, (within 1/6th stop), your composition will win awards, your grass will be greener and never need mowing your hair will be restored, women, (or men if you prefer), will desire you At 07:58 PM 6/12/03 +0200, you wrote: From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Compatibility Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:08:10 -0400 Roland Mabo wrote: Just compare it with the new Nikon F/N 75. C'mon. Don't set the reference that low. The Nikon F/N 75 is in the same market segment as the *ist. Isn't it strange that all Nikon's models below the F/N 80 are so bad (under featured cameras with strange restrictions), and still manage to sell in bucket loads? Best wishes Roland _ Hitta rätt på nätet med MSN Sök http://search.msn.se/ To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Velvia 100 - First Impressions
can't help there since i have never shot any 100S. for the time being, i am still sticking with Provia 100F. Herb - Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:26 Subject: Re: Velvia 100 - First Impressions > Any comment son how 100G and the discontinued 100S compare? I normally > shoot E100S and like the somewhat saturated colors and accurate > tones. With 100S being discontinued, I'm shopping for a new mainstay film.
Re: Compatibility
You may include the 80 too. It also has restrictions like no metering with older manual focus lens. Ask Bruce, he bought one and personally checked that for at least 6 months. Funny, it really worked as in the specs. Roland Mabo wrote: The Nikon F/N 75 is in the same market segment as the *ist. Isn't it strange that all Nikon's models below the F/N 80 are so bad (under featured cameras with strange restrictions), and still manage to sell in bucket loads?
Re: Compatibility
Roland Mabo wrote: The Nikon F/N 75 is in the same market segment as the *ist. Isn't it strange that all Nikon's models below the F/N 80 are so bad (under featured cameras with strange restrictions), and still manage to sell in bucket loads? It is not at all strange. It is a matter of public perception. The camera bodies say *Nikon*. Ed _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Various and sundry
Cotty wrote: > > >We will eat red meat cooked rare and drink fermented fruit juices. > >WW > > Fish n chips and a stout for me mate. Oh? Ooo's yer mate, then? And yer having nothin'? keith > BB > > (British Bloke) > > Cheers, > Cotty
Re: To Pentax in Japan (does anybody have their email address?)
Peter wrote: No, I think he's worried about the famous Pentax ninjas being dispatched. At 08:26 AM 6/12/03 -0400, you wrote: > > I just hope they don't find out where I live. Are those the ones in the black pajamas (they are professional you know) with the AHOC emblem on the hood? BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Demian)
Re: Various and sundry
Bet you can keith Cotty wrote: > > >My jerked pork or chicken is to die for > > Blimey - can't remember the last time I had my pork jerked. > > BB
K-mount again (was Re: More info on Tamron's new AF 28-75 f/2.8 Di
Will it work with the next Pentax lens mount flavour ? Will any of the current Pentax FA lenses, including the limiteds, work with the next Pentax lens mount flavour ? What about a new Kaf4 mount that has USM, but is not compatible with any lens that has an aperture ring ? These are now valid questions. Since the current FA lens line is technically obsolete (shaft driven focus, no IS), one may bet that: 1) they'll never change it; 2) they will introduce new lenses with newer technology; If you bet 1), this is a great moment to get a Canon camera. If you bet 2), and considering the lens mount dance they're into, there's no point in buying any of their current lenses. Either way, the conclusion is "don't buy P". cheers, caveman P.S. For those intending to mention the K/M lenses and how they're old and few and what a luddite caveman I am. I'm not reffering to them. I'm reffering to cameras that are incompatible with THE CURRENT FA LENS LINE, like in NOT BEING ABLE TO USE CURRENT LENS FEATURES LIKE THE APERTURE RING. Roland Mabo wrote: Tamron has created a website dedicated to the new AF 28-75 f/2.8 Di and future Di lenses. http://www.tamron.com/di.htm An ideal lens for the MZ-S? Smaller, lighter, loaded with technology (LD, XR, IF...) and less expensive than the competition. Something must be wrong... Oh, it's all plastic - isn't it? Best wishes Roland _ Lättare att hitta drömresan med MSN Resor http://www.msn.se/resor/
Re: Odd Lens
Daniel Liu schrieb: > > Well, this is a little bit arcane to say the least, but i just looked > at this old zoom lens' mount. It sports a KA mount, only it also > features a tiny protruding contact that doesn't touch any of the > contacts on the camera. I looked at the inside of the lens, and it > seems the contact is connected to a resistor. To top it all off, two of > the regular contacts are plastic, and three are little recessed metal > bits. On the outside, it's a 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 CPC Auto zoom. The > apeture ring is also labled "KR," so I'm guessing it was made for a > ricoh k mount. Any thoughts? Hi, as far as I can remember, Ricoh released it's own kind of "KA"-mount for the XR-P. This mount wasn't compatible with Pentax' KA-mount. Sigma then claimed to have the only line of lenses compatible both for Ricoh and Pentax-A. I have two such manual focus lenses, the Sigma 18mm/f2.8 and the 75mm/f2.8~200mm/f3.5 (both ca. 1986) - but never had a Ricoh to test this. They called it "KPR"-mount. On my MZ-3 it works just fine. (But this won't help you, I'm afraid.) Greetinx, Thomas
Re: Odd Lens
Daniel Liu schrieb: > > Well, this is a little bit arcane to say the least, but i just looked > at this old zoom lens' mount. It sports a KA mount, only it also > features a tiny protruding contact that doesn't touch any of the > contacts on the camera. I looked at the inside of the lens, and it > seems the contact is connected to a resistor. To top it all off, two of > the regular contacts are plastic, and three are little recessed metal > bits. On the outside, it's a 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 CPC Auto zoom. The > apeture ring is also labled "KR," so I'm guessing it was made for a > ricoh k mount. Any thoughts? Hi, as far as I can remember, Ricoh released it's own kind of "KA"-mount for the XR-P. This mount wasn't compatible with Pentax' KA-mount. Sigma then claimed to have the only line of lenses compatible both for Ricoh and Pentax-A. I have two such manual focus lenses, the Sigma 18mm/f2.8 and the 75mm/f2.8~200mm/f3.5 (both ca. 1986) - but never had a Ricoh to test this. They called it "KPR"-mount. On my MZ-3 it works just fine. (But this won't help you, I'm afraid.) Greetinx, Thomas Lea's Register describes the lens mount for the XR-P as follows: "Interchangeable Ricoh R-K bayonet (modified Pentax K with contacts for programmed AE modes.) The XR-P accepts the P 50 1.7 auto "and K mount lenses in aperture-preferred and manual modes". Regards, Ed _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
test
I've just been unsubbed. I think I've now re-subbed. We'll see... -frank -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Mr Roberts' photographs
Had some trouble getting onto that temporary GFM page when Mark Roberts first referenced it, but I tried again just now and am duly blown away (as in, super impressed) by his images.
Way OT: Gregory Peck passed on
I know this has nothing to do with Pentax or photography, but I just heard that Gregory Peck died in his sleep last night. He was among my favourite actors, and his portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird was one of the most powerful screen performances I've ever seen. His Atticus Finch always reminded me of my late father. At the end of the trial, he packs his brief case, and walks out of the courtroom, the lower part of which is empty. None of the African Americans in the gallery have left, though. Jem and Scout are up in the gallery, with Reverend Sykes, the preacher. The gallery is silently standing, all except Scout. The preacher quetly says to her, "Miss Jean Louise, stand up. Your father's passing." Never fails to bring tears to my eyes... I've (obviously) never met the man, but I'll miss him all the same. regards, frank -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
RE: Way OT: Gregory Peck passed on
> -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I know this has nothing to do with Pentax or photography, but I just > heard that Gregory Peck died in his sleep last night. He > was among my > favourite actors, and his portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill a > Mockingbird was one of the most powerful screen > performances I've ever > seen. On the humongous assumption it ever comes to it, I'm trying to talk #7 into naming our first son Atticus. tv
Re: Nikon is about to announce a new larger lensmount!
According to reliable sources... If this was true, then Nikon fans would be pixxed big time. What would happen to those already expensive AF-S & VR lenses? regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: My Website
havent seen it fully. but liked what I saw. nice neat categorization. easy. good pics ofcourse. congrats! -Sridhar - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:31 AM Subject: My Website > Well, it's not markcassino.com. In fact, it's just MSN.Groups, but I have > some of my photos up on a website. Finally. > > http://groups.msn.com/wsawyerphotography/shoebox.msnw > > Your thoughts, insights, critiques welcome. > > Thanks. > > Bill Sawyer >
Re: My Website
My favs: - Unknown plant 103.jpg - Sworled Flower - Eagles 101 (you already got a cave award for that one, didn't you ;-) - The "miscellaneous images" - The phallic B&W ones ;-) cheers, caveman Bill Sawyer wrote: Well, it's not markcassino.com. In fact, it's just MSN.Groups, but I have some of my photos up on a website. Finally. http://groups.msn.com/wsawyerphotography/shoebox.msnw Your thoughts, insights, critiques welcome. Thanks. Bill Sawyer
Re: Nikon is about to announce a new larger lensmount!
Bruce R could finally do something useful and give us a summary on what's up on the Nikon list ;-) Alan Chan wrote: According to reliable sources... If this was true, then Nikon fans would be pixxed big time. What would happen to those already expensive AF-S & VR lenses? regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Nikon is about to announce a new larger lensmount!
To busy with my newly acquired Canon FS4000 scanner. You'll have to do your own research. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce R could finally do something useful and give us a summary on what's up on the Nikon list ;-) Alan Chan wrote: According to reliable sources... If this was true, then Nikon fans would be pixxed big time. What would happen to those already expensive AF-S & VR lenses? regards, Alan Chan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: My Website
where do you take most of your wildlife photos? Herb - Original Message - From: "Bill Sawyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 21:01 Subject: My Website > Well, it's not markcassino.com. In fact, it's just MSN.Groups, but I have > some of my photos up on a website. Finally. > > http://groups.msn.com/wsawyerphotography/shoebox.msnw > > Your thoughts, insights, critiques welcome. > > Thanks. > > Bill Sawyer > >
