Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Acceptable DOF is calculated based on the circle of confusion which varies by format. At 08:20 AM 7/24/03 -0400, you wrote: Isn't DOF computed via f stop, regardless of format? I do know that a 165mm lens projects an image the same size on the film regardless of format. In other words, if a 165mm lens forms an image 1cm high on 35mm film, it will also form an image 1cm high on 120 film, the difference being that the image comprises a larger area on 35 than on 120. Bill - Original Message - From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:28 AM Subject: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited) > Why do 6X7 lenses have a shallow depth of field even stopped down > all the way? Chris mentioned it with the 165/2.8. Are they all like that? > I could understand it if it was at close focus with tubes WO, but for a > landscape shooting at infinity? Please enlighten me. > Steve Larson > Redondo Beach, California > > > Chris Stoddart wrote: > > Well I have the old Tak 105/2.4 and it's really sharp - not a complaint > > against it. My 165/2.8 (newish model) is also sharp, but it has a shallow > > depth-of-field, even stopped right down which makes it a bit of a pain > > for landscapes. I also have the final model 75/4.5, which is just > > excellent apart from a dimmer viewfinder. One difference between the three > > is weight - as they get newer they seem to get lighter, so the 75, depite > > having the largest front element, is by far the lightest of my lenses. > > The build quality doesn't seem to suffer though as the 75's focus is the > > smoothest of any lens I've owned. Next purchase will be a late model 45 or > > 55 - by all accounts the newest 55 is among the sharpest lenses Pentax > > have built. > > > > > Regards, Bob S. (considering joining the Brotherhood) > > > > Join, you won't regret it! > > > > 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: MZ-S, 43Ltd, Super A
Hi Heiko, So the condition of Super A is fine?Clean inside?I use mine for slides and the metering is very nice. If I would like to buy it I must ask my cousin or friend (in Germany) to buy it from you. Do you recommend it? Do you have winder? Alek - Original Message - From: "Heiko Hamann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: FS: MZ-S, 43Ltd, Super A > Hi folks, > > > I was looking for a 77ltd for some time and some weeks ago I found a kit > consisting of a MZ-S, the 43ltd and the 77ltd. Very fine stuff - so I > bought it ;-) > > In the last three weeks I have tested the MZ-S and found it a great > camera. But I also like my MZ-5n... Actually I'm quite sure that my > photographic future will be digital - the *istD will be my primary > camera. And the MZ-5n will be more than sufficient for my analog > activities. It simply makes no sense for me to "store" such a fine (and > expensive) camera as the MZ-S. It has to be used - and I hope it will be > used by a fellow PDML member. I will also sell the 43ltd as I want to > concentrate on those things I really use (and I prefer the FA35/2 here) > and I have to raise funds for the *istD ;-) > > > So here is my offer: > > MZ-S like new in box. Used for maybe 30 rolls. Comes with original > strap, all caps, box, German manual, new batteries AND the cross hair > matte screen GG-60 (standard screen is included, also). English > documentation can be downloaded from www.pentaxusa.com. > > I'm asking for 675,- Euro plus shipping > > > SMC-FA 43/1.9 Limited like new in box. Comes with the original leather > bag and all caps. There are no signs of use, the glass is perfect. There > are only some minor marks on the front cap. > > 390,- Euro plus shipping > > > Together: 1050,- Euro > > > I've also still left a very nice Super A. I have bought it used, but it > looks like new and works fine. There is only some minor brassing on the > back. The rest of the camera has no marks of usage (see pictures on > www.mycroft.de/sale.html). There even is the protection film on the > underside. Comes with cap, Pentax strap, German documentation and new > batteries. English documentation can be downloaded from > www.pentaxusa.com. > > 150,- Euro > > > I accept transfers to my bank account or Paypal and I will ship > worldwide (please ask me for further information). I will be on an > excursion this weekend, so maybe I will take some time to answer your > questions. I can provide pictures of the things on Monday, if asked for. > > Cheers, Heiko > >
Re: MZ-S, 43Ltd, Super A
Hi Alek, on 25 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: >So the condition of Super A is fine?Clean inside? Yes, it is in perfect shape and works well. I bought it used and only shot 2 rolls with it but the pictures were fine ande the metering is on the same good level as my MZ-5n (at least on prints - I don't make slides ;-)). >If I would like to buy it I must ask my >cousin or friend (in Germany) to buy it from you. Do you recommend it? No problem. I could also ship to Poland but that might be more expensive. Especially the money transfer. And yes, I recommend it. Beside the LX and maybe the ME Super it is the best manual Pentax body, I think. The program automatic is really great - I can even use me brand new AF-lenses on this body. >Do you have winder? No I don't. Do you have seen the pictures on www.mycroft.de/sale.html? Cheers, Heiko
Re: Tough times in Rochester
But I have seen photos taking with Nikkor 105/2.8 micro lens about 50x70cm made using enlarger and wonder if you could receive such format of the same quality based on your even Canon 1Ds. In Cracow there is an exebition of photos of French who used Canon 1n with L lenses and shot Velvia and then made photos in size higher than 2x2 meters and of course there is some unsharpness but when you come close. Cheers Alek - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:39 PM Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > at 10 times as long to get a comparable quality image from film, even after i receive the slides back from processing, it costs me a lot of time (equals money) to scan my slides. prints of digital images from a digital camera up to 11x14 size are higher quality, more consistent, and require far less time on my part. based on my experience, 10-12 megapixels consistently outperforms 35mm Provia 100F in sharpness and resolution using top quality lenses up to at least 11x14 size and probably up to 16x20 size. > > i work every day with 4000 dpi scans of my slides and 5-10 megapixel images from a supposedly much cheaper set of optics. i see the price i pay for using film every day in the quality of images and film's unwanted artifacts. in less than 5 years, semi-pro digital SLRs will comfortably exceed the resolution, color accuracy, and dynamic range of slide film at identical sensor sizes. so far as those who own a Canon 1Ds are concerned, it has already happened. it takes some years of experience to set up an efficient digital workflow to manage a couple of hundred new images a week. i'm ready now. those who aren't and have to switch because they have no choice will have to make up that time and won't be able to meet my standards of quality and timeliness no matter how good their film workflow was. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 16:12 > Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > > > > Yet they will still (Stock Photo Companies that is.. Stock Photographers > > can use whatever they want to use) accept scans from film. As such, wait > > until the Stock Photography Companies say "You MUST use a digital SLR > > camera", and in the meantime all the bugs will be worked out and the price > > will drop. > > > > Dave > > > >
Re: MZ-S, 43Ltd, Super A
Yes, I have seen them. Looks well. Hope it was not used a lot by previous user. I bought mine for less then 150 euro with A50/1.7 and case so your price seems to be too high. If you happened not to sell it quickly for the price please let me know and maybe you offer lower one. So you sell MZS? We all hope that D*ist appers soon...If not future of Pentax seems to be rather poor :( Cheers Alek - Original Message - From: "Heiko Hamann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: MZ-S, 43Ltd, Super A > Hi Alek, > > on 25 Jul 03 you wrote in pentax.list: > > >So the condition of Super A is fine?Clean inside? > > Yes, it is in perfect shape and works well. I bought it used and only > shot 2 rolls with it but the pictures were fine ande the metering is on > the same good level as my MZ-5n (at least on prints - I don't make > slides ;-)). > > >If I would like to buy it I must ask my > >cousin or friend (in Germany) to buy it from you. Do you recommend it? > > No problem. I could also ship to Poland but that might be more > expensive. Especially the money transfer. And yes, I recommend it. > Beside the LX and maybe the ME Super it is the best manual Pentax body, > I think. The program automatic is really great - I can even use me brand > new AF-lenses on this body. > > >Do you have winder? > > No I don't. Do you have seen the pictures on www.mycroft.de/sale.html? > > Cheers, Heiko > >
Re: Website upgrade
> I know from watching several Stephen Seagal movies that it's > not easy to fight Big Business ... Good luck! :- let's hope Casey Ryback isn't going to be necessary in Don's particular case :-) Chris
Question for seller
Well, I suppose there are _some_ justifications "Hi Could you please let me know why you are selling this item ? and why the price is so low ? Is the silver model flimsier than the Black Model? Would I be correct in saying this is so ?. If not what accounts for this vey good price when 2nd hand MZSs are in great demand.Has it dents or dings etc ?" In the words of the great BR "if you paid for your education, you should demand a refund" Cheers Peter
Re: Pentax is a Zeiss name?
Pål Jensen wrote: > I don't remember but the Pentax name was considered, but not used by another company in the mid 50's. It was either Nikon (!) or Contax. > > Pål It was Nikon. Nippon Kogaku considered the Pentax name among those possible for their rangerfinder cameras, but since such a name had little sense for rangefinders, at the end they choose Nikon. Then, a few years later, maybe they were willing to resume the Pentax name for their first pentaprism SLR, but at that time Asahi was already using it for two years. Bye, Dario www.aohc.it
FS Friday - ZX-5n (MZ-5n)
Here is your last chance to get a ZX-5n in great shape and at a great price! Worried about your MX or LX going belly up and no longer having lens compatibility in the future? Worry no longer -- get a ZX-5n (MZ-5n in Europe)! Compatible with K/M/A/F and FA lenses, this retro metal camera body is based on Pentax's famous manual focus design and it also auto focuses! Manual focus is achieved with a beep and a light in the view finder -- a very accurate method. Or get the ZX-5n as a second camera body for any Pentax version that you currently have! Pentax ZX-5n, EXEC (excellent) condition. There is one small, small scratch on the metal next to the viewfinder, but all that is barely noticeable and it looks great! The ZX-5n is a compact camera with a very good light meter (ever notice how many pictures in each month's PUG are taken with this camera?). Included are: the original camera strap (saying Pentax), the Battery Grip FG which uses AA batteries and makes it easier to grip, the Pentax Cable Switch F (3.5 feet electrical shutter release cable with switch), the view finder cap, body cap, Zx-5n box, Switch F box, camera manual, and warranty/other info. $265 That is a lower price than you will find it used at any camera store/outlet (KEH, etc.) on the Internet -- especially since it includes the battery grip and shutter cable. Pentax's link on the ZX-5n. http://www.pentaxusa.com/products/cameras/camera_specs.cfm?productid=01354 Plus US Post Office shipping charges to wherever you are. If you want insurance you will have to pay extra. I can accept personal checks, money orders, Western Union money wires, and cash or credit card payments made through PayPal. If interested, please contact me off list -- from here it's onto ebay. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Tough times in Rochester
i have seen exhibition prints from a Canon 1-Ds quite a bit larger than 50x70cm, almost double the dimensions. no pixellation visible or any of the ordinary digital artifacts from using JPEG files or anything like that. that's easily handled by shooting in raw mode and rezing up in Photoshop. some color noise was visible but less than using typical print film. even that could have been reduced a lot by a color noise filter in Photoshop. a 4000 dpi scan is only 24 megapixels and most of what i see at 400dpi from scanning Provia and Velvia is film grain. apparent sharpness, just from looking and not measuring, is higher on all of the digital cameras i have worked with, than their resolution implies, while staring at 4000dpi scans of Provia 100F all the time has me convinced that apparent sharpness of film is less than the measured sharpness. at least on 11x14 prints, 10 megapixels looks sharper than a 4000 dpi scan on Provia 100F. i don't shoot a lot of Velvia and haven't done any macro shots where i can compare 10 megapixel digital camera images. where i have compared is on landscapes. leaves in the middle distance appear more sharply defined in the digital versions than the film versions. incidentally, Dave asked how long it would take to pay for a $1500 DSLR. it costs me about $15 each to buy and process a roll of Provia 100F. 100 rolls of film lasts me 6-8 months. i print about 1% of my images. i scan 25% or so of my slides and net about 15-20% into my stock pile. this ignores my digital camera shots which add up to about 40% of my film total. the digital shots are about 1/4 recording shots not duplicated on film, 1/4 panoramas meant to be digitally stitched, and the remainder backup shots of what i shoot on film. if i went completely digital for my editorial stock, which i could do with the *ist-D, i could easily pay for the camera, spare batteries, and a couple of memory cards in less than a year in saved processing. i shoot less than 1/3 what is typical for a full time editorial stock photographer. a busy one would be able to save the cost of a Canon 1-Ds in well under a year. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Alek Kozak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 04:35 Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > But I have seen photos taking with Nikkor 105/2.8 micro lens about 50x70cm > made using enlarger and wonder if you could receive such format of the same > quality based on your even Canon 1Ds. In Cracow there is an exebition of > photos of French who used Canon 1n with L lenses and shot Velvia and then > made photos in size higher than 2x2 meters and of course there is some > unsharpness but when you come close. > Cheers > Alek
FAJ 18-35 in stock
First impressions: The lens feels nicely put together although appearance does resemble a lot of the budget eos lenses. The hood has the polarizer cut-out. At first I thought the hood would just drop off but then realised there is a detente at which point it clicks into place. The manual focus ring is not fantastically useable being only 9mm or so deep, however the feel is good with imho just the right degree of stiction. There is no dof scale. Later today I will post a couple of pix. Kind regards Peter CAMERA DIRECT 8 DORSET STREET BRIGHTON EAST SUSSEX BN2 1WA UK http://www.camera-direct.com TEL 44 1273 681129 FAX 44 1273 681135
Re: Tough times in Rochester
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I believe that was my point Herb. >You'd be spending more money on a new digital camera every 5 years if your >speculation is correct. >How much film and processing can you buy for $1500 USD? About a year's worth if you're a working pro. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Tough times in Rochester
So you think and have seen that for intance images about 50x70cm made using Canon 1Ds are sharper that those made of slides or enlargers?My friend use also his Nikkor na Pentax 67 through some adapter what allows him to make really big ones. And based on your experience one can have more than 1x1m pictures obtained with 1Ds with very good sharpness? What about for instance Canon 10D, Nikon D100 etc. Is 20x30cm better than from negative or scanned on drum or at least Nikon Coolscan 8000 scanner in terms of sharpness etc? What max enlargements have you done from 6M pixels cameras of very good quality? Sorry for many questions but if it is your everyday work you have better experience. Thanks in advance Alek - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > i have seen exhibition prints from a Canon 1-Ds quite a bit larger than 50x70cm, almost double the dimensions. no pixellation visible or any of the ordinary digital artifacts from using JPEG files or anything like that. that's easily handled by shooting in raw mode and rezing up in Photoshop. some color noise was visible but less than using typical print film. even that could have been reduced a lot by a color noise filter in Photoshop. a 4000 dpi scan is only 24 megapixels and most of what i see at 400dpi from scanning Provia and Velvia is film grain. > > apparent sharpness, just from looking and not measuring, is higher on all of the digital cameras i have worked with, than their resolution implies, while staring at 4000dpi scans of Provia 100F all the time has me convinced that apparent sharpness of film is less than the measured sharpness. at least on 11x14 prints, 10 megapixels looks sharper than a 4000 dpi scan on Provia 100F. i don't shoot a lot of Velvia and haven't done any macro shots where i can compare 10 megapixel digital camera images. where i have compared is on landscapes. leaves in the middle distance appear more sharply defined in the digital versions than the film versions. > > incidentally, Dave asked how long it would take to pay for a $1500 DSLR. it costs me about $15 each to buy and process a roll of Provia 100F. 100 rolls of film lasts me 6-8 months. i print about 1% of my images. i scan 25% or so of my slides and net about 15-20% into my stock pile. this ignores my digital camera shots which add up to about 40% of my film total. the digital shots are about 1/4 recording shots not duplicated on film, 1/4 panoramas meant to be digitally stitched, and the remainder backup shots of what i shoot on film. if i went completely digital for my editorial stock, which i could do with the *ist-D, i could easily pay for the camera, spare batteries, and a couple of memory cards in less than a year in saved processing. i shoot less than 1/3 what is typical for a full time editorial stock photographer. a busy one would be able to save the cost of a Canon 1-Ds in well under a year. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Alek Kozak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 04:35 > Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > > > > But I have seen photos taking with Nikkor 105/2.8 micro lens about 50x70cm > > made using enlarger and wonder if you could receive such format of the same > > quality based on your even Canon 1Ds. In Cracow there is an exebition of > > photos of French who used Canon 1n with L lenses and shot Velvia and then > > made photos in size higher than 2x2 meters and of course there is some > > unsharpness but when you come close. > > Cheers > > Alek > > > >
Re: TOPDML this weekend - Beaches Jazz Festival
Update: For anyone who's not been in direct contact with me on this, we'll be meeting at 3:00 pm Saturday, at the northeast corner of Kew Gardens, on Queen Street East, directly in front of the public library. If you do want to show, you may want to contact me off line, so we know to expect you... cheers, frank frank theriault wrote: > Just a heads up to anyone in Toronto who hasn't shown up to one yet, or > to anyone who's planning on visiting our fair burg this weekend: > > The Toronto PDML gang (TOPDML) will be meeting at the Beaches Jazz > Festival this coming Saturday Afternoon. Time and place is still being > worked out, but we'll keep the list apprised of any pertinant > developments. > > Caveman: I think you should make the drive down the 401 > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The > pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert > Oppenheimer -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Tough times in Rochester
Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I believe that was my point Herb. >>You'd be spending more money on a new digital camera every 5 years if your >>speculation is correct. >>How much film and processing can you buy for $1500 USD? > >About a year's worth if you're a working pro. I just did some calculations and discovered that I spend about $1000.00 per year on film and processing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
It is interesting to observe how many PUG contributors are using older gear. What does this mean for Pentax? Joe I though I would actually count. I was wondering if the BW gallery had a higher incidence of older cameras. Since its hard to work this out, I just checked for ZX/MZ series cameras and compared to the May Open gallery. The results: August BW 47 pics, 6 with MZ-5n, 2 with other MZ models (8 total, 17%)) 69 pics, 7 with MZ-5n, 6 with MZ-S, 6 with other MZ models. (19 total, 28%) Higher for the open gallery gallery, but not wildy so. Two things I can think of: 1. Those with newer cameras are less likely to shoot BW, or 2. a higher percentage of those BW's were older photos. A unscientifc study done before coffee. Steve Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FA 28-70 f2.8
Peter Alling wrote: > > The magnification is approximately 1:4 at 70mm. Almost macro. Thanks for the info. I'm really looking forward to seeing the prints... Very versatile range and a decent close focus... This might be a keeper! keith whaley > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > I have a FA 28-70mm f/4.0 AL on the way to me [...] and after receiving the lens, Keith wrote: > >This lens focuses down to just over 9", which is not quite "macro," but > >is quite close for a constant focus zoom. > >Doesn't matter if you're at 28mm or 70mm. Near focus is the same. For > >this lens, that is a very nice close focus distance. [...]
Feedback
Thanks for the feedback ladies and gentlemen. Most of the pictures were taken with a P30, others with an HP digital camera. Some were even taken with an Alpa reflex (B&W rubbish tip pictures). I'm still working on this thing of course and will make some changes and additions before I finally launch it upon the world. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: Tough times in Rochester
Interesting history, Herb... Thanks. keith whaley Herb Chong wrote: > > there are vanishingly few editorial stock photo clients that request film. many, > many stock photo agencies are either converting or completely converted to digital > now and will refuse to accept film. you have to supply digital files. they won't > scan your slides for you gratis anymore given the availability of high quality film > scanners at reasonable prices. in editorial stock, anyone still using film will be > laughed out of the market and 6 megapixels are considered adequate. for commercial > stock, the file size/resolution requirements are higher, but that typically stops at > 11 megapixels, which by no coincidence is the same resolution as the Canon 1-Ds. > magazine covers are routinely done from 4 megapixel files. [...]
TOPDML this weekend - Arts on the River, Morgantown, WV
OK, I'll probably be the only PDML member there, but I'll raise a pint to all the rest of you! I'm going to be an exhibitor at the annual Arts on the River festival. It'll be my first art show and I've spent most of the past two weeks getting ready for it. Hope to sell some prints and make a little cash. Wish me luck. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Nikon and Pentax AF systems; the plot thickens
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:53:07 -0400, you wrote: >Hi John - > >How are you mounting your FA* 600 f4 onto a D100? > Essentially using old hardware that gives extension. The hardware is a Spiratone adapter for a bellows, with a Pentax flange on the front and a Nikon bayonet on the back. So I lose infinity focus. Actually, I lose focus beyond about 15 feet. Plus there is no metering, which is not a problem - I just take a test shot and adjust according to the curve. But within that narrow range of focus distance, which is accepatable for some birding from a blind, the pictures are fabulous. I get 900mm effective focal length with the DOF of only 600mm lens - a whopping 1/4 inch or so. As soon as the temps drom below 110 here, and my DSLR gets back from its rebuild (bicycle crash - I now have the imprint of a D100 on my ribcage - talk about getting close to your gear - and boy am I glad form my all-risks insurance covering the $741 cost) I will take some pics and post a link. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: TOPDML this weekend - Arts on the River, Morgantown, WV
> OK, I'll probably be the only PDML member there, but I'll raise a pint > to all the rest of you! I'm going to be an exhibitor at the annual Arts > on the River festival. It'll be my first art show and I've spent most of > the past two weeks getting ready for it. Hope to sell some prints and > make a little cash. Wish me luck. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > Good luck Mark,and we'll have a drink for you too. Dave Brooks
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
Maybe I need to see a shrink, but if you saw me mentioning the focal length, I suggest you re-read my message and keep your imagination in check. I was talking about *dimensions*: d has dimensions of *length* (m, yards, leagues) c has dimensions of *length* (mm, inches, miles, a.e) m is dimensionless (magnification) f is either dimensionless (Mark, me), or has dimensions of aperture, that is, diameter, i.e. length (cm, feet, parsec) (m+1)/m^2 is dimensionless. f*c MUST have dimensions of length, to be consistent with the fact that d ~ f*c* [dimensionless constant] therefore, f *must* be dimensionless, in other words, it is an F-stop, not the actual aperture diameter. that is unless you measure DOF in square feet or magnification in inches. but that would be a totally different subject . is that clear *now*? best, Mishka > copied and pasted from Mark's post: > > > d = 2fc*(m+1)/m^2 > > > > where d=dof, f = f stop, c = circle of confusion > > size, and m = magnification. > > Now, if anyone can see a value for focal length in > the above formula, he needs to talk to a good shrink > about his over active imagination. > > > My reply was change "f" to "a" (aperture-diameter) > to correct the formula. > (Though in the copy I have f = aperture, which is > the same as using a). > > Us people who know everything are getting real tired > of you people who think you know everything . > > > Ciao, > Graywolf - Original Message - From: "mishka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > if you look at the formula, as Mark and I wrote it, > the DOF has dimensions of length. if you change f- > stop to the actual diameter, the dimension will > become length^2, which cannot be. > > best, > Mishka
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses (was: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited)
At 05:37 PM 7/24/2003 -0400, T Rittenhouse wrote: No, Mark, f-stop is focal-length divided by aperture-diameter. So, by definition focal-length divided by f-stop is aperture-diameter (that is, a 100mm lens at f4.0 has a 25mm aperture). Actually, that formula in the original form had the value f = aperture. The problem with that is most of us erroneously use f-stop and aperture interchangeably, so when we see f = aperture we, without thinking it through, tend to stick in f-stop. It took me weeks to figure out why my calculations weren't matching the tables I had. When I finally had an "AH-HA!" experience and changed it to aperture diameter, everything worked. That is why I am so conscious of the difference now, aperture-diameter really sticks in my mind after all that. Do you happen to have the actual formula that you used? A couple ting - the formula I'm using (which comes from the "Close Up Photography" volume in the Kodak Workshop Series) clearly uses the f-stop number (i.e. "11" for f-11) in the example. I've tested it with macro setup up and it seems to work. If you simply substitute the aperture size the logic of the equation completely falls apart. So I assume you must of been using some other equation. The formula you quote is factored down into the simplest form. Most DOF formulas you encounter have f-stop, focal-length, subject-distance, and enlargement-ratio in them. The equation I cited has f-stop, magnification (which is the product of focal length and subject distance) and circle of confusion size (which is picked to support the enlargement ratio.) So the same factors are in there. They, of course, all factor down to aperture-diameter, and magnification. The formula you show is the one that proves aperture-diameter, magnification, and COC are the only things that actually affect DOF. If you don't mind showing me how aperture diameter (as opposed to f stop) fits in, I'd like to see. - MCC - - - - - - - - - - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - - - - - - - - - Photos: http://www.markcassino.com - - - - - - - - - -
RE: August PUG early open
> Hi there, > > I checked the autopug and your pics are definitly not in this month. > So please submit them to the September PUG. > > When Jostein is back from conquering Scotland, he might have a look in > the matter. > > So now I'm gone... Computers will be disconnected tonight until we are > back. > > Cheers > Adelheid Thanks for doing that for us. I received some IR proofs back last night and i think i'll send a different one for the Sept Pug now.:-) Dave Brooks
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
WW penned:> > They are all good, some better than others. > I like the smc 45mm f/4 a lot, I find it to be very sharp, very straight and > very flare proof. The Tak 75mm f/4.5 is sharp and contrasty, but flare is > poorly controlled. The 90mm LS is excellent, the Tak 105 f/2.4 is also > excellent, but stop it down a wee bit. If it was an f/2.8 it would be superb > wide open, as is, it needs to be stopped down a half stop. > The Tak 135 f/4 is fantastic, the SMC 165 f/4 is also fabulous. > The old Tak 200 is less good, it would be the 6x7 equivalent of the M 85mm > f/2. Not a bad lens, just not a great lens. > The SMC 300 f/4 is wonderful, though it would be nice if it had a tripod > collar. While there is no problem with the camera supporting the lens from > the tripod socket, the tripod needs to be quite meaty to support the combo > without tipping over. > Thats all the lenses from the line I own. > > Be a Big Brother. > > William Robb So there are 3 models of the 165.The LS,the Non LS (both seem to be at F2.8) and one at F4. I see the prices on the non LS f2.8 are cheaper than the LS model,but what about the F4 model. Sounds like all three are good though. I'm asking because i;m not sure of what lens is next for the Lowepro,the 165,200 or 300 Dave
Re: Tough times in Rochester
Yep.. but now Herb's said that it's a Canon 1Ds he's comparing things to so you can now up the $1500 USD to $7000 USD - I was trying to stay in the ballpark of reasonable consumer based DSLRs but I guess the Professional full frame 11mp is needed. Dave Original Message: - From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:52:15 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I believe that was my point Herb. >>You'd be spending more money on a new digital camera every 5 years if your >>speculation is correct. >>How much film and processing can you buy for $1500 USD? > >About a year's worth if you're a working pro. I just did some calculations and discovered that I spend about $1000.00 per year on film and processing. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
Ann & Bill's shots were excellent, and Lon's comments were right on. I would also add a smile for Thomas Stach's shot which made me laugh out loud, and mention Nathan Combs soft shot. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Observations on this month's b&w PUG: > > Another vote for Ann Sanfedele, who's work seems always to grab me, > even in the thumbnails. Bill Sawyer's shot is great, too. Peter > Davies shot of kids watching TV is terrific: I thought from the thumb > it was going to be a composite, but it apparently is not. > > Vladislav's wife is a nice shot, including the hands made it. > > Butch Black gets top award for humor; you have to read his caption. > > Shostak's memorabilia shot is well composed; I'd like to see a bit more > depth of field, though. > > Harold Rust's snow shot is a good pattern shot that I'd have been pleased > to take. > > Matt, I'm guessing yellow for the peppers. > > Alan's clock shot is nifty. Not one I would have thought to take. Same > with Thrane's ER5 composition. > > Boris, you know how to pick cute kids to shoot. Bet Mom loved it. > > -Lon > > Boris Liberman wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I realize my opinion is, well, uneducated, but two photographs of this > > month's PUG struck me as totally amazing: > > > > 1. " Milwaukee Art Museum " by Bill Sawyer - black contours of museum > > visitors and the light coming from the dome above - totally captivates > > me. > > > > 2. " Tourists " by Ann Sanfedele - I hope that if I were to call this > > one "classic", it would not be understood as "cliche", because I > > really mean anything but. Anyway, it is my favorite. > > > > Just my pennies worth. > > > > --- > > Boris Liberman
Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses
Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If you don't mind showing me how aperture diameter (as opposed to f stop) >fits in, I'd like to see. Well, aperture (physical size), f-stop and focal length are mathematically related: If you know any two you can calculate the third. The same is true of focal length, subject distance and magnification. I have seen a formula for calculating DOF based on f-stop, focal length and subject distance (this is the most convenient one to use in the field), but a little algebra should suffice to generate other formulae. You have to know the focal length (obviously!), desired COC and either f-stop or aperture AND either subject distance or magnification. There would seem to be four possibilities: Focal length, aperture, subject distance Focal length, aperture, magnification Focal length, f-stop, subject distance Focal length, f-stop, magnification Here's a page that shows the formula with focal length, f-stop and subject distance. Math buffs should be able to calculate the others! http://dfleming.ameranet.com/equations.html -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Tough times in Rochester
like i said a busy working pro can pay for a 1-Ds in a year to do commercial stock. a nickels and dimes one like me can still easily pay for a $1500 one in a year doing editorial stock. two good sales or a bunch of minor ones is all it takes. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 09:17 Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > Yep.. but now Herb's said that it's a Canon 1Ds he's comparing things to so > you can now up the $1500 USD to $7000 USD - I was trying to stay in the > ballpark of reasonable consumer based DSLRs but I guess the Professional > full frame 11mp is needed.
Re: Tough times in Rochester
No doubt. I wouldn't argue the fact that the economics don't make sense. . . if you're a working pro or a semi-pro. But for guys like me or say most of this list - $1500 USD is more than I can afford at this juncture - and I usually consider myself pretty easy going with my funds when it comes to photographic equipment. Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:23:33 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester like i said a busy working pro can pay for a 1-Ds in a year to do commercial stock. a nickels and dimes one like me can still easily pay for a $1500 one in a year doing editorial stock. two good sales or a bunch of minor ones is all it takes. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 09:17 Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > Yep.. but now Herb's said that it's a Canon 1Ds he's comparing things to so > you can now up the $1500 USD to $7000 USD - I was trying to stay in the > ballpark of reasonable consumer based DSLRs but I guess the Professional > full frame 11mp is needed. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Tough times in Rochester
For the photographers I've worked with, film and processing is a 5 figure per year cost. BR Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I believe that was my point Herb. >>You'd be spending more money on a new digital camera every 5 years if your >>speculation is correct. >>How much film and processing can you buy for $1500 USD? > >About a year's worth if you're a working pro. __ 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: Pentax goes to war?
Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If it's a US submarine it will probably be a film camera, the US Navy > doesn't trust > high tech where they don't need to.
Re: Pentax goes to war?
Ha ha! Sort of like we ought to buy Korean built Dodge Colt's instead of those foreign Honda's built in Marysville Ohio to help keep the american auto workers employed? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:17 AM Subject: Re: Pentax goes to war? > The defense department also procured a lot of Honeywell Pentaxs > at one time to help the US Camera industry. > > At 02:42 PM 7/21/03 -0400, you wrote: > >Well, the US Navy used a lot of Topcon Super Ds at one time. > > > >Ciao, > >Graywolf > >http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:13 PM > >Subject: Re: Pentax goes to war? > > > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > What is within the realm of possibility for what camera it might have > >been will depend on the age of the sub and the procurement rules for your > >Navy. It would not have been an MX on a US Navy sub. > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > >I suspect most camera bodies from the era that these would be from will > > > look small mounted on a periscope. FWIW, Olympus was very big in > > > microscopes and 35mm bodies for use on microscopes. Olympus is probably > > > the most likely candidate. > > > > > > If a Japanese Pentax would not be found aboard a U.S. Navy sub, why > > > would a Japanese Olympus be okay. > > > Something not revealed here. > > > > > > keith whaley > > > > > 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: Question for seller
You should have sent a reply like, "For you we will add a one to the front of the price. Don't tell your friends, this is a special deal for you only". Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Well, I suppose there are _some_ justifications > > "Hi > Could you please let me know why you are selling this item ? and why the > price is so low ? > Is the silver model flimsier than the Black Model? > Would I be correct in saying this is so ?. If not what accounts for this vey > good price when 2nd hand MZSs are in great demand.Has it dents or dings etc ?" > > In the words of the great BR "if you paid for your education, you should > demand a refund"
Re: Pentax goes to war?
Sounds like a tale without fact behind it. Just something the 'great unwashed' would be ready to believe, so someone started the rumor. keith T Rittenhouse wrote: > > Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in > the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial > navigation system is beyond comprehension. > > Ciao, > Graywolf
DONE thinking about the Optio 550
Thanks to all who offered replies to my earlier message about the Optio 550. I reread the comprehensive review Mark Roberts recommended; found the camera and made the purchase at the store Jose Rodriguez suggested; and nearly suffered a bad case of buyer's remorse when another PDMLer sent me a beautiful image made by another brand of camera. I addressed the buyer's remorse by including in my testing an image intended to compete with the one I was sent; I am personally delighted with the result. Anyone interested can get an idea of mine (I couldn't see uploading the whole thing) here: http://members.aol.com/greenfalc1/strwbres.jpg My biggest problem right now with this camera has to do with the very reason I chose it -- the small size makes it hard to avoid shake. I'm working on developing a solid (!) technique for holding it. Overall I'm very pleased. The Optio does many things my Fuji Finepix 6900 doesn't, and I'm not worried about tasks the Fuji does better, since I still have it.
Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 2:51 AM Subject: Re: 6x7 lenses - Brotherhood comments solicited > > So there are 3 models of the 165.The LS,the Non LS (both seem to be at F2.8) and one at > F4. > I see the prices on the non LS f2.8 are cheaper than the LS model,but what about the F4 > model. > Sounds like all three are good though. > I'm asking because i;m not sure of what lens is next for the Lowepro,the 165,200 or 300 I think there is only 2 models of 165mm. The f/2.8, which is a straight lens, and the f/4, which is the leaf shutter lens. I believe there was a Takumar 150mm f/2.8 in the original lens set. If you decide to go for a 200mm, get the SMC, it is better than the Tak from what I have heard. I have the 200 Tak, and have no complaints with it though. The SMC 300mm is lovely. William Robb
Re: Pentax goes to war?
T Rittenhouse wrote: Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension. Because both Windows and the Visual Basic programmers are Common-Off-The-Shelves commodities. cheers, caveman
Re: B/W PUG Favorites
> >It is interesting to observe how many PUG contributors are using older > >gear. What does this mean for Pentax? > > Ignore PDMLers. :-0 > > regards, > Alan Chan Well, I don't know -- I just bought one of their newest cameras ... :-)
RE: DONE thinking about the Optio 550
Looks good ernreed2! Glad you're happy, ya gotta be happy! Should give you more opportunities to take pictures eh? Enjoy your new camera! - THaller
Re: FAJ 18-35 in stock
Hallo Peter, so the 18-35 is already on delivery. How much will it cost? Have you also a date, when the *istD will be shiped? regards Rüdiger -From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >First impressions: > >The lens feels nicely put together although appearance does resemble a lot of >the budget eos lenses. > >The hood has the polarizer cut-out. At first I thought the hood would just >drop off but then realised there is a detente at which point it clicks into >place. > >The manual focus ring is not fantastically useable being only 9mm or so deep, >however the feel is good with imho just the right degree of stiction. There >is no dof scale. > >Later today I will post a couple of pix. > >Kind regards > >Peter > >CAMERA DIRECT >8 DORSET STREET >BRIGHTON >EAST SUSSEX >BN2 1WA >UK >http://www.camera-direct.com >TEL 44 1273 681129 >FAX 44 1273 681135 >
Re: Tough times in Rochester
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 04:35 AM, Alek Kozak wrote: But I have seen photos taking with Nikkor 105/2.8 micro lens about 50x70cm made using enlarger and wonder if you could receive such format of the same quality based on your even Canon 1Ds. Burrell Labs has been showing 20"x30" (50.8cm x 76.2cm) prints made from various MF digital, MF film and Canon DSLRs at the Ed Pierce road shows. The 1Ds samples certainly look wonderful and are comparable in image quality to the prints made from 6x6 and 645 film. In fact in some of the portraiture samples, I found the 1Ds samples a tad too sharp and preferred the ones made from the 10D. I do have to point out that the road show was heavily promoted by Kodak, Canon and Hasselblad among others. --jc
Re: Pentax goes to war?
There was extensive discussion on comp.risks. See some: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.91.html#subj7 http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.86.html#subj1 T Rittenhouse wrote: Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension.
Re: OT: Kodak marketing B&W film w/movie
My local drugstore actually carries a lot of stuff (relatively speaking), tri-x, t-max, elite chrome, their own brand of 200 speed film, but they are the absolutely worst place to get prints. The negatives still stay nice and clean though, i gotta wonder what the heck goes on over there... --Daniel Liu "Six meals a day keeps the doctor away!" On Thursday, Jul 24, 2003, at 19:00 US/Pacific, Peter Alling wrote: The local drugstore here even has Tri-X. (As well as the new C41 stuff). Even the local super markets have the C41 stuff. At 01:04 PM 7/17/03 -0400, you wrote: I keep hearing that "drugstores" stock b&w film. What drugstores do you shop at? The ones I go to sure as heck don't. cheers, frank Caveman wrote: > The drugstore in the corner stocks Kodak Tmax 100, 400 and that C-41 > B&W. They also manage to have them processed and printed. Obviously not > a "professional's" outlet, so it might appear that regular people still > burn some B&W film from time to time. > > cheers, > caveman -- "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson 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.
Was: B/W PUG Favorites. Now: Pentax and Us
Previous posts: It is interesting to observe how many PUG contributors are using older gear. What does this mean for Pentax? Joe I though I would actually count. I was wondering if the BW gallery had a higher incidence of older cameras. Since its hard to work this out, I just checked for ZX/MZ series cameras and compared to the May Open gallery. The results: August BW 47 pics, 6 with MZ-5n, 2 with other MZ models (8 total, 17%)) 69 pics, 7 with MZ-5n, 6 with MZ-S, 6 with other MZ models. (19 total, 28%) Higher for the open gallery gallery, but not wildy so. Two things I can think of: 1. Those with newer cameras are less likely to shoot BW, or 2. a higher percentage of those BW's were older photos. A unscientifc study done before coffee. Steve Now my follow-up: I've been observing some some time that a lot of PUG shots are made with older gear. (I may hold the record, having contributed photos to PUG that were shot in 1968 with a Honeywell Pentax H2. But I now use PZ-1ps.) Maybe Alan got it right. Pentax should ignore us, since we don't buy enough new gear. The broader problem may be that older Pentax gear is so good, reliable, and available that serious photographers don't buy enough of the new stuff. Do the other SLR brands have this problem? Too much older gear? Nikon, I know, is infamous for some purposeful lens incompatibilities. Is it Pentax's strategy with the new, crippled mount to kill off the older k-mount market? It would make sense, or at least this is the sort of strategy an American firm would follow. Joe (who has had coffee this morning)
Re: Pentax goes to war?
Note: 1 - The problem was propulsion; not navigation 2 - The referenced thread dates to 1998 3 - The second referenced thread is about something else entirely. Nothing that I've read here has any substantive facts about what happened or why. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There was extensive discussion on comp.risks. See some: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.91.html#subj7 http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.86.html#subj1 T Rittenhouse wrote: Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension.
Vs: OT - Brit and proud
Well - at least compared with USA Heiko is right. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Dan Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Päivä: 25. heinäkuuta 2003 19:53 Aihe: Re: OT - Brit and proud >If you believe that, there's a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell >to you . . . > >Heiko Hamann wrote: > >>??? I'm quite sure that the historical looking back in Germany is on a >>higher and more objective level than in other countries. >> > > >
Prohibited?
Sorry Peter, but you have no idea - that is absolutely the most stupid sentence i have ever read on this list! Regards Rolf Peter Alling wrote: William, Germans are prohibited by law from knowing all about parts of their past.
Re: Brooklyn Bridge
I sell it to you, but you would probably pay me in Deutschmarks! Selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge is an American way of saying someone is easily deceived. John Roebling was born in Germany, but did his important work near where I live in New Jersey, USA. His son Washington, who finished the Brooklyn Bridge, was thououghly American. I knew his granddaughter and did some work for her some time ago.
Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
And I didn't even notice the typo! /Paul From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:44:25 +0200 Pål Jensen wrote: Also, you may risk to have to stop the lens so much down that sharpness reduction due to refraction comes into play. Bullshit. What has refraction to do with it. cheers, caveman REPLY: Oh my GOD!! Did I make a typo! OH mY!! I made a mistake! How terrible! I guess you could never have guesses that I meant Difraction. How could anyone guess that? Impossible!!! Pål _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: FAJ 18-35 in stock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you open the box, you are confronted with a carefully placed flyer for the 'National Organ Donor' scheme. Wht? Are they trying to tell us something? Seems that Mr. Harakiri is in trouble. cheers, caveman
Re: Brooklyn Bridge
I sell it to you, but you would probably pay me in Deutschmarks! Selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge is an American way of saying someone is easily deceived. John Roebling was born in Germany, but did his important work near where I live in New Jersey, USA. His son Washington, who finished the Brooklyn Bridge, was thououghly American. I knew his granddaughter and did some work for her some time ago.
Re: What's beyond f/64?
On 24 Jul 2003 at 9:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Diffraction problems with light? Bob S. > I used the FA*400/5.6 and a 7 element Tamron 2x converter. I wasn't all too happy with the result, but I think the main problem actually is overexposure. The eclipse occurred just after sunrise local time, but it was still too bright for 1/2000 @ f/90 (MZ-S). Cheers, Jostein -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net AutoPug maintainer. Submit your images at: http://www.oksne.net/autoPug/PugForm.asp
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:51, Doug Franklin wrote: >> > The only good reason for seeing the dawn is you've been up all night > partying. :-) > Naturally. ;-) Jostein -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net AutoPug author. Submit your images at: http://www.oksne.net/autoPug/PugForm.asp
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:56, Cotty wrote: > VIKING TO CONQUER SCOTLAND [...] Then the wild horde from the North has landed on UK soil. However, we are not so much wild as bewildered, since on the road, the left side is the right side for driving... Fortunately, we were met at the harbour by Lord Wilson and guided safely to our temporary headquarters in Washington, Sunderland. We are now waiting for the Cotswold forces, who, at last update, apparently had confused Zulu time for Honolulu time. They then went on to mumble something about unconquerable traffic, and maintained that they would reach the headquarters around nine. Our regiment of fiery hobbits are on a night's leave, and hone their skills by practicing on Lego toy robots built for the purpose. Cheers Jostein -- Photos at: http://www.oksne.net AutoPug author. Submit your images at: http://www.oksne.net/autoPug/PugForm.asp
FAJ 18-15 has a Partial Crippled Mount (was Re: FAJ 18-35 in Stock)
Hallo Peter, thanks for the information about the FAJ 18-35 that is the same as in Dario picture at http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/pshw2003/monte.htm (last picture on the page). It is a surprise that is has a diaphragm simular which is additional to the FAJ 28-80 and 70-300. Have you testet if the diaphragm simulator will move a bit if you zoom from 18 to 35. If yes, than the 18-35 will be partial compatible to MF Kameras with K-mount (ME, LX, ..) The new *ist and *istD have no counterpart to the diaphragm simulator. Therefore it is useless with for the new *ist cameras. The others FAJ lenses do not have the simulator. So, the 18-35 is a FAJ+ lens, because the diaphragm change from the change of the focal length from 4 to 5.6 is transmited to the body by this mechanical coupling. This is important for the old cameras. With it, you can use the lens wide open with the aperture correction from 4 to 5.6 on K-mount cameras and perhaps this is also important for the MZ-5n and MZ-S. But only wide open. Is there something said in the FA-lens handout which comes with the lens? So, we have now four type of FA-lenses: the FAJ lenses, FAJ +, normal FA lenses and FA lenses with power zoom contacts. It is getting confusing. Pentax should have made a silver FAJ version without simulator and a black FA version which is 50 euro more expensive and had the aperature ring and not only the diaphragm simulator. regards Rüdiger >From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Dario's pic is accurate. The lens appears identical. > >A couple of other points. > >When you open the box, you are confronted with a carefully placed flyer for >the 'National Organ Donor' scheme. Wht? > >Are they trying to tell us something? > >The lens is assembled in Vietnam. I knew they had moved production for a lot >of the bulk consumer products out of Japan but this one was news to me. > >The price on the site is GBP199 - I will let you guys have as many as you >like at GBP180 apiece inc the VAT. Outside EEC divide by 1.175 to get the ex-VAT >price. > >Toodle pip! > >Peter >
Re: Pentax goes to war?
Well, I'll be danged! There WAS some validity to it. However, I don't think it was a human that entered a zero as a divisor, that caused the software problem. Warnings that a 'fatal error" was caused by an improper mathematical operation (division by zero)" are usually referring to something buggy software does, not necessarily a human. Juey Chong Ong wrote: > > There was extensive discussion on comp.risks. See some: > > http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.91.html#subj7 > http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.86.html#subj1 > > > T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > >> Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows > >> crashed in the auto pilot computer. > >> Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial > >> navigation system is beyond comprehension. Right! You'd be better off using DOS and a LOT of RAM and disk space! keith whaley
FS Friday - KM + 50mm
I just ordered a new body, so my KM needs to go. I would rate the condition an 8. There are some scratches on the silver parts but aside from that, it's in great working order. The meter's performance has been spotty in the past, but lately it's been working fine. The lens is an SMC Pentax-M 1:2 50mm. I am asking $50 for it. Amita
Re: On MF: lenses and DOF (WAS: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses)
Pål Jensen wrote: Oh my GOD!! Did I make a typo! OH mY!! I made a mistake! How terrible! I guess you could never have guesses that I meant Difraction. How could anyone guess that? Impossible!!! There's too much difference between the two words - refraction / diffraction as to suspect just a typo. If it's about guessing, why don't you just use wildcards and write *fraction. Would be very Pentax*ist. cheers, caveman
re: Shallow DOF ...
I suppose the list is getting tired of this, so via direct e-mail. (Oops! apparently, your ISP has my ISP blocked, so posting to the list after all). I am going to have to do some re-research to figure out exactly how I came to the original conclusions. Which means a trip to the library. The problem being that there are almost as many formulas for DOF on the internet as there are internet sites. I need to go back to a basic optical physics book. In other words now I am confused. Thinking did not used to confuse me . See other comments inline: Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: "Mike Ignatiev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Shallow DOF with 6X7 lenses > I think this is a really good version of the formula, > especially, if you write it as > Dn = h/(h+l), Df = h/(h-l) when h>l Dn = hs/(h+s), Df = hs/(h-s) Is what that book gives. What would you get if h>1? And, why would you want to focus beyond infinity? > > However, in the definition of what h (hyperfocal distance is) the "1000" factor should really depend on the final enlargement. Do you insist that h would be > the same for 4x6 print and 40x60 alike? > > One (also approximate) definition of h is > > h = d*f/c, where c -- COC, f -- focal length, > d -- actual aperture diameter. > Your "1000" means f/c = 1000. > This is interesting, and it means that as you change > the film format (say, double both f and c), as long as > you keep the enlargments of the same size, the hyperfocal distance does not change. And neither does > DOF. Yes! Or, your enlargement is viewed at a distance where the perspective matchs that of the original scene. > > Btw, your formula does not prove your point -- > you express it through diameter and distance-to- > subject. Not magnification and COC . > No, becomes a fixed value, because it is the same for the final print. The formula is somewhat specialized. BTW, I think now precive why the formula Mark quoted did not work for me. I was trying to use it as a general formula and it is specific to magnifications near to 1. But, why did I get values that seemed correct for farther distances when I used aperture rather than f-stop? I shall have to run some numbers, and see if I can figure that out. I wish I could find the book that gave that formula (or what I remember being the same formula), but I probably do not have it anymore. I am sure it was a general photography book, not one for close-up photography though. > But of course, all these things are related > geometrically. Yes, we kids do know it all > Or, at least your math skills are fresher. I will admit, that it gets harder as I age, and use them less an less . But, I do good for a 10th grade dropout.
Deutschmarks
Thanks for the explanation! Well we have Euros here, but if i find some Deutschmarks i will pay you! What kind of moneytransfer do you prefer? And how much do you charge for shipping? I sell it to you, but you would probably pay me in Deutschmarks! Selling someone the Brooklyn Bridge is an American way of saying someone is easily deceived. John Roebling was born in Germany, but did his important work near where I live in New Jersey, USA. His son Washington, who finished the Brooklyn Bridge, was thououghly American. I knew his granddaughter and did some work for her some time ago.
Re: Low light camera (WAS: Re: Wanted Pentax SF1 parts)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E5l_Jensen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... the point about the meter being "fooled" is due to the fact that for aurora photgraphy in particular, the light > level may change manifold during exposure and the subject may turned from > an essentially front lit one into a backlit one in a matter of seconds. Built in light meters are calibrated to meter reflective light. So when light sources are in the image frame you normally get useless readouts. In my understanding auroras are actually light sources. In my experience the LX light meter works remarkably well when light sources are in the image frame. I don't exactly know why this is. But I have recently made some night cityscape slides with exposure times up to 18 minutes. They came out astonishingly fine (but you will need CC filters to compensate the color shift at such long exposure times). Alexander __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: TOPDML this weekend - Arts on the River, Morgantown, WV
Hi, Mark, Good luck (not that you'll need it). TOPDML is shaping up quite nicely - Stuart Hayes will be there for the first time, so it'll be great to meet a new guy! Looks like the two Daves and Brendan are in, too, but Jeff's a bit iffy. We'll see. That's great news about your show. We'll certainly raise a glass for ya! Maybe two... I've currently got 5 pics up at a local cafe, and it's lots of fun sitting, watching folks who don't know me walk up to them a look. Kind of weird, almost voyeuristic. I've gotten real good feedback from friends, and it looks like I might have 4 of the 5 sold! (Woo Hoo). Plus, about 1/2 of the 20 or more business cards I put up are gone, so who knows? I might hear about more sales. Still a week to go. But, I digress. Hope everything goes well with your show (sounds much more involved than my little thing). I'm sure you'll sell boatloads. cheers, frank Mark Roberts wrote: > OK, I'll probably be the only PDML member there, but I'll raise a pint > to all the rest of you! I'm going to be an exhibitor at the annual Arts > on the River festival. It'll be my first art show and I've spent most of > the past two weeks getting ready for it. Hope to sell some prints and > make a little cash. Wish me luck. > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Pentax goes to war?
I owned a Dodge Colt once. It's something I don't admit to very often... cheers, frank T Rittenhouse wrote: > Ha ha! > > Sort of like we ought to buy Korean built Dodge Colt's instead of those > foreign Honda's built in Marysville Ohio to help keep the american auto > workers employed? > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Deutschmarks
Hey, Rolf, Don't let him ship it UPS. You'll get screwed every time. Their "brokerage fees" are unbelievable! Plus, they'll drop it, and damage it... cheers, frank Rolf Brenner wrote: > Thanks for the explanation! > Well we have Euros here, but if i find some Deutschmarks i will pay you! > What kind of moneytransfer do you prefer? > And how much do you charge for shipping? > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:59:11 +0200, Jostein wrote: > On 24 Jul 2003 at 8:51, Doug Franklin wrote: > > The only good reason for seeing the dawn is you've been up all night > > partying. :-) > > Naturally. > ;-) OK, based on Jostein's response, and Mr. Cotty, and some of the other meanderings here on the PDML, I hereby propose that we start planning for a World PDML Party to be held in Amsterdam late in the spring of 2004 (say, sometime in May). TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pentax goes to war
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Alling) wrote: > The LX is almost precisely the same dimensions as the K2, a bit pricey > though. Right-oh! --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tough times in Rochester
before i had the remotest intention of trying actually get paid for my photography, i shot about 40 rolls a year. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 09:48 Subject: Re: Tough times in Rochester > No doubt. > I wouldn't argue the fact that the economics don't make sense. . . if > you're a working pro or a semi-pro. > > But for guys like me or say most of this list - $1500 USD is more than I > can afford at this juncture - and I usually consider myself pretty easy > going with my funds when it comes to photographic equipment. > > Cheers, > Dave
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
Hey, Doug, Why Amsterdam? I mean, Amsterdam sounds great, but why there? Is it "neutral ground"? I don't think their are any Dutch on the list are there? I doubt that I'd be able to attend (unless I win the lottery - which I won't, 'cause I don't buy tickets), but who knows? Hot damn, that would be a good time!! cheers, frank Doug Franklin wrote: > OK, based on Jostein's response, and Mr. Cotty, and some of the other > meanderings here on the PDML, I hereby propose that we start planning > for a World PDML Party to be held in Amsterdam late in the spring of > 2004 (say, sometime in May). > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: Deutschmarks
I know about the Euro; that's why I said I was afraid you would pay me in Deutschmarks. Rolf Brenner wrote: Thanks for the explanation! Well we have Euros here, but if i find some Deutschmarks i will pay you! What kind of moneytransfer do you prefer? And how much do you charge for shipping?
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
You have to set it up for the hight of the season for tulips in Kuekenhof! Doug Franklin wrote: OK, based on Jostein's response, and Mr. Cotty, and some of the other meanderings here on the PDML, I hereby propose that we start planning for a World PDML Party to be held in Amsterdam late in the spring of 2004 (say, sometime in May).
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
Hi frank, On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:54:24 -0400, frank theriault wrote: > Why Amsterdam? I mean, Amsterdam sounds great, but why there? Is > it "neutral ground"? I don't think their are any Dutch on the list > are there? Four main reasons: 1) It's one of the great party cities of the world 2) From most parts of the world you can get decent airfares if you start looking well in advance 3) It's one of my favorite cities :-) 4) It's close enough to them that we could be pretty sure most of the European "Party Contingent" could make it. I mean, what's a World PDML Party without Cotty? :-) Hardly worth the bloomin' effort, eh? > I doubt that I'd be able to attend (unless I win the lottery - which I > won't, 'cause I don't buy tickets), but who knows? Hot damn, that would be > a good time!! Hey, nothing's stopping us from organizing a North American PDML Party. :-) I'm in Atlanta, so I can get a flight anywhere. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:20:41 -0400, Dan Matyola wrote: > You have to set it up for the hight of the season for tulips in Kuekenhof! > > >>for a World PDML Party to be held in Amsterdam late in the spring of > >>2004 (say, sometime in May). Well, that's good (the scenery) and bad (the crowds). We could do fall instead. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, for scanning prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at are the Epson 2400 and 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of the 3200, here in Canada. The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is whether it's high enough to make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it is, that could be a good reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried scanning 35mm negs with either of these scanners? Pat White
Epson 3200 for 35mm negs?
I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, to scan prints and 6x7 negatives. I'm looking at the Epson 2400 Photo and 3200 Photo. Users of the 2400 Photo seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of the 3200. The 3200 has higher resolution. If it's high enough to be a useful 35mm film scanner, it would be one more reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone scanned 35mm negs with either scanner, and what were their conclusions? Thanks in advance. Pat White
Re: Pentax goes to war?
And now we have software written by non-humans. New it would happen. Right on Keith. Otis Wright Keith Whaley wrote: Well, I'll be danged! There WAS some validity to it. However, I don't think it was a human that entered a zero as a divisor, that caused the software problem. Warnings that a 'fatal error" was caused by an improper mathematical operation (division by zero)" are usually referring to something buggy software does, not necessarily a human. Juey Chong Ong wrote: There was extensive discussion on comp.risks. See some: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.91.html#subj7 http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.86.html#subj1 T Rittenhouse wrote: Your post reminds me of that ship that went amuck when MS Windows crashed in the auto pilot computer. Why the Navy would use Windows in a crucial navigation system is beyond comprehension. Right! You'd be better off using DOS and a LOT of RAM and disk space! keith whaley
Re: Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
I just made a 13x19" print from a scan someone made on a 3200, not bad and I'd put the scans on par with a 2800 pi dedicated scanner. --- Pat White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near > future, for scanning > prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at > are the Epson 2400 and > 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, > and it's half the price of > the 3200, here in Canada. > > The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is > whether it's high enough to > make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it > is, that could be a good > reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried > scanning 35mm negs with > either of these scanners? > > Pat White > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
New M42/Thread Mount Body (Bessaflex TM)
Hello all, I've been out of touch for a while - I sold all my AF pentax gear and dropped off the list for a bit. (But I still love and use my MX on an almost daily basis.) I'm you all have discussed this - but I was well and truly shocked to discover the Voigtlander Bessaflex - a brand-new Cosina made Pentax thread mount SLR! It looks beautiful and as many of our Spotmatic meters die off, just what the Dr. ordered. Anyone out there get/use one yet? I'm sure it's no match for the quality of a good Spottie, but you can buy a new one today. Christopher Lillja Director of Publications The Pennington School www.pennington.org (609) 737-6121
Re: Vs: OT - Brit and proud
You're qualified to make that final judgement, eh Raimo? Not from what I've seen. In any case, I thought this thread had died. But there are a few who just won't give it up. And they're not Americans. Raimo Korhonen wrote: > > Well - at least compared with USA Heiko is right. > All the best! > Raimo > Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho > > -Alkuperäinen viesti- > Lähettäjä: Dan Matyola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Päivä: 25. heinäkuuta 2003 19:53 > Aihe: Re: OT - Brit and proud > > >If you believe that, there's a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell > >to you . . . > > > >Heiko Hamann wrote: > > > >>??? I'm quite sure that the historical looking back in Germany is on a > >>higher and more objective level than in other countries. > >> > > > > > >
Re: Epson 3200 Photo for 35mm negs?
The 3200 is high enough resolution to make prints of about 10x12 from 35mm negatives. And it does that very well. I would go for the 3200. I have one, and I'm very pleased with it. Paul Pat White wrote: > > I'm planning to buy a flatbed scanner in the near future, for scanning > prints and 6x7 negatives. The two I'm looking at are the Epson 2400 and > 3200. Users of the 2400 seem very happy with it, and it's half the price of > the 3200, here in Canada. > > The 3200 has higher resolution. The question is whether it's high enough to > make it a useful scanner for 35mm negatives. If it is, that could be a good > reason to spend the extra money. Has anyone tried scanning 35mm negs with > either of these scanners? > > Pat White
OT:how to convert light meter reading to lumens?
HI all, I've got a gossen luna pro F, and I'd like to use it to measure lumens or footcandles in my greenhouse to see if a particular orchid I'm growing is "getting enough." I remember running across a formula that used a particular ISO setting to directly correlate the f stop reading on the incident light reading to foot-candles... but I can't find it anywhere. Any suggestions from our engineer pentaxers out there? Thanks Sid B
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
Hi! I'd rather suggest a great noisy city of Tel Aviv... Anytime . --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57
Re: PDMLers to RV in Scotland
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:16:03 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: > I'd rather suggest a great noisy city of Tel Aviv... Can I bring a sidearm? Do I need to? :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
